DO/PHD question

[deleted432094]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I applied to two DO/PHD programs because I am interested in what this entails for my future. I ran into a problem with not having enough letters of recommendation about my research. I only interact with one professor and two of my peers. There are others involved but they know next to nothing about my research and have had me as a student.

I was told that chances are I'm not very competitive then. But I'm not sure what competitive is in this case. Can someone explain this to me before I continue going ahead?

 

[BabyDoc86]

It is my understanding that to be competitive for a DO/PhD program (analogous to an MD/PhD program, of course) that you would need a great MCAT score coupled with several research projects, a few publications, etc. I used to be interested in going that route, but decided against it. Having worked in research for the past five years, my mentors told me that the above criteria were what I would need. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[deleted432094]

It is my understanding that to be competitive for a DO/PhD program (analogous to an MD/PhD program, of course) that you would need a great MCAT score coupled with several research projects, a few publications, etc. I used to be interested in going that route, but decided against it. Having worked in research for the past five years, my mentors told me that the above criteria were what I would need. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

I also have a question on how hands-on this research is. For example, what would people be doing? I think I have a unique experience in research but I'm not sure what other undergrads do in terms of their research.

 

[XCourtSmash]

PhD world = publications publications publications

 

[maestrohuang]

I recently interviewed for a DO/PhD position and they told me a lot about the daily lives of medical scientists. I don't believe that it is necessarily important to meet the requirements of the letters of recommendations. Programs could still interview you if you show them interest as I did. What do you even mean, hands on? There are really only 2 forms of research: clinical and laboratory hard sciences. I spent my time in a lab completing assays, cultures, gels... the whole thing. There are others that spent their time doing clinical work, which is easier, but has the additional aspect of patient contact.. to some extent.

They explained that your life is hardly dedicated to clinical medicine, but rather a mesh of the two, with a greater part of your time spent in the lab. Its 8 years and it's a life long dedication. If you are not sure what you are doing now in comparison to others, I am not sure if it is right for you, TBH...

 

[deleted432094]

I recently interviewed for a DO/PhD position and they told me a lot about the daily lives of medical scientists. I don't believe that it is necessarily important to meet the requirements of the letters of recommendations. Programs could still interview you if you show them interest as I did. What do you even mean, hands on? There are really only 2 forms of research: clinical and laboratory hard sciences. I spent my time in a lab completing assays, cultures, gels... the whole thing. There are others that spent their time doing clinical work, which is easier, but has the additional aspect of patient contact.. to some extent.

They explained that your life is hardly dedicated to clinical medicine, but rather a mesh of the two, with a greater part of your time spent in the lab. Its 8 years and it's a life long dedication. If you are not sure what you are doing now in comparison to others, I am not sure if it is right for you, TBH...

I only ask because I have a feeling that the research I've participated in is pretty unconventional for undergrad and I was wondering if that would make any sort of difference. At this point I'm not interacting with human patients and I'm not running assays--I'm performing surgeries and creating antigen retrieval protocols. I don't really know how I stack up to other undergrad research because most of what I've heard is clinical.

 

[maestrohuang]

I only ask because I have a feeling that the research I've participated in is pretty unconventional for undergrad and I was wondering if that would make any sort of difference. At this point I'm not interacting with human patients and I'm not running assays--I'm performing surgeries and creating antigen retrieval protocols. I don't really know how I stack up to other undergrad research because most of what I've heard is clinical.

This is a good thing. I have moved from the typical research assistant work to zebra fish and mice surgeries. This is a typical progression that most should go through before going into clinical research. The kids who go straight into clinical work think highly of themselves until they are asked about the immunology/microbio/cellular mechanisms and then they realize they know nothing.

 

[TriagePreMed]

The only reason to get a dual degree MD/PhD is to become a research scientist. Only 10-20% of your time will ever be seeing patients. That said, I highly question the value of DO/PhD since the research science community is much more driven by prestige of degrees, caliber of journals you published in and who you did research with. Honestly, I've seen only one PI with a DO/PhD and that's at MSU. And where you are a PI will (indirectly) influence where you get grants and the quality of post-docs and grad students you get (if you even land a position at a school that offers doctorates and post-doc positions). In addition, places like OSU-COM don't even offer a waiver of tuition or stipend for the basic science years, so you will accumulate debt from that and gets interest over 6 years before you start internship.

If research is really your thing, I think it's better to just go with the PhD or really break your back for an MD/PhD.

 

[BabyDoc86]

I also have a question on how hands-on this research is. For example, what would people be doing? I think I have a unique experience in research but I'm not sure what other undergrads do in terms of their research.

In my first research position in undergrad, I administered drugs to mice, harvested tissues, processed tissues for assays, ran assays, analyzed results, ordered supplies, made presentations, and wrote sections of our published articles. Since then, my responsibilities have been about the same, the one exception being that in my clinical work I worked with patients in addition to the above. I guess that is what I call normal hands-on activities, based on previous experience.

