Hey guys! Just wondering who out there is kind of going on the other side of the road and considering an MD and a PhD in the humanities/social sciences? Do you know of any good programs out there that support these? I only know of UChicago so far and am thinking of going for an MD and a PhD in social thought (interdisciplinary program) (although with my bcpm gpa I may not cut it...)
anyone considering an MD/PhD in humanities/social sciences?
- Thread starter streudels
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 0
I met a fellow interviewee at Emory who was looking to do an Anthro PhD. I know he also interviewed at UCSF.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 1
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,186
While in theory I undertand your interest in this combined field, practically speaking your career opportunities will be zero. Don't be shocked if you see a lot or resistance to this.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,861
gbwillner is pretty much right. If you're serious about this, let's get serious. What social science program do you want to do? What is your GPA and MCAT? How much experience do you have in that field?
It IS possible. But you need to be well qualified, have a lot of experience, and have a very convincing sounding plan.
Keep in mind as well that the MD/PhD programs aren't necessarily the bad guys in this. Social science PhD programs are often very long, very rigorous, have little to zero funding, and do not integrate with medical school cirricula. Trying to get THEM to accept the idea of MD/PhD is just as difficult as getting the MD/PhD programs to accept the idea of the social science PhD. But, a few are already on board, and some of the bigger MD/PhD programs do take a social scientist every couple years or so, so there is a chance. But we'll have to get serious. None of that--I don't know what wet lab research I want to do, I'll just figure it out later and I can apply anywhere I want type stuff.
It IS possible. But you need to be well qualified, have a lot of experience, and have a very convincing sounding plan.
Keep in mind as well that the MD/PhD programs aren't necessarily the bad guys in this. Social science PhD programs are often very long, very rigorous, have little to zero funding, and do not integrate with medical school cirricula. Trying to get THEM to accept the idea of MD/PhD is just as difficult as getting the MD/PhD programs to accept the idea of the social science PhD. But, a few are already on board, and some of the bigger MD/PhD programs do take a social scientist every couple years or so, so there is a chance. But we'll have to get serious. None of that--I don't know what wet lab research I want to do, I'll just figure it out later and I can apply anywhere I want type stuff.
Oh no definitely. I wouldn't be proposing a social science MD/PhD so flippantly without having understood why I'm pursuing it. I'm doing it because I'm very, very interested in global health, particularly in the intersection between the political economies of post-colonial states, their effects on health populations, and the status of NGOs or "third sectors" that attempt to alleviate these unhealthy conditions. I chose social thought for its interdisciplinary approach (but may also consider public admin/affairs, international relations, etc.); I'm particularly interested in theories of various disciplines that attempt to express how 'social transformation' can occur, and how these theories then inform policy-making and other strategies of stakeholders who have an impact on health. I see getting an MD as my means of making an impact not on the academic/public admin level, but also at the ground level in an attempt to understand how do practices at the level of biomedicine (and other forms of healing) inform once again, these theories. I'm also doing it for my won personal reasons; I like being close to people, using the way of thinking of a 'healer' or 'doctor' to heal someone and make their lives better. Of course this is a very rough proposal, but this is where I'm getting at. I plan to become an expert in the global health field and to lead/structure/critique global health- and community health-oriented programs with the knowledge that I gain from a social science MD/PhD. I'm currently doing research now and will do an internship this summer that deals specifically with this intersection of disciplines.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,861
I asked about your GPA for a reason, but I looked in your MDapplicants profile and found it. I hate to break this to you, but your GPA as listed in your profile will preclude your entry into MD/PhD programs. Worry about getting into medical school.
IF, and this is a big maybe, you get a 40 MCAT and have a ton of research experience, you may have a shot. But even with that GPA going into a social science PhD you're likely to get shut out. If you're serious about trying you might want to look at somewhere like UIUC which is not a big name MD/PhD program (i.e. not as competitive) but will potentially allow a social science PhD. Standard warnings apply. You may not get the same funding as a biomedical PhD. The PhD may not be well integrated (and hence take a very long time to complete). This is still a long shot.
You might want to consider 5 year MD programs such as those at Pitt or Cleveland Clinic. Your profile reminds me a lot of someone I knew very well who got into both of those programs with full scholarships (CC now gives them to everyone) while having zero luck with MD/PhD and very little luck with the usual MD suspects (except for lower tier) since those programs are much more interested in GPA and GPA cutoffs. You can also go for straight med school and do one of many year out fellowships that do exist.
