Is it really true that MDs are more difficult to earn than Ph.Ds?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
This isn't true at all. Others commonly complain no matter how how substantial the post in a revived thread is. I've seen this time and time again. This one happens to not be particularly helpful, but it's better than starting up an entirely new thread for the purpose of posting just that.



While I agree with you, it isn't really our place to dictate what others can or should post on these forums. If that's what he wants to contribute, so be it. Better here than in a new thread.



And the counter-argument to this is, of course, that the situation may change at any time and new members with other insight may see the thread where they missed it before and and contribute something helpful. These are evolving discussions and things are constantly changing, both in the application process and in the careers themselves.

Let's not overdo this. There's a pretty clear difference between meaningful attempts to revisit a topic and generate discussion and just posting something without concern for the situation. Everyone is entitled to post in any topic they like, but forum regulars are just as entitled to post that they think a user has violated the "gentleman's agreement" that governs the forum.

This includes things such as trying not to clutter the forum with meaningless posts, making an effort to find your answer through a search before starting a new thread that makes it difficult for other threads to be seen, being wary of topics that lead to arguments and hurt feelings, etc etc.

I think you'll find that for the most part, users do not complain about practical attempts to follow these guidelines. Rarely do I see users complain when a user bumps an old thread with a reasonable response or question unique to their situation. Rarely do I see users complain about doing a search for questions that haven't been asked 500 times. Let's not pretend that these rare instances justify a user blindly bumping whatever topic they please or starting whatever comes to mind.
 
If you start a new thread, the first few posts will berate you for not searching. If you search and post in an old thread, the first few posts will berate you for reviving it.

False.

But will I berate you for bumping a 5 year old thread while only posting "+1?" Hell yes, everyday of the week and a hundred times on Sunday.
 
You'll read a paper and follow the procedure but because they don't include all of the special techniques that they've developed, you'll be hard pressed to replicate their data accurately. Also, when someone publishes a graph or picture, chances are that those show the prettiest data points and were probably not a representative sample.
Can't agree enough with this (it's my current predicament)
 
I work as a research tech (aspiring MD) and have become friends with many of the PhD candidates in neighboring labs. They're all righteous bros and hoes, but watching the nature of their work and adding in my shallow research experience has only solidified my desire to go the MD route. I miss people too much! And that's coming from a pretty staunch introvert.

Nuthin but props to the grad students, tho, as they work their tails off. The 10 miles wide/one inch deep comparison strikes me as accurate. Both types of knowledge undoubtably require smart people. The PhD is more contemplative about phenomena--like the explanation is still being sought out--whilst the MD is more decisive, because his job is to apply the explanations the PhD found in his dark corner of the laboratory. I am more contemplative by nature (probably to an unhealthy extent), just on Qs such as the meaning of life and religion and all that, so I'm probably just itching to do some application as an MD.
 
But won't med schools look at your grad school grades?

Most schools don't pay that much to grad school GPA because of grade inflation/deflation. A lot of programs hand out As like candy on Halloween while other programs give a minimum of a B no matter what you really earned so that you stay above whatever cut-off you need to be to stay off academic probation. So grad GPA is essentially meaningless.
 
Let's not overdo this. There's a pretty clear difference between meaningful attempts to revisit a topic and generate discussion and just posting something without concern for the situation. Everyone is entitled to post in any topic they like, but forum regulars are just as entitled to post that they think a user has violated the "gentleman's agreement" that governs the forum.

Fair enough. In that case, any other member, "forum regular" or not, is entitled to point out the inconsistencies in their personal interpretation of this "gentleman's agreement."

This includes things such as trying not to clutter the forum with meaningless posts, making an effort to find your answer through a search before starting a new thread that makes it difficult for other threads to be seen, being wary of topics that lead to arguments and hurt feelings, etc etc.

I could not agree more. And it only emphasizes the point that one shouldn't find fault with someone searching and bumping an older thread in order to get more insight. Clearly, you agree with this position considering your profile includes a gif of someone replying to a thread rather than starting a new thread.

