Anti-MD/PhD sentiments

[solitude]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Today before a discussion section a girl in my class noted that she intends to pursue the MD/PhD. My TA (a PhD student in the biological sciences) launched into a tirade against the dual degree, arguing that "nobody in the field respects MD/PhDs", that "the training is inferior: a 3-yr MD and a 4-yr PhD just aren't sufficient", and that "you can do almost anything with just an MD". He then proceeded to remark that he plans to complete his PhD and then go back to medical school to get the MD (contradictory, no?). He added that "if you want both degrees, you should do them entirely separately". Although offended, I did not interrupt him with my opinion. While I have heard some MD/PhD sentiments in academia, I find that the vast majority of MD/PhD's that I meet are actually very well trained, and very well respected.

I am curious, how do you guys feel about these anti-MD/PhD sentiments, and why do people hold them? Jealousy? Have you encountered many others with the same feelings? Have you encountered many MD/PhD's that don't get much respect, and aren't well-trained? Any validity to his theory that better training results from pursuing the degrees separately (nevermind the financial detriments)?

 

[Hastiness]

Whateves, MD/PhDs are just as successful at getting funding and positions, better in many regards. There are a ton of unemployed PhDs, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a single unemployed MD/PhD. There are a lot of things that they can do that single degrees can't. Mainly coordinate research involving patients or patient samples and talk science to physicians and medicine to scientists.

Many PhDs think less of MD/PhD theses. They do take less time, but they're also being conducted by students who generally have a much better research background going into grad school than your typical PhD student. And, MD/PhDs just don't take on riskier projects that could drag on for 7+ years b/c they don't have the time.

Different strokes for different folks though. Some people are well suited to one degree or the other and some to the dual degree. Each of the three can lead to completely unique careers.

And, anyone who starts any kind of doctoral grad program is crazy and masochistic to begin with and really has no right to criticize a different kind of lunacy.

Lastly, I just read a paper in Nature saying that people who launch into angry tirades about the inferiority of others generally have poorly developed genitalia and a high correlation to bed-wetting. Sad but true.

Today before a discussion section a girl in my class noted that she intends to pursue the MD/PhD. My TA (a PhD student in the biological sciences) launched into a tirade against the dual degree, arguing that "nobody in the field respects MD/PhDs", that "the training is inferior: a 3-yr MD and a 4-yr PhD just aren't sufficient", and that "you can do almost anything with just an MD". He then proceeded to remark that he plans to complete his PhD and then go back to medical school to get the MD (contradictory, no?). He added that "if you want both degrees, you should do them entirely separately". Although offended, I did not interrupt him with my opinion. While I have heard some MD/PhD sentiments in academia, I find that the vast majority of MD/PhD's that I meet are actually very well trained, and very well respected.

I am curious, how do you guys feel about these anti-MD/PhD sentiments, and why do people hold them? Jealousy? Have you encountered many others with the same feelings? Have you encountered many MD/PhD's that don't get much respect, and aren't well-trained? Any validity to his theory that better training results from pursuing the degrees separately (nevermind the financial detriments)?

 

[Thundrstorm]

I've mostly heard comments about the lack of necessity of the joint degree. I actually had several interviewers make comments to that effect, which made me wonder why they were interviewing MD/PhD candidates... unless they were all just testing me.

I also get the "You're crazy" comments from my peers. But whatever.. I don't mind people thinking I'm crazy. Maybe I am a little.

 

[NGN47]

I've mostly heard comments about the lack of necessity of the joint degree. I actually had several interviewers make comments to that effect, which made me wonder why they were interviewing MD/PhD candidates... unless they were all just testing me.

If a medical school gets a grant of the NIH to train MD/PhD students...they are going to use it regardless if they think it is worthwhile for the NIH. From personal experience, I have been told different things by different people. Some MD's in academics told me (back then as a second year MSTP student) that doing a PhD as part of an MSTP was not optimal and suggested that doing research as a fellow as part of residency would be a superior choice. Other professors were in favor of the joint degree. My thesis advisor, a PhD chemist, has told me that if he were my age he would consider doing an MD/PhD too.

 

[mudphud666]

Today before a discussion section a girl in my class noted that she intends to pursue the MD/PhD. My TA (a PhD student in the biological sciences) launched into a tirade against the dual degree, arguing that "nobody in the field respects MD/PhDs", that "the training is inferior: a 3-yr MD and a 4-yr PhD just aren't sufficient", and that "you can do almost anything with just an MD". He then proceeded to remark that he plans to complete his PhD and then go back to medical school to get the MD (contradictory, no?). He added that "if you want both degrees, you should do them entirely separately". Although offended, I did not interrupt him with my opinion. While I have heard some MD/PhD sentiments in academia, I find that the vast majority of MD/PhD's that I meet are actually very well trained, and very well respected.

