DDS (DMD)/PhD anyone?

[Zubnaya Feya]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Is anyone considering the joint program? For those who are interested, lets share views/info/program potentials.

I have been looking into it for some time now.
Out of the 14 schools that I am interested in, 8 have the joint program (UCLA, UCSF, Harvard (kind of), Michigan, Minnesota, Buffalo, UW, Marquette (PhD part through U of Rochester), U Conn).

I have talked to a couple of people (dentists, scientists), and they have suggested me to seriously consider it. The increasing number of DDS (DMD) and PhD holders makes those degrees less valuable compared to 20 years ago or so. Having 2 degrees then would make you stand out even if you end up not using one of them. Besides, the joint program provides so much opportunity if one considers staying in academia and continuing doing research (like myself). I think it would be great to use the PhD in adding to the technological/ intellectual progress in Dental science and DDS (DMD) in using this progress in order to heal people.

 

[Waitlisted2009]

You are applying for the 2010 cycle?

 

[Contach]

I think it would be great to use the PhD in adding to the technological/ intellectual progress in Dental science and DDS (DMD) in using this progress in order to heal people.

What do you think the PhD teaches you?
And how does this knowledge or skill-set translate into being able to "heal people" better?

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

You are applying for the 2010 cycle?

Yep.

 

[achilles2]

i'm finishing my masters now (research thesis requirement) and let me tell you unless your REALLY like research its not a walk in the park.

make sure you really enjoy the research and you get along with your PI or your in for a trip to hell and back

 

[Contach]

Yep.

What kind of research have you already been exposed to?

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

What do you think the PhD teaches you?
And how does this knowledge or skill-set translate into being able to "heal people" better?

PhD makes your mind more flexible. Although DDS (DMD) involve critical thinking, those degrees mostly teach you highly technical skills and, I think, do not compare to a PhD in the flexibility of mind department. By flexibility of mind I mean critical thinking, innovative thinking, thinking outside of the box.

To answer the second part of your question, having the PhD and the highly-developed qualities mentioned above would definetely help in increasing efficiency of dentistry in clinical settings (doing things faster and in innovative ways).

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

What kind of research have you already been exposed to?

Mostly molecular: cleft lip and palate abnormalities, and then gene therapy related (hereditary immunodeficiencies).

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

i'm finishing my masters now (research thesis requirement) and let me tell you unless your REALLY like research its not a walk in the park.

make sure you really enjoy the research and you get along with your PI or your in for a trip to hell and back

Yea, research can get very lame=)

 

[robhmnt]

PhD makes your mind more flexible. Although DDS (DMD) involve critical thinking, those degrees mostly teach you highly technical skills and, I think, do not compare to a PhD in the flexibility of mind department. By flexibility of mind I mean critical thinking, innovative thinking, thinking outside of the box.

To answer the second part of your question, having the PhD and the highly-developed qualities mentioned above would definetely help in increasing efficiency of dentistry in clinical settings (doing things faster and in innovative ways).

I think you are a bit high on science-pot.

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

Please do not post here if you don't have anything useful to say about the thread.

 

[DrDDSman]

I'm not entirely sure if a PhD will increase your innovations or efficiency, if anything it would deter that. Most dentists build efficient practices through years of practice and a solid staff. The 3-4 years you spend on your PhD are 3-4 years of clinical practice experience gone. It has always been my understanding that the DDS/PhD program is similar to the physician-scientist route many MD/PhDs do, and subsequently are centered around academia and research, and not private practice. If your intentions are to go into practice, your best bet is to drop the PhD option, besides whats the point of spending 4 years of HARD work on something you may not even utilize in private practice.

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

I'm not entirely sure if a PhD will increase your innovations or efficiency, if anything it would deter that. Most dentists build efficient practices through years of practice and a solid staff. The 3-4 years you spend on your PhD are 3-4 years of clinical practice experience gone. It has always been my understanding that the DDS/PhD program is similar to the physician-scientist route many MD/PhDs do, and subsequently are centered around academia and research, and not private practice. If your intentions are to go into practice, your best bet is to drop the PhD option, besides whats the point of spending 4 years of HARD work on something you may not even utilize in private practice.

I agree that it depends on the personal choice. I think another reason that makes the joint program popular is that they pay for your education (in some universities). Also, with DDS/PhD you could definitely go into practice and at the same time do research.

The choice comes up to how much you like doing research, I think.

 

[DrReo]

If you see yourself conducting research in a dental academia setting, go for the PhD. The PhD will teach you several things: understand the process of writing science and forming an argument, listening to your PI, long nights in the lab, and ultimately teach you how to encounter a problem and find a method to conquer it (granted, a lot of research doesn't do so- an article i read recently stated you'd get struck by lightning several times before finding a breakthrough). I considered UCONN's dual degree, but I know it isn't for me. However, my orthodontist has a PhD from Hopkins in neurochemistry and then attended dental school. To each their own.


Maybe you would like a PBL program?

