A Question for the MD/PhDs...

[Mulletfluf]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Many have stated on this board that being a MD/PhD confers a large advantage in the match. Match data would seem to confirm this assumption. So that being said, does anyone know what the majority of MD/PhD's receive their PhDs in? Thanks

 

[Gfunk6]

No hard evidence to support this, but from observation Biochem/Cell Bio seem to be the most common. These are very broad fields and have wide applicability. Ultimately, if you have a PhD in a basic science field the type of research you do is less important than a straight-MD candidate. Many MD/PhD residents, I've noticed, have publications that are certainly not directly applicable to Radiation Oncology.

 

[Selectin-Man]

No hard evidence to support this, but from observation Biochem/Cell Bio seem to be the most common. These are very broad fields and have wide applicability. Ultimately, if you have a PhD in a basic science field the type of research you do is less important than a straight-MD candidate. Many MD/PhD residents, I've noticed, have publications that are certainly not directly applicable to Radiation Oncology.

Right. Especially for basic science work, the topic that you study is pretty much irrelevant. The most important thing during a PhD or basic science project is to learn how to do rigorous basic science. A person can always move to a different topic later in his or her career without much trouble. The biggest hurdle is learning to do good basic science in the first place.

 

[stephew]

selectin man is correct. however i should add this forum is a bit skewed to "high performers". remember: even most md/phds (yes even in radonc) end up using only one in their career. make sure you really want this phd before you go get it. if you want to be a basic scientist, go for it.

 

[Mulletfluf]

The reason I ask is because I am very interested in pursuing a PhD program in Med Physics or Radiobiology. I have an intense interest in Med Physics, even though I know a Med Physics PhD doesn't confer significant advantage to candidates. However, I think it would be fascinating to explore the field. In regards to radbio, I've scoured the net but I haven't found much in regards to specific radbio programs. Does anyone have any insight?

To the PhDs out there, how did you go about obtaining your degree? MSTP? Other options? Thanks in advance

 

[Gfunk6]

The actual discipline of the PhD is nigh-meaningless. For instance, a large component of my thesis work involved radiobiology but my PhD was in PharmTox. Don't get hung up on the department.

At most research institutions, faculty have multi-department appointments. So, if you work on a project in their lab you can pretty much choose whichever department you wish to obtain your PhD from.

For efficiency and finances, MSTP is the only way to go. Getting an MD and a PhD sequentially is highly inefficient -- most people go this route only if they change their career path during acquisition of one of the degrees.

If you truly enjoy Med Physics, consider doing a PhD in that field and become a Clinical Physicist.

 

[Flobber]

Does anyone know how having a thesis-based M.S. in a basic science field affects your application? I did a 2 year master's program at a big university that ended up yielding a couple of poster presentations at an national meeting, but no pubs... will this help much, or is it pretty much useless?

 

[Pewl]

Does anyone know how having a thesis-based M.S. in a basic science field affects your application? I did a 2 year master's program at a big university that ended up yielding a couple of poster presentations at an national meeting, but no pubs... will this help much, or is it pretty much useless?

I'm in a similar boat as you. I finished an M.S. in medical physics prior to med school. I don't have publications either, but I did work on projects and I was the fulltime treatment planning physicist at ucla's veterinary rad onc. I love the field of rad onc but I have to admit it's daunting when you see what you're up against.

 

[stephew]

folks really this board is a bit skewed to the very competitive candidates.

 

[Pewl]

folks really this board is a bit skewed to the very competitive candidates.

"Is it skewed? Is it really, now? Or is it we can't admit that we have a problem!" 😀

 

[Flobber]

I'm in a similar boat as you. I finished an M.S. in medical physics prior to med school. I don't have publications either, but I did work on projects and I was the fulltime treatment planning physicist at ucla's veterinary rad onc. I love the field of rad onc but I have to admit it's daunting when you see what you're up against.

Yeah, I think I'm getting carried away with the uber-competitiveness of this board, just like I did as a wee lil' pre-med. None of the docs that I've talked to have seemed to feel like rad onc was a "reach" or anything... hopefully its just typical SDN bravado that got me scared.

Although I DO realize that rad onc is one of the most competitive fields to match... and there are only about 100 spots every year... and most of the competition is published....

ah crap, im screwed.

