Having an MD/Ph.D. makes you more marketable?

[Sivastraba]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi guyz, I was wondering if there is any purpose in getting a 2nd degree (ie., Ph.D) after your done with residency training just for the sake of it. Does it make you better marketable in private practice? I usually here that it's the other way around and that your income potential acually goes down. Is this always true or has anyone heard of different stories? Any input is appreciated.

 

[jjmack]

i think the MD, PhD training my allow you a special skill set to do certain jobs when you are finished I don't think it's worth going back after you have your MD to do it. Now if you are already in an MD,PhD program with an original intention of doing basic sciene and change your mind I think the dual training can still be useful, but by no means worth picking up a PhD after medical training.

 

[dl2dp2]

Hi guyz, I was wondering if there is any purpose in getting a 2nd degree (ie., Ph.D) after your done with residency training just for the sake of it. Does it make you better marketable in private practice? I usually here that it's the other way around and that your income potential acually goes down. Is this always true or has anyone heard of different stories? Any input is appreciated.

No.

There are exceptional cases in which a PhD in some quantitative discipline can aid in a job in finance and related areas and hence increase earning potential dramatically. But if you want a job as any kind of physician, a PhD does nothing for you as far as marketability.

 

[MDPhoDollas]

No.

There are exceptional cases in which a PhD in some quantitative discipline can aid in a job in finance and related areas and hence increase earning potential dramatically. But if you want a job as any kind of physician, a PhD does nothing for you as far as marketability.

I second the motion.
a phd will help you land a competitive academic residency; but after residency with intent to go into pp, no way. A phd is an academic degree. it's worth shines in an academic career. now...the training will lend to your development as an analytical thinker--but then you'll just realize spending 5-6 years post residency to get a phd only to end up in pp was worthless.

academic physicians generally make less money than pp docs. this has nothing to do with having a phd or not.

 

[jjmack]

I agree if you just want to practice medicine in a nice little private practice then a PhD doesn't help, but I think if you want to think outside of the box it could help.

 

[reine1jb]

this may or may not be a stupid question, but when you say Physician Scientist make less how much less are we talking about? Not that I care, I wouldn't pursue a profession for the money aspect, but I hear this a lot and I was just curious

Thanks a lot

 

[tacojohn]

this may or may not be a stupid question, but when you say Physician Scientist make less how much less are we talking about? Not that I care, I wouldn't pursue a profession for the money aspect, but I hear this a lot and I was just curious

Thanks a lot

I agree with the previous posters - an MD/PhD is generally useless outside of basic research and of questionable value in it. Salary-wise, you'll start at the same level as everybody else in research regardless of your degree. How much you end up making depends entirely on how good of a researcher you are and little else.

 

[strangeglove]

I agree with the previous posters - an MD/PhD is generally useless outside of basic research and of questionable value in it. Salary-wise, you'll start at the same level as everybody else in research regardless of your degree. How much you end up making depends entirely on how good of a researcher you are and little else.

Actually, salary is where having an MD will matter if you're interested in a basic research career. Most MD-PhDs go into what is called the physician-scientist track of academic medicine, which usually involves something like 75% basic research and 25% clinical work (i.e. being an attending on an inpatient service 3 months/year, or having a clinic 1 day/week). This clinical work sets you aside from pure basic scientists in a number of ways, not least of which is that you get paid a good deal more, at least at the junior faculty level. So, whereas an assistant professor with a PhD may make only $60,000/year, an MD-PhD (or MD) asst. prof who does mostly basic research with some clinical responsibilities may make >100K, though that is still usually less than what he or she could make in private practice.

 

[pdz]

Actually, salary is where having an MD will matter if you're interested in a basic research career. Most MD-PhDs go into what is called the physician-scientist track of academic medicine, which usually involves something like 75% basic research and 25% clinical work (i.e. being an attending on an inpatient service 3 months/year, or having a clinic 1 day/week). This clinical work sets you aside from pure basic scientists in a number of ways, not least of which is that you get paid a good deal more, at least at the junior faculty level. So, whereas an assistant professor with a PhD may make only $60,000/year, an MD-PhD (or MD) asst. prof who does mostly basic research with some clinical responsibilities may make >100K, though that is still usually less than what he or she could make in private practice.