 

[DrDDSman]

I agree that it depends on the personal choice. I think another reason that makes the joint program popular is that they pay for your education (in some universities). Also, with DDS/PhD you could definitely go into practice and at the same time do research.

The choice comes up to how much you like doing research, I think.

I'm not sure if there would be enough time to go into private practice as a PhD student, as the PhD is demanding enough...you maybe be limited to academic or faculty practice at your dental school. I think the cases you would be seeing would be somehow related and limited to new treatments or diseases that you may be studying for your PhD.

In any event, the DDS/PhD programs are more catered towards those who are interested in academia. Just check out the websites of a few schools, here's UMich's http://www.dent.umich.edu/ohsphd/combine.html.

As for the funding, it's probably similar to grad schools where you have to find your own funding (unless you're in an NIH MSTP program, where you are fully funded by the NIH). Again, referring to UMich, the funding is available for at least 5 of the 8 years of the program (the expensive dental tuition will probably still be burdened on you). So to look at it like this: is it worth it to invest 8 years in schools to still have ~200k in debt for a degree you may not utilize in private practice?

But as you said, to each his own, just my 2 pennies.

 

[Shunwei]

PhD makes your mind more flexible. Although DDS (DMD) involve critical thinking, those degrees mostly teach you highly technical skills and, I think, do not compare to a PhD in the flexibility of mind department. By flexibility of mind I mean critical thinking, innovative thinking, thinking outside of the box.

To answer the second part of your question, having the PhD and the highly-developed qualities mentioned above would definetely help in increasing efficiency of dentistry in clinical settings (doing things faster and in innovative ways).

No offense, but you sound like you don't know research much at all. But then again, most people at your age have a starry-eyed view towards research, so that's no surprise.

 

[saureus]

I've heard that only 2% of graduating dentists go back to academia. I suppose that holding a DDS/PhD would look better if you're trying to find a job at a university, teaching and researching.

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

No offense, but you sound like you don't know research much at all. But then again, most people at your age have a starry-eyed view towards research, so that's no surprise.

After 3 years of research experience in two different fields I think I know enough about research to make decisions based on my views.

 

[Shunwei]

After 3 years of research experience in two different fields I think I know enough about research to make decisions based on my views.

Unless you are working as a professional or as a true advanced professional degree candidate (PhD especially), working three years as a part-timer in an undergrad capacity gives you only a tip of the iceberg view of research. If you really are caught up in research, by all means go for the PhD with all of the time and opportunity cost expenditure. NIH and NSF loves to rope in folks like you for their own purpose.

The best advice anyone can give you is to clearly define your goals and relate how a PhD can help you achieve that. Personally, thinking that a PhD helps you to analyze and think in the clinic is a shallow reason and does not stand to scrutiny. You don't need to invest all that time and money because there is no relationship between clinical ability and research; in fact, if anything, there is an inverse correlation.

But anyway, to each his own. Most times people have to learn thing.s the hard way.

 

[Wei87]

I was actually considering a DDS (DMS)/PhD program as well. Btw, you should add Maryland to you school list as well, since they also offer the same joint program (though they only offer two seats a year).

Here's my look at the PhD deal. I wanted to do a joint program because ideally, I wanted to be teaching and have my own private practice at the same time. This is something a lot of D-professors do.

Pros: Constantly challenged by the students to know more; exposed to any new wave of techniques or technology related to the dental field; and also will almost never be behind on new treatment options if you spend half your time at an academic institution; *can also be fulfilling, if you do enjoy research.

Cons: You will definitely make a lot less keeping a half-time practice; getting stuck with administrative/paper work (which can be a pain if you take in your own students down the road)

On the topic of what research will be like. I have been working in a lab for the past three years, and I've stayed in schools for two full summers (four months each) to conduct full time research. With all of that work, I've been only able to produce just one paper. You didn't mention whether or not you've done full-time before, so I figure I'd mention that with bio/biochemical related research, you can't really produce "significant progress" unless you set aside 8~12 hours a day for your experiments.

Here's my personal take on the joint programs:

The three years that dental schools give you to do your PhD are not a lot to produce enough results to publish good (first author) papers. Of course, there are always exceptions where you get lucky and take over somebody's project that is on the verge of being completed. But I personally wouldn't bet on that. With that said, three years CAN be very doable if you put the extra mile in. I expect that you will be very busy during this time. With your mind fully focused on your research project for three years, it may become difficult to adjust back to dental school classes. This will likely be the case if you're like me, who will forget academic material if I don't keep taking continuing classes.

On the flip side, some schools give tuition wavers to joint program candidates. Which is a huge perk that take some financial pressure off (one of the major reasons that I want to do a joint program). Also (and this is something I am not sure of), you should try to ask the school and see if dental students can earn their PhDs by publishing papers in dental journals. Papers published in dental journals (at least the issues I've read) tend to be very short papers with few conclusions. If papers in dental journals are acceptable by your PhD committee, it will make getting a PhD much eaiser.