 

[stephew]

well by "reach" it depends upon what you mean. right now it is about the most competitive field; however its not out of the reach of mere mortals. i do know a lot of people who interviewed with our program said they wouldnt read snd because it scared them to see what they read here.

 

[Flobber]

I'm confused... just by looking at the numbers from the match last year, it appears that rad onc has a surprisingly favorable applicant😛osition ratio. It was 1.08 last year, compared to plastics 1.8, derm's 1.16, orthopaedics 1.15... and the mean USMLE score of the applicants isn't astronomical at 230. Also, keep in mind that the official numbers for the SF match aren't available. Why is it considered the most competitive field at this point?

 

[CNphair]

I'm confused... just by looking at the numbers from the match last year, it appears that rad onc has a surprisingly favorable applicant😛osition ratio. It was 1.08 last year, compared to plastics 1.8, derm's 1.16, orthopaedics 1.15... and the mean USMLE score of the applicants isn't astronomical at 230. Also, keep in mind that the official numbers for the SF match aren't available. Why is it considered the most competitive field at this point?

Well, rad onc numbers are a little skewed. We have one of (if not THE) largest percent of MD/PhD applicants matching. This group of applicants often have very different CVs from the MD group. MD/PhDs have the strength of research, multiple publications...this does not show up in the "numbers" of the NRMP. As a whole, MD/PhDs tend to have lower board scores, class rank, AOA, etc than the matching MD group because much of their efforts have been focused in the lab, publication circuit. MDs on the other hand tend not to have as much research...this is a significant disadvantage in Rad Onc. MDs that match often have great board scores, AOA, etc...to "compensate". So, you have to take the NRMP numbers with a grain of salt. An MD with a 250 board score, junior AOA but no research will likely not get the top tier interviews of an MD/PhD with a great puplication record but average med school performance.
And then there are those applicants that have it all...top ten school, 260 on Step 1, 8 papers in the red journal. <collective groan>

 

[Flobber]

Which brings me back to my original question... where does an MD/MS with a research background minus publications, a 99 on Step 1, and so-so grades stand in terms of matching rad onc SOMEWHERE.

I know, I hate these questions too, but I really am having a difficult time gauging my competitiveness in this field. Thanks.

 

[stephew]

the best way to gauge competitiveness? apply and see how many interviews you get.

 

[Gfunk6]

Which brings me back to my original question... where does an MD/MS with a research background minus publications, a 99 on Step 1, and so-so grades stand in terms of matching rad onc SOMEWHERE.

I know, I hate these questions too, but I really am having a difficult time gauging my competitiveness in this field. Thanks.

You have a good shot, particularly w/ your excellent Step 1 scores.

 

[radiodog]

From my experience, research (in the field) trumps all. You don't have to be a MD/PhD to have a good CV or to be a good researcher. In fact many of the top researchers in the field only have a MD. If you start early and find a good mentor you can get a lot done during med school. On interviews 90% of the time you get asked, why rad onc, where do you see yourself in 10 years, and tell me about your research. These questions are much easier to answer if you have worked on and completed a couple of projects. This really applies to the top academic programs. In my opinion if you are not interested in academics then you do not need to go to a top academic program to get a good job. If you are interested in academics then it is more important, obviously, to match into a program which gives you the opportunites to develop your career. If you went by this message board you would think that the only programs were MDA, MSK, and Harvard. There are 70+ programs out there. Bottom line, if you want to match at a top program you need to be dedicated to an academic career and the only way to objectively show programs this is by your CV. If you have no interest in academics then it doesn't matter as much where you train. There should be plenty of jobs available.

 

[Flobber]

Thanks for the replies... its nice to hear that some of the "lower-tier" programs (e.g. not Harvard or JHU) interview mere mortals for their spots. I'm looking forward to applying next year, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't putting too much faith in a dream that isn't realistic. Since my counselor had no clue about rad onc in general, I relied on good ol' SDN. Thanks again.

 

[stephew]

JHU is not top tier. its a great training program but if youre into seeing things that way, they're not there yet.

 

[Dishevelled Doc]

Hi everyone. This is my first post, but I've been following this forum for a while and I appreciate all the helpful advice people have posted.

