How easy is it go into academia without a PHD?

[glassesvar]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Extremely interested in neuroscience research but would also like to have the ability to practice as a psychiatrist. How hard is it to do research without a PHD?

 

[dl2dp2]

What kind of neuroscience?

 

[glassesvar]

What kind of neuroscience?

I’m really interested in research about learning and memory pathways, and also how those pathways tie in to ADHD. Also really interested in sleep research.

 

[clausewitz2]

Postdoc fellowship or two is probably going to be crucial.

 

[tr]

The more basic-science the work you want to do, the more helpful a PhD will be. I think you need to be more specific about what you want to do for us to be able to provide the appropriate advice.
In general, in order to do any kind of research, you need to learn how to construct good questions, determine the appropriate procedures to answer them, and evaluate the results correctly. There are different ways to get this training. You can get a PhD, but you can also take research years while in med school or do postdoc/fellowship training after residency. The 'best' approach depends on your age, your past experience, your desired field, your transcript, your financial situation, etc.

 

[whopper]

I've seen many MDs do research/academia without a Ph.D. but the Ph.D. will help, it will educate you more so in various research methods than an MD program will, and quite bluntly, what is taught in MD programs is merely a slice of what is taught in comparison with MA/Ph.D. programs on a specific subject.

E.g. the depths of information taught in a physiology masters program puts an MD physiology course to shame. Most MDs don't know physiology on the order of what a master's degree physiology or Ph.D. physiology student is taught. Same with pharmacology, biochemistry, etc.
If you entered neuroscience research with an MD you'd likely be behind neuroscientists in their knowledge of neuroscience, but way ahead of them in other areas such as knowing a person's general health, a vast array of diseases outside of what affects the brain, and pharmacology. Not impossible to enter but the MD by itself may not open enough doors you wanted open.

 

[dl2dp2]

I’m really interested in research about learning and memory pathways, and also how those pathways tie in to ADHD. Also really interested in sleep research.

The 'best' approach depends on your age, your past experience, your desired field, your transcript, your financial situation, etc.

^^ this. It's weird how it's very hard to articulate exactly what this means. But let me give you a sense: if you want a full career doing basic science, you'll get paid about 50k for about slightly short of a decade between your late 20s and mid 30s. Subsequent to that, you'll have perhaps a 2-3M total income differential through your career (and perhaps 5M+ total net worth differential if you consider investments) between if you (even if you have an MD) and an MD practicing psychiatry.

These two jobs are completely different from a lifestyle and day to day work perspective. There's basically nothing similar about them. They are about as similar as say accounting and investment banking. They sound vaguely related to people who know nothing about finance, but in reality the overlap in material is very minimal. So your question is kind of nonsensical...I want to be an accountant but I'd like to keep the option open to be an investment banker, do I get a CPA? This question makes no sense.

That said, there are weird expedient pathways to "win-win" scenarios (MD/PhD->research track residency), but whether you are a candidate for this depends a lot literally on your age and transcript.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I’m really interested in research about learning and memory pathways, and also how those pathways tie in to ADHD. Also really interested in sleep research.

"Really interested", but have you ever done any hands-on basic research?
As others have pointed out, it is a completely different pathway and skill set. You need to try it before you decide.

 

[glassesvar]

"Really interested", but have you ever done any hands-on basic research?
As others have pointed out, it is a completely different pathway and skill set. You need to try it before you decide.

Yes I have. I’ve worked in a neuroscience lab for the past 3 years.

 

[whopper]

As others have pointed out, it is a completely different pathway and skill set. You need to try it before you decide.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here especially the original author of this thread, but as I mentioned, there's so much not taught in an MD program. MDs tend to think after they graduate they know it all.

I have a bachelor's in psychology and spent about 1 year working on a pharmacology degree. There's so much not taught to psychiatrists about psychology (even stuff that would be useful and meaningful for the psychiatrist), and so much not taught about pharmacology (even stuff that would be meaningful and useful). One time I walked into a genetics graduate course cause I had the free time and they were discussing stuff that just flew over my head, showing various charts of gene maps with almost all the grad students seeing discernable patterns, where I was completely clueless and feeling like a poseur.

MDs are taught in a very restrictive disease + treatment --> results model. We are also taught info with a much heavier clinical bias.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Physiology majors are taught physiology to a degree that puts the MD physiology course to shame. They are taught about it in a wider context, e.g. animal models. So say if someone were developing an artificial heart valve and a researcher wanted to test it on an animal the physiologist will likely have a better grasp of what to expect while implanting the test device into a pig or dog heart. That person may even do the surgery. These are things MDs don't get anywhere near the level of training.