I am curious, how do you guys feel about these anti-MD/PhD sentiments, and why do people hold them? Jealousy? Have you encountered many others with the same feelings? Have you encountered many MD/PhD's that don't get much respect, and aren't well-trained? Any validity to his theory that better training results from pursuing the degrees separately (nevermind the financial detriments)?

I'd bet this TA either a.) couldn't get into med school and decided on grad school to better his application or b.) decided after entering grad school that he wants to go to med school and is angry that he cannot get med school paid for (i.e. MD/PhD).

Additionally, MD faculty that tell you that the PhD portion of the MD/PhD is not as good as research during residency (ha!) or fellowship are fooling themselves into believing that you can get the same level of research done in these settings. There is a certain level of discipline that is learned during graduate school that a lot of MD faculty never achieve. That said, there are plenty of MD faculty that do great work - I think it is just harder to get to that point without graduate-level study.

 

[ClarinetGeek]

Here is a twist on OP's issue. As MSTP students, do we hold certain baises against MDs and PhD, especially in regards to selecting mentors? This is something that has crossed my mind as I start to consider what I am looking for in a mentor. I have noticed I tend to disregard MDs, and favor those with PhDs or MD/PhDs. What advantages do MDs, MD/PhDs, and PhDs have as mentors for MSTP students?

 

[Jorje286]

I read a stat just yesterday on some md/phd site, that MDs who get into research after medical school have a very low degree of success. Second, if MD/PHDs are not respected or the dual degree is not important, you wouldn't have THAT amount of money thrown on it. Why would the NIH bother itself and take millions of tax money to fund MD/PHD applicants, to the point of completely waiving the tuition of medical school?

 

[jjmack]

Today before a discussion section a girl in my class noted that she intends to pursue the MD/PhD. My TA (a PhD student in the biological sciences) launched into a tirade against the dual degree, arguing that "nobody in the field respects MD/PhDs", that "the training is inferior: a 3-yr MD and a 4-yr PhD just aren't sufficient", and that "you can do almost anything with just an MD". He then proceeded to remark that he plans to complete his PhD and then go back to medical school to get the MD (contradictory, no?). He added that "if you want both degrees, you should do them entirely separately". Although offended, I did not interrupt him with my opinion. While I have heard some MD/PhD sentiments in academia, I find that the vast majority of MD/PhD's that I meet are actually very well trained, and very well respected.

I am curious, how do you guys feel about these anti-MD/PhD sentiments, and why do people hold them? Jealousy? Have you encountered many others with the same feelings? Have you encountered many MD/PhD's that don't get much respect, and aren't well-trained? Any validity to his theory that better training results from pursuing the degrees separately (nevermind the financial detriments)?

obviously the TA doesn't' know much about medical school. Most places make MSTPs do 3.5-4 years of med school also. Besides most med schools 4th year is totally elective and time to watch movies. Doing med school in 3 years just doesn't let people do as many electives, but as long as the students do all the required clerkships what is the problem?

 

[Chouster]

From what I've been able to gather, most of the anti-MD/PhD sentiments dont stem from jealousy (although nobody will openly admit this) but rather from the fact that most MD/PhDs eventually will choose one discipline to concentrate on over the other - so why waste your time with one? I don't know any statistics on this, but 4 of 5 MD/PhDs that I talked to while making a decision to apply to MSTP said that you'll eventually do one over the other. Those four are full-time research scientists, but they emphasized that they had no regrets going to medical school, because it was helpful and it does provide an alternative prespective that a straight scientist probably doesn't have (not to mention excellent job security). Like a poster said above - different strokes for different folks. I'm pretty sure we're all generally happy with our decisions to embark upon the mstp path yes?

 

[Jorje286]

(not to mention excellent job security)

You wouldn't have job security for MD/PHDs if the dual degree was not beneficial over PHDs alone or MDs alone. I don't think that the "prestige" associated with MD/PHDs or the fact that it does tell that you are gifted academically is what makes MD/PHDs getting jobs easily.

And yes, most MD/PHDs will end up doing research. But isn't doing research the purpouse of this program? What separates MD/PHDs from their counterpart PHDs is that they have a clinical background.