I'm a third year student, so I don't have advice to share just yet, but I do have data I think many of you might find comforting. Somehow there is this sense that you need to have a PhD just to get an interview at a lot of places, let alone get a spot. I've heard this not just from posts on this site, but also from people I know who have gone through the application process. So for those of you who are curious, here is a list of all the spots taken by MD-PhDs in RadOnc over the past three years (all schools listed are for one spot that year unless otherwise indicated):

2006 (13 Total) -
Albert Einstein
Chicago
Harvard (x4)
MDAnderson (x2)
Michigan
Penn
Stanford
UCSF (x2)

2005 (20 Total) -
Beaumont
Chicago
CWRU
Fox CHase
Harvard (x3)
Hopkins
MDAnderson (x2)
NYU
Penn
UAB
UCLA
UNC
USC
UTMB
Wake Forest
WashU
Yale

2004 (14 Total) -
Harvard
Hopkins
MDAnderson (x3)
Michigan
Rush
Stanford (x2)
Jefferson
Tufts
UCLA
Vanderbilt
WashU

So my point is this - yes there are some programs that are very MD-PhD friendly (Harvard, MDAnderson), but there are other top programs that haven't taken a single MD-PhD in the past three years (MSKCC is notably absent from the list). Even a program like Vanderbilt that seems to have a very MD-PhD friendly reputation only took one MD-PhD in the past three years. In other words, you do not need a PhD to get into excellent programs.

If anyone out there knows of some mistake in the list I posted, please let me know. The site I got the information from: http://www.dpo.uab.edu/~paik/match.html

 

[Flobber]

Great post, makes me feel better. Thanks!

 

[radiodog]

your data is not 100% accurate. for instance I am 95% sure vandy has never taken a non md-phd, ever (maybe one?). but good point.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

If anyone out there knows of some mistake in the list I posted, please let me know. The site I got the information from: http://www.dpo.uab.edu/~paik/match.html

Let me remind folks that this data is incomplete, and is gleaned from MD/PhD websites and posted online match lists, not from from any radiation oncology source. Consider this data to be the minimum number of "confirmed" MD/PhD matchers. There's another post from GFunk which has a better listing that this one.

(How do I know? I made it.)

 

[Gfunk6]

There's another post from GFunk which has a better listing that this one.

Link: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3988022&postcount=67

This is self-reported matches from 2006 (the last cycle). In short, "~70% of people who matched at Harvard, Penn, Hopkins, MDACC, Michigan, and UCSF were MD/PhD."

 

[radonc]

in summary...an md/phd helps, esp at larger, top tier institutions. but just having an md wont prohibit you from matching into radonc.


do we need to continue beating this to death?

 

[stephew]

of course it wont prohibit you if you dont have a phd. honestly i cant believe this discussion ever came up

 

[Gfunk6]

do we need to continue beating this to death?

Not really, no. Yet despite many threads on this topic, there is never a shortage of potential applicants who need to be reminded that you don't need a PhD or AoA to match.

 

[Flobber]

of course it wont prohibit you if you dont have a phd. honestly i cant believe this discussion ever came up

well by "reach" it depends upon what you mean. right now it is about the most competitive field;

Do you honestly blame people like me for worrying when you make statements like the above? Most of the chatter on this board is concerning the importance of PhD's and the insane competitiveness of this field.

Rad onc is a very small field and there aren't many resources from which to get information about matching and such. I have tried several different ways to look up the info, without much luck. Obviously, when I do my electives fourth year, I'll get a better idea. For now, I was really just trying to test the water. Why do you frequent these boards if not to share your advice/opinions?

 

[stephew]

i think you need to reread the thread of what I wrote rather than bold it. But perhaps i wasn't clear. to spare us both the time:

My responce wasn't to you; it was to the bulk of posts not just on this thread but others (as linked here) that show that there is 1) a skewed populace on this site, and thus a skewed view that only uber humans can get into radonc. 2) to present things realistically. Which is yes, its very competitive right now. Many people who are evaluating you for residency would never have gotten in if applying today. HOWEVER as youve said yourself: this board is scarey if you take it as is. And it potentially turns away a lot of good candidates and certainly has some users who are not superstars on paper but who will match in radonc, be superior doctors and who would really help others if they'd only share here. That there is the credibility of a debate over the quesiton "do you need a phd" only unscores the unbalanced perception.