I don't want to dissuade someone from a real interest. That MD may give you advantages over other people with Ph.D.s. I'm just saying know where you stand.

 

[glassesvar]

^^ this. It's weird how it's very hard to articulate exactly what this means. But let me give you a sense: if you want a full career doing basic science, you'll get paid about 50k for about slightly short of a decade between your late 20s and mid 30s. Subsequent to that, you'll have perhaps a 2-3M total income differential through your career (and perhaps 5M+ total net worth differential if you consider investments) between if you (even if you have an MD) and an MD practicing psychiatry.

These two jobs are completely different from a lifestyle and day to day work perspective. There's basically nothing similar about them. They are about as similar as say accounting and investment banking. They sound vaguely related to people who know nothing about finance, but in reality the overlap in material is very minimal. So your question is kind of nonsensical...I want to be an accountant but I'd like to keep the option open to be an investment banker, do I get a CPA? This question makes no sense.

That said, there are weird expedient pathways to "win-win" scenarios (MD/PhD->research track residency), but whether you are a candidate for this depends a lot literally on your age and transcript.

I’m a 3rd year undergraduate student majoring in neuroscience. My stats are competitive enough for medical school. Not sure how they’d fare for PhD admissions, but from what I’ve heard phD admissions is more experience focused. I am also concerned about job prospects and stability as a PhD which is why I am considering an MD more heavily.

 

[Armadillos]

One option is MD->Residency with research track->K-award->R-grants.

This has the wonderful side effect of meaning if your research plans fail or you don’t make it to next step you can “fall up” into a clinical job making 150-250% what you were making before. Granted also makes it a lot easier to bail out on research if going gets tough, so depending on personality and life goals guess it’s a mixed blessing to have an easy out.

 

[SourceOfDenial]

There is frequently an oversimplified view of what 'research' is for MD providers. Like much in life its helpful to think about outcomes and work backwards. The term 'clinician-researcher' gets thrown around a lot, but there is no systemic approach to teaching what this exactly is in medical school, unless you identify a mentor who helps you along this path.

So, you want to do research. Ask yourself, what exactly does that mean? Do you want to participate in a study someone else is organizing, help shape some questions or analyses, help write up a paper? Or does doing research mean you want to design a question, propose a grant, organize a study and run an experiment(with a goal of becoming a principle investigator)? Or does doing research mean something else entirely?

In general, the goal of an independent researcher or principle investigator is to get money to run studies, mentor other people, run said studies, and repeat the process. If this is what you want to do, it's entirely possible to do with an MD, but the path is fairly narrow. In general, the two tracks are through NIH funding or VA funding. Yes, there are other pots of money out there, but these are the most well known. You are entering the land of alphabet soup, with T32s K25s R01s CDAs etc. Basically you are going this route--1. training 2. fellowship 3. career development 4.independent award. This is oversimplified, but a good general way to think about things. So, how do I get an organization to give me money?

Well, if you are the organization, why would they want to give you anything? You have to prove yourself to them--that you are someone worth investing in, that you will mentor others, and that their money is well spent. NIH+VA have a lot of money, but there are also a ton of people trying to get ahold of it. Do a search on NIHreporter for a keyword you are interested in and see how many studies are going on addressing what youre looking for.

So, how do I demonstrate that I am someone that an organization wants to fund. I'm a doctor and my **** doesnt stink! I've worked hard and I'm smart, they should give me money because thats the way the world works, right? If only! You need to demonstrate that you are a good researcher. Well, I went to med school, and I published an article in psychiatric times and was 4th author out of 7 on a study in college looking at nicotine receptors in mice tails, doesnt that make me a researcher? No. So what the hell do I do? If you want to forgo getting a PHD, then you will likely have to complete one or more post residency training programs. These are funded positions(at PGY salaries or less) where you are working on other peoples studies in an area that is close to your particular interest. You hopefully during this time get some first author publications and some small grants to do some other small studies, do an analysis of someone's old data, maybe do some qualitative work, whatever. You start to build a portfolio that shows, yeah you are someone an organization should invest in.