IF, and this is a big maybe, you get a 40 MCAT and have a ton of research experience, you may have a shot. But even with that GPA going into a social science PhD you're likely to get shut out. If you're serious about trying you might want to look at somewhere like UIUC which is not a big name MD/PhD program (i.e. not as competitive) but will potentially allow a social science PhD. Standard warnings apply. You may not get the same funding as a biomedical PhD. The PhD may not be well integrated (and hence take a very long time to complete). This is still a long shot.
You might want to consider 5 year MD programs such as those at Pitt or Cleveland Clinic. Your profile reminds me a lot of someone I knew very well who got into both of those programs with full scholarships (CC now gives them to everyone) while having zero luck with MD/PhD and very little luck with the usual MD suspects (except for lower tier) since those programs are much more interested in GPA and GPA cutoffs. You can also go for straight med school and do one of many year out fellowships that do exist.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 15,238
- Reaction score
- 7,188
Have you considered getting an MPH? They're not difficult to get into (certainly easier than PhD programs), require less time, less commitment, and can often be integrated into med school curricula if you desire.
Getting an MPH first may also help improve your app, and make you more competitive for med school.
Yup, my GPA situation is not lost to me. It's terrible and I worry about it all the time. I plan to get into a Special Sciences or SMP program and kick ass on the MCAT (I'm fully devoting myself to it after I graduate this year), although I'm not sure how getting into post-bacc programs and getting a 40+ MCAT fare on an applicant's chances for an MD/PhD. I also plan to continue to do research on the global health field after college. Doing a fellowship after getting an MD is something I've considered, but my professors have suggested to me that I may feel restricted by pursuing just an MD when I see myself making changes beyond that of being a doctor. I know it sounds ridiculous and I may be dreaming too big, but at this point I'm assessing those chances.
I've considered an MPH or even an MD/MPH but my academic interests are more particular and interdisciplinary at the same time. Basically I'm still thinking about all the possibilities, not just an MD/PhD, and making sure that I get the best deal for where my passions lie. It would be great though, to get some thoughts of people who've pursued a similar path.
Some non-MSTP funded programs will fully fund several MD/PhD students and allow the PhD to be pursued in non-traditional (MD/)PhD subjects such as English, Art, Social Sciences or Anthropology (if these latter options exist). The utility of getting a PhD in some of these areas is debatable (or questionable) for an MD/PhD track. But if you're passionate about a atypical research area, it might work.
Sorry, I can't be more specific as it's been a while since I heard about these options. However, if you are serious about a non-traditional PhD subject, I'd look at non-MSTP funded programs, where you'll have more flexibility to call some of the shots, yet still get the potential for a full ride, depending on what's offered to you and/or what you bargain for.
Sorry, I can't be more specific as it's been a while since I heard about these options. However, if you are serious about a non-traditional PhD subject, I'd look at non-MSTP funded programs, where you'll have more flexibility to call some of the shots, yet still get the potential for a full ride, depending on what's offered to you and/or what you bargain for.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2001
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 18
Take a look at UCSF: there is a new master's program in global health (http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/), which seems right up your alley. The MSTP here offers medical anthropology (http://www.dahsm.medschool.ucsf.edu/medical/index.aspx) as an option, which also may fit your goals.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,861
Let's be frank here Vader, with her GPA I don't think she's ever going to have a shot at UCSF's ultra-competitive Anthro MD/PhD. I could be wrong, which is why I would like you to comment since you would know better, but I don't like to give people false hope. The "apply and we'll see" approach leads to a lot of broken hearts. I like the "you can try, but it's unlikely" when it's warranted.
While Vader made a wonderful suggestion, Neuronix is right --- with my GPA and the barrage of excellent applicants the UCSF receives (not to mention I'm OOS) my chances of getting into such a program are nil. I'm in WA right now and UW has recently established a global health department, but because it's so new it's difficult to see whether they'll be opening up a combined MD/global health program any time soon. At this point UW is probably my best bet (since I'm on my way to gaining in-state status and it is an emerging global health center, although the SOM here is still waaaay beyond my reach), or an SMP with a good linkage to an SOM (e.g. Georgetown, which also has an MD/PhD program, although I'm not sure how 'friendly' they are to applicants proposing social science MD/PhDs).
I'd like to think that wherever I end up, regardless of the prestige of the program, I'd "bloom where I grow" and build up my credentials from the passion I have now (as opposed to 3-4 years ago when I was a silly freshman) and eventually end up where I want to be.
I wonder if there has been anyone here who's gotten into an MD/PhD after doing an SMP/special sciences program? Is it a feasible plan? Or am I setting myself up for more grief?
