Clinical Psychology vs. MD/PhD Psychiatry

[The Cinnabon]

As I'm drafting my SOPs and getting my application affairs in order it has hit me that I really need to keep ruling other pathways out. One pathway that's stuck with me is the idea of doing an MD/PhD and having the PhD be a soft science such as Social Psychology (a decent amount of programs do allow this/fund this). For reference my research interest I plan on continuing in grad school is how culture influences psychopathology presentation and cultural adaptation to assessment and treatment.

I'm a pretty research heavy guy and obviously am inclined to clinical psych research, so the PhD in Clinical/Counseling seemed like an obvious avenue. It's also occurred to me that I did do the premed prereqs (decently well in them) and could do the MD/PhD and have a very similar lab at the end of the journey with the additional research training.

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is would an MD/PhD be worth the consideration, given that physician training could allow more versatility (there are serious perks to knowing the body as well as physicians) in what I'm able to research, and possibly be more competitive for grants.

I truly don't know how pay would factor into this, as research heavy psychiatrists aren't exactly known for brining in a lot of money in the physician world and research heavy psychologists can bring in a similar amount of money at an academic medical center.

What I'm really asking for is any considerations I'm forgetting, any misconceptions I may have, and if you yourself would entertain this pathway if you could go back in time? I truly could see myself happy doing both in the end, albeit with medical training being far more hellish.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDr]

1) The medical route has numerous benefits.
a. Higher income, even if you practice one day a week.
b. Greater professional mobility (ie., you can move anywhere and get a job).
c. People generally assume physicians are capable of performing research. Pharma offers practicing physicians opportunities to "do research". The neurologist down the street from me "does research". My psychiatrist friend "does research". And they are both home by 3PM. As to money: there is a small A list group that pulls in real money on this. Do not plan on that.
d. The MD/PhD programs... the dissertation is not the same as other PhD students.
e. Publication in medical journals is somewhat easier than psychology journals. This doesn't mean they do a good job. It means psychologists, when presented research, start acting like a bunch of angry nerds who have been told that DC is better than Marvel, or whatever.

2) The psychologist route has a few benefits
a. You get to spend a LOT more time with your patients.
b. It is extremely hard to get sued for malpractice, and there is basically zero call schedule.
c. The literature is, IMO, more interesting.
d. The lifestyle can be more chill.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

As I'm drafting my SOPs and getting my application affairs in order it has hit me that I really need to keep ruling other pathways out. One pathway that's stuck with me is the idea of doing an MD/PhD and having the PhD be a soft science such as Social Psychology (a decent amount of programs do allow this/fund this). For reference my research interest I plan on continuing in grad school is how culture influences psychopathology presentation and cultural adaptation to assessment and treatment.

I'm a pretty research heavy guy and obviously am inclined to clinical psych research, so the PhD in Clinical/Counseling seemed like an obvious avenue. It's also occurred to me that I did do the premed prereqs (decently well in them) and could do the MD/PhD and have a very similar lab at the end of the journey with the additional research training.

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is would an MD/PhD be worth the consideration, given that physician training could allow more versatility (there are serious perks to knowing the body as well as physicians) in what I'm able to research, and possibly be more competitive for grants.

I truly don't know how pay would factor into this, as research heavy psychiatrists aren't exactly known for brining in a lot of money in the physician world and research heavy psychologists can bring in a similar amount of money at an academic medical center.

What I'm really asking for is any considerations I'm forgetting, any misconceptions I may have, and if you yourself would entertain this pathway if you could go back in time? I truly could see myself happy doing both in the end, albeit with medical training being far more hellish.

Unless you want to be chair of an academic department or something, I'm not sure of the utility of getting an MD/PhD.

 

[Sanman]

As I'm drafting my SOPs and getting my application affairs in order it has hit me that I really need to keep ruling other pathways out. One pathway that's stuck with me is the idea of doing an MD/PhD and having the PhD be a soft science such as Social Psychology (a decent amount of programs do allow this/fund this). For reference my research interest I plan on continuing in grad school is how culture influences psychopathology presentation and cultural adaptation to assessment and treatment.