So you've now spent 2 years after residency writing some papers, helping on several studies, you've amassed some publications where you are first author. Now what? Hopefully during this time you've started to formulate what you are interested in. This is the next step--you need to define what the next few years of your career will look like. Remember, at this point you may be a fully board certified physician, but still NIH has no reason to give you any money. There are lots of other people out there who have better proven track records than you. So, if someone is going to give you money, they are going to give it to you based on who your mentor is. It's like getting a loan in college--your parents or someone more important than you is the cosigner. Why? Because the bank has no reason to believe you wont default or spend it all on natty light. The NIH and the VA are the same. Your next step is getting a mentored award--a career development award--where you get a pot of cash to last several years to start to become more independent. In this next step the major funding organization is basically saying, 'sure we will give you some money because you are attached to Dr. XYZ, and they have a proven record of producing independent researchers'. You spend the next 2-5 years writing, conducting studies, being a coinvestigator, trying to get more grants. You literally develop your career. After some period of time, you'll now be able to apply for independent researcher or investigator awards--either RO1s or something akin to them. At this point youve made it, balloons fall from the ceiling, yadda yadda.

TLDR: Complete residency, get lucky and be stubborn, spend the next 3-7 years being paid poorly compared to private practice, and then *ding* you're a researcher.

 

[SourceOfDenial]

One option is MD->Residency with research track->K-award->R-grants.

This has the wonderful side effect of meaning if your research plans fail or you don’t make it to next step you can “fall up” into a clinical job making 150-250% what you were making before. Granted also makes it a lot easier to bail out on research if going gets tough, so depending on personality and life goals guess it’s a mixed blessing to have an easy out.

Dammit I spent so long typing that and then armadillo beats me to it.

I will say that this process makes it seem relatively easy. Here is a nice little blurb about the process. How to get a K award: It’s not just about the science
And be ready for the 'k award' part of the above taking as long as residency or a year or two longer.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

One option is MD->Residency with research track->K-award->R-grants.

This has the wonderful side effect of meaning if your research plans fail or you don’t make it to next step you can “fall up” into a clinical job making 150-250% what you were making before. Granted also makes it a lot easier to bail out on research if going gets tough, so depending on personality and life goals guess it’s a mixed blessing to have an easy out.

It's not for everybody, that's for sure.

I bailed.

 

[deleted736562]

The phd degree itself isn't worth that much. It's all about publications. The only way to seriously publish is to spend a few years in the lab. This can be achieved post residency but the issue is that the coveted spots are much more likely to go to those who already have experience and have published.

Don't forget you can moonlight or have a part time PP during a research fellowship. it's not impossible to break 200k while doing a research fellowship before you get a faculty position depending on the program/location. The difference in earnings doesn't have to be as big as some make it.

 

[glassesvar]

The phd degree itself isn't worth that much. It's all about publications. The only way to seriously publish is to spend a few years in the lab. This can be achieved post residency but the issue is that the coveted spots are much more likely to go to those who already have experience and have published.

Don't forget you can moonlight or have a part time PP during a research fellowship. it's not impossible to break 200k while doing a research fellowship before you get a faculty position depending on the program/location. The difference in earnings doesn't have to be as big as some make it.

Would it help if I went heavy on psychiatry research during medical school? I’ve heard psychiatry is less competitive to match into so if I could devote relatively less time to studying and churn out a few pubs t

There is frequently an oversimplified view of what 'research' is for MD providers. Like much in life its helpful to think about outcomes and work backwards. The term 'clinician-researcher' gets thrown around a lot, but there is no systemic approach to teaching what this exactly is in medical school, unless you identify a mentor who helps you along this path.

So, you want to do research. Ask yourself, what exactly does that mean? Do you want to participate in a study someone else is organizing, help shape some questions or analyses, help write up a paper? Or does doing research mean you want to design a question, propose a grant, organize a study and run an experiment(with a goal of becoming a principle investigator)? Or does doing research mean something else entirely?

In general, the goal of an independent researcher or principle investigator is to get money to run studies, mentor other people, run said studies, and repeat the process. If this is what you want to do, it's entirely possible to do with an MD, but the path is fairly narrow. In general, the two tracks are through NIH funding or VA funding. Yes, there are other pots of money out there, but these are the most well known. You are entering the land of alphabet soup, with T32s K25s R01s CDAs etc. Basically you are going this route--1. training 2. fellowship 3. career development 4.independent award. This is oversimplified, but a good general way to think about things. So, how do I get an organization to give me money?

Well, if you are the organization, why would they want to give you anything? You have to prove yourself to them--that you are someone worth investing in, that you will mentor others, and that their money is well spent. NIH+VA have a lot of money, but there are also a ton of people trying to get ahold of it. Do a search on NIHreporter for a keyword you are interested in and see how many studies are going on addressing what youre looking for.

