Do you need PhD to research?

[triplerox]

Or will having MD along with a fellowship be sufficient?

Also, for people who did MD/PhD, do they still have to go through residency? So for example, I'm interested in the field of radiation oncology and would like to practice it as well as researching better methods, etc to treat cancer. Would I have to go through the 8-9 years of MD/PhD, then another 3-4 years of residency in radiation oncology?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ecoli]

you can do research without a PhD, but you probably wouldn't be able to run a lab.

And, yes, you'd have to do a residency with an MD/PhD, to my knowledge.

 

[JHopRevisit]

Or will having MD along with a fellowship be sufficient?

Also, for people who did MD/PhD, do they still have to go through residency? So for example, I'm interested in the field of radiation oncology and would like to practice it as well as researching better methods, etc to treat cancer. Would I have to go through the 8-9 years of MD/PhD, then another 3-4 years of residency in radiation oncology?

Thanks!

To practice rad-onc as a doctor, you need to complete the residency. However, residencies/fellowships with a significant research component (such as Rad-Onc, or some of the Medicine Subspecialties, especially if fast-track) can eliminate the need to do a post-doc, although this is not guaranteed (and how common it is seems to vary with the state of funding, lots of people are in post-doc holding patterns right now waiting for universities to start hiring again when (if?) funding improves).

You do not need to complete residency to be a researcher. But if you're not interested in a residency, just do a PhD.

 

[triplerox]

thanks for the reply. out of curiosity, do people who complete md/phd practice in the clinic or do they just do research all day long?

thanks

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

thanks for the reply. out of curiosity, do people who complete md/phd practice in the clinic or do they just do research all day long?

thanks

Typically an average of 20% clinical and 80% research, for those who focus on research. Some will do 100% research and no clinic. Some will do 100% clinic and no research. Some will do mostly clinic and some clinical research, which seems to take less time than basic science research. Some will do industry.

 

[CCLCMer]

you can do research without a PhD, but you probably wouldn't be able to run a lab.

No, you don't have to have a PhD to run a lab. There are plenty of MDs who run labs, but they do get some kind of research training. Maybe they have an MS, or they did a research fellowship.

And, yes, you'd have to do a residency with an MD/PhD, to my knowledge.

This isn't always true either. You only need to do a residency if you're going to practice. An MD/PhD could choose to just do a post doc like regular PhDs do. But that's probably not the best idea, because then you can't really take advantage of your clinical education. And you might change your mind later and want to practice.

Triplerox, I'm in an MD/MS program because I want to do clinical research and I didn't want to do a PhD. You could look into doing regular med school and taking a fifth year for research if you feel like a PhD will be too long. A lot of schools offer a fifth year for research as an option (with or without an MS) even if they don't have a formal research MD program like CCLCM. (We are part of Case Western.) To answer your other question, at the Cleveland Clinic, the MD/PhD researchers usually do still see patients. So do the administrators. One of our deans is an MD/PhD in education, and even he still has clinic one day per week. The Cleveland Clinic is more clinically-oriented than a lot of academic centers are though, so I'm not sure how normal this is for an MD/PhD in a more traditional university setting.

 

[jsydc]

Or will having MD along with a fellowship be sufficient?

Also, for people who did MD/PhD, do they still have to go through residency? So for example, I'm interested in the field of radiation oncology and would like to practice it as well as researching better methods, etc to treat cancer. Would I have to go through the 8-9 years of MD/PhD, then another 3-4 years of residency in radiation oncology?

Thanks!

I've done my Master's in Medical Physics in a program largely geared towards rad-onc physics, although I'm mainly into imaging myself, I have a good picture of rad-onc research at my university anyways. A lot of the new technical developments, treatment planning, image guided therapies, tomotherapy, IMRT, protons, etc. are very much physics driven, most of the RadOncs I've seen involved are used mainly for a referral base for small trials, although they are more heavily involved in documenting larger multicenter clinical trials. Depending on what you see as your primary role, you may want to consider looking at some clinically oriented medical physics graduate programs. Clinical physicists do play an important role in patient management, albeit with little to no patient interaction, and are currently pretty well compensated as well. Google the AAPM website for more info, as its probably a more direct route to rad-onc research.

As for whether or not you require a PhD to do rad-onc research, probably not, but it will potentially allow for a broader scope in the type of research you would likely do as a rad-onc. None of the rad-oncs involved with our department have PhD's, although some have Master's.
Also, it's a field where in the US, a high proportion go into private practice. To work at large academic centers where research is focused, a fellowship is almost a must, with or without a PhD.
If you want your main focus to be clinical with occasional research, don't do the PhD. If you want to do research that is heavily technically oriented or 100% research, and potentially have some involvement in patient care, consider medical physics instead of medicine. If you're still dead set on medicine and a heavy research involvement you could probably do alright with just a Master's. Do the PhD if you feel it will help with your specific aims.

Try and come up with a picture of what balance you want to strike now, and let that guide your decision, knowing full well that picture will probably change in 10 years time anyways.

