Is Research Experience necessary to get into DOs?

[freeandtime_23]

I'm a senior and I have zero research experience. I initially started out a Microbiome lab, but quit due to health reasons. The time commitment was heavy and I failed my first Orgo Exam (this was Fall of Sophomore year) so I focused on academics. I tried again in Junior Year (after emailing 50-100 or so labs), had a PI take me on, but I just lost interest after 2 months. My mentor never explained things well and bragged about she started researching in high school. I tried pushing through (this is all wet lab research by the way), but I was missing out on gaining clinical experience.
I'm a senior and I have zero research experience. I'm going to take two gap years to work as a clinical scribe and take some classes at my local state school to boost my sGPA. I was wondering if I could have a chance at DO schools with more clinical and volunteer experience, however.
Also, I tried a different lab before the summer started, it was a Cardiology research lab, and met with the PI....only to have him tell me that he said my resume was worthless. My major advisor barely wants to meet with me, and professors I asked for help told me that they couldn't help someone who didn't excel in academics.
I have 3.5gpa/3.4sGPA, and I'm studying for my MCAT.
I know my stats are below other bio majors, but I'm genuinely confused and worried if my two gap years will only hinder me. I know getting a research-based job is near impossible post-grad with zero research experience. Basically, I feel like my life is a ****hole and I'm just doing this all wrong. Any advice?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr. Saigon]

No, you don't need it.

Your GPA is fine for DO schools. You honestly don't need two gap years, imo. Look at a couple of threads below yours and read through some of Goro's advice with respect to MCAT and clinical exposure.

 

[Betabet]

Lol research? Absolutely not necessary at all.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

lol you're completely fine. Even for MD it isn't a requirement for you to have research. Focus on the MCAT.

 

[workaholic181]

I'm a senior and I have zero research experience. I initially started out a Microbiome lab, but quit due to health reasons. The time commitment was heavy and I failed my first Orgo Exam (this was Fall of Sophomore year) so I focused on academics. I tried again in Junior Year (after emailing 50-100 or so labs), had a PI take me on, but I just lost interest after 2 months. My mentor never explained things well and bragged about she started researching in high school. I tried pushing through (this is all wet lab research by the way), but I was missing out on gaining clinical experience.
I'm a senior and I have zero research experience. I'm going to take two gap years to work as a clinical scribe and take some classes at my local state school to boost my sGPA. I was wondering if I could have a chance at DO schools with more clinical and volunteer experience, however.
Also, I tried a different lab before the summer started, it was a Cardiology research lab, and met with the PI....only to have him tell me that he said my resume was worthless. My major advisor barely wants to meet with me, and professors I asked for help told me that they couldn't help someone who didn't excel in academics.
I have 3.5gpa/3.4sGPA, and I'm studying for my MCAT.
I know my stats are below other bio majors, but I'm genuinely confused and worried if my two gap years will only hinder me. I know getting a research-based job is near impossible post-grad with zero research experience. Basically, I feel like my life is a ****hole and I'm just doing this all wrong. Any advice?

It won't hurt you for DO schools. Mcat is by far the most important thing for you now. Good luck OP!

 

[SLU Student]

It is absolutely not necessary. You also don't need that many gap years. Just take the MCAT when ready and apply.

Also, I find it interesting that so far at my D.O. interviews, not a single word about my research experience was mentioned. It's almost as if they avoided it on purpose. One of the interviewers was going down the line through my primary, and he jumped right over that experience.

 

[hayisferhorses]

Lol, a DO school that I interviewed at seemed to look unfavorably upon my research experience. They repeatedly said “If you’re looking to do research, this isn’t the school for you” and I never once mentioned that I wanted to continue doing research. Ended up getting waitlisted at the school.... very strange.

 

[ReapPremed]

Lol, a DO school that I interviewed at seemed to look unfavorably upon my research experience. They repeatedly said “If you’re looking to do research, this isn’t the school for you” and I never once mentioned that I wanted to continue doing research. Ended up getting waitlisted at the school.... very strange.

What school?

 

[BeachBlondie]

I had a lot of research (like a lot). The Dean of the school I currently attend told one of the admissions members, "She's not going to go here if we accept her."

So, yeah..... not necessary. Now, for residency? It will help.