I'd like to think that wherever I end up, regardless of the prestige of the program, I'd "bloom where I grow" and build up my credentials from the passion I have now (as opposed to 3-4 years ago when I was a silly freshman) and eventually end up where I want to be.
I wonder if there has been anyone here who's gotten into an MD/PhD after doing an SMP/special sciences program? Is it a feasible plan? Or am I setting myself up for more grief?
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2001
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 18
I just looked at your profile and agree with Neuronix that your GPA (particularly the BCPM) is certainly a hurdle, even for medical school. I also agree that scoring well on the MCAT would be essential to maximizing your chances of getting into medical school, let alone an MD/PhD program.
If you are serious about medical school, you might consider a post-bac program with science courses to improve your academic credentials.
This all being said, looking at your profile, I think you have some unique experiences that would almost certainly make you an interesting applicant--if you can make it past cutoffs during the screening stages of the primary and secondary applications.
I would look at a variety of programs and see the variety of offerings available. There is nothing wrong with "window shopping" programs, even ones that currently appear out of your league.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,861
State residency does not matter for MD/PhD admissions. You can see some average accepted GPAs and MCATs from the links at the top of the forum, but generally it's around 3.8/36 nationally. Because state residency is not taken into account, this holds roughly true for all programs around the country and only separates a bit based on upper vs. lower tier and some small amount of influence because of location. Desirable = a little more competitive, not desirable = a little less competitive, but this doesn't really change the GPA/MCAT much at all.
This also means that UW is not going to give you any special in-state consideration for MD/PhD. You will likely want to consider MD only there to maximize your chances of getting in somewhere.
I don't think this is true for non-MSTPs; the reason state residency doesn't matter for MSTPs is that they're funded by the NIH.
Sometimes even for MSTPs, the "we don't look at state residency" is a load of bs. UCSF is a great example - the med school has to accept you first, and they sure as hell look at state residency.
I think state residency does make a difference, they just like to pretend (and say) it doesn't.
Bitter? Not me, never
.Heh. I knew this but it'd totally blew over my head. I think I was referring simply to doing a global health-oriented MD. At the moment I'm trying to assess my choices and my chances for whatever I choose to do --- in the end, it looks like I'll be spending a WHOLE lotta money to get myself back on the right path to an MD(/PhD).
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 1
I am completing the MD/PhD application process in the social sciences. It's not an easy process but I truly believe the degree combination is an extreme asset.
The first thing you should know: The VAST majority of people have no idea about these programs. They are so rare that even the administrators at the PhD programs you might consider do not know the other programs they are competing against. So be careful whose advice you listen to. For instance, the guy who said MD/PhD's in the social sciences have no career prospects? He has no idea what he is talking about. Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McClellan
I will admit I don't know what social thought is, however. The most popular PhDs for nontraditional MD/PhD students, at least in traditional academic fields, tend to be medical sociology/anthropology, public policy, economics, and history of science. You can also find hybrid PhD programs in schools of public health or business schools. Some MSTPs will fund you entirely (yes, with NIH money- Ex. Penn, Hopkins, UMichigan) and others will fund you but not with MSTP funding (Ex. Harvard). The MSTP funding will give you tuition and stipend for all 7ish years, while others may give you tuition but only a stipend for grad school years.
In short, there are definitely options out there.
The first thing you should know: The VAST majority of people have no idea about these programs. They are so rare that even the administrators at the PhD programs you might consider do not know the other programs they are competing against. So be careful whose advice you listen to. For instance, the guy who said MD/PhD's in the social sciences have no career prospects? He has no idea what he is talking about. Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McClellan
I will admit I don't know what social thought is, however
. The most popular PhDs for nontraditional MD/PhD students, at least in traditional academic fields, tend to be medical sociology/anthropology, public policy, economics, and history of science. You can also find hybrid PhD programs in schools of public health or business schools. Some MSTPs will fund you entirely (yes, with NIH money- Ex. Penn, Hopkins, UMichigan) and others will fund you but not with MSTP funding (Ex. Harvard). The MSTP funding will give you tuition and stipend for all 7ish years, while others may give you tuition but only a stipend for grad school years. In short, there are definitely options out there.
Very likely I will be applying for an MD/PhD in Med Anthro. Have you considered doing just the PhD? How committed are you to clinical medicine vs intellectual/academic work? I think its absolutely crucial to be able to understand why both and not one vs the other. If you want to do global health stuff its not essential that you become a physician. Your stated interests show me why the social sciences (I advise you to consider doing anthro) but can you answer why medicine convincingly?
