Interviewers are asking me why I didn't apply MD/PhD

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Z

zoomx3

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
30
Reaction score
7
Members do not see this ad.
I'm applying MD only, but have extensive research experiences, definitely comparable to traditional MD/PhD applicants. So I think it makes sense that med schools are asking me why I'm not applying to MSTP programs, but I really don't have a great answer to it

I've been saying that I've done so much research in high school and college that I feel I have less to gain from getting the degree and 3 years of time in the lab. Of course I'm super interested in research and am definitely going to continue doing it as a med student, I just don't feel the need to get a PhD. And also I want to do very clinically oriented research, not necessarily clinical research, but definitely translational so an MD would be enough for that

I just feel that at my interviews, this is coming off as "oh I'm so awesome that a PhD is a waste of time" and it's not that.... not sure if any of you have advice about what else I can say or what I can tweak in my response

thanks!!!
 
Mention that high caliber research can easily be done with an MD.

But seriously, why didn't you do MSTP? Free schooling. Sheesh.
 
zoomx3 said:
I'm applying MD only, but have extensive research experiences, definitely comparable to traditional MD/PhD applicants. So I think it makes sense that med schools are asking me why I'm not applying to MSTP programs, but I really don't have a great answer to it

I've been saying that I've done so much research in high school and college that I feel I have less to gain from getting the degree and 3 years of time in the lab. Of course I'm super interested in research and am definitely going to continue doing it as a med student, I just don't feel the need to get a PhD. And also I want to do very clinically oriented research, not necessarily clinical research, but definitely translational so an MD would be enough for that

I just feel that at my interviews, this is coming off as "oh I'm so awesome that a PhD is a waste of time" and it's not that.... not sure if any of you have advice about what else I can say or what I can tweak in my response

thanks!!!
Click to expand...

Not to be crass, but just tell them what you told us: in other words, the truth. seems like a good enough response to me!
 
zoomx3 said:
I'm applying MD only, but have extensive research experiences, definitely comparable to traditional MD/PhD applicants. So I think it makes sense that med schools are asking me why I'm not applying to MSTP programs, but I really don't have a great answer to it

I've been saying that I've done so much research in high school and college that I feel I have less to gain from getting the degree and 3 years of time in the lab. Of course I'm super interested in research and am definitely going to continue doing it as a med student, I just don't feel the need to get a PhD. And also I want to do very clinically oriented research, not necessarily clinical research, but definitely translational so an MD would be enough for that

I just feel that at my interviews, this is coming off as "oh I'm so awesome that a PhD is a waste of time" and it's not that.... not sure if any of you have advice about what else I can say or what I can tweak in my response

thanks!!!
Click to expand...

How about: "I am more attracted to clinical research and so I do not feel the PhD is necessary to reach my research goals."

I would not really say anything about you feeling like you won't benefit from it as much. That's the part that can sound a little arrogant if phrased poorly or be misinterpreted by the interviewer.
 
pietachok said:
How about: "I am more attracted to clinical research and so I do not feel the PhD is necessary to reach my research goals."

I would not really say anything about you feeling like you won't benefit from it as much. That's the part that can sound a little arrogant if phrased poorly or be misinterpreted by the interviewer.
Click to expand...

Agree. You could also say that you're simply not ready to commit to a career of bench research, so you didn't think that was the best path for you. No one can fault you for that.
 
Don't mention PhD at all. I always say I'm primarily concerned with learning to provide clinical care at this stage in my career.

I don't say PhD isnt for me or research isn't for me because I'm not trying to offend anyone.
 
La Presse said:
Mention that high caliber research can easily be done with an MD.

But seriously, why didn't you do MSTP? Free schooling. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

False. Although not nec. the case for the OP, to perform high end research takes a lot more than summer research during med school and a short stint in a lab during your fellowship. It's about managing people and resources, grant and paper writing, and scientific presentation. Attaining an MD doesn't automatically bestow upon a person these skills.