It comes down to weighing your pros and cons, and that will be different for everyone.


Hope this helps!

 

[sl2obel2ts]

- buffalo,

doesnt have one anymore.

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

- buffalo,

doesnt have one anymore.

Yea... I got an email from one of the program coordinators today about that. Sad

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

Unless you are working as a professional or as a true advanced professional degree candidate (PhD especially), working three years as a part-timer in an undergrad capacity gives you only a tip of the iceberg view of research. If you really are caught up in research, by all means go for the PhD with all of the time and opportunity cost expenditure. NIH and NSF loves to rope in folks like you for their own purpose.

The best advice anyone can give you is to clearly define your goals and relate how a PhD can help you achieve that. Personally, thinking that a PhD helps you to analyze and think in the clinic is a shallow reason and does not stand to scrutiny. You don't need to invest all that time and money because there is no relationship between clinical ability and research; in fact, if anything, there is an inverse correlation.

But anyway, to each his own. Most times people have to learn thing.s the hard way.

Why do you assume I worked 3 years in research in undergrad? I have been working full-time in research for some time now. Have you yourself gone through PhD to make any kind of assumptions about "hard way," NIH and NSF roping people or whatever? I mean, you didn't even read my first post: "For those who are interested, lets share..." If you are not interested, don't post here.

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

I was actually considering a DDS (DMS)/PhD program as well. Btw, you should add Maryland to you school list as well, since they also offer the same joint program (though they only offer two seats a year).

Here's my look at the PhD deal. I wanted to do a joint program because ideally, I wanted to be teaching and have my own private practice at the same time. This is something a lot of D-professors do.

Pros: Constantly challenged by the students to know more; exposed to any new wave of techniques or technology related to the dental field; and also will almost never be behind on new treatment options if you spend half your time at an academic institution; *can also be fulfilling, if you do enjoy research.

Cons: You will definitely make a lot less keeping a half-time practice; getting stuck with administrative/paper work (which can be a pain if you take in your own students down the road)

On the topic of what research will be like. I have been working in a lab for the past three years, and I've stayed in schools for two full summers (four months each) to conduct full time research. With all of that work, I've been only able to produce just one paper. You didn't mention whether or not you've done full-time before, so I figure I'd mention that with bio/biochemical related research, you can't really produce "significant progress" unless you set aside 8~12 hours a day for your experiments.

Here's my personal take on the joint programs:

The three years that dental schools give you to do your PhD are not a lot to produce enough results to publish good (first author) papers. Of course, there are always exceptions where you get lucky and take over somebody's project that is on the verge of being completed. But I personally wouldn't bet on that. With that said, three years CAN be very doable if you put the extra mile in. I expect that you will be very busy during this time. With your mind fully focused on your research project for three years, it may become difficult to adjust back to dental school classes. This will likely be the case if you're like me, who will forget academic material if I don't keep taking continuing classes.

On the flip side, some schools give tuition wavers to joint program candidates. Which is a huge perk that take some financial pressure off (one of the major reasons that I want to do a joint program). Also (and this is something I am not sure of), you should try to ask the school and see if dental students can earn their PhDs by publishing papers in dental journals. Papers published in dental journals (at least the issues I've read) tend to be very short papers with few conclusions. If papers in dental journals are acceptable by your PhD committee, it will make getting a PhD much eaiser.

It comes down to weighing your pros and cons, and that will be different for everyone.


Hope this helps!

Thanks for the info! I have talked to one of the DDS/PhD students at the UW and he said that most students go into the program with a thought they would dedicate their career to research mostly. I agree with you that research requires huge dedication of time and will.

I am working full-time in a lab as a research scientist for almost a year now. I have been like a graduate student here and I enjoy it (so far, at least).

 

[MichaelVicksDog]

I've always thought DDS/PHD as quite ironic...

 

[Shunwei]

Why do you assume I worked 3 years in research in undergrad? I have been working full-time in research for some time now. Have you yourself gone through PhD to make any kind of assumptions about "hard way," NIH and NSF roping people or whatever? I mean, you didn't even read my first post: "For those who are interested, lets share..." If you are not interested, don't post here.

To your bold question: Yes I have, and that's why I am sharing some of my wisdom, gained the hard way, to help you make a more informed decision, because from what I see you are not considering the issue from both the positive and negative angles. From the fact that you seem to selectively block out people who have less-than-glorious things to say about research, it is easy to see that you only want to hear what you want to hear, not what you OUGHT to hear. If you really want the PhD, fine, but the right way to do so is to analyze the issue from all kinds of angles, not just "don't tell me things I don't want to know."

And regarding your so-called experience, honestly, as someone who has been through it all, don't make too much of it. It's not that it is totally devoid of significance, it's just unless you are really involved in the whole process, from writing grants, writing papers, doing truly independent research, getting involved in the politics, all done as at least on the PhD level and as a truly independent scientist, you don't have a good idea of what's going on. Just speaking to professors and dental scientists for your primary information source and career guidance is misplacing your confidence; of course they are going to say it's good, because that's precisely what they do themselves. Scientists, especially those in the academia, have a nasty tendency to bias the significance of their own work. Unless you are really set on the academia and have a truly informed knowledge of it, a PhD is an awful of lot of work and of dubious value simply for the ability "to think in the clinic."

