Hello all! I'm still an undergrad, but I'm very interested in pathology (and I have to say, reading this board has made it seem even more appealing to me). Anyway, I'm wondering if having an MD/PhD is considered a significant advantage when looking for employment and/or making a larger salary. Would you say the extra years of study are worth the payoff?
Do MD/PhDs in this field have an advantage over MDs?
- Thread starter noin44
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 28,059
- Reaction score
- 438
No.
Unless you want to do research, you should not do an MD/PhD. Having a PhD does not really make you a more attractive employee for most private practice opportunities - unless there are areas you studied during your PhD that are applicable to an area they are emphasizing.
Doing a PhD requires an extra 3 years (at least) of training - and while people who start med school with you have finished their residency, fellowship, and are making good money, you are still in residency.
Most MD/PhD people go towards an academic career, which is lower pay but a different set of rewards, and a different lifestyle.
I caution you - clearly, when you read boards like this it seems like MD/PhD candidates do better in getting lots of residency interview offers, etc. And perhaps they do, but not always. They often tend to be competitive candidates. But doing an MD/PhD for the purpose of improving your competitive advantage is highly discouraged. I can't really think of anyone who would recommend this.
It is worth it if you want it to be worth it, and the PhD study impacts the area in which you are planning to work for your career. If you want to get a PhD, and then go into private practice and have nothing left to do with research, what's the point? So you got an interview at a place you might not have gotten an interview at. But a lot of the competitive programs make it a point of trying to train physician scientists, and while not fully discouraging residents from going into private practice, do actively encourage academic careers.
PhD is a huge time commitment - many people go into it and then drop out when they realize this, or when they realize it isn't interesting them as much as they thought.
It may be an advantage when looking for an academic job, yes.
Unless you want to do research, you should not do an MD/PhD. Having a PhD does not really make you a more attractive employee for most private practice opportunities - unless there are areas you studied during your PhD that are applicable to an area they are emphasizing.
Doing a PhD requires an extra 3 years (at least) of training - and while people who start med school with you have finished their residency, fellowship, and are making good money, you are still in residency.
Most MD/PhD people go towards an academic career, which is lower pay but a different set of rewards, and a different lifestyle.
I caution you - clearly, when you read boards like this it seems like MD/PhD candidates do better in getting lots of residency interview offers, etc. And perhaps they do, but not always. They often tend to be competitive candidates. But doing an MD/PhD for the purpose of improving your competitive advantage is highly discouraged. I can't really think of anyone who would recommend this.
It is worth it if you want it to be worth it, and the PhD study impacts the area in which you are planning to work for your career. If you want to get a PhD, and then go into private practice and have nothing left to do with research, what's the point? So you got an interview at a place you might not have gotten an interview at. But a lot of the competitive programs make it a point of trying to train physician scientists, and while not fully discouraging residents from going into private practice, do actively encourage academic careers.
PhD is a huge time commitment - many people go into it and then drop out when they realize this, or when they realize it isn't interesting them as much as they thought.
It may be an advantage when looking for an academic job, yes.
B
b&ierstiefel
Agreed.
A PhD may help when gearing yourself towards a research-oriented residency. However, getting a PhD to boost one's CV is overkill, IMHO.
Residency is RESIDENCY. It's clinical training. Medical school is like undergrad in many ways and residency is like grad school for physicians where they hone their skills in a specific field. Getting into a residency mainly depends on your performance in med school. PhD has little to do with this. (I'll be the first one to admit that a solid PhD performance may partially compensate for a lackluster medical school performance...but I won't go as far as to recommend a PhD as a CV booster).
Plus, there are many stellar MD applicants without PhDs who do just fine when it comes down to residency applications.
And like yaah said, if you're aim is to go into private practice pathology, a PhD means jack squat!
Moral of the story: you don't need no PhD.
Addendum: You mentioned MD/PhD and salary. The PhD does not inherently confer any significant salary advantage. What mainly determines your salary is whether you do academic vs. private practice. If you get a MD/PhD and pursue a research career in academics, you will make significantly LESS money than your fellow pathologist peers who go into private practice (but on the flip side, having the MD will allow you to earn much more than the straight PhD person). One of our most senior SDN path forum posters, the illustrious LADoc00, has made this clear on a number of occasions.
A PhD may help when gearing yourself towards a research-oriented residency. However, getting a PhD to boost one's CV is overkill, IMHO.
Residency is RESIDENCY. It's clinical training. Medical school is like undergrad in many ways and residency is like grad school for physicians where they hone their skills in a specific field. Getting into a residency mainly depends on your performance in med school. PhD has little to do with this. (I'll be the first one to admit that a solid PhD performance may partially compensate for a lackluster medical school performance...but I won't go as far as to recommend a PhD as a CV booster).
Plus, there are many stellar MD applicants without PhDs who do just fine when it comes down to residency applications.
And like yaah said, if you're aim is to go into private practice pathology, a PhD means jack squat!
Moral of the story: you don't need no PhD.
Addendum: You mentioned MD/PhD and salary. The PhD does not inherently confer any significant salary advantage. What mainly determines your salary is whether you do academic vs. private practice. If you get a MD/PhD and pursue a research career in academics, you will make significantly LESS money than your fellow pathologist peers who go into private practice (but on the flip side, having the MD will allow you to earn much more than the straight PhD person). One of our most senior SDN path forum posters, the illustrious LADoc00, has made this clear on a number of occasions.
Actually, a good buddy of mine finished his in 2 yearsyaah said:
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,508
- Reaction score
- 4
AndyMilonakis said:Actually, a good buddy of mine finished his in 2 years
Are you serious??!! I have never heard of less than three years.
B
b&ierstiefel
OK it was a bit over 2 years and I rounded down. Yup, I'm serious.beary said:
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,508
- Reaction score
- 4
AndyMilonakis said:
Wow. That is amazing.
What did this superstar go into?
B
b&ierstiefel
Dude is a superstar. Frickin' amazing guy...went to the same high school and college as him. He was always a superstar from day 1.beary said:Wow. That is amazing.
What did this superstar go into?
He went into optho. He's gonna be a competent and compassionate physician-scientist in optho, no doubt about it..