Check out the rad-onc forum as well, as they probably have a better picture of the funding/research environments in major American centers. (I'm Canadian, thankfully, and my experience is in Canada)

 

[blazinfury]

Sorry to jack this threat, but I have a question. What is the difference b/w rad-onc and vascular interventional radiology? Is it the same thing, at least in a sense? And most ppl who are PhDs in these 2 fields, is their PhD in biophysics or can it be in like cancer research?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Sorry to jack this threat, but I have a question. What is the difference b/w rad-onc and vascular interventional radiology? Is it the same thing, at least in a sense? And most ppl who are PhDs in these 2 fields, is their PhD in biophysics or can it be in like cancer research?

Completely different fields. Rad-onc involves the use of therapeutic radiation in treating cancer. You apply radiation to ablate neoplasms. Diagnostic radiology uses various modalities, some of them electromagnetic radiation, to localize and characterize lesions. Interventional radiology goes a step further and involves the usage of catheters and other instruments to do something about the lesions that are found.

I don't know what PhDs these people do, but I imagine it doesn't matter too much since most will be primarily clinical ultimately anyway. For rad-onc I would think cancer research would be better and for diagnostic radiology or interventional radiology probably medical physics/bioimaging research would be better.

 

[Neuronix]

I don't know what PhDs these people do, but I imagine it doesn't matter too much since most will be primarily clinical ultimately anyway.

I take strong issue with this statement. I've seen this stated or implied numerous times. Until I see data showing one way or another, I do not want people to think that people going into one specialty are more likely to do research than people going into another specialty.

For rad-onc I would think cancer research would be better and for diagnostic radiology or interventional radiology probably medical physics/bioimaging research would be better.

This is sort of true. If you know you really want to go into one of those specialties you'll figure out what PhD you want to do. If you figure it out later too, that's ok. Doing research in the area of your future specialty helps, but is hardly crucial. Everyone still wants to see those Step I/clinical grades regardless of your PhD. From there it's hard to say one type of PhD research versus another will help launch a research career.

 

[triplerox]

thanks for the help guys. from what i have gathered, it seems PhD wont be required as long as I have a fellowship in a field im interested in. that's probably the route i will take since it will save me at least 4-5 years. if anything i will probably opt for a MS. my school currently offers a 1 year biochem MS program, should i go for that,then apply to med school or go to med, finish residency/fellowship then apply for the MS?

 

[QofQuimica]

thanks for the help guys. from what i have gathered, it seems PhD wont be required as long as I have a fellowship in a field im interested in. that's probably the route i will take since it will save me at least 4-5 years. if anything i will probably opt for a MS. my school currently offers a 1 year biochem MS program, should i go for that,then apply to med school or go to med, finish residency/fellowship then apply for the MS?

Speaking as someone who did the PhD-to-MD thing, I can tell you that getting into med school is *much* harder than getting into grad school. You should focus your efforts on making yourself a competitive applicant for med school--getting an MS really doesn't do much in that regard unless you do an SMP. (These are MS programs that are geared for people with low UG grades.) If you are prepared to apply to med school now, go for it. Ask about research opportunities at your interviews. I have found that it's very easy to find research opportunities as a medical student; many med schools strongly encourage students to pursue research as an elective or to take an extra year to do research.

 

[jsydc]

thanks for the help guys. from what i have gathered, it seems PhD wont be required as long as I have a fellowship in a field im interested in. that's probably the route i will take since it will save me at least 4-5 years. if anything i will probably opt for a MS. my school currently offers a 1 year biochem MS program, should i go for that,then apply to med school or go to med, finish residency/fellowship then apply for the MS?

An MS won't help get you into med school, but it may be useful if you want to do research later on.

It also will not guarantee you the match of your choice.

People who do cancer biology research more typically end up doing med-onc than rad-onc, so the medical physics/ biomedical engineering is a more typical route to research in this field than biochem, as it is very technology driven, although there are definitely those who do molecular and biochem work as well.

If you can get good funding at the Master's level then it's a good way to get into research, but a one year program does not guarantee you'll finish it in time to matriculate in Med if it's thesis based, as the cutoff deadlines vary by institution, just be aware of this.

You could also look into programs like CCLCM and MD/MS programs that were mentioned before. If you can get into Med now, you should probably go for it. Especially if it saves you another year of debt.

In reality, if you don't do the PhD, you're probably only saving yourself about 1-2 years, as you could easily spend a longer time in a research oriented fellowship than you would with a PhD (this is an interesting point for debate though).
Although you'll be better compensated doing research during residency/ fellowship than doing a PhD, at the same time, you may have a much heavier debt-load if you have to pay for med-school, and will not be able to dedicate 100% of your time to your projects (this could be good or bad).

If you spend too much time counting the years before you're practicing/researching independently, you won't get to enjoy the ride.

 

[triplerox]

An MS won't help get you into med school, but it may be useful if you want to do research later on.

It also will not guarantee you the match of your choice.

People who do cancer biology research more typically end up doing med-onc than rad-onc, so the medical physics/ biomedical engineering is a more typical route to research in this field than biochem, as it is very technology driven, although there are definitely those who do molecular and biochem work as well.

If you can get good funding at the Master's level then it's a good way to get into research, but a one year program does not guarantee you'll finish it in time to matriculate in Med if it's thesis based, as the cutoff deadlines vary by institution, just be aware of this.