So, how do I demonstrate that I am someone that an organization wants to fund. I'm a doctor and my **** doesnt stink! I've worked hard and I'm smart, they should give me money because thats the way the world works, right? If only! You need to demonstrate that you are a good researcher. Well, I went to med school, and I published an article in psychiatric times and was 4th author out of 7 on a study in college looking at nicotine receptors in mice tails, doesnt that make me a researcher? No. So what the hell do I do? If you want to forgo getting a PHD, then you will likely have to complete one or more post residency training programs. These are funded positions(at PGY salaries or less) where you are working on other peoples studies in an area that is close to your particular interest. You hopefully during this time get some first author publications and some small grants to do some other small studies, do an analysis of someone's old data, maybe do some qualitative work, whatever. You start to build a portfolio that shows, yeah you are someone an organization should invest in.

So you've now spent 2 years after residency writing some papers, helping on several studies, you've amassed some publications where you are first author. Now what? Hopefully during this time you've started to formulate what you are interested in. This is the next step--you need to define what the next few years of your career will look like. Remember, at this point you may be a fully board certified physician, but still NIH has no reason to give you any money. There are lots of other people out there who have better proven track records than you. So, if someone is going to give you money, they are going to give it to you based on who your mentor is. It's like getting a loan in college--your parents or someone more important than you is the cosigner. Why? Because the bank has no reason to believe you wont default or spend it all on natty light. The NIH and the VA are the same. Your next step is getting a mentored award--a career development award--where you get a pot of cash to last several years to start to become more independent. In this next step the major funding organization is basically saying, 'sure we will give you some money because you are attached to Dr. XYZ, and they have a proven record of producing independent researchers'. You spend the next 2-5 years writing, conducting studies, being a coinvestigator, trying to get more grants. You literally develop your career. After some period of time, you'll now be able to apply for independent researcher or investigator awards--either RO1s or something akin to them. At this point youve made it, balloons fall from the ceiling, yadda yadda.

TLDR: Complete residency, get lucky and be stubborn, spend the next 3-7 years being paid poorly compared to private practice, and then *ding* you're a researcher.

Thank you for taking the time to write all of that out for me. Would it help if I went heavy on research during medical school? I’ve heard psychiatry is less competitive to match into so if I could devote relatively less time to studying and churn out a few pubs and then get some more pubs during residency, perhaps I could fast track my research career a bit? My ultimate goal is to contribute more intellectually/theoretically in terms of ideas for experiments/writing than the physical stuff, but I understand that the higher up your are on the totem pole the less scut you have to do. I’m just tired of cleaning mice **** everyday lol!

 

[glassesvar]

It's not for everybody, that's for sure.

I bailed.

Could you elaborate on why you bailed? I’m very interested in hearing your perspective.

I think one of my greatest fears that’s preventing me from going full PhD is that the job prospects are much narrower, and if I end up hating it/can’t find a job I’m pretty much screwed. It’s possible to go into research as an MD but a PhD can’t practice clinical medicine. Even with my current research experience, there’s no way of knowing how much i will enjoy research as a career, since research is a completely different experience at every stage (undergrad, grad student, PI) and also varies greatly between academia and industry. I am only an undergrad doing scut work, and while I did get glimpses of what the higher ups were doing, I obviously can’t completely understand until I experience it myself, and by that time it will be too late (as you can tell by now I suffer from severe analysis paralysis/am very very scared of making the wrong decision).

 

[deleted736562]

Thank you for taking the time to write all of that out for me. Would it help if I went heavy on research during medical school? I’ve heard psychiatry is less competitive to match into so if I could devote relatively less time to studying and churn out a few pubs and then get some more pubs during residency, perhaps I could fast track my research career a bit

I wouldn't do this. It's quite impossible to develop basic science research skills and publish as a first author working part time or a few hours a week. That will also screw up your med school performance. If anything, it's going to be even more important to do well in med school cause getting into a top flight academic program is your best bet to start a research career.

What some do is take a year off between med 3 and 4 and do some research. Even that may not be enough to publish big but at least you get your feet wet and understand what a research career entails. At this stage, this is all very abstract.