Anyway, it sounds like you are going to have to learn about this the hard way. Come back in ten years and let us know your experience then. You might still be so gung-ho about it, but if the prevailing odds in the field mean anything, chances are more likely that you might actually think very differently at that time. Good luck with your life.

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

To your bold question: Yes I have, and that's why I am sharing some of my wisdom, gained the hard way, to help you make a more informed decision, because from what I see you are not considering the issue from both the positive and negative angles. From the fact that you seem to selectively block out people who have less-than-glorious things to say about research, it is easy to see that you only want to hear what you want to hear, not what you OUGHT to hear. If you really want the PhD, fine, but the right way to do so is to analyze the issue from all kinds of angles, not just "don't tell me things I don't want to know."

And regarding your so-called experience, honestly, as someone who has been through it all, don't make too much of it. It's not that it is totally devoid of significance, it's just unless you are really involved in the whole process, from writing grants, writing papers, doing truly independent research, getting involved in the politics, all done as at least on the PhD level and as a truly independent scientist, you don't have a good idea of what's going on. Just speaking to professors and dental scientists for your primary information source and career guidance is misplacing your confidence; of course they are going to say it's good, because that's precisely what they do themselves. Scientists, especially those in the academia, have a nasty tendency to bias the significance of their own work. Unless you are really set on the academia and have a truly informed knowledge of it, a PhD is an awful of lot of work and of dubious value simply for the ability "to think in the clinic."

Anyway, it sounds like you are going to have to learn about this the hard way. Come back in ten years and let us know your experience then. You might still be so gung-ho about it, but if the prevailing odds in the field mean anything, chances are more likely that you might actually think very differently at that time. Good luck with your life.

For obvious reasons, I would listen more to students/professors/PIs/family than you or anyone on this forum when deciding on such choices. People had different opinions, of course. Every field has its losers and winners, every field has people who don't like it or like it. I guess the joint degree wasn't the fit for you, but it doesn't mean it isn't a fit for anyone else. You shouldn't say that whoever is pursuing DDS/PhD would "have to learn it the hard way", don't you think so? You are the only one I "blocked," because of such generalizations. "From the fact that you seem to selectively block out people who have less-than-glorious things to say about research.." If it is a fact for you, then research is not for you for sure lol, no offense=)

In any case, back to the topic of the thread...

 

[Shunwei]

1) For obvious reasons, I would listen more to students/professors/PIs/family than you or anyone on this forum when deciding on such choices. People had different opinions, of course. Every field has its losers and winners,

2) every field has people who don't like it or like it. I guess the joint degree wasn't the fit for you, but it doesn't mean it isn't a fit for anyone else.

3) You shouldn't say that whoever is pursuing DDS/PhD would "have to learn it the hard way", don't you think so?

4) You are the only one I "blocked," because of such generalizations. "From the fact that you seem to selectively block out people who have less-than-glorious things to say about research.."

5) If it is a fact for you, then research is not for you for sure lol, no offense=)

6) In any case, back to the topic of the thread...

1) If that's true, then why even bother posting on the forum? And what's the difference between soliciting opinions from students/professors/others, as versus anyone else here? And most importantly, I think that talking to professors is actually the worst source of advice you can possibly get. Which is why an individual should always assess the issue from all angles. From what I see you clearly want to focus on the good, but not the bad.

2) That certainly is true. I thought I liked research, until I found out a very important fact: Liking science and doing science are two totally different things. You can't confuse those two, because there is a very important difference. A lot of people (most at your stage) think that science is exciting and fully of intellectulism. Truth is, most of the time it is just repetitive grunt work, and very often you are working under severe contraints of PI's who have their own personal whims and limitations, either from the pressure of publishing to survive in the field. My observations have been that 90% of people who enter the field eventually find out that it isn't for them. The reason for this is not because they are inherently dumb, but because often times they are misled and uninformed prior to making the decision to pursue a PhD.

3) Why not? You certainly don't think that getting a PhD is a walk in the park, do you? The road to the degree is full of potholes and is probably the most capricious advanced degree out there. Compared to professional degrees like MD or DDS, there is no standardized or structured curriculum for the PhD; everything is up in the air. I have seen people graduate in five years, and I have seen 11th year graduate students. Don't make the assumption that the difference is based on ability--science, more so than any other field, relies on luck, who you work for, what you work for, and your PI.

4) I don't think it is true because there were posters above me who you specifically asked not to post because you felt like it did not contribute to your opinion of Science. And I don't think I am making generalizations. I have seen enough of my peers and colleagues to make informed statements, not just random or misguided opinions. At the very least, I have much more experience in the field than you do, and hence more qualified to judge it than you can at this stage.

