Getting your professional degree first, then going for the master's or PhD later?

[Gigantron]

Hello!

I'm interested in becoming a physician (specifically a podiatrist - so DPM) and also have a big interest in performing research. However, I'm not sure if doing the dual degree program right off that bat is for me. I'm interested in getting my professional degree, building up my career and doing what I enjoy (i.e. surgery). However, I don't think I'd ever want to formally retire, and so I would like to at some point work on a master's or a PhD and conduct research and teach once it gets to that point, as I do love academia, and I think this would be something that would allow me to explore all of my options throughout my career. Is there anyone here who has experience with getting a professional degree (like an MD/DO, DPM, DDS, etc.) and then, after a number of years, decide to get a master's or a PhD part-time afterwards? Sorry if this thread is rather wordy.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Neuronix]

You don't need a PhD to be in academia. You don't need a PhD to teach or conduct research. Most physicians in academia are MDs, not MD/PhDs. Go to medical school (or in your case, podiatry school) if you don't view research as the significant majority of your future career. You can figure out the details of shaping your life in academics later.

To directly answer your question: Almost without exception, PhD programs are research dedicated for 4+ years. This means you're not seeing patients for that time. You almost without exception can't step out of the clinical world for 4+ years and then come back. So if you want to give up the clinical world or got kicked out of the clinics, I guess you could pursue a PhD. But almost nobody is going to choose a low paying, low status job as a graduate student with very limited career opportunities when they have a secure career making 100k+ as a clinician.

 

[deleted382095]

You don't need a PhD to be in academia. You don't need a PhD to teach or conduct research. Most physicians in academia are MDs, not MD/PhDs. Go to medical school (or in your case, podiatry school) if you don't view research as the significant majority of your future career. You can figure out the details of shaping your life in academics later.

To directly answer your question: Almost without exception, PhD programs are research dedicated for 4+ years. This means you're not seeing patients for that time. You almost without exception can't step out of the clinical world for 4+ years and then come back. So if you want to give up the clinical world or got kicked out of the clinics, I guess you could pursue a PhD. But almost nobody is going to choose a low paying, low status job as a graduate student with very limited career opportunities when they have a secure career making 100k+ as a clinician.

It depends on how much you want to pursue research in the future. Most of top-notch, ground-breaking research are conducted by PhDs and not MDs, go check out how many former Noble Prize winners (Chemistry, Physics, Physiology and Medicine) were MDs. Please note that MD is a clinical degree, not a research degree. A MD can conduct both clinical and non-clinical research, and a PhD can only conduct non-clinical research. If your end goal is to have a secure career then a MD would be a better fit for you.

 

[Fencer]

Actually, there are some PhDs doing clinical research, particularly in health care outcomes and epidemiology.

 

[Guyton Killah]

But an MD Phd is preferred anytime over an MD only. So doing a PHD is not bad at all. You can return to the clinic whenever you want. It doesn't render your md obsolete. It doesn't make you less intelligent either. It only makes you smarter than the rest. So, don't be too critical..

 

[deleted382095]

But an MD Phd is preferred anytime over an MD only. So doing a PHD is not bad at all. You can return to the clinic whenever you want. It doesn't render your md obsolete. It doesn't make you less intelligent either. It only makes you smarter than the rest. So, don't be too critical..

I don't think Neuronix was being overly critical; he/she was being frank and to the point. I agreed that a MD/PhD is more flexible than a MD or PhD. It depends on what kind of research OP wants to pursue, and how much OP wants to teach in the future. You can teach at a medical school with a MD degree alone. A MD may be allowed to teach as an adjunct, or a teaching instructor in Biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Physics departments that are not part of the school of medicine. The rules are different for departments that are part of school of medicine though.

 

[Neuronix]

Most of top-notch, ground-breaking research are conducted by PhDs and not MDs, go check out how many former Noble Prize winners (Chemistry, Physics, Physiology and Medicine) were MDs.

There are far more Nobel prize winners who are MD than are MD/PhD.

But an MD Phd is preferred anytime over an MD only. So doing a PHD is not bad at all. You can return to the clinic whenever you want. It doesn't render your md obsolete. It doesn't make you less intelligent either. It only makes you smarter than the rest. So, don't be too critical..

Preferred "anytime"? By whom and in what circumstances? My institution is hiring academic faculty right now. They don't care if you have an MD or an MD/PhD. But, if you ask for more than 20% protected time for research, you will be laughed out the door, as just happened to one well qualified MD/PhD friend of mine.

If you spend more than 6 months out of the clinic after you earn your MD, you will have to explain yourself to most state licensing boards. Leaving medical practice for an extended period of time makes it very difficult to return to practice medicine, both from a competency standpoint, and a licensing standpoint. See for example: http://www.amednews.com/article/20110228/business/302289973/2/.

 

[Gigantron]

OKay so getting a PhD for what I want to do seems out of the question. Would it be easier to just obtain the master's under the same circumstances of my OP?