So I'm basically trying to undercut this incorrect notion that everyone has a 240+ on the usmle and a PhD in physics and nanotechnology. That question coming from anyone who gets thier primary info from this board is fair given the tone of the board. its the tone of the board that is the problem. pointing out the silliness of their even being a debate is an attempt to throw cold water on that.

Do you honestly blame people like me for worrying when you make statements like the above? Most of the chatter on this board is concerning the importance of PhD's and the insane competitiveness of this field.

Rad onc is a very small field and there aren't many resources from which to get information about matching and such. I have tried several different ways to look up the info, without much luck. Obviously, when I do my electives fourth year, I'll get a better idea. For now, I was really just trying to test the water. Why do you frequent these boards if not to share your advice/opinions?

 

[Flobber]

Fair enough... I see your point.

 

[john24]

MD/PhD means very little, AOA means very little, high board score means very little, publication and an one-year effort devoted to basic research means everything. The name of your school is also very important.

Let's face it... do you think that attendings will be impressed just because you have a >260 step I score? You are just making them look bad.

All the hype about MD/PhD came from the fact that as a MD/PhD, you will most likely match if you are devoid of personality flaws. By no means does it mean that you have to have a PhD to match.

You are actually much better off without a PhD because you will get more interviews from clinically oriented programs.

Stop freaking out. Just apply and find out.

I don't have a PhD and I got many interviews because I took a year off to do research.

 

[radiodog]

34 interviews is pretty impressive, did you find time to go on all of those?

I would say the most important things for getting interviews are:

1. Research (by far)
2. Name of Med School (often underestimated)
3. Letters of Rec
4. Grades/Boards
5. Long time interest in the field

Programs seem to favor MDs who took a year off for research. On the interview trail I definetly saw more MDs with time off for research than phd's. In fact I was very surprised at how few phds I saw.

I think MDs have an advantage b/c they can do their research in the field. I would argue that a year or two of rad onc research can be as valuable as a phd in immunology, neurology, etc...

PhD's definelty have an advantage a few select programs (HROP, MDACC, Michigan) but non-basic science programs will not interview many PhDs because they know they are not a good fit for them.

 

[Reaganite]

MD/PhD means nothing, AOA means nothing, high board score means nothing, publication and an one-year effort devoted to basic research means everything. The name of your school is also very important.

Let's face it... do you think that middle-aged attendings with sub-220 scores will be impressed with the score >260 applicants? You are just making them look bad.

All the hype about MD/PhD came from the fact that as a MD/PhD, you will match if you are devoid of personality flaws. By no means does it mean that you have to have a PhD to match.

You are actually much better off without a PhD because you will get more interviews.

Play the game, and stop freaking out. Just apply and find out.

I don't have a PhD and I got 34 interviews because I took a year off to do research.

Very true. I scored in the 260s, and I can tell you that very few people were impressed on the radiation oncology interview trail. In fact, I was frequently reminded that board scores were not that important in this field. This is in contrast to my prelim and TY year interviews where people constantly commented on my board scores and basically begged me to come to their programs. School name and published research are everything in radiation oncology. It's not enough to just work in a lab; you have to publish. Even then, you're not safe. I can't tell you the number of times I heard: "only 1 publication, eh?"

 

[stephew]

I say this rarely here but: completely inaccurate. on just about all counts
1)MD/PhD does NOT "mean nothing", nor does any of the other stuff you listed.

2)middle aged, young and old attendings- with pub or super 220 scores do look at the usmle. it counts. and no, they dont ding you for scoring higher than than.

3)You not match JUST because you have an MD/Phd and it will be particularly difficult if you dont have clinical (and "personality") skills.

4) and, no not having a PHD will not mean less interviews.

I can respect differences of opinion but this just is in desperate need of an intervention.

MD/PhD means nothing, AOA means nothing, high board score means nothing, publication and an one-year effort devoted to basic research means everything. The name of your school is also very important.

Let's face it... do you think that middle-aged attendings with sub-220 scores will be impressed with the score >260 applicants? You are just making them look bad.

All the hype about MD/PhD came from the fact that as a MD/PhD, you will match if you are devoid of personality flaws. By no means does it mean that you have to have a PhD to match.

You are actually much better off without a PhD because you will get more interviews.

Play the game, and stop freaking out. Just apply and find out.

