D.O./Ph.D. - Enough research, worth applying?

[Daedra22]

I apologize for what I assume will be a somewhat lengthy post. I've been considering my options for some time now, so there are a lot of factors going into this decision. I would appreciate some insight from current/former dual degree seekers.

I've already been accepted to a school that I like. I applied as only a DO student because, in part, I didn't really believe in myself getting into a dual degree program. My school is UNTHSC-TCOM, which is a good school for research as DO schools go. They have a separate graduate school and they fund the years students spend as a Ph.D. (one must pay tuition for the other years, but at $13k/yr, I'm not too displeased with that). I recognize that the pay issue and the issue of the school being "good enough" has been discussed thoroughly on this site, so I just want to say that I'm already aware of these things. I've been here long enough to know I should read other threads before creating one, heh.

The practical aspects of the funding and the reputation are relatively easy for me to figure out on my own, but I am still uncertain as to whether my research experience is extensive enough. Even though I personally feel that I would do well in the dual degree program, it make not look like that from an objective standpoint. I spent 3 years as a biology laboratory technician where I assisted researchers, maintained ongoing experiments, cultured microorganisms for those experiments, and assisted the lab supervisor on various problems that arose with the research projects. I loved working in the lab. It was more of a home to me than the space where I slept. I feel that this experience was extremely valuable, and I received a fantastic letter of rec from my lab supervisor.

My only 'independent' research was conducted in one of my classes; at one of the schools I attended, the microbial diversity class required a semester-long research project with a required paper in a publishable format at the end (note: I do not have any publications >.<). Another class at the same university required a publishable paper and a presentation on a proposed experiment design, after which the professor recommended that I actually submit the proposal to one of faculty members in ecology. A family disaster prevented me from pursuing this. These things might not even be worth mentioning on an application/in an interview, I don't know.

If my research experience does not look like enough, I have the option of holding off on applying for the Ph.D. until second year. This would give me the opportunity to do some research next summer before submitting an application--my school offers a summer research program for med students in aging which I would love to be involved with. The downside to this is that if I wait until second year, my husband will not know how long we'll be staying in the same place. If we stay for 7-8 years as opposed to 4, he'll have very different opportunities available to him. I'd like to get an answer in the next few months so he can make those plans, if possible.

I could always apply for the dual degree with a master's instead of a Ph.D., but I genuinely feel like I want to be involved in research throughout my life. Working with patients gives me a great deal of satisfaction, but so does solving research problems. I'm not sure if a master's would give me the kind of career options I'm looking for (interested in medical genetics, academic medicine, NIH research). Time is not a factor here; I am fortunate to have turned 20 just a couple months ago, so spending a few extra years to get an additional degree doesn't set me back by much.

Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Neuronix]

Even though I personally feel that I would do well in the dual degree program, it make not look like that from an objective standpoint. I spent 3 years as a biology laboratory technician where I assisted researchers, maintained ongoing experiments, cultured microorganisms for those experiments, and assisted the lab supervisor on various problems that arose with the research projects. I loved working in the lab. It was more of a home to me than the space where I slept. I feel that this experience was extremely valuable, and I received a fantastic letter of rec from my lab supervisor.

I'm not sure what your concern is. That's fine to obtain PhD acceptance for most biomedical graduate school programs. That's probably more experience than most graduate students have before entering a PhD program.

We emphasize independent research here because MD/PhD is extremely competitive and it's something for your application. The reality is, even at the MD/PhD application level many students don't have much independent experience, if any at all. As long as you were running experiments, thoroughly understand the work you did, understand the basis for what you were doing, and understand the future directions for that work, that's what you need.

Your situation is significantly less competitive than the MD/PhD situation. My guess is that any medical student who wants to take time out for a PhD and can get accepted by the graduate school (significantly less competitive than medical school for most programs) will be accepted once in medical school, assuming they have research experience, though one may need GRE scores in this case. Since there's no extra money involved for you, there's no extra competition. I'd recommend looking into getting a PhD at a separate, stronger institution entirely unless your current program has some attractive features that would keep you there. Almost any medical school will support this as an academic leave of absence.

 

[Daedra22]

I'm not sure what your concern is. That's fine to obtain PhD acceptance for most biomedical graduate school programs. That's probably more experience than most graduate students have before entering a PhD program.

We emphasize independent research here because MD/PhD is extremely competitive and it's something for your application. The reality is, even at the MD/PhD application level many students don't have much independent experience, if any at all. As long as you were running experiments, thoroughly understand the work you did, understand the basis for what you were doing, and understand the future directions for that work, that's what you need.

I guess that's a bit of the SDN effect going on there. There are so many people with publications on this forum that I started doubting my qualifications. I truly appreciate your input. There are some definite advantages to staying at my school, so I'm pretty set on sticking with it.

 

[Neuronix]

There are so many people with publications on this forum that I started doubting my qualifications.

I'll just reiterate for anyone reading. I say this roughly monthly, but that's okay because it's probably the biggest myth in MD/PhD admissions.

You do not need publications to gain MD/PhD acceptance. Conversely, a strong history of publications does not make up for a weak application. Publications are not even close to being an important factor for MD/PhD admission.

Ok, except for very rare exceptions like the odd 1st or 2nd author high impact publication. But this is very rare. Even then the importance of this tends to be overrated.

 

[echod]

Ok, except for very rare exceptions like the odd 1st or 2nd author high impact publication. But this is very rare. Even then the importance of this tends to be overrated.

Does a high GPA correlate with research potential and success in academia? It's interesting that admissions people would place so much weight on MCAT scores and GPA when publications/research is the most important thing for a grant application.

 

[Shifty B]

So, I'm going to go back to the original question about whether you should add a PhD to your DO schooling. I have two pieces of advice.

- PhD education is heavily based on what institution you got your PhD from. That is, prestige of your PhD institution is important and will affect your whole career, whereas once you start a residency your MD institution matters much less. Don't take this the wrong way, but a PhD from UNT may not be that valuable as a credential. If you truly insist on getting a PhD I would follow the advice above and consider switching to another institution which has more of a history of training PhD students. It's fairly easy to get into PhD programs (compared to medical schools), so you can try applying to other places.

and
- If you're truly interested in academic medicine (and research), your effort may be better directed towards really doing well in medical school so that you can match to a high quality residency in the field of your choice. You should probably be aiming for mid to top tier allopathic residencies, because that's where the research is. To get this from a DO school, you're going to need top notch grades, letters, and USMLE scores. PhD or not, if you don't have these other things you can find yourself shut out of your field of choice.