If the dual degree was not beneficial for society in some way, and adds nothing to the PHD path alone and the MD path alone, you would not have that amount of money thrown on it. A researcher with a clinical background is essential for lots of medically related research, and that's I think the basis of MSTP programs.

From my research, MSTP programs were created and began to be publically funded after the realization that the the distance between science and medicine is growing. Very few of those who chose the medical track would go to the lab and work on research after they finish their medical school and their residency. They begin making the bucks, and they don't give a crap about research. On the other hand, even fewer PHDs would go to medical school after finishing graduate school. So you end up with researchers not really oriented clinically. The MD/PHD track is a practical way to meld the two.

 

[mdphd2b]

that "the training is inferior: a 3-yr MD and a 4-yr PhD just aren't sufficient"

This notion of 3-yr MD and 4-yr PhD does not apply to all programs. Even if your MSTP program advertises it, that doesn't mean they will be there to move you through to the end! It's all very specific to your department, course requirements, thesis committee, and advisor. I don't think the "3-yr MD" is all that common, since you still have to register for SOME form of credits (elective or research) during MS4--just like everyone else.

I know a student whose advisor blatantly told her that it would be an "insult" for any of his graduate students to try to finish their PhD in LESS time then he had!!! (He took 6 yr, had 3 first-author papers, and expected his students to do the same.) Getting an MD/PhD, or PhD for that matter, can be a politically sticky situation. In the end it all boils down to how you can be your OWN best advocate! If MD/PhD students are better at playing the game, so be it 👍

 

[Jorje286]

I've mostly heard comments about the lack of necessity of the joint degree. I actually had several interviewers make comments to that effect, which made me wonder why they were interviewing MD/PhD candidates... unless they were all just testing me.

lol. I think they were definitely testing you. They want to see if you chose this path for the right reasons, or just to get a free MD on your way, or job security in research.

 

[kassie]

I have a general philosophy - if the criticism is not constructive, I think this:
If it's a guy, they have a small male member and are compensating.
If it's a gal, she's jealous of my beauty. (or if you are a guy, they want you and can't have you)

Not that I actually believe it but it get's me through the day with people like this.

Seriously though, people will criticize you no matter what you do in life. If there was a best way, there would be only one way. I agree with the PP, this person is bitter.

Part of our training is to bridge the gap between these fields as both sides think they are better and are not always communicating effectively in the best interest of science and medicine. While it is true that it is difficult to be well trained in both, it doesn't mean they don't have resect, which has to be earned and is not guaranteed because of some stupid letters after your name on your ID.

What those 5 letters do mean is that you have more career flexibility, which is very comforting during this low funding cycle.

Having gone through the MSTP program, where at my school you cannot shortcut either degree, I feel unique in the way I approach research and medicine. I also feel I do not need both to do what I want to do in life, but it makes what I want to do much easier.

No matter what you said, this person wouldn't have listened anyway. He probably has a small p*#is

iris

 

[ZenAlchemy]

As MSTP students, do we hold certain baises against MDs and PhD, especially in regards to selecting mentors?... I have noticed I tend to disregard MDs, and favor those with PhDs or MD/PhDs.

I have caught myself doing the same thing, looking to do PhD training under someone with a PhD. This is probably not fair to some MDs who have a lot of research experience.

 

[hawkeey]

I have caught myself doing the same thing, looking to do PhD training under someone with a PhD. This is probably not fair to some MDs who have a lot of research experience.

I think it matters if you want to do clinical research versus basic research (or "translational research" for that matter). For example, there are somewhat obvious subsets of the degrees that would qualify one to do research in a particular field. There are some people who do not follow that convention, but for the most part people try to do what they are best at or are qualified for (which is hopefully the same thing). Even if there is an MD doing basic research, I think in most cases they are still doing something that involves clinical/medical phenomena.

Getting an MD/PhD is something very different from getting an MD and a PhD alone. This is something that I realized quite far into the application process and is a concept that I would not have understood earlier on. The experience of doing either component of the program is very different from doing either alone... if only because of the combined length and taking the morale blow from seeing our med school classmates go off to residencies. The influence that each degree will have on the other is tremendous; even in our own minds the two will be linked because of how we learned the materials.

I would have to say that in the same way there are positions where I would trust a PhD over an MD/PhD and an MD over an MD/PhD, but there are definitely unique situations that an MD/PhD is needed and invaluable. There is something to be said of someone who has concentrated on a small corner or research for 6 or so years doing a PhD and took that directly into a post-doctoral research position. Those people are truly experts in their fields, but the receipt of a PhD is not an automatic qualification.