There are a handful of MSTP, or alternatively funded, MD/PhDs in the social sciences. For med anthro, each school accepts normally no more than one or two students a year. I do not know if other humanities PhDs get this sort of funding support. Even if they do it is unlikely that many more spots are available. You could get into a decent social science grad program but you I am fairly certain you have no chance at a funded MD/PhD.
If you are 120% committed to an MD/PhD then you can do your best to get into a cheap state med school and then arrange to do a PhD in the middle at a different institution. This is probably your only feasible option for obtaining both degrees and its not a very desirable route.
There are many other interesting combinations and ways to involve yourself in the practice and theory of global health though. You can approach these issues from nursing, public health, pure medicine, pure social science and any combination of those. For example, there is an incredibly well respected nurse-anthropologist at my school.
If you want to discuss this more feel free to PM me.
There are a handful of MSTP, or alternatively funded, MD/PhDs in the social sciences. For med anthro, each school accepts normally no more than one or two students a year. I do not know if other humanities PhDs get this sort of funding support. Even if they do it is unlikely that many more spots are available. You could get into a decent social science grad program but you I am fairly certain you have no chance at a funded MD/PhD.
If you are 120% committed to an MD/PhD then you can do your best to get into a cheap state med school and then arrange to do a PhD in the middle at a different institution. This is probably your only feasible option for obtaining both degrees and its not a very desirable route.
There are many other interesting combinations and ways to involve yourself in the practice and theory of global health though. You can approach these issues from nursing, public health, pure medicine, pure social science and any combination of those. For example, there is an incredibly well respected nurse-anthropologist at my school.
If you want to discuss this more feel free to PM me.
I am completing the MD/PhD application process in the social sciences. It's not an easy process but I truly believe the degree combination is an extreme asset.
The first thing you should know: The VAST majority of people have no idea about these programs. They are so rare that even the administrators at the PhD programs you might consider do not know the other programs they are competing against. So be careful whose advice you listen to. For instance, the guy who said MD/PhD's in the social sciences have no career prospects? He has no idea what he is talking about. Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McClellan
I will admit I don't know what social thought is, however
In short, there are definitely options out there.
8-9 is more reasonable for med anthro (I'm not sure about the other programs but I'd be surprised if any MD/PhD in social science was under 8 years). Enough people know about these spots to make them incredibly contesed. Best of luck in your applications. What social science track are you interested in?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 552
- Reaction score
- 4
A question any student must ask themselves is what they want to do. MD/PhDs in humanities do not gain any special benefit over MDs. An MD with a track record of experience in global health and publications is comparable to any MD/PhD. The MD is what opens the doors. PhDs in humanities and soc sci are a dime a dozen. There is a lot of nonsense spilled out on young minds in college. An MD shows you have done something many PhDs cannot do.
PhD programs give you protected research time, the opportunity to learn the theory and methods of your selected program and make more possible an academic career that many find fulfilling. If your pure goal is to be a practitioner internationally, then a PhD might be irrelevant. If there is a specific field that interests you because of what you can learn from it, or through applying its methods to understanding health and the social world, then you have a lot to gain from a PhD program in my opinion.
I think an essential question is to ask "will I enjoy the training and experience I receive as a PhD?" If you think it would be a blast to take anthropology, history, social theory and language classes for 2-3 years, do intensive, immersive fieldwork for a year or so and then write an interesting dissertation at the end and on top of all that you full funding then you don't have much to lose by doing the PhD. Doing a PhD allows you to remain intellectually engaged in a way that medical training does not.
Your perspective of medicine and health will be very different when you are through and you might be better positioned to understand and address some of the problems in the world that you find distressing. Or you might just be an irrelevant academic whose work has little bearing on clinical practice in any context and whose criticisms and suggestions are widely ignored.
No one should be doing the PhD for a "credentialing" effect which is what you are implying in your post. That credentialling effect is likely nonexistant as you claim.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 552
- Reaction score
- 4
??
It is a little remarkable that an undergrad should think it appropriate to talk down to someone who clearly is more experienced. It is an unwarranted sense of self-importance -- AKA pompous.
Your sense of the importance of a PhD is vastly overrated.
Soc Sci/HUmanities PhDs are predominantly based in theory and statistics. That is not a basis for solving practical problems of global public health. Many self-important PhDs are prone to approaching problems in order to prove their ideology. Global health issues need people who have accomplished results, not preaching ideologies. In fact, the latter are not just useless, they are frequently counter-productive.