5) Ha, no offense taken at all. But honestly, with that attitude of yours (unless I am misreading your tone), I think that you are going to run into a lot of problems in the future. If you can't take into account the positives and negatives of this topic (or any issue), you are not making an educated and informed decision, especially if you discount and "block" (in your own words) the comments of someone who is much more cognizant and aware of the situation than you are. That kind of ignorance can only harm you, not help you.

For the record, here is my experience and qualification in the field. I think my academic pedigree is solid enough and my experience sufficiently extensive to make some comments on this issue, specially as someone who has been to both sides of PhD and DDS (the latter in progress):

1) PhD at Berkeley, 6 papers, NSF-supported fellow.
2) Postdoc for 2 1/2 years, Lawrence Berkeley, Runyon Fellow, 4 papers
3) Research Scientist at Genentech
4) Now a dental student

6) Rock on . . .

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

1) If that's true, then why even bother posting on the forum? And what's the difference between soliciting opinions from students/professors/others, as versus anyone else here? And most importantly, I think that talking to professors is actually the worst source of advice you can possibly get. Which is why an individual should always assess the issue from all angles. From what I see you clearly want to focus on the good, but not the bad.

2) That certainly is true. I thought I liked research, until I found out a very important fact: Liking science and doing science are two totally different things. You can't confuse those two, because there is a very important difference. A lot of people (most at your stage) think that science is exciting and fully of intellectulism. Truth is, most of the time it is just repetitive grunt work, and very often you are working under severe contraints of PI's who have their own personal whims and limitations, either from the pressure of publishing to survive in the field. My observations have been that 90% of people who enter the field eventually find out that it isn't for them. The reason for this is not because they are inherently dumb, but because often times they are misled and uninformed prior to making the decision to pursue a PhD.

3) Why not? You certainly don't think that getting a PhD is a walk in the park, do you? The road to the degree is full of potholes and is probably the most capricious advanced degree out there. Compared to professional degrees like MD or DDS, there is no standardized or structured curriculum for the PhD; everything is up in the air. I have seen people graduate in five years, and I have seen 11th year graduate students. Don't make the assumption that the difference is based on ability--science, more so than any other field, relies on luck, who you work for, what you work for, and your PI.

4) I don't think it is true because there were posters above me who you specifically asked not to post because you felt like it did not contribute to your opinion of Science. And I don't think I am making generalizations. I have seen enough of my peers and colleagues to make informed statements, not just random or misguided opinions. At the very least, I have much more experience in the field than you do, and hence more qualified to judge it than you can at this stage.

5) Ha, no offense taken at all. But honestly, with that attitude of yours (unless I am misreading your tone), I think that you are going to run into a lot of problems in the future. If you can't take into account the positives and negatives of this topic (or any issue), you are not making an educated and informed decision, especially if you discount and "block" (in your own words) the comments of someone who is much more cognizant and aware of the situation than you are. That kind of ignorance can only harm you, not help you.

For the record, here is my experience and qualification in the field. I think my academic pedigree is solid enough and my experience sufficiently extensive to make some comments on this issue, specially as someone who has been to both sides of PhD and DDS (the latter in progress):

1) PhD at Berkeley, 6 papers, NSF-supported fellow.
2) Postdoc for 2 1/2 years, Lawrence Berkeley, Runyon Fellow, 4 papers
3) Research Scientist at Genentech
4) Now a dental student

6) Rock on . . .

You have a lot of experience but I still disagree on what you have said in this thread. I don't want to spend my time writing out full responses to your 6 points here...

"Block" was a word that you used.

I asked not to post those who post something like "high on science pot".

I did not judge you, you don't judge me (about my attitude and future). At least I am trying not to run into problems...you, on the other hand, have already changed your field at least once.

I said I would listen to people I know personally "more". That does not mean I don't need opinions/views/perspectives/info from people on this forum. As a matter of fact, right now (besides all other times) I am looking at the issue from different angles by just writing a response to you.

Every job is painful in its own way. There are barely any perfect jobs... unfortunately. PIs, bosses, insurance problems, paperwork, etc are everywhere.

I know it differs how long it takes to graduate with PhD.

thanks for the responses.

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

I was actually considering a DDS (DMS)/PhD program as well. Btw, you should add Maryland to you school list as well, since they also offer the same joint program (though they only offer two seats a year).

Here's my look at the PhD deal. I wanted to do a joint program because ideally, I wanted to be teaching and have my own private practice at the same time. This is something a lot of D-professors do.

Pros: Constantly challenged by the students to know more; exposed to any new wave of techniques or technology related to the dental field; and also will almost never be behind on new treatment options if you spend half your time at an academic institution; *can also be fulfilling, if you do enjoy research.