Going through the phd process should not be done for 'free medical training.' It should be done b/c the individual is looking to bridge the gap b/t basic science and the clinic. It also doesn't make much financial sense since lose several years of earning potential.
 
zoomx3 said:
I'm applying MD only, but have extensive research experiences, definitely comparable to traditional MD/PhD applicants. So I think it makes sense that med schools are asking me why I'm not applying to MSTP programs, but I really don't have a great answer to it

I've been saying that I've done so much research in high school and college that I feel I have less to gain from getting the degree and 3 years of time in the lab. Of course I'm super interested in research and am definitely going to continue doing it as a med student, I just don't feel the need to get a PhD. And also I want to do very clinically oriented research, not necessarily clinical research, but definitely translational so an MD would be enough for that

I just feel that at my interviews, this is coming off as "oh I'm so awesome that a PhD is a waste of time" and it's not that.... not sure if any of you have advice about what else I can say or what I can tweak in my response

thanks!!!
Click to expand...

Just be honest.
 
La Presse said:
How so, boss? 😕
Click to expand...

Sure you get free education. So, say you get 250,000 free for education. Then you work 3-4 (or possibly more) extra years to get the Ph.D. Those 3-4 extra years you could be making attending salary (4x 200,000 (rough estimate)) translating to 800,000 you would have made vs. the 250,000 from the "free education".
 
zoomx3 said:
I'm applying MD only, but have extensive research experiences, definitely comparable to traditional MD/PhD applicants. So I think it makes sense that med schools are asking me why I'm not applying to MSTP programs, but I really don't have a great answer to it

I've been saying that I've done so much research in high school and college that I feel I have less to gain from getting the degree and 3 years of time in the lab. Of course I'm super interested in research and am definitely going to continue doing it as a med student, I just don't feel the need to get a PhD. And also I want to do very clinically oriented research, not necessarily clinical research, but definitely translational so an MD would be enough for that
Click to expand...

You may get away with this answer, and I applaud you for your honesty - but I'm a little offended by it. Research you did in high school and even undergrad is not on the same level as what you would learn as a PhD student. Did you publish a first author paper in college? If you did, I'll let you off the hook - otherwise, you still have A LOT to learn. You may have decided that you want to be a clinician and not a physician scientist as your primary career and thats fine, but I wouldn't say that your high school or even undergrad research career will prepare you for a career in translational research.

If you want to do comparative effectiveness studies or something very patient focused, you probably don't need a PhD, and many MDs do full time bench research as you know without a PhD, but they make up those years of bench training in and after their fellowship.
 
Espadaleader said:
Don't mention PhD at all. I always say I'm primarily concerned with learning to provide clinical care at this stage in my career.

I don't say PhD isnt for me or research isn't for me because I'm not trying to offend anyone.
Click to expand...

BlackBox said:
False. Although not nec. the case for the OP, to perform high end research takes a lot more than summer research during med school and a short stint in a lab during your fellowship. It's about managing people and resources, grant and paper writing, and scientific presentation. Attaining an MD doesn't automatically bestow upon a person these skills.

Going through the phd process should not be done for 'free medical training.' It should be done b/c the individual is looking to bridge the gap b/t basic science and the clinic. It also doesn't make much financial sense since lose several years of earning potential.
Click to expand...

OP, these are two good answers. 👍👍

It is a silly question for someone to ask you "why didn't you apply MD/PhD", the valid question would be to ask someone why they did apply MD/PhD. Doing MD/PhD is a calling. You do it because you very much want to be a physician/scientist. If you try to justify such a choice based on objective criteria (e.g fame, fortune, etc.) you would never do it and probably shouldn't.
 
CarlosDanger said:
You may get away with this answer, and I applaud you for your honesty - but I'm a little offended by it. Research you did in high school and even undergrad is not on the same level as what you would learn as a PhD student. Did you publish a first author paper in college? If you did, I'll let you off the hook - otherwise, you still have A LOT to learn. You may have decided that you want to be a clinician and not a physician scientist as your primary career and thats fine, but I wouldn't say that your high school or even undergrad research career will prepare you for a career in translational research.