I'm not so sure that you can get >100k if you're doing basic science research as a junior faculty. In fact, I've heard of MD-PhDs or just MDs who are doing mostly basic science research in very respectable institutions and earn 80k. When it comes to research, I don't think the kind of degree you have makes any difference.

 

[jjmack]

I'm not so sure that you can get >100k if you're doing basic science research as a junior faculty. In fact, I've heard of MD-PhDs or just MDs who are doing mostly basic science research in very respectable institutions and earn 80k. When it comes to research, I don't think the kind of degree you have makes any difference.

no, having an MD definately can earn you more even if you don't do any clinical work. My old PI was an MD,PhD and boarded psychiatrist and he got paid more because of that. Yes, he was paid from grants, but he had a higher ceiling.

In the end if you are in it for money you should run away from academic research as fast as possible.

 

[tacojohn]

The only researchers that do the 25% clinical in my department are the junior faculty, non-tenure track, and the research residents. Is this the same for the rest of you? I would think that it would be extremely hard to disappear from your lab one day a week like that and expect things to get done.

 

[strangeglove]

I'm not so sure that you can get >100k if you're doing basic science research as a junior faculty. In fact, I've heard of MD-PhDs or just MDs who are doing mostly basic science research in very respectable institutions and earn 80k. When it comes to research, I don't think the kind of degree you have makes any difference.

You may only make 80K as an MD or MD-PhD if all you do is basic research. However, if you spend significant time (i.e. >25%) as an attending, you will make >100K. At my medical school, almost all of the physician scientists (MD and MD-PhD) were doing something like 75% research and 25% clinical and getting paid >100K. Very few of them were doing only laboratory research. Those who did were getting paid the same as the straight PhDs. If you think about it, it would be rather unfair for a hospital to ask someone who has many demands as a basic researcher to do clinical work and then not pay them for it. Also, who would be willing to do clinical work for free when they had so much else to do?

 

[pdz]

You may only make 80K as an MD or MD-PhD if all you do is basic research. However, if you spend significant time (i.e. >25%) as an attending, you will make >100K. At my medical school, almost all of the physician scientists (MD and MD-PhD) were doing something like 75% research and 25% clinical and getting paid >100K. Very few of them were doing only laboratory research. Those who did were getting paid the same as the straight PhDs. If you think about it, it would be rather unfair for a hospital to ask someone who has many demands as a basic researcher to do clinical work and then not pay them for it. Also, who would be willing to do clinical work for free when they had so much else to do?

I guess it then depends on how much clinical duties you have (the more patients you see the more you earn). Maybe the people I've talked to are doing mostly research and are full time in the lab. I guess that's the only way of having a competitive lab.

 

[strangeglove]

I guess it then depends on how much clinical duties you have (the more patients you see the more you earn). Maybe the people I've talked to are doing mostly research and are full time in the lab. I guess that's the only way of having a competitive lab.

Most of the people I'm talking about have very competitive labs (i.e. papers in Science, multiple R01s). They work hard, but they find time to do it all. As a PI, they don't have to be physically in the lab to get work done, as PIs usually do very little lab work themselves (this would be an extremely inefficient use of one's time). So, even though they may have clinical duties at any given time, this does not mean that they aren't doing science, it just means that they slow down a little. Of course, this does limit one's productivity somewhat, but not to the extent that one cannot be productive enough to get tenure. Also, many faculty give up their clinical work when they become successful enough in the lab to negotiate a salary that is equal to or greater than what they were getting paid while also doing clinical work. Your pay at the higher levels of science depends to a large degree on how badly your institution wants you to stay vs. leave for a better paying gig, more lab space, etc. Of course, even the most successful physician-scientists may choose to continue doing some clinical work, but this is usually for love of clinical medicine, rather than out of need for more money.