 

[SourceOfDenial]

Would it help if I went heavy on psychiatry research during medical school? I’ve heard psychiatry is less competitive to match into so if I could devote relatively less time to studying and churn out a few pubs t


Thank you for taking the time to write all of that out for me. Would it help if I went heavy on research during medical school? I’ve heard psychiatry is less competitive to match into so if I could devote relatively less time to studying and churn out a few pubs and then get some more pubs during residency, perhaps I could fast track my research career a bit? My ultimate goal is to contribute more intellectually/theoretically in terms of ideas for experiments/writing than the physical stuff, but I understand that the higher up your are on the totem pole the less scut you have to do. I’m just tired of cleaning mice **** everyday lol!

I'd say don't worry about any of this stuff since its ~8-10 years away.

 

[tr]

Yes I have. I’ve worked in a neuroscience lab for the past 3 years...
I’m a 3rd year undergraduate student majoring in neuroscience. My stats are competitive enough for medical school. Not sure how they’d fare for PhD admissions, but from what I’ve heard phD admissions is more experience focused. I am also concerned about job prospects and stability as a PhD which is why I am considering an MD more heavily.

OK this helps. With 3 years basic neuroscience research and competitive stats for med school, assuming you are under age 30 I would actually advise you to apply to Medical Scientist Training Programs for a combined MD/PhD degree. That will give you exposure to both basic neuroscience and medicine, you will amass some publications and sharpen your interests, and then you can decide how to proceed from there.

Medical Scientist Training Program

Take a look at the MD/PhD forum for more info as well.

Physician Scientists

You are too young to worry about the alphabet-soup of funding that is being discussed on this thread.

 

[deleted736562]

I actually wouldn't do the MSTP unless you're hell bent on pursuing research. A PhD is grueling and even more so if it's in the middle of your med school. We're talking about at least 3-4 years before earning your MD degree and completing residency. MSTPers can tell you about the psychological toll involved in seeing classmates move on graduate while you languish in the lab. There are no easy answers but at the end of the day you have to let your gut sense and interests guide you. I think it's good sign that you're also examining the practical aspect of all of these choices before nosediving. A clinical career to fall back IS a great asset, especially in uncertain funding times, but it also comes at a significant cost.

 

[mstp4lyfe]

MSTP student (PhD in Neuroscience) here. I just defended my thesis and am back in MS3 this year. I'm certainly biased, but MD/PhD is the way to go if you really want a career where you are well-trained for both the clinic and the lab. I had a similar background to OP with 2.5 years in a Neuroscience lab during undergrad and competitive scores for MD admissions. I fell in love with basic research in undergrad and absolutely knew that I could not see a future career for myself without a significant basic science aspect. I have a couple of points from my perspective nearing the end this 8 year journey into madness...

You mentioned doing some research during medical school. While that's certainly possible and you might be able to pump out a few pubs if you fall into a positive lab environment, it won't get you the kind of deep-dive exposure to bench work and basic science that the PhD will give you. And if you decide against the PhD but want to match into a research track residency, you'll be competing against MD/PhDs with more research experience and likely better pubs. I cannot stress enough how difficult publishing in the neurosciences has gotten recently, especially in the top tier journals. I feel like I spent at least 33.3% of my PhD wresting with reviewers and doing experiments for revisions.

That said, the PhD is not for everyone. It is absolutely grueling dealing with your PI and journal reviewers, not to mention the daily failures that come hand in hand with doing hypothesis-driven basic science. Personally, I did not have much of a problem seeing my colleagues from M1/M2 year progress into residency, but many of my fellow MSTPers have struggled with it. Many MSTPs get burnt pretty quickly, and I am aware of a solid contingent from my program that has no further interest in doing bench work during their careers.

At the end of day, this is a question that only you can answer. If you are looking for a safe career choice with the opportunity to stick your toes into the basic research pond every now and again, then apply MD-only and explore your options for research once you matriculate. But if you are absolutely, positively, 100% convinced that your life will not be complete without spending scores of your time exploring basic neuroscience, then the MD/PhD is right for you.

 

[dl2dp2]

MD/PhD is a better fit for what who you are and what you claim you want regardless of your level of commitment to research at the present time. If you have 3 years of basic lab research on your CV, MD/PhD is a better fit for your application narrative--the story needs to be consistent. You can always drop the PhD once you get in. You need a good MCAT. Hope this helps.

It's typically clear once you are in a PhD program whether this life is for you in the long run--however, the opportunity cost of dropping the PhD mid-program is fairly minimal. OTOH, if you only apply and go into MD, you'll never know what it's really like.

 

[deleted736562]

MD/PhD is a better fit for what who you are and what you claim you want regardless of your level of commitment to research at the present time. If you have 3 years of basic lab research on your CV, MD/PhD is a better fit for your application narrative--the story needs to be consistent. You can always drop the PhD once you get in. You need a good MCAT. Hope this helps.

