Anyone else considering doing a DPM PhD. I couldn't choose between podiatry and PhD so I'm planning on choosing both but it seems like a lonely road. Interested in anyone's thoughts on it.
Some questions like is it worth the length and difficulty?
After doing the PhD portion I would be out of research for 5 years (year 3&4 and 3 years of residency) would the research have advanced too much in that time?
How do residencies view it?
Industry vs academia
Why do I feel like the only one in the US genuinely interested in both hahahaha?
Hello, Shino's Beetles.
I'm glad your post has gotten some pretty strong feedback, and I hope that you were able to formulate your own running answer to your questions. If you are still considering, I would like to add a few comments from my own perspective:
1. "Anyone else considering doing a DPM PhD. I couldn't choose between podiatry and PhD so I'm planning on choosing both but it seems like a lonely road. Interested in anyone's thoughts on it."
It seems like the question behind this statement is "Why choose the dual-degree?". The answer to this question can be difficult because like most things in medicine, "it depends." As a current DPM-PhD student, I was faced with similar questions like this (and the others you have posted) and from my experience (there's another student from my cohort in the dual-degree program as well), what I can say is that I have found that the answer someone formulates on why someone might decide to pursue the dual-degree is something that the person will "hold onto" at the beginning of the process, but the purpose becomes dynamic and it may mature throughout the training process. For that reason, I hesitate to give you my own answers at this point in time, but it is a question you may have to think about deeply before pursuit.
2. "Is it worth the length and difficulty?"
As a disclaimer, still, it "depends."
Generally speaking, the PhD component is 3 years long, but you'll quickly find out that it's not the same for all and that it depends on the PhD project as well as the committee members that will be responsible for your scientific growth throughout the program. The worth of length and difficulty for this program may be linked to how you view your future (and more closely associated with your answer to Question 1).
Often, many wonder, "What does a PhD degree do to advance one's career?" This question may stem from reasons ranging from financial interest to professional development. To assist you in deciding whether or not it is worth it, you may consider reformatting the question to "What can I gain from the skills acquired from the PhD training?" The latter allows you to think freely about your training, rather than a pursuit of just another degree.
Some argue that the PhD is not about the content of research, rather the methods. Methods include, but are not limited to:
1. Formulating a hypothesis
2. Constructing and conducting hypothesis-driven protocols and research
3. Writing manuscripts for publication in scientific, peer-reviewed journals
4. Applying for grants
5. Technical research skills (i.e. pipetting, cell culture, model organism manipulation, etc...)
Many of these skills are multi-faceted and can translated into both basic science and clinically-oriented research. Some technical research skills may prove to be helpful if you indeed decide to pursue the mechanism of a physiologic/pathologic phenomenon, rather than answer "Does this drug work? Yes or No."
3. "After doing the PhD portion I would be out of research for 5 years (year 3&4 and 3 years of residency) would the research have advanced too much in that time?"
Not necessarily. Science typically doesn't move forward so quickly. If you felt strongly about a research topic and wanted to continue pursuit in that field, there are many ways to get caught up (ex. review articles, mentorship, conferences, etc...). As with most answers on my post so far, and probably in the future, "it depends" on what you want to do research in or if you want to do research at all (PhD graduates are not, nor should they be, mandated to conduct research).
In my opinion (gathered and formulated from multiple other opinions), the physician-scientist or surgeon-scientist plays a critical, but often lacking, role in translational research and medicine. Having degrees from both fields (PhD and DPM) only acts as a testament of commitment to medical research, but being able to translate bedside issues to benchtop research, and back to bedside treatment can be daunting, and frankly, difficult.
Knowing this, PhD training, alone, may not be sufficient. Even traditional PhD graduates that continue pursuing research usually complete
>1 postdoctoral fellowship training, adding multiple years of training, before starting their own lab. Once this fact is accepted, it might give you better insight as to what it really takes (time and effort) to become a podiatric physician-scientist.
4. "How do residencies view it?"
I will have to defer to others that are more experienced in this for their perspectives.
5. "Industry vs academia?"
The
training of a PhD will open opportunities for you, but it is up to you as to what you want to do with that, including decisions about industry vs academia vs clinic vs surgery vs combination. It is true that you do not need a PhD to be involved with either industry or academia or various combinations mentioned.
6. "Why do I feel like the only one in the US genuinely interested in both hahahaha?"
Truthfully, I don't know. However, there are many influential leaders in medicine (podiatric and all) that are identifying a decline in physician-scientist activity. Many believe this is due to financial burden, time, grant competition against full-time research faculty, and pressures by various healthcare systems to produce more clinical activity than research.
NIH has set out to provide assistance to physician-scientists regarding these matters. This includes tuition waiver for Medical Scientist in Training Programs (MSTP). To address an earlier comment, Dr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine
provides a tuition waiver and stipend to the dual-degree students from the start of the PhD program to the end of the DPM program. Since the PhD component does not begin until after 2nd year of podiatry school (must pass boards part 1 first, understandably), the 1st 2 years of tuition at Scholl are not waived, but all subsequent years are indeed waived. To add, the stipend is currently set at $31,000/year. This is not a random number, but one which was determined by comparing between surrounding PhD graduate programs.
In regards to time, I'd argue that 3 years to earn a PhD degree is not a bad deal. The level of intensity is higher because candidates need to find an awkward balance between research, academic activities, maintaining clinical skills, and social lives.
As for grant competition and pressures, there are certain training grants that provide/mandate protected research time, assisting (but not eliminating) the pressures from the healthcare systems. These training grants are like "post-doctoral fellowship" training opportunities.
In sum, I am not arguing to convince nor deter your pursuit in the DPM-PhD program. I aim to provide you with some insight that I hope you find helpful in making a clear and confident decision. Depending on your current situation, these decisions may require conversations with family and/or significant others because the "worth of its time and effort" may be questioned throughout the process, and it can be helpful to have a strong support system.
I hope these comments help. Please feel free to reach out personally if you are still interested in the dual-degree program or if you have any general questions that you think I can answer! Good luck on your journey!
