Difficult MD/PhD thesis advisor

[mdphdstudent1]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey fellow MD/PhD or PhD students,

I need feedback from you all on the forum. I'm nearing the end of my thesis, and I want to defend in time to return to medical school so I can graduate 2 years from now. There are only certain times when one can return, and my adviser wants me to plan to enter at the latest point in October. That was the plan, but now I feel like my adviser wants me to finish my thesis and publish another paper irrespective of the time frame I need to return. I'm not sure what I can do to convince him of urgency of my time frame given that it is less than 4 months away. Do you guys find that you have to have an inevitable fight with your adviser to make your thesis terminable? My adviser is obviously very sensitive about this subject. Please comment.
Thank you!

 

[Neuronix]

I'm having almost the exact same problem. Having not gotten through it yet I can only only empathize. Check out this thread though:

http://drslounge.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=533858 (scroll down to post #16 and beyond)

Now I have my MD/PhD program involved, though I don't know what good they can do. Would it help to have your program director speak with your PI? At this point I think I might be burning a bridge with my PI to get done, because he knows how unhappy and frustrated I am, yet he still wants more more more out of me and is asking me for all kinds of side things. I think at some point you have to just accept that you're pissing your PI off and hope for the best.

Though it is up to your committee as to whether you can graduate and my committee seems roughly split. They want me to come back and ask for permission again in September. How does your committee feel? Are they tied very closely to your PI like mine? I picked the wronnnggggg committee chair. Can I go back in time and fix that one? There was talk of getting my graduate program chair involved as well, but he's notorious for fighting to keep students in to get a "REAL" PhD, so I don't think I wanna whack that beehive.

 

[Doodledog]

At this point I think I might be burning a bridge with my PI to get done, because he knows how unhappy and frustrated I am, yet he still wants more more more out of me and is asking me for all kinds of side things. I think at some point you have to just accept that you're pissing your PI off and hope for the best.

It is very hard for me as someone who supervises/mentors post-docs (both PhD and MD) in time-limited post-doc positions to understand the inevitable "keep the grad student on one-more year to get the most out of them" phenomenon. Yet, it appears almost universal and I've been seeing this happen for at least 20 years "in person".

I think you are right - this is a bit like the inevitable fight in which one declares ones independence from ones parents. It has to happen, do it (I'm speaking to the OP here) as gently as possible but be firm and don't hesitate to threaten go to the program chair (who has a vested interest in your finishing although they may be conflicted). Your advisor will be mad, but in the long-term, what I've seen is that a few years later they become your buddy again. Some need to produce successful grads too for their career ladder (or at least it can be helpful), others just are playing a game and get over it. Those who would carry a grudge are ones you're better off saying goodbye to anyway.

Good luck. It's not an easy thing to do. Gather your data carefully and be insistent.

 

[gbwillner]

I went though this too a few years ago. My PI wasn't trying to sqeeze more out of me- he just failed to see my progress as others had and wouldn't discuss my time-frame until AFTER my last paper was published. This was after I had already published 2 first author papers. I wanted to have things set ahead of time so that once the paper was accepted I would be free to return to med school.

What I did was feel things out with the committee. I had one particular member who I was very close to and started going to him for advice early. I showed him my data before even showing it to my PI. On my next committee meeting I didn't have to ask for permission, that member said during the meeting that I should be "done" once the paper was accepted. I also spoke individually with each committee member over the next 6 months to make sure I had their blessing. After I did, I asked my PI, who was not very sympathetic. He did not say no, but he said, "we'll leave it up to the committee". Of course, at the next meeting I was set and everything went like butter.

I can see this type of problem happening if your PI is really hands-off like mine was and you suspect that sometimes he doesn't know who you are. They always tend to see you as the novice, no matter what you accomplish. I always loved going to national meetings because despite being told constantly how stupid I was in lab, I would present my work and continuously be offered positions at other institutions. I would always have to say things like, "no thanks, I'm still a grad student".

in the end I didn't have to burn bridges with anyone, and after completing my PhD I finally got some sort of recognition from my PI.

 

[Neuronix]

My PI wasn't trying to sqeeze more out of me- he just failed to see my progress as others had and wouldn't discuss my time-frame until AFTER my last paper was published. This was after I had already published 2 first author papers. I wanted to have things set ahead of time so that once the paper was accepted I would be free to return to med school.