Cons: You will definitely make a lot less keeping a half-time practice; getting stuck with administrative/paper work (which can be a pain if you take in your own students down the road)

On the topic of what research will be like. I have been working in a lab for the past three years, and I've stayed in schools for two full summers (four months each) to conduct full time research. With all of that work, I've been only able to produce just one paper. You didn't mention whether or not you've done full-time before, so I figure I'd mention that with bio/biochemical related research, you can't really produce "significant progress" unless you set aside 8~12 hours a day for your experiments.

Here's my personal take on the joint programs:

The three years that dental schools give you to do your PhD are not a lot to produce enough results to publish good (first author) papers. Of course, there are always exceptions where you get lucky and take over somebody's project that is on the verge of being completed. But I personally wouldn't bet on that. With that said, three years CAN be very doable if you put the extra mile in. I expect that you will be very busy during this time. With your mind fully focused on your research project for three years, it may become difficult to adjust back to dental school classes. This will likely be the case if you're like me, who will forget academic material if I don't keep taking continuing classes.

On the flip side, some schools give tuition wavers to joint program candidates. Which is a huge perk that take some financial pressure off (one of the major reasons that I want to do a joint program). Also (and this is something I am not sure of), you should try to ask the school and see if dental students can earn their PhDs by publishing papers in dental journals. Papers published in dental journals (at least the issues I've read) tend to be very short papers with few conclusions. If papers in dental journals are acceptable by your PhD committee, it will make getting a PhD much eaiser.

It comes down to weighing your pros and cons, and that will be different for everyone.


Hope this helps!

Have you decided to go for the joint program? Or you thought cons outweigh the pros?

 

[DrDDSman]

Shunwei is truth. BTW, Shunwei, does having an advanced degree make things easier for the basic science dental curriculum? Obviously it would depend on what your focus was, but I'm just interested.

 

[Shunwei]

You have a lot of experience but I still disagree on what you have said in this thread. I don't want to spend my time writing out full responses to your 6 points here...

"Block" was a word that you used.

I asked not to post those who post something like "high on science pot".

I did not judge you, you don't judge me (about my attitude and future). At least I am trying not to run into problems...you, on the other hand, have already changed your field at least once.

I said I would listen to people I know personally "more". That does not mean I don't need opinions/views/perspectives/info from people on this forum. As a matter of fact, right now (besides all other times) I am looking at the issue from different angles by just writing a response to you.

Every job is painful in its own way. There are barely any perfect jobs... unfortunately. PIs, bosses, insurance problems, paperwork, etc are everywhere.

I know it differs how long it takes to graduate with PhD.

thanks for the responses.

1) I am not judging you . . . in fact, if you can't tell, I am trying to help you by giving you info that you, in all probability, will never get from the professors (in my career, I know of exactly just one professor who is brave enough to tell his students the reality of research; not surprisingly, he is ostracized by his peers for his actions). You claim that you don't want to run into any problems, and yet you don't seem to want to listen to people discussing the very problems that you can run into. I find this a bit paradoxical. There is nothing wrong with wanting the PhD . . . . but only if you understand completely what's behind the curtain, not just what they show you on stage. As for myself, I am glad I left, but the reasons are too complicated to explain here, and probably things that you don't seem to want to hear either. Fact is, 80% of people who get PhD's in the biomedical field change their career in ~10 years, so I am certainly among the majority.

2) My point exactly. If everyone in this thread is telling you: "Science is great; you are definitely going to have a great time and the PhD is going to help you no matter what," how is that going to help you decide things? Right now, you are a Research "Associate," not a "Scientist." I am not saying this to spite you or to put you down, but you are not an independent scientist without the PhD and in any other role you cannot possibly see most of the dirty hidden stuff associated with the work. Only by getting that degree, its process of doing so, and working as a professional, can you really understand what's going on.

3) I agree, which is why you have to understand and prepare yourself beforehand. When I said before that you might have to learn things the "hard" way, it means that if you are not aware of the potholes you are going to run into them and bump yourself hard. Most of us do this from time to time anyways, but it is wise to prepare and brace yourself for these things to lessen the shock. Your professors are NOT going to prepare you for things like these, and I can tell you that there are plenty of situations where it's just pure hell.

4) No problem. I wish you the best. I just wish someone had done this for me when I was thinking of getting the PhD. Could have saved me a lot of trouble and time.

 

[Shunwei]

Shunwei is truth. BTW, Shunwei, does having an advanced degree make things easier for the basic science dental curriculum? Obviously it would depend on what your focus was, but I'm just interested.

There is some advantage, but in my opinion it is minimal. The advanced degree will most likely go over some of the fundamental principles that you are going to hear in dental school, but a lot of the classes here focus on specific minutiae that can only be heard in these specialized classes. So I would say it does help a bit, but not worth getting the degree alone for the advantage. If I could go back in time, I definitely would take Microbiology and Anatomy in undergrad to prepare myself for this. I never took these classes in college, and the amount of information they are going to throw at you will be enormous.