If you want to do comparative effectiveness studies or something very patient focused, you probably don't need a PhD, and many MDs do full time bench research as you know without a PhD, but they make up those years of bench training in and after their fellowship.
Click to expand...

Wow. This was literally verbatim what I was going to say.

+1000

Edit: If I was your student interviewer and you said that, it would get a little tricky. Mostly because the MD/PhD is basically the hallmark of translational research, so if that's what you're interested in it would make sense. If you want to do it with just an MD, you will end up doing at least a few years of fellowship basically equivalent to a PhD, while making less money to do it and having a ton of debt. Also, I did a ton of research in hs and college and published a first author, and still feel I have a ton to learn from the PhD.
 
Last edited:
So doing clinical research is a good reason not to do a MD/PhD
What if one wants to do bench research as an MD?
 
chillaxbro said:
So doing clinical research is a good reason not to do a MD/PhD
What if one wants to do bench research as an MD?
Click to expand...

Depends on if you want your own lab and your own grants, or to just be within a PhD's lab and dabbling a little in research on the side. If you want the former, MD/PhD is the most effective path.
 
chillaxbro said:
So doing clinical research is a good reason not to do a MD/PhD
What if one wants to do bench research as an MD?
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind that "clinical research" is a vague umbrella term. Different people think it means different things. Sometimes bench research can be clinical research. My coworkers get blood samples from patients and do bench science all day. These physicians are 80% bench scientists and don't see patients often, but they would say that they are clinical researchers.

Translational researchers are traditionally scientists who are "translating" basic science into a real therapy, so they are usually the MD/PhD types, or they at least have a lot of basic science training - by that I mean multiple years of post-graduate training.
 
chillaxbro said:
So doing clinical research is a good reason not to do a MD/PhD
What if one wants to do bench research as an MD?
Click to expand...

Good question.

There is a range of research topics one can undertake. From patient case studies to general biochemistry, there is a spectrum of topics. I would argue that many practicing MDs publish more along the lines of case study/clinical trial research and very few are in a lab at the bench pipetting. Now there are exceptions, but as others have pointed out that you MUST receive additional training and the MD/PhD was partially designed for this. In fact, the spread b/t research and patient care is supposed to be something like 80:20, but the numbers don't support this- according to the NIH most MD/PhDs simply practice medicine and really do not conduct the type of research the MSTP programs were designed for... I think the technical term for dropping the PhD after the first 2 years of MD classes is termed, the two-and-screw. 😉 . And this couldn't be more true of a statement.


For anyone reading this who is thinking of getting a free ride through the MD/PhD program:
Your cost to the NIH is greater than your tuition (~250K). It's your salary and medical benefits (~300K 6-8 years). Laboratory resources (~100K- who knows).Your time. That's nearly 700K, not including the time/effort/money wasted by PIs to train you. I can't begin to impress upon you how much this money takes away from new researchers just trying to get started- it's multiple R01's wasted.


I took the OP to mean that he had enough research experience to apply for the program, not conduct research as a corresponding author at a high level. At least that's what I would like to think! :laugh:

What really annoys me though is when people spout-off about how an MD is equal to or greater than having a PhD, because the training is very different...and it should be. The whole point of the MSTP program is to bridge this gap.

fin. :laugh:
 
Last edited:
All super helpful answers; thanks!!

To clarify on my situation, I very recently published first-author as an undergrad in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, which is again not helping my case of why I didn't apply MD/PhD.

Just my two cents on the debate on MD/PhD not being equal to just MD in terms of doing research in the future, I find plenty of MDs at the top of their fields in research... But I might be misled because MSTP programs are somewhat recent and many of these pure MDs I'm talking about were trained in a time without these programs

Anyways, my honest reason for not applying MSTP is that in my case, MD+research postdoc is equally as valuable for my training as MD/PhD+postdoc. And the former case should take less time... although with more debt but I would not go into MSTP just because it's a free ride
 
I have a bunch of research but have no gotten asked once about MD/PhD in 5 interviews so far. Most interviewers don't ask me much about my research at all except very basic 'what is about?' questions lol.
 