This in my opinion is a sick and sad way to churn out a grad student. You need X number of publications before you're done. What is the point of a thesis committee? Do they ever evaluate your work and progress? No, we'll just take the lazy way out and see what external reviewers think. Nevermind all the politics and difficulties in getting published. What happens if your paper keeps bouncing for BS reasons? Should you sit in grad school another 2 years just waiting for a paper to get accepted? No I guess not, we can always create more work for you!

I find this incredably inappropriate. It seems in several cases I've personally seen that this three publication rule is required but somehow it's never put down on paper. Because it's well known that this is totally wrong. It's true in my case too. Nobody had any issues until my one manuscript got rejected twice. It even becomes more arbitrary--three publications ON YOUR THESIS. WTF? But this is only what I'm ever told. They know that if they put this on paper it would look so ridiculous everyone would come to my rescue. Instead your committee or PI can say "We're just not sure if you're ready..." Or a favorite of mine "We'll let you go but everyone will say you were a sucky grad student behind your back". That's not what I was led to believe the whole time I was in grad school! Only now that I want to leave! It's similar for me, going to conferences and being praised and having more posters and talks than anyone else in my lab for years. But now that you want to leave... You suck because you didn't meet some arbitrary benchmark!

I'm glad I'm an MD/PhD student and get some level of protection. There's just rife abuse of graduate students out there IMO.

 

[strangeglove]

This is exactly what thesis committees are for. Try meeting with one or two of your committee members individually to ask them the best way to proceed. There's a way that group dynamics might be harder to overcome than merely considering your progress. However, don't frame it in terms of "When will I be done with my PhD?" Rather, ask questions such as "What further experiment would be necessary to test hypothesis X (X being the Specific Aim you stated in your thesis proposal, or was brought up at your last committee meeting). You may also find that one of them will advocate for you when it comes time for a committee meeting. Also, you should talk with your MD-PhD program folks, as one of their jobs is to mediate the issue of getting done in a timely fashion in order to return to the clinics in time. This all assumes that you've actually done enough work to show that you've learned how to do science. This doesn't necessarily mean publishing, but it does mean having a group of people (i.e. your committee) look at your work in a critical way.

 

[echod]

I'm glad I'm an MD/PhD student and get some level of protection. There's just rife abuse of graduate students out there IMO.[/QUOTE]

Neuronix,

Could you elaborate more on "some level of protection?" What are the extra protection that we have compared to PhD students? Thanks.

 

[Neuronix]

Could you elaborate more on "some level of protection?" What are the extra protection that we have compared to PhD students? Thanks.

I think it comes at two levels.

1) Everyone expects MD/PhDs to be in a time crunch. You're given good projects (to gbwillner's chagrin) and not sent off on too many wild goose chases. Your program also protects you from PIs that keep you around too long. You then have to be back by a certain time to get back to clinics. This can be a good thing or a bad thing because if you need just a few more months you could get held back a whole year. It seems to me that most people get to go on the good side of that divide.

For these reasons we often get the criticism that we're not "real" PhDs.

2) The MD/PhD director and staff should be a force to help enforce rules and help you sort things out with your PI. Graduate group chairs in general seem much more hands off.

 

[Doodledog]

I think it comes at two levels.

1) Everyone expects MD/PhDs to be in a time crunch. You're given good projects (to gbwillner's chagrin) and not sent off on too many wild goose chases. Your program also protects you from PIs that keep you around too long. You then have to be back by a certain time to get back to clinics. This can be a good thing or a bad thing because if you need just a few more months you could get held back a whole year. It seems to me that most people get to go on the good side of that divide.

For these reasons we often get the criticism that we're not "real" PhDs.

2) The MD/PhD director and staff should be a force to help enforce rules and help you sort things out with your PI. Graduate group chairs in general seem much more hands off.

Yes, MSTP programs are competing for the best applicants. It may seem like it's you that's competing for the MSTP spots, and that's true, but there are definite stars in the MD/PhD applicant pool that "everyone" wants. If these applicants hear (or see data) that the MD/PhD is being stuck at one school for more years than competing schools, then the program director at that school will not be happy. There is no such pressure on graduate programs more generally.