I'm a pretty research heavy guy and obviously am inclined to clinical psych research, so the PhD in Clinical/Counseling seemed like an obvious avenue. It's also occurred to me that I did do the premed prereqs (decently well in them) and could do the MD/PhD and have a very similar lab at the end of the journey with the additional research training.

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is would an MD/PhD be worth the consideration, given that physician training could allow more versatility (there are serious perks to knowing the body as well as physicians) in what I'm able to research, and possibly be more competitive for grants.

I truly don't know how pay would factor into this, as research heavy psychiatrists aren't exactly known for brining in a lot of money in the physician world and research heavy psychologists can bring in a similar amount of money at an academic medical center.

What I'm really asking for is any considerations I'm forgetting, any misconceptions I may have, and if you yourself would entertain this pathway if you could go back in time? I truly could see myself happy doing both in the end, albeit with medical training being far more hellish.

How would you intend to use the MD/PhD that could not be accomplished by an MD alone?

 

[The Cinnabon]

Unless you want to be chair of an academic department or something, I'm not sure of the utility of getting an MD/PhD.

The main reason to this, which I could have misconceptions on, is that I do not believe the level of research training one gets in the normal MD route is equivalent to the training one may get in the MD/PhD route.

To be clear there's not a lot of practical benefits in doing the MD/PhD avenue from a money perspective, academic psychiatry isn't rolling in dough. I just kind of enjoy research and the money for both pathways seem to pass the threshold of "good enough" (I hope).

 

[The Cinnabon]

How would you intend to use the MD/PhD that could not be accomplished by an MD alone?

My research relies heavily on psychometrics, scale development, other methods/topics firmly in psychology's wheel house, and just covers topics that psychiatry barely touches on, granted I want to merge them. I just have doubts the training would be adequate in the MD only pathway.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

My research relies heavily on psychometrics, scale development, other methods/topics firmly in psychology's wheel house, and just covers topics that psychiatry barely touches on, granted I want to merge them. I just have doubts the training would be adequate in the MD only pathway.

Why would you need/want to get an MD when your research interests rely heavily on psychometrics, scale development, etc.?

I mean, there may exist MD/PhD programs where the PhD is in, say, Epidemiology, Statistics or something like that...but why wouldn't a psychology PhD suffice?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The main reason to this, which I could have misconceptions on, is that I do not believe the level of research training one gets in the normal MD route is equivalent to the training one may get in the MD/PhD route.

To be clear there's not a lot of practical benefits in doing the MD/PhD avenue from a money perspective, academic psychiatry isn't rolling in dough. I just kind of enjoy research and the money for both pathways seem to pass the threshold of "good enough" (I hope).

Do you have a sense of whether you want to primarily practice or primarily do research?

If practice, I'd recommend MD

If research, I'd recommend PhD

The only MD/PhD psychiatrist I've known had his PhD in psychopharmacology.

He was a badass clinician who ironically, emphasized cognitive therapy WAY over meds.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Why would you need/want to get an MD when your research interests rely heavily on psychometrics, scale development, etc.?

I mean, there may exist MD/PhD programs where the PhD is in, say, Epidemiology, Statistics or something like that.

There are MD/PhD programs that fund social sciences/humanities, it's not entirely uncommon. The big reason is I do see the appeal of getting medical/psychiatry training AND training in a social psychology PhD researching the clinical populations I'm interested in.
Ultimately I'm trying to assess if that would be worth the extra effort.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Do you have a sense of whether you want to primarily practice or primarily do research?

If practice, I'd recommend MD

If research, I'd recommend PhD

Research with some clinical work sprinkled in

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Research with some clinical work sprinkled in

Do you want to do assessment, case formulation and evidence-based psychotherapy or...

