Getting into MD/PhD from med school

[afternoon]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi!

I know this isn't a very new subject, but I'm trying to weigh out this specific program set up and was hoping that people in this forum might be able to give me second opinions.

Basically, my deal is this: I'm a first year med student with 2 years full time research with 2 pubs and in the process of writing a first author paper. I always thought I would do an MD/PhD but then, a few years ago when it came time to apply, I chickened out. I've thought about it a lot since then and I have a really hard time weighing the pros and cons. I will be doing research this summer on things I'm really interested in getting involved with more long term, but the program is not at my home institution. I don't love the structure of my home institution's MD/PhD program and I'm not sure that I would want to do a PhD if it meant doing it here. I think I'm really interested in a PhD program through the NIH in conjunction with Oxford/Cambridge. Speaking to the admissions people at the program, it looks like I would be a good fit. I can see some benefit in establishing contacts at NIH, Oxford/Cambridge, places on the coasts (right now in the dead of the midwest) since I would eventually like to move away from this midwestern-ly state. The program might also work well for me because it would allow me to have advisors with experience in the areas that I'm more interested in (my school doesn't seem to have many people in my areas of interest). Last, I really am starting to think that I want a career that focuses heavily on research and I think that some of the training experiences gained by going through a PhD program are hard to replicate later on down the line. I'm sure that they are possible, but I don't know what kind of risks you end up taking with your career to have them.

So, the questions I have for this forum are as follows:
1.) This NIH program is relatively unstructured as far as formal requirements go. It is possible that I could finish my PhD without having to take any graduate courses beyond those I have in med school. Is there a downside to this? What sorts of people/projects do you think benefit from a more structured program?

2) How much weight do you think that a PhD from NIH/Oxford/Cambridge would carry? Does it just look strange or would this be a definite good thing to have? I'm very familiar with NIH and I know that there at least a few people out there who feel that the NIH should not be running their own PhD program (yes, I know that NIH is not the degree-granting institution). It made me wonder if people generally thought this was a credible program or just some crackpot idea cooked up a few years ago.

3) If a person is interested in more bench science-type research, is a PhD the best route to take to get experience? I have been thinking a lot about the HHMI/year out programs but it just seems to me that you wouldn't get enough done in that year to really have the experience of taking a project from start to (hopefully) near completion.

4) Finally, my lack of interest in my home institution's program has given me some pause about the whole process. I think a part of it is related to the lack of research in my areas of interest, but I'm sure that staying in this state plays a role. Should I be approaching this from the "do MD/PhD at all costs" perspective? Is that how most people approach this process?

I've been reading through a lot of these threads about deciding whether to do MD/PhD and so I'm sorry if this sounds like a re-hashing. My biggest concern is mostly whether it is worth it to leave my med school program for this thing at NIH and whether, in your opinion, it would be a good idea for me, given my background. Thanks in advance.

 

[witness23]

i was actually at the NIH earlier today, talking to one of the IR directors. He said that the NIH is not really an attractive place for graduate students since it is not at all structured for them. he did, however, plug their post-bac and postdoc programs, saying they are highly successful.

but yea, thats all. i'm sorry!

your story is really interesting though. is finances not an issue here?

 

[gstrub]

1.) This NIH program is relatively unstructured as far as formal requirements go. It is possible that I could finish my PhD without having to take any graduate courses beyond those I have in med school. Is there a downside to this? What sorts of people/projects do you think benefit from a more structured program?

This depends on the specific program you are in, your PI, and you. For example, if you decide to do a PhD in genetics, there is no way your M1 course in genetics will be sufficient. A PhD in physiology or anatomy? Maybe you could swing it; you will have to be well versed enough in your area of research to survive an oral examination from your committee, so the expectations of your PI and your committee members will be an important factor. Also it depends on you...you may (and probably should) want some upper level courses under your belt, particularly if research is your primary career goal.

2) How much weight do you think that a PhD from NIH/Oxford/Cambridge would carry? Does it just look strange or would this be a definite good thing to have? I'm very familiar with NIH and I know that there at least a few people out there who feel that the NIH should not be running their own PhD program (yes, I know that NIH is not the degree-granting institution). It made me wonder if people generally thought this was a credible program or just some crackpot idea cooked up a few years ago.

Weight? I'm not sure...I've heard that having your PhD from a "top tier" place can have some impact, but mostly political impact (who you know, who wrote your LORs, who your PI was). I've never heard of this program so I can't give you any more advice here...

3) If a person is interested in more bench science-type research, is a PhD the best route to take to get experience? I have been thinking a lot about the HHMI/year out programs but it just seems to me that you wouldn't get enough done in that year to really have the experience of taking a project from start to (hopefully) near completion.

If you REALLY want basic research to be your primary career goal, you should get the PhD, IMO. There really is no equivalent.

4) Finally, my lack of interest in my home institution's program has given me some pause about the whole process. I think a part of it is related to the lack of research in my areas of interest, but I'm sure that staying in this state plays a role. Should I be approaching this from the "do MD/PhD at all costs" perspective? Is that how most people approach this process?

Keep in mind that this training path is long. You will want to maximize the things that will make you happy. I'm not saying your location should be your primary motivating factor, but if you don't like your program now or the place you live, imagine what you will feel like in 7 years. That being said, you need to consider your long term goal. I know people who have applied to competitive residencies that have ended up in the middle of nowhere for 4-6 years. But given a choice between doing what they really wanted vs. living in a desirable location temporarily, they chose to make the sacrifice. The only other thing I can tell you is not to put much weight on whether your program has "research areas in your interest." Your PhD training does not need to be in the field you eventually research...the purpose is to train you to be a scientist that can research in any area, and a good PhD program will do just that. In other words, no one can answer this but you...you know yourself better than anyone.

I've been reading through a lot of these threads about deciding whether to do MD/PhD and so I'm sorry if this sounds like a re-hashing. My biggest concern is mostly whether it is worth it to leave my med school program for this thing at NIH and whether, in your opinion, it would be a good idea for me, given my background. Thanks in advance.

Would you still be getting the MD from your current program? I don't understand your question.

Good luck.

 

[Sulfinator]

The only other thing I can tell you is not to put much weight on whether your program has "research areas in your interest." Your PhD training does not need to be in the field you eventually research...the purpose is to train you to be a scientist that can research in any area, and a good PhD program will do just that.

I strongly second gstrub's statement here. It matters very very little whether or not you get your PhD in "your area of interest." First of all, the main point of earning your PhD is to get solid research training so that later you can have the tools to do research in your area of interest. Second, after going through the PhD process, your "area of interest" may very well change.