combined Residency/Phd Pathology program

[Harbster]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've read and heard this a few times....is there such a thing as a combine pathology residency and PhD program??? If so, what schools offer it? 😕

 

[grapewrath]

I'm doing a rotation at UCLA right now, and one of the interns I'm working with is doing a combined pathology residency/Ph.D. program. I don't know of other schools that have such a program, though.

 

[desmangt]

I'm doing a rotation at UCLA right now, and one of the interns I'm working with is doing a combined pathology residency/Ph.D. program. I don't know of other schools that have such a program, though.

Cornell and Mt. Sinai both offer it!

 

[Zoloft]

Cornell and Mt. Sinai both offer it!

Yeah Mt. Sinai has an awesome combined residency/ PhD. program. From what I keep reading and what my department chair tells me, there are alot of innovative things going on over there.

 

[deschutes]

I have a question: I'm not too well-versed with the hierarchy of qualifications least of all in the context of combined programs, but can one do a Master's or a PhD after acquiring one's MD?

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I have a question: I'm not too well-versed with the hierarchy of qualifications least of all in the context of combined programs, but can one do a Master's or a PhD after acquiring one's MD?

Totally. In any case, Master's and PhD are not even the same hierarchy as the MD. Not even in the same ballpark (ok that's exaggerating it but you get the point 🙂 ). Have you tried googling this? 😛

 

[deschutes]

Master's and PhD are not even the same hierarchy as the MD.

Precisely the reason why I asked.

If I ever do get out of med school, I will have an MD without a bachelor's degree. What's the next step? To get a Masters? (Don't I need a bachelors to get a Masters?) 😕

Once different, always different... that's me. 🙄

 

[b&ierstiefel]

After you get the MD, you really don't need any other degrees IMHO. Having a PhD alone makes life very difficult because there are LOTS of people with PhDs. If research is your thing, the MD should be sufficient. That is because there are a significant number of grants out there which will prefer MD's over PhD's. Consider it a slush fund that is relatively untapped because not THAT many MD's end up doing investigative work. If at the end of your residency training, you feel you want to do research, then go for it! It's just that you don't need to do a PhD...just do a fellowship (which in some arenas are equivalent to postdocs). For instance, in the lab where I did my thesis, there are plenty of MD fellows that do innovative work as part of their fellowship. And then they get faculty positions.

 

[deschutes]

My thought process was: if I plan on 50% research/50% clinical diagnostics in the future, what will help me with the research aspects of my future career?

Because coming right down to it, I'm not sure I know how to run a centrifuge. And I'm not really sure what goes on in research labs.

Are you saying that the former is not necessary, and that I will learn both as I go along?

 

[b&ierstiefel]

My thought process was: if I plan on 50% research/50% clinical diagnostics in the future, what will help me with the research aspects of my future career?

Because coming right down to it, I'm not sure I know how to run a centrifuge. And I'm not really sure what goes on in research labs.

Are you saying that the former is not necessary, and that I will learn both as I go along?

lemme tell you a secret. 80% of the time spent in a research is surfing the internet and watching stupid videos. maybe you might get an experiment done 🙂

ok seriously speaking, i think PhD training can be important but not the end all be all for research training. PhD training is structured training that involves taking classes and a silly, staged prelim qualifying exam at the end of 2nd year. Screw it...bypass all of it and get to the point...the research. At this point, deschutes, I wouldn't worry about getting a PhD. At this stage and in 3 years when you're nearing the end of your pathology residency, this will be a moot point.

 

[Gut Shot]

At this point, deschutes, I wouldn't worry about getting a PhD. At this stage and in 3 years when you're nearing the end of your pathology residency, this will be a moot point.

Damn straight. Andy was smart enough to at least do a combined program. I did the ultra-masochistic route of getting a PhD and then starting med school. I am firm in my conviction that the vast majority of MD's who want to do research have absolutely no need for a PhD in order to be successful. Having the old doctorate of philosophy just isn't going to open many (if any) new doors for you. It's also the most difficult process I have ever undertaken. At this point I'd rather skin myself and roll around on a pile of salt and broken glass than do a combined PhD-residency program. No, really...