See people for medication therapy?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

There are MD/PhD programs that fund social sciences/humanities, it's not entirely uncommon. The big reason is I do see the appeal of getting medical/psychiatry training AND training in a social psychology PhD researching the clinical populations I'm interested in.
Ultimately I'm trying to assess if that would be worth the extra effort.

Honestly, I doubt it would be worth the extra effort but that is just a hunch. If you want to do research the MD credential would get you in the door and with the internet/media if you truly just had a passion for getting good at stats and research methodology you could probably teach yourself a lot and you'd be working with plenty of research colleagues who could show you the ropes.

If you're truly insane you could complete a PhD program and then get your MD. It's been done, lol.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Honestly, I doubt it would be worth the extra effort but that is just a hunch. If you want to do research the MD credential would get you in the door and with the internet/media if you truly just had a passion for getting good at stats and research methodology you could probably teach yourself a lot and you'd be working with plenty of research colleagues who could show you the ropes.

If you're truly insane you could complete a PhD program and then get your MD. It's been done, lol.

Honestly, that's sort of where I'm leaning too, but I did want to be sure I wasn't missing a massive "x" factor.

Edit: And yes, I'm far more interested in psychotherapy.

 

[Sanman]

The main reason to this, which I could have misconceptions on, is that I do not believe the level of research training one gets in the normal MD route is equivalent to the training one may get in the MD/PhD route.

To be clear there's not a lot of practical benefits in doing the MD/PhD avenue from a money perspective, academic psychiatry isn't rolling in dough. I just kind of enjoy research and the money for both pathways seem to pass the threshold of "good enough" (I hope).

Well, yes. That is what happens when you spend twice as long in school and get double the doctoral degrees. Now, how will you feel when you are hired alongside MDs that have half (or less) the research experience and education for the same salary? Unless you are trying to fast track yourself into the pharma or biotech industries, I don't see the point of the extra years without a salary.

 

[szymk1sm]

I work with MD's who do research and several have gone back to get a Master's degree in Clinical Science / Clinical Investigation / equivalent (ofter as part of their K-award training) to learn clinical research skills, stats, etc.... can't say whether it's a positive or negative thing. The PI I work with is very-well funded by the NIH. Something to think about if the MD route is where you think you want to go.

 

[clausewitz2]

If you're truly insane you could complete a PhD program and then get your MD. It's been done, lol.

I resemble that remark. 3/10, do not recommend.

OP, straight MD training will mean the research skills you develop will mostly be self-taught on your own time. If you're motivated and diligent, it's definitely possible, but no one is going to reward you for it for a while.

MD/PhD has the advantage of no med school debt but the fact you lose five years of potential attending salary in grad school instead means you don't come out ahead if you practice for a significant length of time.

If you plan to go the med school route, there is...well, most of these forums full of information about it but one thing you will need is significant medically-related and non-medically related volunteering. Like, hundreds of hours significant.

The biggest caveat of the MD/PhD route is that you really do need to be genuinely interested in medicine per se to not be utterly miserable during most of your training. If you're not just as keen on being a physician as you are on being a researcher, not a great path.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Yeah, the psychiatrists I do research with with have an mph or did a research oriented fellowship (eg, mirecc).

The PhD students I know who were in labs with md/PhD students thought their md/PhD peers were rushed/less rigorous in the PhD portion and were stretched thin when doing their PhD years plus some ongoing clerships.

I would think about what is your imagined bread and butter. If it's being a physician, I'd go md. If it's research, I'd probably go psych. If you want to do psychometrics research, I don't think the MD will give you a grantspersonship advantage unless you only want to do psychometrics as it relates to whatever specialty you land in.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I resemble that remark. 3/10, do not recommend.

OP, straight MD training will mean the research skills you develop will mostly be self-taught on your own time. If you're motivated and diligent, it's definitely possible, but no one is going to reward you for it for a while.

MD/PhD has the advantage of no med school debt but the fact you lose five years of potential attending salary in grad school instead means you don't come out ahead if you practice for a significant length of time.