It's typically clear once you are in a PhD program whether this life is for you in the long run--however, the opportunity cost of dropping the PhD mid-program is fairly minimal. OTOH, if you only apply and go into MD, you'll never know what it's really like.

You can always find out how it's really like either in elective time in residency or post-residency, with the added benefit that you will always know that you have a nice career to fall back on. Op already has some idea of how research is like so it's not like it's all novelty for him/her. The pressure is less and that's an advantage.

Frankly going in with the idea that you can just drop out from the PhD if you don't like it doesn't seem like a great thing to me. I think you need a fair bit of commitment to finish the PhD and this kind of thing may leave a bit of a mark on your CV, perhaps burn some bridges, take a psychological toll of its own. When would it be a good time to drop out, 1, 2, 3 years in?

In a way the MD only is perhaps the most flexible. All of these career tracks come at a significant cost and no matter what one does, there are sacrifices needed for an academic career. There are no easy answers or ideal cases, but I think if one is unsure, MD-only seems the best choice. To answer directly the question of the OP: it's never "easy" to get into academia. Whatever route you chose, you will have to put in a lot of effort, make sacrifices with money/time; it's only possible with passion and dedication.

You can also take one year post-bac. If you can get a first author pub that can help you in the future. It would also let you know whether you really want to do the PhD.

 

[dl2dp2]

Frankly going in with the idea that you can just drop out from the PhD if you don't like it doesn't seem like a great thing to me. I think you need a fair bit of commitment to finish the PhD and this kind of thing may leave a bit of a mark on your CV, perhaps burn some bridges, take a psychological toll of its own. When would it be a good time to drop out, 1, 2, 3 years in?

Speaking as someone who did a PhD: the supposed risk of "burning bridges" and "leaving a mark on CV" for dropping a PhD is greatly exaggerated. Generally if you drop your PhD it means you don't want to do research anymore in your life. This means it's irrelevant what researchers might think about you. Secondly and more importantly, nobody cares. People (especially administrators) are extremely output driven. If you can get papers published and grants funded it doesn't matter if you dropped your PhD at 1 2 or 3 years. If you can't get sustainable funding it doesn't matter how many years you persisted in wrapping up your PhD because you have just such a high level of "commitment" you still don't have a future in academia.

People who do PhD should drop the PhD at any time if they realize that they no longer want a career in academia, or that the PhD ceases to be useful for their future career in some other way. It's as simple as that. They should persist if the day to day work feels right and engaging.

If you want a career doing basic neuroscience and practicing psychiatry, it's fairly clear to me the most optimal track is MD/PhD. This is also statistically true. There are EXTREMELY few MD-onlys who end up doing basic neuroscience research and practicing psychiatry. As part of a project I reviewed all K awards sponsored by NIMH/NIDA/NIAAA, and not a single K08 was from an MD-only. At the present time at least, if you do an MD-only, your chance of doing becoming a PI for federally funded research in basic neuroscience (i.e. anything animal model or below in system complexity) is essentially closed. Weirdly this might sound contradictory to my point that degrees don't matter--but it is not. The degree itself is a flag not a cause. People who were in an MD/PhD and end up dropping out of PhD generally don't eventually end up at a point where they obtain a K08.

 

[FlowRate]

You are too young to worry about the alphabet-soup of funding that is being discussed on this thread.

I would say that 75% or more of the MD/PhD's that I've talked to about their experience (and that's probably on the order of 40+, we produce tons of them) regret doing a PhD or have no plans of doing anything related to their PhD. Maybe half of them think it was the right choice for them at the time and just ended up hating research, but others basically describe not being future-oriented enough to know that "kinda liking research" was not a good enough reason to commit 3-9+ years of their life. Of the 25% I know who liked it / found it useful the common theme is that they were all career-focused from the get-go and have solid plans for what they ultimately want to do and how to get there, which basically means knowing the alphabet soup.

People who do PhD should drop the PhD at any time if they realize that they no longer want a career in academia, or that the PhD ceases to be useful for their future career in some other way. It's as simple as that. They should persist if the day to day work feels right and engaging.

I would be afraid that, in the judgmental field of academic medicine, dropping out of a PhD program could hurt potential residency applications.