If the purpose of the research is to prove post-modernist "narratives", then the primary goal of improved health can be easily lost. Pragmatism improves health: not obfuscatious, fallacious hypostatizations.
Someone coming in who says they have a PhD and are therefore important, are laughable. Someone with an MD ready to work has credibility. The PhD adds little if anything to someone who has experience and is intelligent enough to read on their own outside of a grad school.
I don't quite understand how you've interpreted my post as talking down to you. In fact I agreed in my original post that a PhD is likely to do little to bolster your credentials for global health.
"If your pure goal is to be a practitioner internationally, then a PhD might be irrelevant."
and
"Or you might just be an irrelevant academic whose work has little bearing on clinical practice in any context and whose criticisms and suggestions are widely ignored."
I also offered my opinion that you should only do a PhD if you truly believe you will enjoy the PhD training in itself because my impression is that integrating the two effectively can be hard, though it has been done. Frankly, I'm confused by your reading of my post.
Nevertheless, your nearly wholesale dismissal of the possible benefit of PhD training is in my opinion unwarranted. Your assertion that most MD/PhD are trying to "prove post-modernist narratives (whatever this means)" is quite strange and makes me wonder how seriously you've considered the work of any physician-anthropologists.
As cliche as it might be at this point to cite these two as an example, Paul Farmer and Jim Yong Kim are two physician-anthropologists who have had an enormous, direct practical effect on global health. They don't engage in the more useless debates of anthropology and have a healthy distaste for many of the unhelpful "post-modern" critiques prevalent in the field today. Still, Anthropology was integral to both of their educations even if it is not the definining characteristic of their work.
Further, your suggestion that theory and statistics is irrelevant to solving practical problems in public health also sounds strange as these are the underpinnings of epidemiology and health economics. Perhaps, I would have to write an essay to demonstrate the potential usefulness of anthropology in improving health and medical care delivery, but those two fields shouldn't need such apologetics.
I didn't intend to be disrespectful, and don't think my original post was at all. However, your post was brief and dismissive. You original post did not really address the possibilities of this path in any detail. Given your appraisal of the work of MD/PhDs ("proving post-modernist narratives") you don't seem to have a great deal of respect for the fields in question or a familiarity with the range of work and contributions of non-MD social scientists and MD/PhDs who train in non-science fields.
Despite the fact that I am an undergrad, I have been considering this possible career path for many years and know people who have completed such training, are in the process of completing this type of training, or are themselves responsible for training these individuals. As such, I'd like to think I have something to add to the discussion even though there are many things I couldn't possibly know at this very early stage.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 552
- Reaction score
- 4
You are digging deeper.
I can read: You used the second person you. Did you mean me or a hypothetical second person? An ironic writer intends to use both, and uses the latter as cover when called out. I take it that you meant me and I need more experience and I may be an irrelevant academic. These are not polite references. If you did not mean how it was written, learn to write before engaging in discussions with the grown ups.
Further, you intentionally mis-worded my critiques, then you made a series of false attacks based on the changed terminology. On only one point: I did not mention anthropology at all; you assumed I did because I belittled post-modernism, which deserves it. Post modernism is smiley-faced existentialism and re-packaged relativism that undermines philosophic discourse. That you assumed I meant anthropology, suggests you have bought into the ideological straight-jacket of post-modernist terminology. Post-modernism limits free thought because it is founded in a specific and incorrect understanding of Modernity as the complete expression of 18th & 19th century thought.
Another point is that pragmatism requires jettisoning of ideologies, like post-modernism, and approaching problems with an open and free mind. It is another thread, but just to make the points: I think post-modernism has harmed free thought in higher education.
I am not impressed with PhDs, I have one already. Im impressed with what people do.
I did not dismiss PhDs wholesale, only stated there importance is over-rated: those terms have different meanings. Look them up if you need to.
I know many MDs who are better read, more pragmatic, better writers, and contribute more academically without going through grad school. They contribute more to global health, or local health for that matter, without the ideological wrapper.
The writing in my original post seems clear and easy to interpret as it was intended. The only "you" that was specifically addressed to you, DogFacedMedic, was the final line of my original post.
I address anthropology because that is the field with which I'm most familiar. I have little desire to discuss post-modernism on this board but the term itself is a catch-all that has been applied to many diverse thinkers that often do not have much in common. When talking about the post-modern, or reflexive turn in anthro, one can talk with more specificity.
I really can't see at all how you could take that line as intended for you. I meant that despite having earned a PhD you might only become an irrelevant academic, a statement which was in line with your original post. This seems obvious reading over my original post but you've not read it as such. You've made yourself the subject of my original post when the subject of the thread is PhD training in the social sciences.