You could also look into programs like CCLCM and MD/MS programs that were mentioned before. If you can get into Med now, you should probably go for it. Especially if it saves you another year of debt.

In reality, if you don't do the PhD, you're probably only saving yourself about 1-2 years, as you could easily spend a longer time in a research oriented fellowship than you would with a PhD (this is an interesting point for debate though).
Although you'll be better compensated doing research during residency/ fellowship than doing a PhD, at the same time, you may have a much heavier debt-load if you have to pay for med-school, and will not be able to dedicate 100% of your time to your projects (this could be good or bad).

If you spend too much time counting the years before you're practicing/researching independently, you won't get to enjoy the ride.

Really? I was looking at the MSTP at UCSF and it takes 8 years to complete both MD/PhD. I just assumed thats usually how long it takes for other schools as well. Speaking of fellowships, they are pretty much research oriented right? Would it be a better idea to lets say.. finish med school then apply for fellowship in a field that I like to be in (radonc) and save the trouble that you have to go through to get the PhD, and in the end I still can do research while doing clinical work.

You're right about the huge debt-load but thats part of life im pretty sure its manageble....right ?. The way I see it, that extra 3-4 years that it takes to get the PhD can be used for working full time as a doctor upon completion of residency/fellowship and the debt should be able to be paid off after 3-4 years.

Speaking of residency/fellowship, do most med student complete 1 of each? or what? can u do as many as you want and etc?

 

[Neuronix]

Really? I was looking at the MSTP at UCSF and it takes 8 years to complete both MD/PhD. I just assumed thats usually how long it takes for other schools as well.

This is correct. Some schools have MD/MS programs but I can never understand why someone would want to do them if they already have a master's. Maybe for the tuition break, as those programs are subsidized.

Speaking of fellowships, they are pretty much research oriented right?

Most are not, but you can do the research ones if you wish for as long as you like. The pay is so much less than being an actual attending that programs love to have you.

Would it be a better idea to lets say.. finish med school then apply for fellowship in a field that I like to be in (radonc) and save the trouble that you have to go through to get the PhD, and in the end I still can do research while doing clinical work.

It's a fine idea. In the end it's up to you. The benefits to doing MD/PhD are the tuition break for MD and the research training up front/integrated training. A PhD is not required for a research career.

You're right about the huge debt-load but thats part of life im pretty sure its manageble....right ?. The way I see it, that extra 3-4 years that it takes to get the PhD can be used for working full time as a doctor upon completion of residency/fellowship and the debt should be able to be paid off after 3-4 years.

There are loan repayment programs for researchers that may cover your debt. The problem is that if you go to the clinical world for a couple years to work it's very hard to get back into the research world. With the huge paycut you'll get by doing research, you won't starve but it'll be a significant ding to your standard of living, especially if you have a family. If you don't get into a loan repayment program it'll be just that much harder.

Speaking of residency/fellowship, do most med student complete 1 of each? or what? can u do as many as you want and etc?

Most do one of each, yes. For example in Radiology it would be Diagnostic Radiology followed by Neuroradiology. 50% of graduating seniors do a fellowship nowadays, but the academics are going to force everyone to do a fellowship in the near future to get board certified. The percentages that do a fellowship depends on the field. You can sit in fellowship as long as you like though within reason continuing your training in research if you have a cooperative program. If you don't mind taking the paycut and your research is fairly successful, you just continue on the track... It's all a matter of if you don't mind working harder than you would in the clinical world for less money and less job security well into your 30s until you get established.

But eh, if you have the PhD it's not that much easier. I suppose once you get to the fellowship stage if you have the PhD you're already on a research track whereas with the MD you're starting out from scratch. But you still have to spend several years doing a fellowship and all the hardships I mentioned still apply.

 

[tardis]

But eh, if you have the PhD it's not that much easier. I suppose once you get to the fellowship stage if you have the PhD you're already on a research track whereas with the MD you're starting out from scratch. But you still have to spend several years doing a fellowship and all the hardships I mentioned still apply.

This has been a great thread, and it answered a lot of my questions. I hope it's not hijacking but I have one more question that hopefully will also help the OP.

If I already have a Master's and reasonably established publication record, is it still worth doing the PhD? What if money is not really an issue?

It doesn't seem like there would be much holding me back, and I would likely spend about the same amount of time in fellowships/postdocs doing supervised work as an MD-PhD would anyways. What then is the remaining advantage of doing the PhD versus the disadvantages of dividing up training during med school and further postponing generating income?

 

[Neuronix]

If I already have a Master's and reasonably established publication record, is it still worth doing the PhD? What if money is not really an issue?

Only you can answer that question. Different people are going to have different opinions and there is no one right answer.

 

[RxnMan]

No, you don't have to have a PhD to run a lab...

I agree with CCLMer completely here. You don't need a PhD, and there are many different ways for MDs to get research training without being part of the big Caddy integrated MD/PhD programs.

Schools will offer research years, there are residency (e.g. many surg residencies have integrated research time) and fellowship opportunities (mentioned above). There are also external programs you can do between MS2 and MS3, or between MS3 and MS4. The most famous are the HHMI and Doris Dukes fellowships. Information on these and similar programs can be found in the Research Forum FAQ.