On the other hand, if I were in need of specialized medical care, I would want someone who sees patient full time for a living. An MD/PhD does not disqualify one from being one of the above, but in our interviews we say that we wouldn't really want to fit either one of these molds.

The niche for an MD/PhD is being able to conduct research on certain kinds of biomedical problems or rather conducting research with a medical perspective. Or even if coming from a clinical perspective, the niche is being able to critically analyze a problem. There is something to be said as well for the ability to translate between clinical and basic research setttings.

So stop trying to compare it to either degree alone, it doesn't make sense and it is not what that aim of the training is for. Appreciate the combined degrees as a unique platform from which to solve unique problems.

 

[Neuronix]

You wouldn't have job security for MD/PHDs if the dual degree was not beneficial over PHDs alone or MDs alone. I don't think that the "prestige" associated with MD/PHDs or the fact that it does tell that you are gifted academically is what makes MD/PHDs getting jobs easily.

The job security comes from the MD, and you have job security like all MDs because there's always clinical work to be done that pays straightfoward cash. It's easier for MD/PhDs to get jobs doing research in clinical departments simply because there's no risk for the department. If the faculty produces good research, the department gets grant money and prestige. If the faculty doesn't produce good research, they can be essentially forced into doing clinical work. However, a PhD would have to be "denied tenure" (fired).

 

[Gfunk6]

I am curious, how do you guys feel about these anti-MD/PhD sentiments, and why do people hold them? Jealousy? Have you encountered many others with the same feelings? Have you encountered many MD/PhD's that don't get much respect, and aren't well-trained? Any validity to his theory that better training results from pursuing the degrees separately (nevermind the financial detriments)?

It does seem that most anti-MD/PhD sentiments come from the graduate school side of things. Getting a PhD can become incredibly inefficient. If you take a look at students who have been in graduate school for > 5 years, I think you will notice (on the whole) they are not drowning in experiments. Very likely their Everquest:current experiments running ratio is quite high. Besides, after so long people tend to become "institutionalized."

But to get back to your question, there is definitely a good deal of jealousy involved.

MD/PhDs are as well-trained as they want to be. It is a graduate's choice to undergo as much clinical and/or post-doctoral training as they desire. It's very difficult to do well in both, most grads gravitate towards one area or the other.

The overwhelming majority of people who matter to your future, however, are impressed by the MD/PhD.

 

[thos]

Anyone who says there's no utility in the dual degree has no understanding of the training. As easy an explanation as it is, I have to agree that the TA is speaking from some kind of petty jealousy. Either that, or he is only familiar with programs that have a "time in" policy, i.e. put in your three years and you're done with lab. Although I don't know numbers, I'm sure a majority have a "true" PhD as did mine and Gfunk's (UAB). As for career choice, most of us will have a career heavily weighted towards research, but that's the goal. While it's true that the beloved 80/20 balance may be cumbersome on a weekly basis, many MD/PhDs have their attending time bunched into month-long blocks once or twice a year, with the rest of the time available to dedicate to research.

Choosing a mentor is tricky. I worked for an MD and a PhD (two people), and, although I benefited in some respects, I can't recommend trying to please two masters. Overall it's very PI-dependent. Some MDs have a great grasp of what it means to train graduate students, but many don't because of the lack of personal experience. If forced to choose I would push for a PhD because that's what this is, your PhD training. (To the converse, think back to the complaints of your MD-only classmates when a PhD lectured about clinical issues; sometimes they were right, it should have been an MD.)

 

[Myempire1]

This whole thing depends on what program you are talking about. For our program most students spend 4 in med and 4 in grad. A normal PhD student spends 5 years in grad. And their whole first year is basic science classes..... So the MSTPs usually spend as many years working on their thesis.

And going to some WIPS, I never notice that MSTPs underperform compared to PhDs... In fact, they usually overperform because MSTPs are often workaholics/med-type students.


And I second the issue on Genetalia and bedwetting......... good call on that one.

 

[mdphd2b]

And going to some WIPS, I never notice that MSTPs underperform compared to PhDs... In fact, they usually overperform because MSTPs are often workaholics/med-type students.o

LOL...OK I'm gonna get burned on this one--What exactly is a "WIPS"???

I've gone to ACS, ASIP, ASCB, EB??
Is WIPS some Secret Society I don't know about?

 

[jjmack]

LOL...OK I'm gonna get burned on this one--What exactly is a "WIPS"???