My original post was partly a response to the bolded portion of your post and partly a general response to the theme of this thread. You suspect me of sneakily trying to insult you when I have little interest in engaging in personal attacks. You however seem to look be looking for confrontation and enjoy patronizing other posters.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2001
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 18
Ok guys/gals... let's keep this professional...
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 552
- Reaction score
- 4
You intentionally or intentionally misconstrued several different things that I wrote, then you attacked it. I think that is an unacceptable rhetorical trick.
Your use of the word "you" is poor. It can be used either directly addressing a person, or hypothetically. Learn to clarify in writing.
I was not being patronizing, I was being angry.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 0
.
Last edited:
I have done both my MA and BA at Uchicago, and currently have a friend in the Social Thought program. If your interest is in global health, this is the completely wrong program for you. Social Thought is geared towards people who will be leading scholars in the humanities and social sciences. For example, my friend in the program speaks five languages and studies Russian literature. If you are interested in global health, your two options are medical anthropology (there are many program in this field - I am currently in a PhD program in this subfield) or you should also seriously consider an MPH in global health. There are many schools of public health that have special degrees specifically on this topic.
Good luck!!
Good luck!!
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2008
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 3
I am starting a DO-PhD program in bioethics and was able to get nearly full funding, so a non-traditional program is not out of the question. For my interest, I need the additional academic training to feel competent in bioethics consulting and to research and publish reviews of cases and ethical decision-making systems. Eventually, I want to be a pediatric sub-specialist and actively consult and publish in pediatric ethics. The key is to know what you want going into interviews and finding a program where you fit.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 1
its always hard to convince others (even for trad. applicants) about what you want to do. even when you go to traditional md/phd (basic science) interviews, they hate to hear you say i want to do 50/50 clinical/lab, or that you are open to a field of research (undecided). the point is that these programs are making a huge investment in you. NIH funded programs can lose money if you drop out, and the big programs usually do experience 1-2 drops a year. they want to see that you are fully invested in research, confident, and ready to stick it out through the tough times (there will be plenty).
however, we all know everyone changes their field of research and i have come across many md/phds, that atleast claim they do 50/50 (clinical part being clinical research/trials, of course).
you know that your situation is tougher/more limited. that doesn't mean you can't do what you want to, as long as you are willing to make sacrifices.
you see that you are having a tough time convincing your peers on SDN. you will come across more scrutiny from admission committees. while you may have plans lay out, they might not honestly convince them. think things over. you may find that you will have to tell them things they want to hear. unfortunately they may not align with what you want to do, but hopefully, a successful process can get you to where you see yourself (again, w/ sacrifice). that might mean you have to do md/mph, unfunded, or something else, but you will get there, if you want it enough
be honest with yourself! i hope you do what you want to do! rooting for you
however, we all know everyone changes their field of research and i have come across many md/phds, that atleast claim they do 50/50 (clinical part being clinical research/trials, of course).
you know that your situation is tougher/more limited. that doesn't mean you can't do what you want to, as long as you are willing to make sacrifices.
you see that you are having a tough time convincing your peers on SDN. you will come across more scrutiny from admission committees. while you may have plans lay out, they might not honestly convince them. think things over. you may find that you will have to tell them things they want to hear. unfortunately they may not align with what you want to do, but hopefully, a successful process can get you to where you see yourself (again, w/ sacrifice). that might mean you have to do md/mph, unfunded, or something else, but you will get there, if you want it enough
be honest with yourself! i hope you do what you want to do! rooting for you
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi All (especially streudels),
I am an MD/PhD student at UCSF in medical anthropology, and I just want to write and let you know that there are a LOT of MD/PhD programs in the social sciences and humanities. And they are growing like crazy.
We have a conference every two years, and we just met (we usually have about 200 attendees... the conferences are super exciting). Look at our latest conference at http://scholarsinmedicine.blogspot.com/
Also, through APSA, we've built a bunch of online resources for people interested in these programs. You can check them out at http://www.physicianscientists.org/careers/training/md-phd/ssh
Also, don't let GPA and the usual pre-med buzz dissuade you from pursuing this idea. Most of the GPA terror is just an artifact of pre-med culture. If you come to these programs with a great project and a lot of passion for social science and for taking care of people, then you'll get in...
Best of luck...
I am an MD/PhD student at UCSF in medical anthropology, and I just want to write and let you know that there are a LOT of MD/PhD programs in the social sciences and humanities. And they are growing like crazy.