...Until I see data showing one way or another, I do not want people to think that people going into one specialty are more likely to do research than people going into another specialty.

Doctor and Geek has that running log of MD/PhDs and what fields they go into. Granted, not all MD/PhDs do research, and they don't do the majority of it (MDs out number them,) but they are the population that is most likely to do research, and you could infer from their choice of residency where the most research is being done.

An MS won't help get you into med school, but it may be useful if you want to do research later on.

It also will not guarantee you the match of your choice...If you can get good funding at the Master's level then it's a good way to get into research, but a one year program does not guarantee you'll finish it in time to matriculate in Med if it's thesis based, as the cutoff deadlines vary by institution, just be aware of this...

MS is not a garauntee, and really nothing is a garauntee, as Q can testify.

...If I already have a Master's and reasonably established publication record, is it still worth doing the PhD? What if money is not really an issue?...

I am in this situation, so I may be able to help you. I thought about and (Neuronix should listen) actually considered going for the MD/PhD even though I had a MS. The tuition break was part of it. I also thought that it would be another part of my skill set that will get me to where I want to go - a career in academic medicine. I am pretty sure I could have had some time shaved off of my program for time served.

However, I thought about it for a long time, and I decided that going through another committee, quals, living like a grad student, writing a thesis, the politics... It just wasn't worth it. As I wrote above, there's many ways to integrate research training into a MD career. Given my experience and prior degree, the possible gains did not justify the costs. This is just my thoughts, and you'll have to figure out your thresholds for yourself.

 

[QofQuimica]

This has been a great thread, and it answered a lot of my questions. I hope it's not hijacking but I have one more question that hopefully will also help the OP.

If I already have a Master's and reasonably established publication record, is it still worth doing the PhD? What if money is not really an issue?

It doesn't seem like there would be much holding me back, and I would likely spend about the same amount of time in fellowships/postdocs doing supervised work as an MD-PhD would anyways. What then is the remaining advantage of doing the PhD versus the disadvantages of dividing up training during med school and further postponing generating income?

It's a fair question, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I did both my PhD and now my MD after having completed an MS and worked for a while. But this was not intentional, in the sense that I wasn't planning to get an MD when I went back to grad school for my PhD. If I were going to do it all over again, I probably wouldn't have gotten the PhD (or at least I would have gone for an MD/PhD program in the first place and not gotten a separate MS first.) I think someone like you would probably be fine with an MS-to-MD and then some fellowship training; maybe RxnMan can comment some more about it when he has time. Also, hopefully Tildy, who is a research MD, will see this thread and comment. If not, you may want to PM him.

 

[triplerox]

Hows the job market for academic researchers? Industrial researchers? I know the route to academic position as a professor can be long and difficult but what about in an industrial position?

I'm beginning to see that if I enter the route through MD then residency and fellowship, my debt will probably rack up to 200,000+ in roughly 9-10 years of school.

But if I just pursue PhD independently, I will save 2-3 years of school and the only debt i will owe is from undergrad years. In the end with my PhD I can still do research but without the huge amount of debt and I saved a lot of time. My only worry is job security if i go through this route.

 

[RxnMan]

Hows the job market for academic researchers? Industrial researchers? I know the route to academic position as a professor can be long and difficult but what about in an industrial position?...

Actually, from the docs I've spoken to, the road to academia is not harder, it's just lower paying (and now Tildy will come down and crush me for repeating rumors ). The number I see these days is in $180K/yr salary for a starting academic. Depending on the field, that can be 1/2 - 1/3 of a private practice salary.

...I'm beginning to see that if I enter the route through MD then residency and fellowship, my debt will probably rack up to 200,000+ in roughly 9-10 years of school...

That level of debt is a given if you get a MD (or DO) at a private US school.

...But if I just pursue PhD independently, I will save 2-3 years of school and the only debt i will owe is from undergrad years. In the end with my PhD I can still do research but without the huge amount of debt and I saved a lot of time. My only worry is job security if i go through this route.

Well here you get to the crux of things. Do you want to go research? If so, then PhD is the way to go. If you want to go clinical, go MD. Depending on the mix of the two, then maybe go MD/PhD (Again, a MD/PhD is much more powerful with a residency). I would not suggest getting the PhD first. Most PhD -> MDs I've spoken to have not seen a benefit (in terms of MD acceptances) to getting the PhD first. While it is nice to have a grad degree paid for, that gain is minimal compared to what you could be making as a MD or a MD/PhD on the other side of the pipline. Also, there are mechanisms by which you can pay off that MD debt in practice as a researcher or by being an area of need (rural or inner-city).

The most important point in this decision tree is to determine what type of career you want first.

 

[Doodledog]

Also, hopefully Tildy, who is a research MD, will see this thread and comment.

Actually, from the docs I've spoken to, the road to academia is not harder, it's just lower paying (and now Tildy will come down and crush me for repeating rumors ). The number I see these days is in $180K/yr salary for a starting academic. Depending on the field, that can be 1/2 - 1/3 of a private practice salary.