I've gone to ACS, ASIP, ASCB, EB??
Is WIPS some Secret Society I don't know about?

I think it stands for Works In Progress. But I could be wrong.

 

[mdphd2b]

I think it stands for Works In Progress. But I could be wrong.

OOOOOHHHH....

Thanks, over here we call them "RESEARCH-in-progress", which would be RIPS!!!

LOL...Not sure which sounds better for the person who's presenting

 

[tr]

This whole thing depends on what program you are talking about. For our program most students spend 4 in med and 4 in grad. A normal PhD student spends 5 years in grad. And their whole first year is basic science classes..... So the MSTPs usually spend as many years working on their thesis.

Yeah, I'd say I've noticed pretty much the same. It's usually 3.5-4.5 research years for MD-PhDs, which is equivalent research time to a 4.5-5.5 year PhD. That's on the short side for a PhD, but considering the PhDs usually spend 6 months to a year after they've defended just tying up loose ends while they search for a postdoc, I don't think the difference is too significant.

I think for the MD-PhDs there's just more focus on trying to meet specific deadlines, which helps them lop off a few more months. I know that's what happened for me. If I hadn't had a specific deadline for going back, I would have stuck around to make things prettier; but I don't think it would have added a whole lot to my education.

 

[BozoSparky]

I went to graduate school because I loved chemistry. I graduated last year with a phd in physical chemistry. That took six years. While I love science and loved graduate school, I didn't love what was coming next - postdocs, tenure, etc., and I had always been fascinated by medicine and truly enjoyed working with people. I decided in my 3rd year I would apply to medical school (but still finish graduate school). Someday I may get back into research and the phd degree will help tremendously.

MD's are fairly uniformly trained. It's very hard to find phds who've had equivalent research experiences (on the critical thinking end of things). Some advisors get you out in 5. Others have you there until you truly do something significant. And, as was pointed out earlier, some will let you chill and become institutionalized. I remember thinking about what a phd meant when I was in graduate school and would run into such a diverse group of students, academically speaking. It really depends on what you put into it and what kind of advisor you work for. So I guess it's strange to imagine a phd coming down on a md/phd program. That's just lame. Ignore it. The phd in md/phd is real as far as I am concerned.

Anyway, I forgot what my damn point was. I don't look down on the md/phd even if I have gone through this the long way. It's a great move if you have a passion for the lab, yet want to be involved in medicine as well!

 

[number77]

What about a Phd in physics and then getting an MD?

 

[mdphd2b]

MD's are fairly uniformly trained. It's very hard to find phds who've had equivalent research experiences (on the critical thinking end of things).

BozoSparky, you've really hit on one of the weaknesses (I think) of graduate training, at least as far as what I've seen in our Dept. When a PI takes on a graduate student, she/he should be involved in the student's training, support, education, guidance, mentoring etc. I know of students (and even postdocs!!!) in our Dept who are basically trained to work as cheap technicians rather than students in the lab--they didn't learn squat about how to write a grant, present their research, make a poster, actually how to write their own paper 😱 . There is such a dispartity once you join an individual lab! How could someone expect to learn how to be a PI, run a lab, or even be a good mentor if they don't have a clue what that means??? 😕

 

[Chouster]

I went to graduate school because I loved chemistry. I graduated last year with a phd in physical chemistry. That took six years. While I love science and loved graduate school, I didn't love what was coming next - postdocs, tenure, etc., and I had always been fascinated by medicine and truly enjoyed working with people. I decided in my 3rd year I would apply to medical school (but still finish graduate school). Someday I may get back into research and the phd degree will help tremendously.

MD's are fairly uniformly trained. It's very hard to find phds who've had equivalent research experiences (on the critical thinking end of things). Some advisors get you out in 5. Others have you there until you truly do something significant. And, as was pointed out earlier, some will let you chill and become institutionalized. I remember thinking about what a phd meant when I was in graduate school and would run into such a diverse group of students, academically speaking. It really depends on what you put into it and what kind of advisor you work for. So I guess it's strange to imagine a phd coming down on a md/phd program. That's just lame. Ignore it. The phd in md/phd is real as far as I am concerned.

Anyway, I forgot what my damn point was. I don't look down on the md/phd even if I have gone through this the long way. It's a great move if you have a passion for the lab, yet want to be involved in medicine as well!