If you plan to go the med school route, there is...well, most of these forums full of information about it but one thing you will need is significant medically-related and non-medically related volunteering. Like, hundreds of hours significant.

The biggest caveat of the MD/PhD route is that you really do need to be genuinely interested in medicine per se to not be utterly miserable during most of your training. If you're not just as keen on being a physician as you are on being a researcher, not a great path.

Hey, anyone who has completed both an MD and a PhD in clinical psychology has my utmost respect.

You're still insane if you did that, though...in a good way, I suppose.

 

[clausewitz2]

Hey, anyone who has completed both an MD and a PhD in clinical psychology has my utmost respect.

You're still insane if you did that, though...in a good way, I suppose.

No, my PhD was psychology adjacent, but def not clinical psych.

 

[tr]

As I'm drafting my SOPs and getting my application affairs in order it has hit me that I really need to keep ruling other pathways out. One pathway that's stuck with me is the idea of doing an MD/PhD and having the PhD be a soft science such as Social Psychology (a decent amount of programs do allow this/fund this).

Do you know if the programs that include social psychology PhDs are MSTPs (i.e. NIH funded Medical Scientist Training Programs)?
A fully funded MSTP is a very different proposition from some of these independent MD/PhD programs that expect you to pick up the tab for medical school. Those I would stay away from.

For reference my research interest I plan on continuing in grad school is how culture influences psychopathology presentation and cultural adaptation to assessment and treatment.

I'm a pretty research heavy guy and obviously am inclined to clinical psych research, so the PhD in Clinical/Counseling seemed like an obvious avenue. It's also occurred to me that I did do the premed prereqs (decently well in them) and could do the MD/PhD and have a very similar lab at the end of the journey with the additional research training.

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is would an MD/PhD be worth the consideration, given that physician training could allow more versatility (there are serious perks to knowing the body as well as physicians) in what I'm able to research, and possibly be more competitive for grants.

The 'perks' of the MSTP depend on what you are comparing it to.

If you want to do biomedically relevant research* as faculty at an academic medical center, compared to either PhD-only or MD-only, MSTP wins hands down and over and over for many reasons that have been discussed exhaustively on the physician-scientists' forum. It wins over PhD-only for money, job security, and geographic flexibility; it wins over MD-only for the actual capacity to identify meaningful research questions and be able to design and carry out scientific studies that will provide accurate answers; and statistically it does have an edge for grant success over both single-degree pools (although personally I suspect this may be mostly selection bias rather than any intrinsic advantage endowed by the education).

The only thing it doesn't win for is mean age at first R01, which I believe is currently 45 for MDs ands MD/PhDs and 43 for straight PhDs. However I'd say the better odds of getting to the point of the R01 in the first place as MD/PhD vs straight PhD far outweigh the age difference in importance. See Interesting new data
and

Success of MSTP trainees - NIH blog

This data is very encouraging... https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2021/12/01/measuring-success-for-pre-doctoral-trainees-an-initial-glimpse/

forums.studentdoctor.net

If you don't want to do research but just want to be either a physician or a psychologist who works strictly in a clinical capacity, there's no point in doing the MSTP. In that case just do the relevant clinical degree.

*The biomedically relevant part is what I'm not totally certain whether it applies to the OP. It's possible that a strict focus on social psychology would place you more in a university setting not a medical center, in which case the MD is much less useful. Most MSTPs do their PhDs in a field more directly related to biomedicine, although there are the odd chemists, epidemiologists, etc.

I truly don't know how pay would factor into this, as research heavy psychiatrists aren't exactly known for brining in a lot of money in the physician world and research heavy psychologists can bring in a similar amount of money at an academic medical center.

Research psychiatrists are certainly at the bottom of the MD pay scale. However we are also at the top of the psychology PhD pay scale.
When you apply for funding you see everyone's salaries. My academic salary as early-career clinical faculty was higher than that of a psychologist mentor who was an eminent full professor with an endowed chair.