Hey folks, I've been busy eating and that takes priority over SDN, even when being called out.

The pros and cons of MD/PhD vs PhD or vs MD alone for research are more than adequately beaten to death, er, I mean discussed, in many threads. I don't have any unique insights that haven't been gone over before. With regard to the issue of a published researcher with an MS going MD/PhD vs MD alone, my question would be whether you feel you have gotten adequate research skills to get you started as a post-doc during work in your area during fellowship. If so, and that's entirely possible for many people, then I'm not sure a PhD offers that much to you. There are plenty of ways to "update" your knowledge and skills later in the training process and if you come into fellowship with real skills already established then the PhD will add less. But, this is really up to you and how much you feel that research will be the predominant part of your life after school.

With regard to the salary bit and academic medicine, there will always be a job in almost any field for someone who wants to do academics and patient care. There is no way to fix a salary for academics as it is entirely specialty and subspecialty dependent. Although in some areas the gap between private and academic is 1/3-1/2 that is certainly not always the case. The comparison is much more complex as it relates to clinical time, lifestyle, benefits (such as college tuition benefits), loan repayment, etc. I increasingly see folks choosing to go FROM private practice INTO an academic setting to do teaching and patient care. There are lots of reasons for this, but primarily they revolve around lifestyle, less hassles, enjoyment of teaching and a much smaller salary gap than many think.

Now, I'm hungry again. It's all those steroids I'm taking (Tildy, not her master, has Addison's disease)....

 

[triplerox]

Actually, from the docs I've spoken to, the road to academia is not harder, it's just lower paying (and now Tildy will come down and crush me for repeating rumors ). The number I see these days is in $180K/yr salary for a starting academic. Depending on the field, that can be 1/2 - 1/3 of a private practice salary.

180k a year for starting academic?? i was under the impression that most associate/assistant professor were only making 50-60k when they start out and their salary only slowly increased up to 100k when they reached professor level. or are you speaking of MD/PhD docs and not regular PhD's haha

you're right about not going PhD-->MD, after thinking about it, it just doesnt make any sense.

I came across the Med-to-Grad program at UCSD and i found it very interesting. its basically allows doctoral students pursuing their degree in medical science to be exposed to many clinical field in the hospital. they would do rounds with the attending and observe a particular disease they are studying (cancer, neuro, cardio, etc) If anything I think if I apply for PhD at UCSD and get into that program, i can have my research along with clinical experience to enhance my knowledge.

Speaking of which, MD/PhD can be extremely competitive and difficult to get into. But what about just regular PhD? How hard is admittance into top schools such as UCSF, Stanford, or UCSD for their PhD degree?

 

[triplerox]

Hey folks, I've been busy eating and that takes priority over SDN, even when being called out.

The pros and cons of MD/PhD vs PhD or vs MD alone for research are more than adequately beaten to death, er, I mean discussed, in many threads. I don't have any unique insights that haven't been gone over before. With regard to the issue of a published researcher with an MS going MD/PhD vs MD alone, my question would be whether you feel you have gotten adequate research skills to get you started as a post-doc during work in your area during fellowship. If so, and that's entirely possible for many people, then I'm not sure a PhD offers that much to you. There are plenty of ways to "update" your knowledge and skills later in the training process and if you come into fellowship with real skills already established then the PhD will add less. But, this is really up to you and how much you feel that research will be the predominant part of your life after school.

With regard to the salary bit and academic medicine, there will always be a job in almost any field for someone who wants to do academics and patient care. There is no way to fix a salary for academics as it is entirely specialty and subspecialty dependent. Although in some areas the gap between private and academic is 1/3-1/2 that is certainly not always the case. The comparison is much more complex as it relates to clinical time, lifestyle, benefits (such as college tuition benefits), loan repayment, etc. I increasingly see folks choosing to go FROM private practice INTO an academic setting to do teaching and patient care. There are lots of reasons for this, but primarily they revolve around lifestyle, less hassles, enjoyment of teaching and a much smaller salary gap than many think.

Now, I'm hungry again. It's all those steroids I'm taking (Tildy, not her master, has Addison's disease)....

Eating...and ...steroids?! are you a lifter as well?! my main hobby has always been bodybuilding/powerlifting. how much time do you have for such things in med schools and after med schools? and if im wrong and you were just kidding the excuse my post !

In addition, how much of a lifestyle difference is there between doctors practicing in academic setting vs full time clinic?

 

[Neuronix]

Doctor and Geek has that running log of MD/PhDs and what fields they go into. Granted, not all MD/PhDs do research, and they don't do the majority of it (MDs out number them,) but they are the population that is most likely to do research, and you could infer from their choice of residency where the most research is being done.

I only meant on a likeliness of an individual graduate to choose research for a career based on residency choice. On a percentage basis, IM just happens to be the largest field in medicine. It's also where the most MD/PhDs end up. Does this mean MD/PhDs going into IM are more likely to do research than MD/PhDs going into Pediatrics? Pathology? Radiology (#4 for MD/PhDs nationally)? Beats me. I have no evidence in any direction.

I am in this situation, so I may be able to help you. I thought about and (Neuronix should listen) actually considered going for the MD/PhD even though I had a MS.

