I was talking to a post-doc interviewing for a tenured tracked assistant professor position in our department. He made a comment that candidates who have a MD have an easier time landing their first assistant professor position. I replied that it was probably because many MD/PhDs were taking positions as instructors or non-tenured tracked assistant professors in clinical departments and get no start-up funds. In contrast, that candidate was interviewing for a tenure-tracked position and asking for a one million dollar start up fund. The bar for hiring a MD/PhD to fill a non-tenured tracked assistant professor/instructor without any start up fund and with no pay for time spent doing basic science research is probably a lot lower than a PhD looking for a tenured track position with startup funds right?
Hiring basic science vs. clinical faculty
- Thread starter echod
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,187
Sort of. You are sort of right because the scenerios you present are essentially true- those who fill instructorships or non-tenure tracks will of course have an easier time getting an academic position, albeit a temporary one. For those interested in research, these typically only last 1 year and act as a bridge to your asst. Prof. position (they give you an additional year to come up with data before the clock starts ticking). There are no guarantees from the department that they will hire or promote you, but if you look good you have a great shot. Of course, this isn't an assist. prof. position (or pay) so you didn't directly address the post-doc's comment. Also, non-tenure asst. Prof positions are also easier to get, but they are typically reserved for those who will not be doing any significant research (i.e., clinical track). So again, you are outside the intended scope of the comment.
I actually agree with the post doc. It IS easier to get an Asst. Prof. position with the MD. It is all about finances for the department. As an MD you provide significantly less risk to the treasury than the PhD-only counterpart because as an MD you can provide billable services to the department that will help defray the cost of your research. For example, if you do an 80/20, that means 20% of the time you are providing revenue for the department that is guaranteed, compared to 0% for the PhD-only. If you are a PhD-only and secure $1M and after 5 years fail to get an RO1, then you just cost the department a lot of $$ and they will show you the door. If you have an MD, they will just raise the amount of time you will be doing clinical work to compensate for the lost investment, so you still have a chance, a lab, and a job. A lot of this is dependant on the department you are in, of course. In medicine, your billable time may not compensate the department much, so the playing field is probably more level. In any field that performs procedures or pathology, even a little clinical service can produce a lot of revenue.
Another issue is time- MD/PhDs can also get profesorships much more quickly (like right out of residency/fellowship). That's because you may have significant research time built in to residency and have grants lined up before even looking for a job. Bottom line is that if you want to have an asst. prof. job, you need to minimize risk to be an attractive candidate. If you have an MD, you've already reduced it a tremendous amount, but if you have an R01 you have a free ticket to anywhere. As a post-doc the same is true- if you can get an R01 or nice chunk of $$, you just bought yourself a free ticket.
Now if the comparison is between basic science and clinical professorships, then the post-doc is absolutely right. There is a demand for clinical service far beyond basic science research. It's not even close. If you want a job as a basic science prof at a top university, you better be awesome. If you want a clinical job, then you just have to be competent a lot of the time.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,943
- Reaction score
- 3,016
Some of the other key issues to consider include such MD specific mechanisms such as K08 and K32, which are not available to PhD-only candidates. NIH made a concerted effort to encourage translational research. the MD/PhD-specific K awards also tend to have a decent funding rate, unlike the K99s.
Salary is another issue. An MD/PhD who's in a research fellowship funded with a T32 often has a base salary of 90k+. With moonlight and institutional support you can often bump that up to 150k+ as a fellow, though you do work pretty hard. This is a number that exceeds most basic science assistant professors. MD/PhD allows for a more gradual and protected pathway towards becoming an independent investigator.
Salary is another issue. An MD/PhD who's in a research fellowship funded with a T32 often has a base salary of 90k+. With moonlight and institutional support you can often bump that up to 150k+ as a fellow, though you do work pretty hard. This is a number that exceeds most basic science assistant professors. MD/PhD allows for a more gradual and protected pathway towards becoming an independent investigator.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,096
- Reaction score
- 9,456
What MD/PhD specific K award? There are MD K awards MD/PhDs can apply for. But they are no more successful. See for example: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/291/7/836.full
I think it's similar. The PhDs do extended post-docs and nowadays are often non-tenure track researchers before starting tenure track. The MD/PhDs do extended fellowships and often are assistant professors before starting the tenure track.
Absolutely it is. However, there is a certain bar you have to be okay jumping. That is, are you okay with taking a much lower salary, job security, decreased job location options, often with more work and stress? All that so you can fight to get funding without the resources your tenure track competition has?
Is anybody going to hire you at 80% research if you don't have your own grant coming in? In my field, nobody is going to hire you to do 80/20 without serious funding. They might hire you for 50/50 if you are an MD/PhD out of a research track residency without major funding. Maybe. And that is NOT easy to get during residency. So now you're looking at the extended fellowship before you can get that first maybe tenure track position...
I think the rose colored glasses come out a bit often in this forum. The MD/PhD does give you more job opportunities in the clinical world. If you want to be a majority researcher, obtaining a mostly research position with job security and startup is in most respects just as hard as for a PhD. Grant funding rates are no better for MD/PhD applicants than for others. There are no special MD/PhD only grants. The benchmark for MD/PhD career is the same as for any other research career--the highly competitive R01 grants.
Once you get established, as long as you're board certified, your job options and salary expand in the clinical departments compared to most PhDs. But it takes a long time and a lot of hard work to get there.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,187
In my field, YES you can get hired 80/20 (even 100/0) without a major grant (or any at all), provided you have a record of success in your research. You have to realize, again, that things vary tremendously between specialties. There is a reason MD/PhDs tend to go into Medicine/Path/Peds etc.- those fields are much more flexible in terms of research opportunities. We also don't have to justify a $400K salary to the department.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,096
- Reaction score
- 9,456
Cut that in half for a majority research position in rads or rad onc. Take off another $50k if it's in a desirable location.
$400k/year is even high for a majority clinical position in a rads or rad onc department.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,187
Just wanted to add that I love that picture of yours.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,096
- Reaction score
- 9,456
