DO/PhD or DO-Only Research?

[Katatonic]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What's the general consensus on DO/PhD programs, or doing research post-DO? Is it just as easy to get funding as for an MD/PhD? Just wondering since I'm looking at these programs as well. However, there are only three programs, and you don't get any funding during the medical school years, only the PhD years (plus you also have to take both the MCAT and GRE to be eligible).

 

[gbwillner]

What's the general consensus on DO/PhD programs, or doing research post-DO? Is it just as easy to get funding as for an MD/PhD? Just wondering since I'm looking at these programs as well. However, there are only three programs, and you don't get any funding during the medical school years, only the PhD years (plus you also have to take both the MCAT and GRE to be eligible).

I would ask the DO forum. I doubt anyone here knows much about DO programs, since we are mainly allopathic in this forum...

 

[MTS42]

What's the general consensus on DO/PhD programs, or doing research post-DO? Is it just as easy to get funding as for an MD/PhD? Just wondering since I'm looking at these programs as well. However, there are only three programs, and you don't get any funding during the medical school years, only the PhD years (plus you also have to take both the MCAT and GRE to be eligible).

I can't speak for all the DO/PhD programs, but for Michigan State's program you actually get partial funding plus a stipend over the entire 7-8 years. It amounts to paying a reduced tuition each year in the program.

Their program is pretty strong but it is a bit cumbersome to apply. You may need the GRE as well as the MCAT (depends on which PhD program you apply to), and you have to apply separately to the DO, PhD, and DO/PhD programs. So in that way it just has a few more hoops to jump through than the traditional MSTP programs. They have very good success with their graduates though, as many now have appointments at any of the top academic hospitals and institutions you could think of.

I'm not well informed about DO-only research opportunities so perhaps someone else can comment on that.

 

[Neuronix]

We've gone around about this a few times in the past. DO programs go from partially funded to unfunded. There are no DO programs that advertise themselves as fully-funded. Thus I usually say there are no fully-funded DO/PhD programs.

For definitions of what I mean by fully/partially/un funded: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=7735287&postcount=8

I tried to search MSU's DO/PhD website, but the only thing they say about finances (as an advantage to persuing a DO/PhD ???) is:

"NIH Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program LRP-In exchange for a two-year commitment to a clinical research career, NIH will repay up to $35,000 per year of education debt for up to two years."

That doesn't make me feel like they're paying a significant proportion.

You can try for a F30 as a DO/PhD. It might fund the last two years of medical school, but it's a rare and competitive gamble.

 

[itsallthesame]

if you are not getting your medical school (do or otherwise) fully paid for AND you really want to do research... my suggestion would be to do your PhD at the best place that you can get into.

Most DO schools provide a fine medical education; however, they typically lack big research reps and thus big research names. Example: PCOM has a DO/PhD program. In 2005 they had 4 NIH grants. North TX had a decent #, but not anywhere near your typical big research U.

If you are footing the bill for medical school, there is little/no advantage for staying at your school for the PhD. I know of several MD schools that will let you take time off after ms2 to get a phd. If you can get into a DO school, do well in year one, and have a bit of research background, you can probably get into a university that has more funding (thus opportunities) for your PhD.

 

[rapinyourface]

if you are not getting your medical school (do or otherwise) fully paid for AND you really want to do research... my suggestion would be to do your PhD at the best place that you can get into.

Most DO schools provide a fine medical education; however, they typically lack big research reps and thus big research names. Example: PCOM has a DO/PhD program. In 2005 they had 4 NIH grants. North TX had a decent #, but not anywhere near your typical big research U.

If you are footing the bill for medical school, there is little/no advantage for staying at your school for the PhD. I know of several MD schools that will let you take time off after ms2 to get a phd. If you can get into a DO school, do well in year one, and have a bit of research background, you can probably get into a university that has more funding (thus opportunities) for your PhD.

Why would you start a PhD after year one (of DO school) rather than after year two?

Can someone explain the point of "splicing" med school and getting a PhD in the middle of it, rather than just getting it afterwards? I'm sure there's a good reason, I just need someone to spell it out for me.

 

[itsallthesame]

clarification:

do well in year one of DO school, then apply to PhD programs durring year two of DO school, begin the PhD after year 2 but before year 3.

people are hesitant to do phd's after m4 because it makes a transition back to residency difficult with ~4 years off from any clinical work. only recommended if you want a 0% clinical career (no residency). this is often considered a bad career move (clinical safety net of md/do is lost), plus how can you be so sure you want to do only bench research without even getting a PhD?