Remember that you can participate in research without having a PhD. My current PI is an MD and only sees patients ~20% of the time, ususally.

 

[deleted432094]

OK! Thanks everyone--I think you've have cleared up a lot of my questions and given me a lot to think about. I appreciate all of the feedback and advice. 🙂

 

[maestrohuang]

They told me that DO/PhDs, like MD/PhDs, do not become the best physicians nor the best scientists as their time is split between the two. That's something that began to take my interests away as I want to join this field solely to become a great clinician, but I would still like to participate in research. When you're the medical scientist, you don't get to spend just a few hours at the lab like you would in undergrad. What TriagePREMED said earlier is wrong. DO/PhDs are just so uncommon since there are very few dual-degree programs for DOs that many are just unknown. They receive the same respect as MD/PhDs, but what he said about location and university is correct. While the affiliation with MSU is good, most DO/PhDs end up elsewhere like at the different Mayo locations or Washington, like an example they gave me.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

They told me that DO/PhDs, like MD/PhDs, do not become the best physicians nor the best scientists as their time is split between the two. That's something that began to take my interests away as I want to join this field solely to become a great clinician, but I would still like to participate in research. When you're the medical scientist, you don't get to spend just a few hours at the lab like you would in undergrad. What TriagePREMED said earlier is wrong. DO/PhDs are just so uncommon since there are very few dual-degree programs for DOs that many are just unknown. They receive the same respect as MD/PhDs, but what he said about location and university is correct. While the affiliation with MSU is good, most DO/PhDs end up elsewhere like at the different Mayo locations or Washington, like an example they gave me.

This is the right answer op.

 

[TriagePreMed]

They told me that DO/PhDs, like MD/PhDs, do not become the best physicians nor the best scientists as their time is split between the two. That's something that began to take my interests away as I want to join this field solely to become a great clinician, but I would still like to participate in research. When you're the medical scientist, you don't get to spend just a few hours at the lab like you would in undergrad. What TriagePREMED said earlier is wrong. DO/PhDs are just so uncommon since there are very few dual-degree programs for DOs that many are just unknown. They receive the same respect as MD/PhDs, but what he said about location and university is correct. While the affiliation with MSU is good, most DO/PhDs end up elsewhere like at the different Mayo locations or Washington, like an example they gave me.

I work at UCSF. My knowledge of the value of degrees and work potential with these comes from speaking directly to medical scientists (PI or Post-doc).

The idea that MD/PhD don't become the best scientists is ridiculous. While a PhD alone can become as good of a scientist, the intention of the MD/PhD is mostly for people interested in Translational Research, and even then, there are a ton in basic sciences. I invite you to look through UCSF faculty and see how it's exploding with MD/PhD individuals. As for clinicians, this is true that they are not the best, but that's mostly due to the fact that the MD/PhD is for people intending to go into research.

As for DO/PhD, the term "respect" is rather vague. Show me faculty/labs at well respected universities where they have DO/PhD. I stand by what I said. Where you did your PhD, what publications you have and who was your PI is EXTREMELY important for a career in research. The universities offering DO/PhD are not exactly known as research powerhouses or for employing top scientists. You'll find very few PhD graduates from Oklahoma State/Ohio U/MSUCOM/UMDNJ-SOM in faculty positions at prestigious institutions. The majority of people that go to those end up going to industry. Therefore, getting a DO/PhD is not of equal value to MD/PhD. It's not a DO vs. MD thing or a respect issue. It's an issue that at the places you go for schooling won't give you the same research credibility. Either get the medical degree to be a clinician and take time during the summer/year off for research and do research rotations if you like that stuff, or go for a PhD alone at a better university or save yourself the time of the DO to go into industry.

 

[JoAyi]

The only reason to get a dual degree MD/PhD is to become a research scientist. Only 10-20% of your time will ever be seeing patients. That said, I highly question the value of DO/PhD since the research science community is much more driven by prestige of degrees, caliber of journals you published in and who you did research with. Honestly, I've seen only one PI with a DO/PhD and that's at MSU. And where you are a PI will (indirectly) influence where you get grants and the quality of post-docs and grad students you get (if you even land a position at a school that offers doctorates and post-doc positions). In addition, places like OSU-COM don't even offer a waiver of tuition or stipend for the basic science years, so you will accumulate debt from that and gets interest over 6 years before you start internship.

If research is really your thing, I think it's better to just go with the PhD or really break your back for an MD/PhD.

When I learned what DO is about, I fell in love with it immediately. I care the content and philosophy more than the school or title. I wish DO schools knew how precious and how special they are offering to students, community, and to our healthcare system. DO schools should invest more on research, who says primary care doesn't need research?
With the coming merge of AOA and ACGME, DO schools need some revolution/expansion in their mission, other than just producing primary physicians, when reality is very few DOs actually practice OMM in their clinical practice----it is a shame.

There are scientific measures behind OMM and even the DO philosophy. More research is needed to show what OMM is about, more research is needed to show how employing the philosophy of osteopathic medicine is helping patients. When more publications about OMM or osteopathic medicine are visible in mainstream journals, scientific community will incorporate them into policy, health insurance will accommodate them openly, more people will learn about them and choose them.