 

[QofQuimica]

Reading this thread makes me realize once again how fortunate I was to have such an awesome PI. Not only was he pushing me to finish as fast as possible, he was also pushing the committee to let me go as fast as possible. I was expected to have done enough work for three pubs, but not to necessarily already have the pubs. The first paper from my dissertation was published four months after I had already graduated, and now, over two years after getting my PhD, I am still waiting for the third one to be submitted. Hopefully it will be published before I apply for residency.

Back to the OP's question: I'm not clear on what the problem is exactly. What is it that your PI wants you to do? Is he ok with you finishing your thesis and defending it in your time frame still? If so, do it and get that behind you. If he just wants you to publish another paper afterward and you won't have enough time before going back for third year, maybe you can use some elective time after you finish your PhD to write the manuscript. I worked in my lab for another month after graduating to tie up some loose ends and finish some experiments, write a manuscript, etc. I don't think doing this is uncommon. But if the problem is that your PI doesn't want to let you defend/submit your thesis until after you write another paper, then yeah, that's going to be a problem, especially if you also have to do a bunch of experiments before you can write up the manuscript. I think you need to tell him that you are perfectly willing to write another manuscript (who wouldn't like to have another paper to their name anyway???), but not until after your thesis is submitted and your defense is done. Those need to be your first priority. Have you started writing yet? How much more time do you think you need to finish the thesis?

 

[mdphdstudent1]

Thanks for all of your feedback and stories of your common experiences. I have begun writing the thesis, it's just that I believe my adviser has a time frame in mind that is different from mine and has different expectations of what can and cannot be done after I return to medical school and therefore has higher expectations of what I get done before I return, make the project less terminable. Part of the problem is that my adviser has not trained MD/PhD student before, and while he is a clinician, I don't think he realizes the difficult years I have ahead and the need to get started.

Of course the most critical thing is to get my work into publication(s), but I am concerned why my adviser is not willing to set a time frame for me returning in time. If I miss this deadline I may loose another year. Has anyone had this experience? What did you do in that extra year if you adviser couldn't support you following your defense?
Thanks!

 

[Neuronix]

If I didn't know better I'd think I had multiple personalities 😀 My advisor, and even more dangerously, my committee does the same stuff. They all think I can go back to clinics and write the thesis in clinics and defend in 4th year! The MD/PhD program is firmly against this of course. I have a graduate of the program on my committee (dunno how long ago he graduated) and that's what he says HE did. My program director only said "Yeah, a lot of strange things went on back then" 🙂 My committee has had plenty of experience with MD/PhD students and yet they still expect bizzare things out of them.

My PI (a PhD) thinks too that he knows what residency and internship I should do and all that. On top of that he thinks once I get into residency (here of course because we are the only place worth going), I should be in lab every day on top of residency. WTF? I informed him how ridiculous that was, what with residency being 60-80 hours and he was like, so? It's a research track residency isn't it? You just don't want to work. Insanity

If I get held back a year I'm going to party hard. I currently have no social life because I've been hanging out in a basement for several years. That will change. I have my own grant anyways so they won't throw me out. Your advisor won't even support you during that year? That would be REALLY ****ed up if they held you back and then wouldn't fund you. That's so ridiculous I can't imagine it happening. I mean heck, as a senior grad student you'd probably be the most productive person in your lab. Assuming you would work, you'd be their greatest asset. It would be so assinine to trash you now.

 

[mdphdstudent1]

Hi Neuronix, I hear your frustrations, and I'm sorry to hear you are having difficulties with your boss. Being new to this message board, I see how much emotion the PhD universally evokes. And clearly graduate students are not lazy or people who are not driven. So what leads to the most frustration? In my current state it is the lack of a timeline that would help my mentally frame the course of my work. With all the many hurdles: experiments not working, grants and manuscripts being rejected, committee meetings, etc., it just seems like there is a relentless toll on PhD students and there hasn't been a major change in the training dynamics. Why? Isn't there a better way?