We have a conference every two years, and we just met (we usually have about 200 attendees... the conferences are super exciting). Look at our latest conference at http://scholarsinmedicine.blogspot.com/
Also, through APSA, we've built a bunch of online resources for people interested in these programs. You can check them out at http://www.physicianscientists.org/careers/training/md-phd/ssh
Also, don't let GPA and the usual pre-med buzz dissuade you from pursuing this idea. Most of the GPA terror is just an artifact of pre-med culture. If you come to these programs with a great project and a lot of passion for social science and for taking care of people, then you'll get in...
Best of luck...
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Messages
- 959
- Reaction score
- 9
If I end up at UIC (not getting off the waitlist at my other two schools), I'm definitely applying MD/PhD for Political Science (I never thought to apply when I was applying med, but I found out I can apply for entrance after M1, and only reason I would consider PhD only at UIC is other two schools don't have non-science PhD options) - looks like nobody at UIUC's MSP program has ever done poli-sci before, but I've always considered myself an innovator
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,909
- Reaction score
- 2,941
Coming from a specialty with a lot of people interested in global health and policy oriented issues, I would say the PhD doesn't add much to your career prospects. There is relatively little methodology to learn in these fields, and your ability to secure jobs has more to do with your networking skills and grantsmanship. I would say that getting into a top MD program is vastly more desirable, with possibly an additional MPH at some point, compared to an MD/PhD in social sciences. Generally, faculty focused on health services research only have an MD, or MD/MPH. The more important aspect is to get proper mentorship during residency.
The MSTP is designed explicitly to train translational physician-scientist to bridge the bench to bedside process, and MSTP graduates should by design fit somewhere in the this process. You should think about where you would fit in this process instead of trying to do a PhD for purely academic reasons--obviously, that still happens all the time, which is why the pipeline is leaky...but ideally one would go into a program having some idea of where chips would fall in the end.
The other consideration is prestige, which is a factor that shouldn't be ignored. A basic science MSTP graduate from a midtier program is very competitive for research track positions for "cognitive" specialties because the regular MDs don't have the appropriate skillset to develop a research program for NIH funding, which academic departments want. The extreme competitiveness of the MSTP also enhances its prestige. Can your non-MSTP PhD make you more fundable for global health programs and get you into the best residency and onward? Not if it's from a third tier no name comparative lit program. But if it's an economics degree from MIT with a Nobel laureate on a topic NIH just issued a program announcement for, you bet it'll help. Maybe you know George Soros or Bill Gates and got some millions to study malaria in Africa. Maybe you have extensive experience getting money from the WHO. Maybe your ex-boss does and wants to vouch for you. Even your comp. lit PhD can help, if you are the world's leading expert on applying postcolonial theory to healthcare inequality, and have multiple books and a MacArthur, you BET people would fight over you. The problem isn't that you can't make an academic career out of a PhD in humanities or social sciences, it's just the level of competition requires that you are VERY VERY good, or else you end up at a third tier humanities dept with a salary that makes your MD worth 5x more than your PhD, essentially making the PhD a waste of time, especially when your MD tuition isn't even getting paid for.
The two things employers look for in a candidate: does he/she have the skills to do this job? what could he/she bring to the institution? Try to think beyond the idea of degrees and credentials collecting and more along the lines of career development and a narrative: figure out what you want to do, and get degrees that would help you get there, instead of getting the degrees and then figure out what to do later.
Last edited:
Thanks for the insights!
With more focus on prevention policies and health policies for chronic diseases (behavior change and whatnot), there's now slightly more focus on social sciences and health policy (and some health services research) rather than purely clinical (which is still important, but not the primary focus). This is a reason why I was considering a PhD because it gives one a basic grounding in these areas, but you make a good point that you also have to be really good at it. So does someone with an MD, but from what I understand, there's more power behind the degree, and it gives you versatility to work with clinical, research and policy aspects as well.
I feel that a PhD allows someone to remain intellectually engaged with their field of interest in a way that medical training cannot. Even if you don't become the type of PhD like Paul Farmer (who also has an MD) or Jeffrey Sachs is, you at least spend most of your time focused on global health.
Last edited:
I'm in a similar boat; I'd like to get a PhD in a social sciences discipline (preferably sociology), but that's mainly because I want my work to be informed by the underlying social theory and I want to know the methodological rigors of doing good mixed-methods science.
Do you think there are routes in medicine to learn these things without a full PhD?
Do you think there are routes in medicine to learn these things without a full PhD?