 

[clausewitz2]

I would say that 75% or more of the MD/PhD's that I've talked to about their experience (and that's probably on the order of 40+, we produce tons of them) regret doing a PhD or have no plans of doing anything related to their PhD. Maybe half of them think it was the right choice for them at the time and just ended up hating research, but others basically describe not being future-oriented enough to know that "kinda liking research" was not a good enough reason to commit 3-9+ years of their life. Of the 25% I know who liked it / found it useful the common theme is that they were all career-focused from the get-go and have solid plans for what they ultimately want to do and how to get there, which basically means knowing the alphabet soup.

I would be afraid that, in the judgmental field of academic medicine, dropping out of a PhD program could hurt potential residency applications.

+1 to your anecdata of PhDs who wish they'd missed it out.

The culture of medicine is pretty hostile to "quitters" and it is almost certainly the case that some people who have input into the selection process will have negative opinions they wouldn't otherwise have if you dropped out mid-PhD or, god forbid, ABD.

 

[dl2dp2]

I would say that 75% or more of the MD/PhD's that I've talked to about their experience (and that's probably on the order of 40+, we produce tons of them) regret doing a PhD or have no plans of doing anything related to their PhD. Maybe half of them think it was the right choice for them at the time and just ended up hating research, but others basically describe not being future-oriented enough to know that "kinda liking research" was not a good enough reason to commit 3-9+ years of their life. Of the 25% I know who liked it / found it useful the common theme is that they were all career-focused from the get-go and have solid plans for what they ultimately want to do and how to get there, which basically means knowing the alphabet soup.

I would be afraid that, in the judgmental field of academic medicine, dropping out of a PhD program could hurt potential residency applications.

Hindsight is 20/20. They will soon appreciate the fact that they have no debt. The point here is that if they didn't do that MD/PhD, the OPTION of doing basic neuroscience research post-residency would not have even existed (in a realistic way--yes it would exist if you did a 8 year postdoc at 45k a year and picked up all the skills because you are independently wealthy and like being micromanaged by someone as a 35 year old gentleman/woman scientist and your spouse doesn't care). So there would be nothing to even feel "regretful" for should you have gone down that path instead.

+1 to your anecdata of PhDs who wish they'd missed it out.

The culture of medicine is pretty hostile to "quitters" and it is almost certainly the case that some people who have input into the selection process will have negative opinions they wouldn't otherwise have if you dropped out mid-PhD or, god forbid, ABD.

Who cares? If you dropped a PhD and just want to be a psychiatrist, does it really matter whether you go to an "academic" program? And no, now having been in admissions for these types of programs, I can tell you the reality is nobody cares. You review 1000 applications to pick for interview and interviews are usually unrevealing. Basically rank based on numbers and personality. Dropping PhD is easily explainable by saying your career goals changed. Do some do-goody public interest activity to make it seem more convincing. NO. ONE. CARES.

I guess maybe the idea here is if you get into Yale your chance of setting up some fancy cash practice in Beverley Hills (a.k.a. the derm of psych) is better, so you don't want to take any chances. Maybe lol. I don't know. Does it really matter? The flip side of this is what if you do MD/PhD and you DON'T DROP OUT--that is a known positive correlate of getting into Yale. Clearly this is ridiculous. If you did 3 years of neuroscience research and can spin a tale of want to do "translational research", you should just go for the MD/PhD, have the government pay your cost of attendance, and drop out whenever you feel like (or not if you like research). It's called winning the game.

 

[clausewitz2]

Hindsight is 20/20. They will soon appreciate the fact that they have no debt.



Who cares? If you dropped a PhD and just want to be a psychiatrist, does it really matter whether you go to an "academic" program? And no, now having been in admissions for these types of programs, I can tell you the reality is nobody cares. You review 1000 applications to pick for interview and interviews are usually unrevealing. Basically rank based on numbers and personality. Dropping PhD is easily explainable by saying your career goals changed. NO. ONE. CARES.

Mmmkay. Our institutions must be a little different in culture and in a more confidential setting could provide details of cases I have been privy to but I don't doubt it hasn't been your experience.

Some people might still want to go to a very academic program because they like being around the atmosphere of intellectual rigor/excitement and be peripherally involved without having to deal with the horrors of actually going after grants and being okay with chipping in on someone else's project and not steering the boat.

There are dozens of us! Dozens!

 

[dl2dp2]

Mmmkay. Our institutions must be a little different in culture and in a more confidential setting could provide details of cases I have been privy to but I don't doubt it hasn't been your experience.

Some people might still want to go to a very academic program because they like being around the atmosphere of intellectual rigor/excitement and be peripherally involved without having to deal with the horrors of actually going after grants and being okay with chipping in on someone else's project and not steering the boat.

