D.O./Phd or MD?

[Yoyomama88]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm considering a career in academic medicine. If you had the chance to pursue a D.O./Phd or an M.D., which would you choose and why? I love the idea of getting a Phd, but I realize you can do research without it. What are the things I need to be thinking about it in my decision? Thanks

 

[dmblue]

Depending on your scores/grades I think nearly everyone will say MD

 

[Enkidu]

I think you should think about what it is you really want to do. If you want to do bench research you should get a PhD, if you want to clinical research then a MD or DO are sufficient. Whether you prefer an MD or a DO is a decision that you can make on your own. As far as clinical practice goes they are identical, but academic medical centers may show bias towards MDs.

 

[Neuronix]

The top-50 or so (and probably more) USNews Research ranked allopathic schools all have significant investments in research. There is no "primary care" bent at most of these, and even the ones that are state schools still produce a good number of MD/PhDs that go on to be subspecialists. The top 42 ranked programs correspond almost identically to the list of Medical Scientist Training Programs (government funded), which signifies their longstanding commitment to MD/PhD training.

Osteopathic schools do not have nearly this level of investment in research. They are very primary care oriented. A few provide opportunities with affiliated graduate/medical programs, but the osteopathic medical schools themselves bring in very little research funding. Further, there are no fully-funded DO/PhD programs. I get in trouble once and awhile for saying this, but I'll repeat in clear language. There is no DO/PhD program which advertises full tuition and stipend for all years of the program. Virtually all MSTP, and most MD/PhD spots are fully-funded.

 

[Yoyomama88]

Neuronix. I realize that, but Im not comparing MD/Phd vs DO/Phd. I want to know about MD vs DO/Phd. I am interested in research, and I certainly want to keep the option of bench research open in my career. In terms of funding opportunities, who wins the MD or the DO/Phd? Does it not matter? Any comments on how this will affect residencies that are more research oriented?

 

[Neuronix]

Ohh... An odd question then. I really have no idea. 😕 I'm sure you could do a research career from either path and you could make arguments for either.

 

[gbwillner]

Neuronix. I realize that, but Im not comparing MD/Phd vs DO/Phd. I want to know about MD vs DO/Phd. I am interested in research, and I certainly want to keep the option of bench research open in my career. In terms of funding opportunities, who wins the MD or the DO/Phd? Does it not matter? Any comments on how this will affect residencies that are more research oriented?

yes-odd question. Probably no way to compare them since there are thousands of MDs that do at least some research.... and you could probably count the number of DO-PhDs on one hand. That might be an exaggeration, but I have never met one. I have met a DVM-PhD though.

 

[DeadCactus]

Any non-funded physician-scientist program seems like a poor choice to me. The two big perks of the MD/PhD path is protected research time early on and the economic freedom to pursue research careers. With DO schools generally being more expensive and lacking in research, the opportunities at an MD only program seem like they would be greater...

 

[Yoyomama88]

Well, im sure i get protected research time and opportunity to do research after completing a DO/Phd program. They do pay for your Phd years, and the school I am talking about is fairly cheap. Im interested in psychiatry or neurology...these fields are generally pretty accepting of DOs? I would like a shot at doing my residency at top notch institution...but im not sure what my chances will be like with a DO.

 

[itsallthesame]

Well, im sure i get protected research time and opportunity to do research after completing a DO/Phd program. They do pay for your Phd years, and the school I am talking about is fairly cheap. Im interested in psychiatry or neurology...these fields are generally pretty accepting of DOs? I would like a shot at doing my residency at top notch institution...but im not sure what my chances will be like with a DO.

This all depends on the schools but... 99% of the time, if you are good enough to get into a schools MD program, if you apply, you'll get into the PhD program, and the MD program will let you take time between 3rd and 4th years to get your PhD.

That makes this question rather silly!

You should either ask... medical degree (MD or DO)/PhD without funding for the med years vs medical degree alone OR MD/PhD vs DO/PhD!

If the question is the second...
with MD/PhD you have a chance to apply into the funded MD/PhD program at the university for your second year.
other than that, would your rather go DO or MD? which school has better research program?

 

[Yoyomama88]

Is it really that absolute that if you get into an MD program, you will be able to later apply for the Phd program? If it were that easy, then why even make separate admissions for MD/Phd programs from the start?

 

[itsallthesame]

Is it really that absolute that if you get into an MD program, you will be able to later apply for the Phd program? If it were that easy, then why even make separate admissions for MD/Phd programs from the start?

Because the MD/PhD programs are (usually) fully funded, including the medical school years.