What I'm really asking for is any considerations I'm forgetting, any misconceptions I may have, and if you yourself would entertain this pathway if you could go back in time? I truly could see myself happy doing both in the end, albeit with medical training being far more hellish.

You should ask this question in the physician-scientists' forum. I think you'll get a very different set of replies from the dual-degreed pool over there. Personally the decision to do MSTP was no question my single best career move. Without the PhD I wouldn't have the knowledge and training to do the kind of work I do; and without the MD I wouldn't have had the clinician's ability to hang onto a faculty job through funding famines.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Do you know if the programs that include social psychology PhDs are MSTPs (i.e. NIH funded Medical Scientist Training Programs)?
A fully funded MSTP is a very different proposition from some of these independent MD/PhD programs that expect you to pick up the tab for medical school. Those I would stay away from.


The 'perks' of the MSTP depend on what you are comparing it to.

If you want to do biomedically relevant research* as faculty at an academic medical center, compared to either PhD-only or MD-only, MSTP wins hands down and over and over for many reasons that have been discussed exhaustively on the physician-scientists' forum. It wins over PhD-only for money, job security, and geographic flexibility; it wins over MD-only for the actual capacity to identify meaningful research questions and be able to design and carry out scientific studies that will provide accurate answers; and statistically it does have an edge for grant success over both single-degree pools (although personally I suspect this may be mostly selection bias rather than any intrinsic advantage endowed by the education).

The only thing it doesn't win for is mean age at first R01, which I believe is currently 45 for MDs ands MD/PhDs and 43 for straight PhDs. However I'd say the better odds of getting to the point of the R01 in the first place as MD/PhD vs straight PhD far outweigh the age difference in importance. See Interesting new data
and

Success of MSTP trainees - NIH blog

This data is very encouraging... https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2021/12/01/measuring-success-for-pre-doctoral-trainees-an-initial-glimpse/

forums.studentdoctor.net

If you don't want to do research but just want to be either a physician or a psychologist who works strictly in a clinical capacity, there's no point in doing the MSTP. In that case just do the relevant clinical degree.

*The biomedically relevant part is what I'm not totally certain whether it applies to the OP. It's possible that a strict focus on social psychology would place you more in a university setting not a medical center, in which case the MD is much less useful. Most MSTPs do their PhDs in a field more directly related to biomedicine, although there are the odd chemists, epidemiologists, etc.


Research psychiatrists are certainly at the bottom of the MD pay scale. However we are also at the top of the psychology PhD pay scale.
When you apply for funding you see everyone's salaries. My academic salary as early-career clinical faculty was higher than that of a psychologist mentor who was an eminent full professor with an endowed chair.


You should ask this question in the physician-scientists' forum. I think you'll get a very different set of replies from the dual-degreed pool over there. Personally the decision to do MSTP was no question my single best career move. Without the PhD I wouldn't have the knowledge and training to do the kind of work I do; and without the MD I wouldn't have had the clinician's ability to hang onto a faculty job through funding famines.

Such an incredibly detailed response, good job at throwing a wrench into things.

Yes, to confirm, I was exclusively looking into MSTP programs. The research I do right now and am interested in continuing is very interdisciplinary, but definitely biomedical in nature (albeit a bit non-traditional).

The cool thing about clinical psychology and psychiatry is that, in my opinion, it has some of the largest connections, in the medical field, to the social sciences in how an illness can manifest and be treated.


I've come to realize that while I think having clinical training is something I'd like, I'd want research to be a larger part of my career.

There's also the practical aspect of MD/PhDs doing really well at winning some solid grants. Which is honestly one of the largest practical draws of the path.

I'll repost this on the physician scientist board to get their thoughts.

 

[clausewitz2]

Do you know if the programs that include social psychology PhDs are MSTPs (i.e. NIH funded Medical Scientist Training Programs)?
A fully funded MSTP is a very different proposition from some of these independent MD/PhD programs that expect you to pick up the tab for medical school. Those I would stay away from.