 

[sl2obel2ts]

pro: have all 8 years of dental and PhD education + monthly stipend paid by the government, come out clean loan free (in addition to all the good stuff that shunwai mentioned)
con: gotta stay in school for 8 years

i applied for dds/phd to one school and still waiting to hear back from them. 🙁

 

[Wei87]

I've always thought DDS/PHD as quite ironic...

Have you decided to go for the joint program? Or you thought cons outweigh the pros?

MichaelVicksDog: Yep, I agree it is pretty ironic, getting both degrees when you supposedly want to go into dentistry for the rest of your life. My feeling is that there are many people who do it (and I guess, speaking for myself) because of the tuition waiver. I feel that money will almost always play a role in decisions with regard to career path/choice, I can't really argue against the financial perks of doing DMD/PhD

Zubnaya Feya: unfortunately I got into schools that does not offer DMD/PhD programs. I guess I am still waiting to hear back from Maryland, but some threads in the forum seem to suggest that our chances are slim at this point. I will probably still do research on the side.

Here is what I would do if I was in your shoes: apply to PhD/DMD programs anyway. I think for joint programs in most schools, you will go through at least 1 or 2 years of dental school (they want you to take your Part I board first) before switching you to PhD research. I could be wrong, but I would apply to keep the option open, giving you two additional years to decide. If you change your mind down the road after going through two years of D-school, I think you can always drop the PhD idea and just stick with D-school (again, I could be wrong here).

Hope this helps!

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

1) I am not judging you . . . in fact, if you can't tell, I am trying to help you by giving you info that you, in all probability, will never get from the professors (in my career, I know of exactly just one professor who is brave enough to tell his students the reality of research; not surprisingly, he is ostracized by his peers for his actions). You claim that you don't want to run into any problems, and yet you don't seem to want to listen to people discussing the very problems that you can run into. I find this a bit paradoxical. There is nothing wrong with wanting the PhD . . . . but only if you understand completely what's behind the curtain, not just what they show you on stage. As for myself, I am glad I left, but the reasons are too complicated to explain here, and probably things that you don't seem to want to hear either. Fact is, 80% of people who get PhD's in the biomedical field change their career in ~10 years, so I am certainly among the majority.

2) My point exactly. If everyone in this thread is telling you: "Science is great; you are definitely going to have a great time and the PhD is going to help you no matter what," how is that going to help you decide things? Right now, you are a Research "Associate," not a "Scientist." I am not saying this to spite you or to put you down, but you are not an independent scientist without the PhD and in any other role you cannot possibly see most of the dirty hidden stuff associated with the work. Only by getting that degree, its process of doing so, and working as a professional, can you really understand what's going on.

3) I agree, which is why you have to understand and prepare yourself beforehand. When I said before that you might have to learn things the "hard" way, it means that if you are not aware of the potholes you are going to run into them and bump yourself hard. Most of us do this from time to time anyways, but it is wise to prepare and brace yourself for these things to lessen the shock. Your professors are NOT going to prepare you for things like these, and I can tell you that there are plenty of situations where it's just pure hell.

4) No problem. I wish you the best. I just wish someone had done this for me when I was thinking of getting the PhD. Could have saved me a lot of trouble and time.

Thanks for your help. I understood your phrase "going the hard way" differently. I am only considering the joint program and, now that we are on teh same page, I will take your opinion in mind.

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

pro: have all 8 years of dental and PhD education + monthly stipend paid by the government, come out clean loan free (in addition to all the good stuff that shunwai mentioned)
con: gotta stay in school for 8 years

i applied for dds/phd to one school and still waiting to hear back from them. 🙁

MichaelVicksDog: Yep, I agree it is pretty ironic, getting both degrees when you supposedly want to go into dentistry for the rest of your life. My feeling is that there are many people who do it (and I guess, speaking for myself) because of the tuition waiver. I feel that money will almost always play a role in decisions with regard to career path/choice, I can't really argue against the financial perks of doing DMD/PhD

Zubnaya Feya: unfortunately I got into schools that does not offer DMD/PhD programs. I guess I am still waiting to hear back from Maryland, but some threads in the forum seem to suggest that our chances are slim at this point. I will probably still do research on the side.

Here is what I would do if I was in your shoes: apply to PhD/DMD programs anyway. I think for joint programs in most schools, you will go through at least 1 or 2 years of dental school (they want you to take your Part I board first) before switching you to PhD research. I could be wrong, but I would apply to keep the option open, giving you two additional years to decide. If you change your mind down the road after going through two years of D-school, I think you can always drop the PhD idea and just stick with D-school (again, I could be wrong here).

Hope this helps!

As far as I know only some schools offer coverage of both DDS and PhD parts. I am interested in U Mich joint program more so... and they have funding not only through the government but through scholarships and such.

I am not sure how dropping the PhD part works out either... However, at UW I was told that not one student have yet dropped the PhD part after completing DDS (you complete DDS part first in 5 years and then you have 3 years for PhD). The lady said that it is possible to drop the PhD part and finish with just the DDS, that was paid by the government. She also said that when that will happen they will have to change the outline of the program so that studnets don't do that (otherwise, government would press on them).