If you really want to get trained in research you can try to match at a program that emphasizes research. You can do fellowships, post-docs, etc. and get all the experience you require. You're main goal will be to find someone good to work under, because your pedigree will be very important.

Resuming hangover damage control... that is all.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I am firm in my conviction that the vast majority of MD's who want to do research have absolutely no need for a PhD in order to be successful. Having the old doctorate of philosophy just isn't going to open many (if any) new doors for you. It's also the most difficult process I have ever undertaken. At this point I'd rather skin myself and roll around on a pile of salt and broken glass than do a combined PhD-residency program. No, really...

Word up! It was always my impression that the PhD no longer opens too many doors for you. There's just too many ppl getting PhDs even though it is an arduous and very unpredictable process.

On the other hand, the MD seems to open up more doors. And the progression of an MD's training is associated with a higher sense of certainty. I fear the time when the days of credential inflation catches up to the MDs and bites them in the arse.

If you really want to get trained in research you can try to match at a program that emphasizes research. You can do fellowships, post-docs, etc. and get all the experience you require. You're main goal will be to find someone good to work under, because your pedigree will be very important.

Yup. And there are some good posts from yonder past which talk about this as I found out yesterday. Yes, I was so bored yesterday (a boredom that even compulsive email and ADTS checking could not sate), I actually looked at almost all 20-something pages of old threads on this Path forum.

Resuming hangover damage control... that is all.

That'll be me tomorrow morning. I shall fight the good fight tonight 🙂

 

[deschutes]

I'd rather skin myself and roll around on a pile of salt and broken glass than do a combined PhD-residency program.

Duly noted.

Why then does the combined PhD-residency program even exist? Not being rhetorical, just curious - as I said I am very new to the hierarchy of degree-acquisition, especially the ways in which the cross-over takes place.

I have limited exposure to the "pedigree" concept - but even with that I have definitely been able to see how this would make or break the experience.

Thanks for the input! Glad to hear you had a good Friday, cheese... 😉

I never quite "got" Havarti. Parmigiano reggiano - now that's more my thing.

 

[pathdr2b]

If you really want to get trained in research you can try to match at a program that emphasizes research. You can do fellowships, post-docs, etc. and get all the experience you require. You're main goal will be to find someone good to work under, because your pedigree will be very important.
.

This may be true but after attending my first seminar/grand rounds at Hopkins, I sat on a row where EVERYONE had one of the follwing degree combinations: MD/PhD or DVM/PhD. Everyone else was either a DVM getting a PhD or MD getting a PhD and then there were a few of us lowly pre- somethings or another!

It just seems to me that at the top programs, having a PhD with either the MD or DVM is the best way to get in. 🙄

 

[Gut Shot]

It just seems to me that at the top programs, having a PhD with either the MD or DVM is the best way to get in. 🙄

Absolutely. I don't mean to imply that having those extra letters isn't helpful. It's just a helluva investment in terms of time and effort, and for many people the tradeoff probably isn't worth it. If one wishes to improve one's credentials for Hopkins, Harvard, etc. then by all means a PhD can be a tremendous asset. But if your goal is to simply be a good researcher then your needs aren't necessarily the same. The most renowned researchers at my graduate school were mostly straight MD's. Granted, this wasn't Hopkins or Harvard, but with triple digit publications and millions in grant money, how much more do you really need?

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I agree with Havarti. It's all a matter of risk versus return. The road to a PhD is frought with uncertainty but getting a PhD if you already have an MD may not have too much additional benefit. That's just my gut feeling. Feel free to disagree...talk amongst yourselves.

 

[Gut Shot]

Why then does the combined PhD-residency program even exist? Not being rhetorical, just curious - as I said I am very new to the hierarchy of degree-acquisition, especially the ways in which the cross-over takes place.

I would guess it exists to wring some years of laboratory slavework from MD's, although I'm perhaps a little cynical. My old department had one pathology resident from South America who was doing a combined residency/PhD program, although his situation was very unique (and he worked under the chairman).