What should I listen to? Is that misplaced I agree with your reasoning, surely. It's a decision people have to make for themselves.

Actually, from the docs I've spoken to, the road to academia is not harder, it's just lower paying (and now Tildy will come down and crush me for repeating rumors ). The number I see these days is in $180K/yr salary for a starting academic. Depending on the field, that can be 1/2 - 1/3 of a private practice salary.

I'd say $180k/year is very inflated for a mostly research attending here in most specialties. Try half of that. There are plenty of jobs that start at less than $100k here and at our neighboring pediatric affiliate. $180k is more like the starting private practice salary for most specialties. Just as a reminder: the national average is ~$200k for all physicians, then you tack on the paycut for academics, paycut for 100% research, and paycut for just starting.

Triplerox: 50-60k is fellowship level for MDs. It's roughly post-doc level as well. The pays are roughly the same at most institutions if you adjust for years of experience (PGY-6 vs. Post doc year 6), with at most $10k more to the fellow.

 

[Doodledog]

Eating...and ...steroids?! are you a lifter as well?! my main hobby has always been bodybuilding/powerlifting. how much time do you have for such things in med schools and after med schools? and if im wrong and you were just kidding the excuse my post !

Hmm...I guess I wasn't clear enough. Tildy is the real name of a 5 year old Jack Russell Terrier. Tildy (the DOG) has Addison's disease, likes to eat and takes steroids as treatment for her Addison's. Tildy's master, who is the person typing this, also likes to eat, but doesn't have Addison's and doesn't take steroids. BTW, Tildy's master doesn't do the lifting thing, but there are plenty of docs who do.

 

[triplerox]

Triplerox: 50-60k is fellowship level for MDs. It's roughly post-doc level as well. The pays are roughly the same at most institutions if you adjust for years of experience (PGY-6 vs. Post doc year 6), with at most $10k more to the fellow.

Hm i see. how long do post docs really go on for? The same as residency/fellowships? So lets say a person pursuing a PhD will have to go through 4-5 years along with I'd say 3-4 years of postdoc before he would be done with "schooling"? 50-60k is for post-docs then how much of an increase would be expected once the post doc is completed? Assuming the PhD is in a biomedical field.

By the way whats the track to becoming a full-pledged professor and how long is the road? Post doct-->?????-->professor

Hmm...I guess I wasn't clear enough. Tildy is the real name of a 5 year old Jack Russell Terrier. Tildy (the DOG) has Addison's disease, likes to eat and takes steroids as treatment for her Addison's. Tildy's master, who is the person typing this, also likes to eat, but doesn't have Addison's and doesn't take steroids. BTW, Tildy's master doesn't do the lifting thing, but there are plenty of docs who do.

ahh i feel silly now

 

[Doodledog]

By the way whats the track to becoming a full-pledged professor and how long is the road? Post doct-->?????-->professor

Criteria for promotion are usually primarily based on (in order of importance) 1) funding 2) funding 3) publications 4) national/international reputation and 5) Everything else such as teaching

There is no standard timeline. For MDs pursuing a tenure track, research predominant career, it is typical to be named an assistant professor after completing a specialty fellowship. Promotion to associate prof (usually but NOT always linked to tenure) is typically expected in 5-9 years and promotion to full professor would be typical in another 5-9 years. There tends to be more variability in going from assoc prof to full prof than from assistant to assoc prof.

Again, all of this isn't set in stone. Some places have mandatory tenure review after anywhere from 5 to 9 years, others don't...

The basic system is similar for PhD's but I'll let others comment on that. Clinical academic faculty are often promoted based on different criteria and sometimes a different timeline, but I'll not go through that here.

 

[triplerox]

Criteria for promotion are usually primarily based on (in order of importance) 1) funding 2) funding 3) publications 4) national/international reputation and 5) Everything else such as teaching

There is no standard timeline. For MDs pursuing a tenure track, research predominant career, it is typical to be named an assistant professor after completing a specialty fellowship. Promotion to associate prof (usually but NOT always linked to tenure) is typically expected in 5-9 years and promotion to full professor would be typical in another 5-9 years. There tends to be more variability in going from assoc prof to full prof than from assistant to assoc prof.

Again, all of this isn't set in stone. Some places have mandatory tenure review after anywhere from 5 to 9 years, others don't...

The basic system is similar for PhD's but I'll let others comment on that. Clinical academic faculty are often promoted based on different criteria and sometimes a different timeline, but I'll not go through that here.

i see. so fundings, publications, and reputations. sounds fun! any tips for an aspiring undergrad student? whats the best way to receive fundings and spread reputations? im aiming for a position as a tenure professor as young as possible

 

[Neuronix]

im aiming for a position as a tenure professor as young as possible

Get rid of your friends, your family, and don't ever plan on getting married and having children. Work all the time and give up any hobbies you ever had. That is the ticket to tenure as young as possible.

I'm not sure how to answer your other question about PhD-only salaries. I just don't know what starting gigs as a post-doc trained PhD pay.

PS: Thanks for posting Tildy.