 

[DrReo]

As far as I know only some schools offer coverage of both DDS and PhD parts. I am interested in U Mich joint program more so... and they have funding not only through the government but through scholarships and such.

I am not sure how dropping the PhD part works out either... However, at UW I was told that not one student have yet dropped the PhD part after completing DDS (you complete DDS part first in 5 years and then you have 3 years for PhD). The lady said that it is possible to drop the PhD part and finish with just the DDS, that was paid by the government. She also said that when that will happen they will have to change the outline of the program so that studnets don't do that (otherwise, government would press on them).

Wouldn't you loose your dental school?

 

[Zubnaya Feya]

Wouldn't you loose your dental school?

As far as I remember (I have the handout of the program outline somewhere) you finish DDS at the end of year 5. Then years 6 through 8 is PhD. I don't think they would just take away your degree heh.

 

[beastmode]

I debated entering a DDS/PhD program for about a month and then opted to not do it. I talked to tons of people about it and realized that doing the "joint" program doesn't have that many advantages, if you decided that you want to go into a research based career after dental school then enter a PhD program after dental school...it will still take you around 8 years. Also, many of the programs do not fund every year of dental school. When talking about this type of program I don't think money should be discussed anyways. The financial benefits of the PhD program are small compared to the amount of work that is required. You also have to remember that you are missing out on around 5 years of dentistry that would be paying you far more than the measly stipend the programs offer (~$28,000 per year). I feel that people who enter these programs must LOVE research and know that they want to go into a research based career. Otherwise, you will be wasting your time, government funding, and you clinical skills to get a degree that you will never use. If you think you might want to perform research part time, you still can effectively with the DDS. But I really don't think these PhD programs are designed for part time researchers. I actually have been told that by the director of one of the programs. He also said that usually the people who do these programs end up not using the PhD. I think it was like only 20% nationally go into research, the rest go into private practice with an PhD. What a waste!!! This is not what these programs are designed for. They want to create "dentist scientists" that are going into academia full time. In which you should also do a post-doc after the PhD, so add another couple years to the already long road. By the way I am not talking at you, even though it sounds like it. This is simply the thought process that I went through.

Hope it helps.

 

[Shunwei]

I debated entering a DDS/PhD program for about a month and then opted to not do it. I talked to tons of people about it and realized that doing the "joint" program doesn't have that many advantages, if you decided that you want to go into a research based career after dental school then enter a PhD program after dental school...it will still take you 1) around 8 years. Also, many of the programs do not fund every year of dental school. When talking about this type of program I don't think money should be discussed anyways. The 2) financial benefits of the PhD program are small compared to the amount of work that is required. You also have to remember that you are missing out on around 5 years of dentistry that would be paying you far more than the measly stipend the programs offer (~$28,000 per year). 3) I feel that people who enter these programs must LOVE research and know that they want to go into a research based career. Otherwise, you will be wasting your time, government funding, and you clinical skills to get a degree that you will never use. 4) If you think you might want to perform research part time, you still can effectively with the DDS. But I really don't think these PhD programs are designed for part time researchers. I actually have been told that by the director of one of the programs. He also said that usually the people who do these programs end up not using the PhD. 5) I think it was like only 20% nationally go into research, the rest go into private practice with an PhD. What a waste!!! This is not what these programs are designed for. They want to create "dentist scientists" that are going into academia full time. 6) In which you should also do a post-doc after the PhD, so add another couple years to the already long road. By the way I am not talking at you, even though it sounds like it. This is simply the thought process that I went through.

Hope it helps.

1) Sounds about right. Ostensibly it's supposed to be 3-4 years, but the PhD element is highly unpredictable. One should always brace for the worst.

2) Got this part damn right. When you look at it from a practical point of view, PhD scientists are downright exploited. Of course, most professors will try to rationalize this behind the aegis of "You are doing it for the passion and love of science." I do not buy this mentality.

3) Actually, this is not true. My understanding is that the majority of the people who do this do so because they want to use it as a stepping stone for a choice residency. Residency programs love research and if you have a PhD, it will help considerably. However, I consider this route to be high in opportunity cost. Provided that you get a good board score, don't do badly in classes, have some EC's and some research work, you can be as competitive in a residency hunt just the same. Tack on the opportunity cost of losing years to the PhD, the financial losses (your loans will still accrue interest, I believe, and the time erosion of your unused dental skills, it's hardly a net gain.

4) This is definitely true. In dental science, you can do reserach with a Masters. However, the PhD is probably required for serious investigations. Here is where the degree really counts--to help you secure grant money.

5) This is true and supports what I said before about most people using the degree as a stepping stone.

6) My understanding is that in dental research, unlike the general biomedical research field, a postdoc may not be necessary, although it certainly can help. However, my feeling is that to secure a good faculty appointment, a postdoc will probably be implicity required. The trend will probably also go towards the general research trend in time, i.e. requiring a postdoc eventually.