As for pedigrees, in a nutshell here is what you have to know: 1. Big name researchers tend to produce students who go on to become big name researchers. 2. Big name researchers are often very difficult to work under. Ergo, if you want to be happy (and finish before 2025) you have to find a balance of a good name and a good work environment. Getting a PhD is hard enough, so at least *try* to chart a course of least resistance.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Just to add to Havarti's post which I agree with, I must stress that one's post-degree research career is very dependent on politics and who you know (who are your allies? who are your competitors and are they powerful enough to screw you).

Pedigree is a crucial issue not so much in grad school as where you do your post-doc work. Track record = very important. And most of what will determine your track record is AFTER the PhD if you decide to get one. Hence, like Havarti said, chart the course of least resistance; the PhD can be skipped over if you have an MD.

That being said, if you really want PhD training and think that kind of training suits your goals, then by all means go get a PhD. Getting a PhD does have some value in teaching one how to construct research questions and propose the proper methodology and experimentation to answer the questions efficiently and effectively. However, you can learn all of this during a fellowship/post-doc.

We're not getting any younger...cut out the redundancies if you can I say.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Here's an article that somewhat approaches what we've been talking about. I just read it and thought it was interesting.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nm/journal/v8/n5/full/nm0502-437.html

 

[deschutes]

I was under the impression that the "doc" in "post-doc" referred to a PhD - and not an MD. Otherwise - and this is merely a thought experiment - I could acquire a post-doc after my MD, without ever having acquired a BSc, Masters or PhD. Which seems unlikely! Comments?

Also, believe me you (!) that I am trying to match at programs which are at least somewhat research-oriented. But I suspect that my not having a BSc, Masters or PhD makes me less attractive to the research-heavy programs.

Thanks for the article. If I am understanding this right, physician-scientists existed before the MD-PhD track existed (but naturally). Where did they come from? The "late-bloomer" pathway. My question is - why was it easier to do it that way then, and not now?

I will keep in mind the exhortations to chart the course of least resistance through the sea of thorns 😉 And the fact that we none of us are getting any younger!

I've barely wet my toes, but my bottomline reasons (rightly or wrongly) for being attracted to research - from what I've been told I am good at it, plus I am willing to work at it (rather a preliminary report on a project than a discharge summary on a patient I didn't admit...), and like the fact that there is no "right" answer... unlike a great deal of clinical practice which involves trundling down the same algorithm again and again to arrive at a diagnosis for someone's chest pain.

Research keeps you young, period.

 

[Gut Shot]

I was under the impression that the "doc" in "post-doc" referred to a PhD - and not an MD. Otherwise - and this is merely a thought experiment - I could acquire a post-doc after my MD, without ever having acquired a BSc, Masters or PhD. Which seems unlikely! Comments?

You can certainly do a post-doc with "only" an MD, and I have known a couple of MD's who have done this. One left her residency program because she was sick of looking at Pap smears, spent some time in west Africa, and eventually did a post-doc and finished her AP training. She's now in academics, doing clinical AP and research.

To be a decent candidate I'm supposing it would be helpful to have had at least some exposure to research. Remember, though, having an MD means you can bring a lot to the table regardless of how much benchwork you've done. Those two little letters open new sources of funding, allow direct access to human subjects, and intimate a level of clinical experience/exposure that few PhD's can claim.

Just check out this list of postdoctoral openings at NIH:

http://www.training.nih.gov/onlineapps/postdoctoral/application/adindex.aspx

Most (if not all) list a requisite of "PhD and/or MD" for eligibility. I rest my case.

 

[aqua00]

Is it possible to do a residency in pathology with just a PhD degree ? I am not a physician and do not have an MD degree. But I am interested in taking up the AP/clinical pathology residency.

 

[NuckingFuts]

Is it possible to do a residency in pathology with just a PhD degree ? I am not a physician and do not have an MD degree. But I am interested in taking up the AP/clinical pathology residency.

In the U.S., no.

 

[mlw03]

Is it possible to do a residency in pathology with just a PhD degree ? I am not a physician and do not have an MD degree. But I am interested in taking up the AP/clinical pathology residency.

Yeah, nothing really more to say. In the US and Canada one must be an MD or DO (or the foreign-equivalent, such as an MBBS) to enter a pathology residency. A PhD is a completely separate thing.