 

[StIGMA]

At my large public U, assistant tenure-track professors (PhD's) in biochemistry/molecular biology get between 75-85k, based on government published reports, depending on sex/qualifications. Typically they send 10-15+ candidates (of the best applicants) through a rough screening process (including giving a public seminar) and pick one of 'em.

Full professors typically earn around 110k here, and the national academy of science/best researchers on campus get 200-300k.

 

[RxnMan]

I only meant on a likeliness of an individual graduate to choose research for a career based on residency choice. On a percentage basis, IM just happens to be the largest field in medicine. It's also where the most MD/PhDs end up. Does this mean MD/PhDs going into IM are more likely to do research than MD/PhDs going into Pediatrics? Pathology? Radiology (#4 for MD/PhDs nationally)? Beats me. I have no evidence in any direction...

Ok, the bolded part is a good confounder that didn't occur to me. But we should be able to normalize it based upon # of total residents in that field. We could also probably throw in D&G's historical data (e.g. from past years). Yes, trends would change over time, but over a short time (~5-10 yrs) that effect would be small.

There, as we said in my old job, you have a "back of the envelope" estimate.

...What should I listen to? Is that misplaced I agree with your reasoning, surely. It's a decision people have to make for themselves...

You had stated in an earlier post that you didn't know why a MS would consider an MD/PhD. Just answering your question.

...I'd say $180k/year is very inflated for a mostly research attending here in most specialties. Try half of that...

I'm going off numbers quoted me. If I had to guess, it was in reference to a career that was 33%/33%/33% teaching/research/clinical. If your institution expected you to do mostly research (80/20, low/no teaching) then more of the burden would have to be borne by your grants. I expect that much depends upon whether your's is a clinically-driven, or research-driven career.

 

[Neuronix]

There, as we said in my old job, you have a "back of the envelope" estimate.

http://drslounge.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=6765284&postcount=3

I did this, but I'm not convinced it really reflects on the research opportunities in those specialties. I'm sure the Neurologists and Pathologists among us would like us to think so, as that calculation favors them Still, Radiology and Rad Onc take 2 times the percentage of MD/PhDs. So even based on back of the envelope I take issue with the earlier statement that Radiologists and Rad Oncs are going to go do mostly clinical (especially when implied that certain other specialties won't). But, I don't believe this particular back of the envelope stuff anyways

You had stated in an earlier post that you didn't know why a MS would consider an MD/PhD. Just answering your question.

Some schools have MD/MS programs but I can never understand why someone would want to do them if they already have a master's. Maybe for the tuition break, as those programs are subsidized.

Nooooo, this is what I said and meant. I can see why someone with a master's would do MD/PhD. It's another level of training!

I expect that much depends upon whether your's is a clinically-driven, or research-driven career.

Ahhhhh..... This comes back to a point I've argued in other threads (http://drslounge.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=6050902&postcount=43). The more research you do, the lower your salary will be. A strange system eh? Also, a 33% research commitment will probably turn out to be 10% in practice.

 

[blazinfury]

So then the avg MD/PhD salary is around 150-180k, right? But does the salary also depend if a physician does IM or invasive medicine? For instance, lets say that a person is an electrocardiologist who installs pacemakers and performs ablations. I did a search and found that just an MD in this field makes around 300-350k on avg. Lets say that MD/PhD was in this field? Would or could they be making 200k or will it be considerably less and also depend on how much time that person devotes to research? Thanks.

 

[Neuronix]

Would or could they be making 200k or will it be considerably less and also depend on how much time that person devotes to research?

Yes.

 

[RxnMan]

http://drslounge.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=6765284&postcount=3

The URL explains why I haven't seen this before - I rarely bump elbows with the groundlings in the Lounge.

...Ahhhhh..... This comes back to a point I've argued in other threads (http://drslounge.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=6050902&postcount=43). The more research you do, the lower your salary will be. A strange system eh?...

Yes, but then again, you're generating less clinical revenue for the department. Clinical revenue funds the department, and that's how departments secure power within the hospital. I don't remember the exact percentages, but a large chunk of any grant goes to the supporting institution, not the supporting department. If it went to the supporting department, it could be considered another revenue stream, and then maybe research salaries would go up.

Funding reform is another topic, but for the newbies - not all of your R01 goes to the lab.

This also comes around to thoughts I've had before about (and cue "Night on Bald Moutain") securing funds through industry partnerships. A lot of my ugrad professors were funded via industry, and it can be done.

 

[RxnMan]

...also depend on how much time that person devotes to research? Thanks.

But the idea of a lower salary ($ from the department) is that it is supplemented by you and your grants. You have fewer clinical duties than a guy pulling in $180K, and with that time you're supposed to secure external funding, which supplements your salary. Thus you get terms like "buying down time".

 

[Neuronix]

The URL explains why I haven't seen this before - I rarely bump elbows with the groundlings in the Lounge.

It's an MD/PhD forum post, you can just replace forums.studentdoctor.net with drslounge.studentdoctor.net. It links the same database. It's an odd technical glitch.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=6765284

Same thread.

 

[triplerox]

Get rid of your friends, your family, and don't ever plan on getting married and having children. Work all the time and give up any hobbies you ever had. That is the ticket to tenure as young as possible.