The 'perks' of the MSTP depend on what you are comparing it to.

If you want to do biomedically relevant research* as faculty at an academic medical center, compared to either PhD-only or MD-only, MSTP wins hands down and over and over for many reasons that have been discussed exhaustively on the physician-scientists' forum. It wins over PhD-only for money, job security, and geographic flexibility; it wins over MD-only for the actual capacity to identify meaningful research questions and be able to design and carry out scientific studies that will provide accurate answers; and statistically it does have an edge for grant success over both single-degree pools (although personally I suspect this may be mostly selection bias rather than any intrinsic advantage endowed by the education).

The only thing it doesn't win for is mean age at first R01, which I believe is currently 45 for MDs ands MD/PhDs and 43 for straight PhDs. However I'd say the better odds of getting to the point of the R01 in the first place as MD/PhD vs straight PhD far outweigh the age difference in importance. See Interesting new data
and

Success of MSTP trainees - NIH blog

This data is very encouraging... https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2021/12/01/measuring-success-for-pre-doctoral-trainees-an-initial-glimpse/

forums.studentdoctor.net

If you don't want to do research but just want to be either a physician or a psychologist who works strictly in a clinical capacity, there's no point in doing the MSTP. In that case just do the relevant clinical degree.

*The biomedically relevant part is what I'm not totally certain whether it applies to the OP. It's possible that a strict focus on social psychology would place you more in a university setting not a medical center, in which case the MD is much less useful. Most MSTPs do their PhDs in a field more directly related to biomedicine, although there are the odd chemists, epidemiologists, etc.


Research psychiatrists are certainly at the bottom of the MD pay scale. However we are also at the top of the psychology PhD pay scale.
When you apply for funding you see everyone's salaries. My academic salary as early-career clinical faculty was higher than that of a psychologist mentor who was an eminent full professor with an endowed chair.


You should ask this question in the physician-scientists' forum. I think you'll get a very different set of replies from the dual-degreed pool over there. Personally the decision to do MSTP was no question my single best career move. Without the PhD I wouldn't have the knowledge and training to do the kind of work I do; and without the MD I wouldn't have had the clinician's ability to hang onto a faculty job through funding famines.

Re: the non-biomedical fields eligible for MSTP, I think this is the rub. That said, I know of at least one MSTP program that had History and Philosophy of Science as an option, which might genuinely position you uniquely to succeed as a philosopher of medicine. Of course then you get to deal with the dire state of funding for humanities, but perhaps even more of an advantage to be able to generate clinical revenue in that case.

 

[tr]

There's also the practical aspect of MD/PhDs doing really well at winning some solid grants. Which is honestly one of the largest practical draws of the path.

Well I think that predoctoral and early doctoral stage people often have this misconception that the fact of having a dual degree confers some kind of scoring advantage in grant applications, like URM status for medical school. This is not the case. It's not like study sections will review your proposal and say, "Aha! This applicant has so, so many letters after their name! We will throw money at them!" You're still competing on the merits of your proposal and your biosketch.

In some ways people who have gone through a lot of clinical training are at a biosketch disadvantage early on, because you just can't rack up as many papers as someone who is doing it full time. I definitely got side-eye for low paper count when I was at the fellowship stage, because I had spent seven of the previous eleven years in full-time clinical training and was competing for funding against straight PhDs who had been pumping out publications that entire time.

There is an MD/PhD funding advantage in the long run but it's not huge, and I think it is at least partially about selection bias on the front end.

Does Your Degree Matter? – NIH Extramural Nexus

nexus.od.nih.gov

Ironically, the biggest 'disadvantage' of the MSTP route is the relative appeal of alternative options. There is a huge 'leaky pipeline' problem in physician-scientist training. The issue is that by the time you are in your mid-30s with a family, the option of defaulting to a fully clinical career for 2-3x the salary and half the hassle of a research career starts to look really appealing.