If you get into the MD/PhD program from the start, you get benefits for all of the years you are in the program. If you get into the MD program but not the MD/PhD program, then you can either:
1) Do just the MD.
2) Apply to the MD/PhD program as an M1 or M2 and, if you get in, get funded for any remaining years of medical school + the grad years.
3) Apply to the PhD program and take a leave of absense from the MD school while you complete that degree, but only get funding during your PhD years.

Med schools love it when their med students do PhDs. They love it SO MUCH that they offer free tuition for med school to a limited number of students who do it. I can't swear that you'll get in, BUT... I think that anyone here would tell you that if you can get into a med school, as long as you don't fail anything in your pre-clinical years, you should be a lock to get into its grad (PhD) school.

 

[OddNath]

Med schools love it when their med students do PhDs. They love it SO MUCH that they offer free tuition for med school to a limited number of students who do it. I can't swear that you'll get in, BUT... I think that anyone here would tell you that if you can get into a med school, as long as you don't fail anything in your pre-clinical years, you should be a lock to get into its grad (PhD) school.

Eh, there's some pretty good students who have applied internally (during MS1 or MS2) who have not been admitted to our MD/PhD program. They easily would've been accepted to the straight PhD program, but they have to compete with everyone else applying that year.

So basically, it is certainly possible to get into the MD/PhD program once you've started med school *if* your research experience is awesome and grades are much better than "not failing anything," but not a guarantee.

To the OP- are you not even considering the MD/PhD route out of concern that you might not get in? Just wondering. If you have a very strong research background, apply widely and see what happens.

 

[itsallthesame]

Just to reclarify:

My point is... if you are accepted to an school for the MD only, you might not be a lock to get into the MD/PhD program, which pays your medical school tuition, but it is very, very, very likely that with a little interest and work that you can get admitted to the PhD program and complete both degrees (which paying for your own medical school).

Because some (all?) DO/PhD programs make you pay for the DO part, that makes this pathway (paying MD but also doing PhD) comperable in terms of expense, and OP shouldn't simply go to the DO/PhD program because of a garunteed PhD acceptance.

 

[Enkidu]

I think that itsallthesame is making a really good point. If DO/PhD programs just pay for the graduate school portion, then it is no different than going to medical school and taking a leave of absence after your second year to do a PhD.

Well, anyone can take a leave of absence and do a PhD. It doesn't take any special application.

There is a big difference between doing this and trying to get into the MD/PhD program after med2, which a lot of people fail at... Although you might as well give it a try. If you get into the MD/PhD program after med2, then med3 and 4 will be paid for. If you only get into the PhD program (which you will), then when you come back from your leave of absence you'll still have to pay for med3 and 4, but you'll be no worse off than those half-funded DO/PhD programs anyway.

All-in-all, those DO/PhD programs seem to be quite a scam.

 

[OddNath]

Just to reclarify:

My point is... if you are accepted to an school for the MD only, you might not be a lock to get into the MD/PhD program, which pays your medical school tuition, but it is very, very, very likely that with a little interest and work that you can get admitted to the PhD program and complete both degrees (which paying for your own medical school).

Oh I see what you mean. A good friend of mine did this- left after MS1 and did her PhD at Rice, then finished med school (paying for it on her own, but it was her state school so it wasn't too bad), now in residency. One advantage to this plan is that you can go wherever you want for grad school- you're not limited to the labs at your med school's institution.

So, kind of going along w/ what everyone else is saying: MD + PhD elsewhere >> DO/PhD. Cost about equal.

 

[Yoyomama88]

i appreciate the input guys, very helpful. However, one advantage of the program is that apparently it takes only 3 years to complete the Phd. Obviously this all things going well with the research, but because they state 3 years, I'm assuming they make things more accommodating?

Is this still not a good reason to do the program. Basically it seems like I should be comparing DO vs. MD. I'm assuming most people will say take the MD if you want a career in research? Do you think the bias would really close that many doors for research?

 

[itsallthesame]

I think the quality of your PhD will keep doors open vs. closed: mostly the name of your advisor and the publications that you produce.

Without exceptional circumstances (know how), I think you'd be fairly challenged to produce a quality basic science PhD in 3 years. If you want a research career, you want it to be well set up. You want to be well trained. When people are evaluating you, they want to see solid first author publications, not a cheap 3 yr in and out PhD.

 

[Enkidu]

Combined programs in general should save you some time over doing them back-to-back. In my program we take our graduate school classes and lab rotations during the first two years of medical school, so it theoretically saves about a year compared to doing the degrees separately. I think this is a pretty common feature.

That being said, it's not possible to guarantee that the PhD will take x number of years. This program is either lying or is producing substandard PhDs.