I think you'll find that for the most part, users do not complain about practical attempts to follow these guidelines. Rarely do I see users complain when a user bumps an old thread with a reasonable response or question unique to their situation. Rarely do I see users complain about doing a search for questions that haven't been asked 500 times. Let's not pretend that these rare instances justify a user blindly bumping whatever topic they please or starting whatever comes to mind.

I have not found this. In fact, I rarely see threads bumped after 2 years where someone hasn't made a comment about how old the thread is and (at least) alluded to it being inappropriately revived, regardless of the content of the post.

In this case, I can only assume the user wanted to revisit the discussion and see if new insights are out there. Both careers, M.D. and Ph.D. alike, have changed considerably since the thread was first created. He/she bumped an old thread to get an updated perspective. How can anyone possibly take issue with this?
 
In a more direct attempt to answer the OP's main question, it depends on the respective MD and PhD program.
 
In a more direct attempt to answer the OP's main question, it depends on the respective MD and PhD program.

Don't see how it much depends on which MD program you're talking about. They're are all very close in terms of content and difficulty.
 
The way the OP titled this thread seems pretty condescending, and I still don't see the point of asking the question.

Who cares?
 
In a more direct attempt to answer the OP's main question, it depends on the respective MD and PhD program.

There is much, much more heterogeneity in PhD programs than MD (or even OD and MD programs viewed collectively). The "difficulty" of a PhD program depends on the field of study, the particular program/department, and the adviser and committee. Because each PhD is very strongly influenced by the personalities and opinions of just a few people (like adviser), it can have a very customized, individual nature, and some are much more difficult to win than others.
 
Phd is no doubt harder to earn. A lot can go wrong from advisers to projects. The unpredictability and creativity just makes it more.
 
Fair enough. In that case, any other member, "forum regular" or not, is entitled to point out the inconsistencies in their personal interpretation of this "gentleman's agreement."



I could not agree more. And it only emphasizes the point that one shouldn't find fault with someone searching and bumping an older thread in order to get more insight. Clearly, you agree with this position considering your profile includes a gif of someone replying to a thread rather than starting a new thread.



I have not found this. In fact, I rarely see threads bumped after 2 years where someone hasn't made a comment about how old the thread is and (at least) alluded to it being inappropriately revived, regardless of the content of the post.

In this case, I can only assume the user wanted to revisit the discussion and see if new insights are out there. Both careers, M.D. and Ph.D. alike, have changed considerably since the thread was first created. He/she bumped an old thread to get an updated perspective. How can anyone possibly take issue with this?

Usually (for me, at least) it's to bring it to the attention of others who don't realize that the people they are replying to posted what they did some time ago.
 
Fair enough. In that case, any other member, "forum regular" or not, is entitled to point out the inconsistencies in their personal interpretation of this "gentleman's agreement."



I could not agree more. And it only emphasizes the point that one shouldn't find fault with someone searching and bumping an older thread in order to get more insight. Clearly, you agree with this position considering your profile includes a gif of someone replying to a thread rather than starting a new thread.



I have not found this. In fact, I rarely see threads bumped after 2 years where someone hasn't made a comment about how old the thread is and (at least) alluded to it being inappropriately revived, regardless of the content of the post.

In this case, I can only assume the user wanted to revisit the discussion and see if new insights are out there. Both careers, M.D. and Ph.D. alike, have changed considerably since the thread was first created. He/she bumped an old thread to get an updated perspective. How can anyone possibly take issue with this?

I would agree, many users complain no matter what someone decides. If the user's intent was actually to generate meaningful discussion, I think they should entitled to bump an old thread if that's what they please. I think the frustration originates when the "bump" response is something inane that doesn't suggest to anyone else that any thought or consideration went into bumping this post. An actual sentence, or even a few words acknowledging the thread is ancient, would likely be sufficient to demonstrate to others that though this thread is prehistoric, the reply was made to regenerate new thought.

You're right, some people will probably still complain, but I think we should still, as a community, expect at least this minimum gesture of consideration from others.
 