 

[gbwillner]

Hi Neuronix, I hear your frustrations, and I'm sorry to hear you are having difficulties with your boss. Being new to this message board, I see how much emotion the PhD universally evokes. And clearly graduate students are not lazy or people who are not driven. So what leads to the most frustration? In my current state it is the lack of a timeline that would help my mentally frame the course of my work. With all the many hurdles: experiments not working, grants and manuscripts being rejected, committee meetings, etc., it just seems like there is a relentless toll on PhD students and there hasn't been a major change in the training dynamics. Why? Isn't there a better way?

I'm not sure things will ever change. Everyone had a rough time in their PhD training, and when you have your own grad students one day you will make them "earn" it too!!

I think part of the problem is that MD/PhDs are coddled too much- we thinks we are so awsome and need to be humbled in the PhD to some extent. If you think you should finish your PhD to return to clinics and haven't published your thesis work- then I'm sorry but you don't yet deserve a PhD. The PhD is SUPPOSED to be hard. We have to work hard and be lucky. I think in general our work ethic is much better than the average grad students', and that's why we finish faster. Of course there is the occasional place that really has lower expectations for MD/PhDs...

As for your specific situation- if the only problem is that your PI won't give you a timeline, then you have the same exact situation I had a few years ago. My advise it to ignore your PI and follow your own timeline. In the end, getting your paper out should be at the end of your timeline, and if you accomplish that, your PI will relent. As I have said earlier, make sure you speak to your committee and get their support if you are willing to go around your PI. If your PI doesn't think you will have enough data for a whole paper and that's why he won't let you have your timeline, get you stuff together on your timeline, write the paper, and then present the story to him. If you are right, he will see the quality of your work and relent. If he still doesn't think you have enough, then he is either a jerk, or you really are not being realistic about your chances of getting published.

 

[QofQuimica]

My PI (a PhD) thinks too that he knows what residency and internship I should do and all that. On top of that he thinks once I get into residency (here of course because we are the only place worth going), I should be in lab every day on top of residency. WTF? I informed him how ridiculous that was, what with residency being 60-80 hours and he was like, so? It's a research track residency isn't it? You just don't want to work. Insanity

Your average PhD can't possibly grasp what it's like to go to medical school, let alone residency, because they can't wrap their minds around the fact that you have so little control over your own time in medicine, especially during your training years. Don't feel like coming in to lab today? Fine, don't. Take the whole week off, if you feel like it. Not a morning person? No problem, come in at noon and work until 4 AM. (I did that the entire last semester before I graduated.) Don't feel like going to clinic and examining yet another waiting room full of noncompliant diabetics today? Tough s*** if you're on outpatient medicine. Had enough after 12 hours of surgery and want to go home? Too bad, if you've got call. What adds insult to injury is how much many PhDs look down on MDs. I had people in my department giving me flak for going to med school, like I was selling out *real* science.

Thanks for all of your feedback and stories of your common experiences. I have begun writing the thesis, it's just that I believe my adviser has a time frame in mind that is different from mine and has different expectations of what can and cannot be done after I return to medical school and therefore has higher expectations of what I get done before I return, make the project less terminable. Part of the problem is that my adviser has not trained MD/PhD student before, and while he is a clinician, I don't think he realizes the difficult years I have ahead and the need to get started.

Of course the most critical thing is to get my work into publication(s), but I am concerned why my adviser is not willing to set a time frame for me returning in time. If I miss this deadline I may loose another year. Has anyone had this experience? What did you do in that extra year if you adviser couldn't support you following your defense?
Thanks!

I think that gbwillner's advice is good. Find out what your committee wants you to do to finish on time, and make it happen. I agree with Neuro that if your PI makes you stay another year and won't fund you, that would be so incredibly sucky of him that it would be worth creating a huge stink over it. Have you talked to your PD? What does he or she say about all this?

Oh, and try not to get all philosophical about the ugly underbelly of grad training right now if you can help it. It will only depress you the more you think about it.

 

[gbwillner]

... it's just that I believe my adviser has a time frame in mind that is different from mine and has different expectations of what can and cannot be done after I return to medical school and therefore has higher expectations of what I get done before I return, make the project less terminable.

Let me just add one more thing...

Unless you have 6 months of free time already set up on your return to med school, pretty much NOTHING can be done in lab once you return. Sure, it seems like there is plenty of time now, but when it happens you will too busy on rotations/studying for the steps/interviewing/moving to get anything done in lab.