In short, i wish DO schools realize that research is as important as producing DOs.

Anyway, off to clean the house now 😳.

 

[maestrohuang]

I work at UCSF. My knowledge of the value of degrees and work potential with these comes from speaking directly to medical scientists (PI or Post-doc).

The idea that MD/PhD don't become the best scientists is ridiculous. While a PhD alone can become as good of a scientist, the intention of the MD/PhD is mostly for people interested in Translational Research, and even then, there are a ton in basic sciences. I invite you to look through UCSF faculty and see how it's exploding with MD/PhD individuals. As for clinicians, this is true that they are not the best, but that's mostly due to the fact that the MD/PhD is for people intending to go into research.

As for DO/PhD, the term "respect" is rather vague. Show me faculty/labs at well respected universities where they have DO/PhD. I stand by what I said. Where you did your PhD, what publications you have and who was your PI is EXTREMELY important for a career in research. The universities offering DO/PhD are not exactly known as research powerhouses or for employing top scientists. You'll find very few PhD graduates from Oklahoma State/Ohio U/MSUCOM/UMDNJ-SOM in faculty positions at prestigious institutions. The majority of people that go to those end up going to industry. Therefore, getting a DO/PhD is not of equal value to MD/PhD. It's not a DO vs. MD thing or a respect issue. It's an issue that at the places you go for schooling won't give you the same research credibility. Either get the medical degree to be a clinician and take time during the summer/year off for research and do research rotations if you like that stuff, or go for a PhD alone at a better university or save yourself the time of the DO to go into industry.

I have worked at University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and MIT over the last 2 years, and you will be very surprised to hear where some of the best researchers come from. Many don't even hold an American degree and are considered very good researchers at these institutes. In regards to the DO/PhDs, a large number of MSUCOM graduates end up at one of the Mayo Clinic locations, returning to MSU, not just COM or CHM, but the university to work, or even Cleveland Clinic/Case Western. I am sure they do just fine, regardless of where they get their degrees.

 

[maestrohuang]

MD/PhD>DO/PhD>PhD>MD>DO

as research goes, that's the bottom line

 

[JoAyi]

They told me that DO/PhDs, like MD/PhDs, do not become the best physicians nor the best scientists as their time is split between the two. .

Simply not true. A lot of great works have been done by MD/PhD or MD scientists, it's easy to find at Yale, Harvard, Penn, UCSF, Stanford, etc. These MD/PhD or MD scientists have gone through residency training, fellowship training, they've seen thousands of patients before becoming attending. Yes, once they start running their own lab, they usually have 20% clinical time and 80% research time, some younger PIs need to do 40-60 or 60-40 depending on which hospitals they work in. I've worked with MDs and MD/PhDs at several teaching hospitals, they are great scientists as well as great physicians, super smart and efficient.

That said, there are always pretty ordinary ones........

 

[maestrohuang]

Simply not true. A lot of great works have been done by MD/PhD or MD scientists, it's easy to find at Yale, Harvard, Penn, UCSF, Stanford, etc. These MD/PhD or MD scientists have gone through residency training, fellowship training, they've seen thousands of patients before becoming attending. Yes, once they start running their own lab, they usually have 20% clinical time and 80% research time, some younger PIs need to do 40-60 or 60-40 depending on which hospitals they work in. I've worked with MDs and MD/PhDs at several teaching hospitals, they are great scientists as well as great physicians, super smart and efficient.

That said, there are always pretty ordinary ones........

Well, I guess this is a very subjective observation, but this is from their mouths, not mine. They know they experience far less clinical work than the traditional physician... so it is somewhat inferred that they aren't better in the clinic than the ones that practice everyday.

 

[maestrohuang]

I know a lot of people with foreign degrees that do well. The majority of them are PhD graduates that were able to do post-doc at a prestigious university. In the case of DO/PhD, they typically don't do post-doc. A lot of the foreign MD/PhD are not in the same way as Americans are. Most of them earned an undergraduate in medicine and went on to do a PhD.

In any case, we're going in circles with this. I stand by what I said. Personally, if my goal were basic or translational research, I'd do a PhD alone at a better institution. If my goal is to be a clinician or do clinical research on the side, I'd go with DO only.


But you just said they don't become good scientists either? Have you ever even worked with an MD/PhD? You criticized me for being "premed" but you have the same label too.

Because of the access, not the practice. Pure researchers will be much better in the lab since most MD/PhDs participate in clinical research. This is what I have experienced with my work under PhDs and MD/PhDs. Your experience may be different, but I have been to U of M and MIT, two pretty substantially funded universities, if that was what you were getting at when saying you worked with UCSF.

 

[cliquesh]

You really do not need a phd to have a strong research career. Being an MD or DO is fine. Also, some residencies offer a physician scientist track. You don't get an extra degree or anything, but they tailor your residency towards research.