Agreed - except, you will never be asked for your transcript for a postdoc. position. Your publications and interview seminar get you the position. The only exception would be if you decide to do a clinical fellowship (clinical biochemistry, medical micro. etc.), in which case, your grades earned in graduate school matter and you must provide a transcript for that position.

I wasn't asked my transcript for any Postdoc interviews. It was all based on my research track record, and presumably how influential my PI and other collaborators were and prestige of my program/school. Before I actually started the job I needed to send them a document that I actually defended and had completed all my requirements that I got from the registrar, but that was just for their records and to prove that I did actually hold a graduate degree.

One big difference between medical school is that you are told what to do do much of the time, or of your not told directly you can usually discover the expectations through a little trial and error or by following the example of other people, which is where some of the competitiveness comes in, as you need to be looking around and seeing what other people are doing. In a phd, depending on your adviser, you may only meet once a month to discuss what you are doing, and you have to entirely determine for yourself what you are doing and how you are going to do it. That can be extremely difficult.

Often that means that there is a much simpler reward cycle in medicine. You take a test, that's a high point and you get some feedback; you finish a rotation, you can take a vacation. If your working on a research three or four year research project, your basically wandering in the woods intellectually speaking much of the time, and that is very difficult.

As far as MD school being harder to get into, by and large that may be true for a bio undergrad applying to both programs at the same school. However, do many medical students think they could get into a PhD program at a top school in EE, physics, math or computer science? Good luck with that. Some can, but not many.

I have seen many MD students through fellows really struggling when they try to take one of these type of classes, ie an upper level stats or algorithms class.

In any event, in a PhD, you have to make an actual, somewhat substantial contribution to new knowledge in the world. That is harder than it sounds. It's not just your PI telling you to do a series of experiments. It can start out that way, but then the students need to morph into independent investigators before the end. It actually requires very different skills and abilities than doing well in classes and even just doing careful work in the lab. That's often where people founder.

Good luck, whereever your academic path takes you. Things will work out much better if you just assume everyone knows many useful, important, interesting things they can teach you, regardless of their degree. You will have much better interactions, and learn a lot more as you go along by being humble about your own abilities and knowledge. You can have wonderful interactions just finding out what little bits of knowledge and wisdom you can get from everyone you meet.
 
I think comparing the difficulties of medical school and graduate school is a bit like comparing apples and oranges; they're two completely different beasts. I agree that as a whole, medical school is more difficult to get into but a PhD is more difficult to ultimately obtain, though both of those statements are gross over-generalizations. If we're talking graduate school at Harvard and MD at a Caribbean university then I seriously doubt the MD would be more difficult. There are too many outside factors that go into determining difficulty level to make a clear-cut statement. I've already received my PhD and am applying to medical school this cycle, so hopefully in 5 years I'll know first hand which is more difficult. 🙂
 
Without a doubt the PhD is harder to obtain in my view. At a top 5 medical school, the graduate students I met were very smart, high IQ, creative, and very hard working. Yet some of them would struggle with their research. To understand, this article by a professor paints the picture well, and explains why the PhD is difficult: http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771.full

EXCERPT:

I'd like to suggest that our Ph.D. programs often do students a disservice in two ways. First, I don't think students are made to understand how hard it is to do research. And how very, very hard it is to do important research. It's a lot harder than taking even very demanding courses. What makes it difficult is that research is immersion in the unknown. We just don't know what we're doing. We can't be sure whether we're asking the right question or doing the right experiment until we get the answer or the result. Admittedly, science is made harder by competition for grants and space in top journals. But apart from all of that, doing significant research is intrinsically hard and changing departmental, institutional or national policies will not succeed in lessening its intrinsic difficulty.

I couldn't agree more. But what the author fails to mention is that research is a lot of fun.
 
Without a doubt the PhD is harder to obtain in my view. At a top 5 medical school, the graduate students I met were very smart, high IQ, creative, and very hard working. Yet some of them would struggle with their research. To understand, this article by a professor paints the picture well, and explains why the PhD is difficult: http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771.full

EXCERPT:



I couldn't agree more. But what the author fails to mention is that research is a lot of fun.

Meh
 
Top