Last edited:
zoomx3 said:
All super helpful answers; thanks!!

To clarify on my situation, I very recently published first-author as an undergrad in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, which is again not helping my case of why I didn't apply MD/PhD.

Just my two cents on the debate on MD/PhD not being equal to just MD in terms of doing research in the future, I find plenty of MDs at the top of their fields in research... But I might be misled because MSTP programs are somewhat recent and many of these pure MDs I'm talking about were trained in a time without these programs

Anyways, my honest reason for not applying MSTP is that in my case, MD+research postdoc is equally as valuable for my training as MD/PhD+postdoc. And the former case should take less time... although with more debt but I would not go into MSTP just because it's a free ride
Click to expand...

Don't worry. I wasn't trying to single you out. 🙂
 
OP, feel free to PM me about this. I spent about 2 full years going back and forth on this issue after doing very extensive research (yes, including a first author publication) in college and working in the same lab full time now.

I am not applying MD/PhD

I want to see patients and I want to become a physician. Research is a big part of my science experience but at the end of the day I decided that I want to be a clinician. Sure, getting a PhD and continuing to do research would be a lot of fun for me - I love school and I love neuroscience 😀

My response to the same interview question you are getting asked is simple: My goal is to see patients, that is why I am going to medical school to train as a physician. Taking the MD route allows me to see patients at least four years earlier than if I took time to do an MD/PhD. I don't think anything else is necessary - none of my interviewers so far asked followups.
 
Just don't mention it or say that you are no longer interested in basic science research. I was part of a high-powered PhD program before going to medical school and in my 4 interviews, no one ever mentioned doing an MD/PhD because I made it quite clear that I was no longer interested in scientific research.

Say what you need to say to get into medical school. Don't worry about justifying anything.
 
notbobtrustme said:
Just don't mention it or say that you are no longer interested in basic science research. I was part of a high-powered PhD program before going to medical school and in my 4 interviews, no one ever mentioned doing an MD/PhD because I made it quite clear that I was no longer interested in scientific research.

Say what you need to say to get into medical school. Don't worry about justifying anything.
Click to expand...

Just a heads-up, your sig link is broken.
 
Why don't you say your primary motivation is to be a clinician and that at the level you see yourself doing research in the future you think you can accomplish with an MD alone? Say it wouldn't be fair to take a seat in MD/PhD that could go to someone that wants to focus their career on research.

zoomx3 said:
I'm applying MD only, but have extensive research experiences, definitely comparable to traditional MD/PhD applicants. So I think it makes sense that med schools are asking me why I'm not applying to MSTP programs, but I really don't have a great answer to it

I've been saying that I've done so much research in high school and college that I feel I have less to gain from getting the degree and 3 years of time in the lab. Of course I'm super interested in research and am definitely going to continue doing it as a med student, I just don't feel the need to get a PhD. And also I want to do very clinically oriented research, not necessarily clinical research, but definitely translational so an MD would be enough for that

I just feel that at my interviews, this is coming off as "oh I'm so awesome that a PhD is a waste of time" and it's not that.... not sure if any of you have advice about what else I can say or what I can tweak in my response

thanks!!!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

APSAVirtualContent
~Tomorrow~ Interview tips for those applying MD/DO-PhD!
Replies
0
Views
555
APSAVirtualContent
APSAVirtualContent
D
Reconsidering if MD/DO is right for me or if I should pursue a PhD instead?
Replies
4
Views
961
LizzyM
LizzyM
S
Interviewers didn't really ask me about why medicine. Is this a bad sign?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Rachapkis
Rachapkis
E
  • Question Question
MD/PhD Rec Letters
Replies
1
Views
705
Doctor-S
Doctor-S
S
Ms or PhD before MD?
Replies
12
Views
1K
eigen
eigen
Top