I'm not sure how to answer your other question about PhD-only salaries. I just don't know what starting gigs as a post-doc trained PhD pay.

PS: Thanks for posting Tildy.

doh... anyone know what happens if you cant find a job in academic with phd? are there plenty of jobs in the industry as well?

 

[Doodledog]

I don't remember the exact percentages, but a large chunk of any grant goes to the supporting institution, not the supporting department. If it went to the supporting department, it could be considered another revenue stream, and then maybe research salaries would go up.

Funding reform is another topic, but for the newbies - not all of your R01 goes to the lab.

Just a couple of points from someone who is submitting 3 grants of various types and amounts to the NIH over a 30 day period

In an NIH grant one has direct and indirect costs. The direct costs are what goes to "the lab" and include salary and actual disposable item costs. It is not uncommon for an R01 to allow 20-30% of the PI's salary to come from the grant. The NIH has a salary max (about $180,000 now - someone can look up the exact amount) that you base the % time and salary request off of - in other words, if you make $400,000/yr you can't ask for 30% of the $400,000.

In human or animal studies the direct costs would include subject reimbursement or animal care costs as well. Currently, NIH grants often use what is called a modular budgeting system. R01's aren't actually capped in what you can ask for, but the maximum under the modular budget (in which you don't have to detail certain aspects of the budget) is $250,000/yr direct costs. Many R01's try to stay within that, but some don't and that is allowed, but you need more detailed justification. Other types of preliminary grants, including R21 and R03's have relatively low annual and total maximums. Training grants each have their own rules.

Usually the direct costs are administered by the department one is working within. That is where you'll base your ordering of supplies, etc from.

Indirect costs are directly negotiated by the NIH with your home institution, whether that is a med school, hospital or other institution. There are very complex rules about how these are established. This money goes to the institution which will then feed back a negotiated percent to the department to pay for departmental overhead. The institutional amount is used to cover administrative costs at their level, including IRBs, etc. Presumably there are a few $$ left over.

Therefore, when an institution decides to adjust either clinical responsibilities or salary based on NIH funding, it can be very complicated to figure out how much you are "adding" to the institution or department and how to adjust ones clinical duties. It is not surprising that there is no consistent approach to doing this and a lot of things, including how your research affects the reputation of the school can figure into this equation.

 

[RxnMan]

...In an NIH grant one has direct and indirect costs...

This is one of the reasons why I keep coming back to SDN - so many perspectives, and from so many different places in training/career. Thank you for your posts.

Just a couple of points from someone who is submitting 3 grants of various types and amounts to the NIH over a 30 day period ...

Good luck on this too.

 

[QofQuimica]

I would not suggest getting the PhD first. Most PhD -> MDs I've spoken to have not seen a benefit (in terms of MD acceptances) to getting the PhD first.

Just want to come out here as one of the PhDs-to-MD that RxnMan has spoken to about this. Definitely do *not* go into a PhD-only program if med school is in your future plans. A PhD is basically like a really nice EC, and it does *not* make you more competitive for medical school admissions purposes. No one should purposely plan to do a PhD-to-MD path coming out of college. If I could go back and advise my 21-year-old self what to do, I'd tell her to go for an MD/PhD or an MD-only. It's easy to get into a PhD program as a med student or MD, but it's d*** hard to get into med school as a grad student or PhD.

doh... anyone know what happens if you cant find a job in academic with phd? are there plenty of jobs in the industry as well?

I can't speak for all these biology folks, but for my field (pharmaceutical chemistry), yes. Pharm companies hire a lot of chemists. Unfortunately, it's much easier to get a chemistry industry job with an MS than it is with a PhD.

Just a couple of points from someone who is submitting 3 grants of various types and amounts to the NIH over a 30 day period

to you, Tildy.

 

[triplerox]

I can't speak for all these biology folks, but for my field (pharmaceutical chemistry), yes. Pharm companies hire a lot of chemists. Unfortunately, it's much easier to get a chemistry industry job with an MS than it is with a PhD.

any reason for that? I thought someone with a PhD would easy outrank a person with an MS when it comes to job competition.

after all this helpful posts, im definately staying away form the PhD-->MD track shame on me for even thinking about it.

 

[RxnMan]

any reason for that? I thought someone with a PhD would easy outrank a person with an MS when it comes to job competition...

I would guess that it is a combination of being over-qualified (meaning you are a more expensive employee than required) and that MS's are more easily trained by the company for whatever job they are needed for.

...after all this helpful posts, im definately staying away form the PhD-->MD track shame on me for even thinking about it.

Don't sweat it - everyone starts from a position of ignorance.

 

[QofQuimica]

any reason for that? I thought someone with a PhD would easy outrank a person with an MS when it comes to job competition.

There are a lot more positions for MSes than for PhDs. Basically what RxnMan said:

being over-qualified (meaning you are a more expensive employee than required).

after all this helpful posts, im definately staying away form the PhD-->MD track shame on me for even thinking about it.

This is why there are people like me on SDN to answer these questions. I didn't have SDN to help me avoid making these mistakes when I was in college, but fortunately, you do. I hope you will make wiser decisions than I did.