There are dozens of us! Dozens!

Sure--as a matter of opinion, but I would argue that going into an MD/PhD with a not so solid commitment to research career vs. just do MD-only in the end will statistically correlate to a higher chance of getting into a "very academic" program. Now, if it's between MD/PhD at a lower tier program vs. a MD at a higher tier program, perhaps there's an argument to be made...but there is a lot of subtlety. For example, going to UWisconsin MDPhD then drop out of PhD is probably better than going to MD at say Dartmouth, but maybe equivalent to MD at Emory, and less than JHU--but then if you H everything and AOA then it's different--- HAHAHAH I'm just pulling **** out of my ass, but you know what I mean. I've seen too many CVs these days. My point being, dropping PhD is such a tiny portion of your application people wouldn't notice.

 

[deleted736562]

Hindsight is 20/20. They will soon appreciate the fact that they have no debt.

They paid the debt by working and being miserable as a dirt-poor graduate student for 4 years, Many would prefer to pay the debt while being resident-poor in a job they enjoy more as an actual attending. If they have to quit in the PhD, even worse, as they have to carry the costs of 2 years of med school.

If you don't want to go into academic research, MSTP seems like a very poor choice every single time.

The point here is that if they didn't do that MD/PhD, the OPTION of doing basic neuroscience research post-residency would not have even existed (in a realistic way--yes it would exist if you did a 8 year postdoc at 45k a year and picked up all the skills because you are independently wealthy and like being micromanaged by someone as a 35 year old gentleman/woman scientist and your spouse doesn't care). So there would be nothing to even feel "regretful" for should you have gone down that path instead.

I don't quite agree there. You're going to feel regretful to some degree if you ended up hating research. Obviously if we could all predict what we like and what we don't, life would be a lot easier, and in some cases you can never forgo experience, but there's a very clear cost there. And if you CAN make the "right" decision before you nosedive then you're certainly at an advantage.

For the MD-only academic career, it's hard but not unrealistic, imo. The biggest obstacle is keeping an active interest during 8+ years of clinical training. A lot of self-selection happens there. Money-wise, these jobs pay as a PGY5+ (not really 45k for 8 years) and you can easily double it with moonlighting.

 

[tr]

If you don't want to go into academic research, MSTP seems like a very poor choice every single time.

But the OP has expressly stated an interest in academic research. That's why s/he came here seeking advice.
OP, I suggest you head over to the physician-scientist forum, where you will get more experienced and knowledgeable input.

You're going to feel regretful to some degree if you ended up hating research.

As someone who had a pretty poor outcome to their PhD (risky project, low productivity, clashed with PI, etc) and didn't make it through the 'alphabet soup' (still in academics but in a clinician-educator position, running low-key research hobby on the side with small-beans funding), I actually do not at all regret doing the MSTP. I regret some of the specific choices I made along the way, but there's just no substitute for understanding how the brain works on a cellular/molecular level. I use that knowledge every day. I use it in my patient care and I use it when I teach residents. I use it when I evaluate both clinical and basic literature. It has absolutely made me a better psychiatrist.

 

[deleted736562]

But the OP has expressly stated an interest in academic research. That's why s/he came here seeking advice.
OP, I suggest you head over to the physician-scientist forum, where you will get more experienced and knowledgeable input.

The counter-argument was to the advice the OP has received in this thread; basically to go the MSTP route and find out if research is a good fit. Seems quite relevant to this thread to me. (And "interest" btw comes at all different levels).

As someone who had a pretty poor outcome to their PhD (risky project, low productivity, clashed with PI, etc) and didn't make it through the 'alphabet soup' (still in academics but in a clinician-educator position, running low-key research hobby on the side with small-beans funding), I actually do not at all regret doing the MSTP. I regret some of the specific choices I made along the way, but there's just no substitute for understanding how the brain works on a cellular/molecular level. I use that knowledge every day. I use it in my patient care and I use it when I teach residents. I use it when I evaluate both clinical and basic literature. It has absolutely made me a better psychiatrist.

Fair. I'm sure the decision and the perspective are quite personal in every case.

 

[SourceOfDenial]

For the MD-only academic career, it's hard but not unrealistic, imo. The biggest obstacle is keeping an active interest during 8+ years of clinical training. A lot of self-selection happens there. Money-wise, these jobs pay as a PGY5+ (not really 45k for 8 years) and you can easily double it with moonlighting.

The problem with the ‘you can always moonlight’ model is then you are always working. There’s a lot more to life than working.