There are, it just may take some more effort and time. You may not get the full technical expertise of a PhD, but you can try to get on a similar path. With a PhD, you take classes, and do a thesis with a committee. All over the course of 4-5 years.
You could get an MD with a relevant masters, and then make your own path (somewhere, you can do some of the research you would have done while pursuing your PhD, just not with the PhD label, and you would have more flexibility on how long you want to do your research in social sciences for). The PhD gives you protected research time, but there's a lot more pressure on completing one specific topic/dissertation. This is good to develop an independent investigator type mindset, but I think one can also pave their own path with an MD depending on how their specific interests develop. The MD is a very, very significant investment of time and money. Of course, so is a PhD, but they are very distinct paths.
Someone who does a PhD will develop more technical expertise in one area. Someone who does an MD may be a bit behind the PhD by the time both are done, and has to do enough work to pick up on the necessary technical skills (it's possible, it just requires finding the right opportunities). An MD gives you slightly more power since it shows you've completed clinical training. Of course, it's hard to measure the exact usefulness of each degree. You need to talk to people who are MDs doing the things you like, people who are PhDs doing the things you like, or even MD/PhDs (some of the people on this board may fall into one of those three categories. But if you can find someone who's been in the field for a while, that's preferable).
You could get an MD with a relevant masters, and then make your own path (somewhere, you can do some of the research you would have done while pursuing your PhD, just not with the PhD label, and you would have more flexibility on how long you want to do your research in social sciences for). The PhD gives you protected research time, but there's a lot more pressure on completing one specific topic/dissertation. This is good to develop an independent investigator type mindset, but I think one can also pave their own path with an MD depending on how their specific interests develop. The MD is a very, very significant investment of time and money. Of course, so is a PhD, but they are very distinct paths.
Someone who does a PhD will develop more technical expertise in one area. Someone who does an MD may be a bit behind the PhD by the time both are done, and has to do enough work to pick up on the necessary technical skills (it's possible, it just requires finding the right opportunities). An MD gives you slightly more power since it shows you've completed clinical training. Of course, it's hard to measure the exact usefulness of each degree. You need to talk to people who are MDs doing the things you like, people who are PhDs doing the things you like, or even MD/PhDs (some of the people on this board may fall into one of those three categories. But if you can find someone who's been in the field for a while, that's preferable).
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 0
Very interesting topic here! For anyone interested in global health (especially prevention of chronic diseases), what would be a good PhD to do to supplement an MD? I see PhDs in Epidemiology, Health Systems, Health Behavior, and Nutrition. I'm not exactly sure if I want to do a PhD since it's so much time though. Anthropology is another option. Can anyone who has done a social science MD/PhD (such as in global health) comment on how it's helped them? Or for anyone who has seen people take this route, how have the PhDs supplemented the MD? Is it more desirable to pursue two good Masters degrees in global health and policy rather than say a 4 year PhD? I'm actually entering medical school this fall and would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this.
The PhD is a LONG time. Are you doing a combined MSTP? If not, you'll either be doing a PhD between M2 and M3 elsewhere, or after med school + residency. Really consider if you want to do the 4-5 years of training.
But I'm neither PhD or MD. I've certainly heard of numerous global health professionals being successful with just an MD and not a PhD. But you need some more feedback from people (this thread is so old. Almost wish people who had previously contributed could come back to add to the discussion based on what they've learned in the past few years).
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,909
- Reaction score
- 2,941
Echoing above, it's generally agreed upon that if you are interested in global health and healthcare systems research, you don't need a PhD. You just need an MD.
I think it's important to point out that there are numerous professionals in global health who have had great success with just a PhD, but career prospects may not be as absolute certain as if you have an MD. Of course, someone could just be absolutely brilliant and very good at their research and have more command of their career, but not everyone can be at the top of the field. I'm not saying an MD will automatically have more command, but there's certainly more flexibility with career prospects (there is always a demand for MDs. PhDs, as someone above said, are dime a dozen. What will you do different?)
With what Sephiroth mentioned, yes there are numerous PhDs (not just healthcare systems) to pursue in international health, but is it more important to have the PhD, or get an MD and get the background (say in epidemiology) later? That's a question you need to answer. If you plan a career in an academic setting (teaching, doing research all the time, getting grants), then it makes more sense to get a PhD. Of course, tenure positions are very competitive, and you may not necessarily get to choose which university you want to work at. Even in an international health setting like WHO, many positions require at least a PhD or MD, and though having both just naturally looks better, it's so much time to get both. Like A LOT OF TIME, combined with the residency.