I don't have a PhD and I got 34 interviews because I took a year off to do research.

 

[Gfunk6]

I can respect differences of opinion but this just is in desperate need of an intervention.

Agreed.

Research is paramount and pedigree is very important as well. However, to discount the importance of numbers or the benefits of a PhD is well . . . silly.

 

[naegleria brain]

this forum highlights the fact that people can talk out of their anuses and get away with it.

the best way to find out what's very important and whether a PhD holds weight is to call/talk to a program director. straight from the horse's mouth.

a good board score is necessary - it's like a benchmark. its like needing a vagina and 2X chromasomes to get into an all-women's college. scoring poorly doesn't mean it won't matter, it means there's a good chance you've lost before you started.

PhD isn't necessary, but it DOES tell the program that you have the capability of bringing with you lots of research to their program, which they like. so yes, it means something.

look at the match statistics and see how many PhD's got in vs. those applied, etc, and analyze the stats. OP, you say it confers an advantage. so ask around, perhaps at your school's program's director, and see what he/she says.

chances are, you'll get a similar answer from most other programs. Honestly, if you have questions about match, the best place to go to is the program director at your program, not the people around here; its the best info source you can possibly tap. but do be sure to share your info with everyone, even tho ppl like me may end up questioning it anyway.

 

[stephew]

naegleria brain, while your contributions are very welcome, in the future i kindly request that you select expressions and analogies that require less anatomical imagry from below the waist.

 

[naegleria brain]

naegleria brain, while your contributions are very welcome, in the future i kindly request that you select expressions and analogies that require less anatomical imagry from below the waist.

my bad

 

[Pewl]

I say this rarely here but: completely inaccurate. on just about all counts
1)MD/PhD does NOT "mean nothing", nor does any of the other stuff you listed.

2)middle aged, young and old attendings- with pub or super 220 scores do look at the usmle. it counts. and no, they dont ding you for scoring higher than than.

3)You not match JUST because you have an MD/Phd and it will be particularly difficult if you dont have clinical (and "personality") skills.

4) and, no not having a PHD will not mean less interviews.

I can respect differences of opinion but this just is in desperate need of an intervention.

Steph,

I notice that in refuting john24 you did not refute Reaganite's statement about "published research." Was this intentional on your part or is his statement about "published research" also one of those "take it with a grain of salt" type things?

 

[stephew]

oh my guys, all of you, please, put down the computer and slowly walk away.
my point was really that there is no special formula. research has been increasingly important but so are board scores and all other manner of thing that make someone competitive in a competitive field. but to say all PhDs will get a job is plain wrong. To say usmle score is the only thing that matters or doesnt matter at all are both wrong- and for the same reason: a misplaced sence that in the 18 months you've been thinking about your radonc application from one side of the fence, that you've cracked the magic code; that you know -perhaps even better than the poor shmuck with the 215 usmle score who is evaluating you for that residency spot- what matters most in order to get in.

I have to say that youre trying to find a mathamatical model that for practical purposes doesnt exists. in fact the one thing that does make a tremendous difference (albeit one that only counts once you get the interview letter) is the one thing that students- who have never sat on a residency review committee- have pooh-poohed all along and in fact have taken hostile issue with. That is: your interview day. perhaps its a reflection of something bigger- maybe students who are tryin so hard to codify this thing have a hard time accepting something as nebulous as "personality" might play so big a role. Well in the several years Ive been sitting on residency committees I can tell you with unwavering assurence: more people have screwed themselves out of a spot- and managed to fineagal a way into what would have seemed like a reach- due to their interview than i think you'd care to admit.

In sum: there is no magic formula. Are you the universal candidate with an MD/PhD 250 (+) on all steps, articles in Nature Cell and NEJM as first author, from a top 3 school and glowing letters of rec who helps out at the soup kitchen on thurdays for the last 10 years after paying your way through school by teaching english as a second language? And still get honors for academics and personal skills in your clinicals? Ok, dont screw up the interview and you're in; i give you that. All normal human beings though will have very individual profiles. That's the reality; i seen people with USMLE scores far lower that one user just scoffed at taken because they were otherwise strong. Ive seen others not ranked who looked amazing on paper due to the interview. say it after me: there is no forumla; now go and kiss your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/pet and have a cocoa and go to bed.