I think this balance of clinical vs research is actually not too dissimilar for people with psychology PhDs that position them to do either research or clinical work or both. The main differences there are practical: there is a major salary advantage for the MD, and I think also the geographical flexibility is better (at least I see a lot of people who had really zero geographical choice in their psychology internships, whereas a reasonably solid MD applying in psychiatry, which is not super competitive, can usually find a geographically acceptable residency slot). The obvious disadvantage is that if you don't like clinical medicine, MSTP isn't for you, because you will be doing a lot of it.

 

[chicandtoughness]

Short answer: not worth it, don't do it.

MD/PhD is hell and I would not recommend. The road is longggg and the payoff is small. The utility of an MD/PhD is for academic med folks who want to do bench/translational type research and need the endorsement of the letters after their name + pubs + PI endorsement + proof that they are dedicated to the research piece alongside their MD. That is, there's a reason it's called MD/PhD and not PhD/MD. The PhD is the adjunct to the MD, whereas in your case it feels very much like the MD would be the adjunct to the PhD.

You would probably also get some raised eyebrows during the interview circuit from folks who will ask you why you're not doing a PhD in Clinical Psych instead, and it doesn't seem like you have a clear answer to that.

If you're just interested in the PhD for what is essentially personal enrichment, MD/PhD is not the way to go. You will get abbreviated and rushed training on the PhD side and it will be bookended by stressful med school years, board exams, and (in M3) the stress of trying to remember everything you forgot 3-4 years ago so you don't look like a ******* on clerkships.

If you want to do research on the psychometrics side and focus on psychotherapy, a PhD in Clinical Psychology is more than enough for what you want to do, and you will get MUCH better training. Reading your research interests "how culture influences psychopathology presentation and cultural adaptation to assessment and treatment" you sound like a perfect fit for PhD programs in Clinical/Counseling psych.

(For context, I got into PhD Clinical/Counseling Psych programs, ended up turning them down and am now doing MD only for psychiatry. I had this exact agonizing debate for a year and polled a lot of my colleagues currently in academia and industry).

 

[futureapppsy2]

FWIW, I don't think an MD/PhD is necessary if you want to do research. A good colleague of mine is an MD with a dual appointment at a med school and social work department. She just did the standard MD, followed by a IM residency, and then a research-focused fellowship with an MPH. The vast, vast majority of her publications and grants (90%+) have been decidedly social science/social determinants of health-focused, and I don't think the lack of a PhD has ever been a detriment. Of course, she's a bit of rockstar in terms of grants/pubs/influence, but point is, it's very possible.

One major thing to keep in mind is that you have to really like and be good at medicine and basic science to do well in med school. If you go this route, there's a whole lot of non-psych stuff you have to be really good at and committed to to get back to psych(iatry).

 

[The Cinnabon]

FWIW, I don't think an MD/PhD is necessary if you want to do research. A good colleague of mine is an MD with a dual appointment at a med school and social work department. She just did the standard MD, followed by a IM residency, and then a research-focused fellowship with an MPH. The vast, vast majority of her publications and grants (90%+) have been decidedly social science/social determinants of health-focused, and I don't think the lack of a PhD has ever been a detriment. Of course, she's a bit of rockstar in terms of grants/pubs/influence, but point is, it's very possible.

One major thing to keep in mind is that you have to really like and be good at medicine and basic science to do well in med school. If you go this route, there's a whole lot of non-psych stuff you have to be really good at and committed to to get back to psych(iatry).

I think I've now closed the book on medicine due to a lack of interest in 90% of the medical school curricula and hearing some of the insights of people who did go the MD/PhD route.

 

[Sanman]

I think I've now closed the book on medicine due to a lack of interest in 90% of the medical school curricula and hearing some of the insights of people who did go the MD/PhD route.

For all the trouble a dual degree would be might I suggest an alternative path?:

1. Go into private equity

2. Make boatloads of money

3. Buy a hospital

4. Make the faculty/staff indulge your academic whimsies

I mean they let Elon Musk build tunnels to nowhere in CA, what is a few experiments...