Well said Bozo

 

[BozoSparky]

BozoSparky, you've really hit on one of the weaknesses (I think) of graduate training, at least as far as what I've seen in our Dept. When a PI takes on a graduate student, she/he should be involved in the student's training, support, education, guidance, mentoring etc. I know of students (and even postdocs!!!) in our Dept who are basically trained to work as cheap technicians rather than students in the lab--they didn't learn squat about how to write a grant, present their research, make a poster, actually how to write their own paper 😱 . There is such a dispartity once you join an individual lab! How could someone expect to learn how to be a PI, run a lab, or even be a good mentor if they don't have a clue what that means??? 😕

It's so different depending on who you work for. I was lucky(or nuts?) enough to work for an untenured professor. There were only 3 of us that first year, but it got up to a steady-state of 10 by the time I left. We started new projects, gave talks, posters, wrote grants & papers all night with each other, stressed bigtime, etc. The NSF got their money's worth! I am glad I was able to experience the other aspects of being a scientist, but it was damn hard then. My advisor was given tenure, but it was no slam dunk.

This is a cool forum! Usually my posts are ignored and/or thread-ending.

 

[QofQuimica]

There is such a dispartity once you join an individual lab! How could someone expect to learn how to be a PI, run a lab, or even be a good mentor if they don't have a clue what that means??? 😕

This is exactly what graduate school for the most part does NOT teach ANYONE to do. My training to teach? "Here are your books, Q; the first class is tonight." My training to mentor? "Here is an undergrad student, Q; he'll be working with you this semester." And so on. I ended up muddling through, and I became a better teacher and mentor because I cared enough to work at improving at these things and ask various people for advice. But if I had decided to blow them off, no one would have stopped me. Plenty of grad students do the bare minimum in these areas; hell, plenty of them (in my department anyway) can barely speak and understand English. So they really do get left to their own devices, and basically they do nothing but work in the lab like techs. I did have to write an NIH grant as part of my qualifying exam, but that was something MY PI required. Even so, could I start a lab right now? Almost certainly not. I don't have any experience at running a lab, let alone setting one up. At some point, you are just thrown out on your own, and hopefully you'll swim and not sink. Or maybe you learn more about these things during your post doc; I haven't done one yet, so I don't know about that.

Lest anyone be tempted to say that it was just a function of the PI I was with, I have my doubts about that. I don't think my friends in other labs are any better off than I am, and I have worked as a graduate student in a total of six labs now, including my three rotations, my MS, one other lab where I basically did work as a tech, and my PhD. (It ended up taking me nine years to get my PhD in all.) I don't think that ANYONE gets "taught" how to be a PI. This seems to be the norm, not the odd experience, for grad students.

So far this post is basically completely off topic, but getting back on topic now, I don't think there is really any functional difference between MD/PhDs and PhD/MDs who got the degrees separately in most cases. I mean, there are theoretical chem people who can get their PhDs in under four years and who write dissertations that are 70 pages long (shorter than my undergrad thesis!), but no one disputes that THEIR PhDs are real, right? People in other countries like Britain regularly finish their D Phils in under four years, and again, no one protests. So if people can publish three papers and finish a PhD as part of an MSTP in under four years, more power to them.

I also agree that based on my admittedly limited medical school experience, the training is very different for medical school versus grad school. One is not inherently better than the other, but they ARE different, and it is not redundant therefore to get both degrees. Yes, some MDs can do research, but that is not the PURPOSE of getting an MD. Also, in my experience many researcher MDs have MS degrees if not PhDs. So again, they may have had less extensive graduate training, but they HAVE had some.

 

[caetano]

Today before a discussion section a girl in my class noted that she intends to pursue the MD/PhD. My TA (a PhD student in the biological sciences) launched into a tirade against the dual degree, arguing that "nobody in the field respects MD/PhDs", that "the training is inferior: a 3-yr MD and a 4-yr PhD just aren't sufficient", and that "you can do almost anything with just an MD". He then proceeded to remark that he plans to complete his PhD and then go back to medical school to get the MD (contradictory, no?). He added that "if you want both degrees, you should do them entirely separately". Although offended, I did not interrupt him with my opinion. While I have heard some MD/PhD sentiments in academia, I find that the vast majority of MD/PhD's that I meet are actually very well trained, and very well respected.

I am curious, how do you guys feel about these anti-MD/PhD sentiments, and why do people hold them? Jealousy? Have you encountered many others with the same feelings? Have you encountered many MD/PhD's that don't get much respect, and aren't well-trained? Any validity to his theory that better training results from pursuing the degrees separately (nevermind the financial detriments)?

there's one simple answer to this: JEALOUSY