 

[Goro]

I'm a senior and I have zero research experience. I initially started out a Microbiome lab, but quit due to health reasons. The time commitment was heavy and I failed my first Orgo Exam (this was Fall of Sophomore year) so I focused on academics. I tried again in Junior Year (after emailing 50-100 or so labs), had a PI take me on, but I just lost interest after 2 months. My mentor never explained things well and bragged about she started researching in high school. I tried pushing through (this is all wet lab research by the way), but I was missing out on gaining clinical experience.
I'm a senior and I have zero research experience. I'm going to take two gap years to work as a clinical scribe and take some classes at my local state school to boost my sGPA. I was wondering if I could have a chance at DO schools with more clinical and volunteer experience, however.
Also, I tried a different lab before the summer started, it was a Cardiology research lab, and met with the PI....only to have him tell me that he said my resume was worthless. My major advisor barely wants to meet with me, and professors I asked for help told me that they couldn't help someone who didn't excel in academics.
I have 3.5gpa/3.4sGPA, and I'm studying for my MCAT.
I know my stats are below other bio majors, but I'm genuinely confused and worried if my two gap years will only hinder me. I know getting a research-based job is near impossible post-grad with zero research experience. Basically, I feel like my life is a ****hole and I'm just doing this all wrong. Any advice?

Nope.

 

[Doc_Ock]

It really doesn't help for MD or DO unless you want to do a MD/PhD or there happens to be solid research opportunities at the med school you'd like to pursue (NOVA lets you do a research year between year 2 and 3)

 

[hayisferhorses]

What school?

Nova.

 

[Doc_Ock]

Nova.

Weird. They let you take a break between your 2nd and 3rd year and do a year of research.

 

[BeachBlondie]

It really doesn't help for MD or DO unless you want to do a MD/PhD or there happens to be solid research opportunities at the med school you'd like to pursue (NOVA lets you do a research year between year 2 and 3)

They don't "let you" do that. You have to apply for it. For which there are 2 spots.

 

[Doc_Ock]

They don't "let you" do that. You have to apply for it. For which there are 2 spots.

Kinda splitting hairs aren't we?

 

[BeachBlondie]

Kinda splitting hairs aren't we?

I'm just clarifying for potential applicants that may be interested in it. To say that 2 spots, out of 250 students, that you have to apply for under competition is "letting you have" the year of research is probably misleading.

 

[Doc_Ock]

I'm just clarifying for potential applicants that may be interested in it. To say that 2 spots, out of 250 students, that you have to apply for under competition is "letting you have" the year of research is probably misleading.

Fair enough.

 

[BeachBlondie]

Fair enough.

Your mom is fair enough....

.....

Yeah, I said it.

 

[Doc_Ock]

Your mom is fair enough....

.....

Yeah, I said it.

Clearly you haven't met her.

 

[allantois]

lol you're completely fine. Even for MD it isn't a requirement for you to have research. Focus on the MCAT.

Idk 90% of matriculants having research experience, might be a good idea to do research

 

[vernhart]

It really doesn't help for MD or DO unless you want to do a MD/PhD or there happens to be solid research opportunities at the med school you'd like to pursue (NOVA lets you do a research year between year 2 and 3)

For many MD schools research is looked at favorably (even without MD/PhD). For some higher tier schools it is basically a requirement.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Idk 90% of matriculants having research experience, might be a good idea to do research

The adcoms in pre-allo have stated that the applicant emphasis on research far exceeds the reality of what adcoms expect. It's become one of those things that everyone has so it is no longer valuable unless you have a pub or something unique like that. Not having research really isn't a killer like the people in pre-allo make it out to be.

Caveat: this is obviously school dependent as some schools require it. Many low-mid tier or state schools don't care all that much.

 

[MountainClimber94]

Out of curiosity, would DO interview panels be semi-worrisome if an applicant had minimal clinical exposure but significant research experience?

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Out of curiosity, would DO interview panels be semi-worrisome if an applicant had minimal clinical exposure but significant research experience?

Probably. DO schools love clinical exposure.

 

[Doc_Ock]

Out of curiosity, would DO interview panels be semi-worrisome if an applicant had minimal clinical exposure but significant research experience?

I don't know if I'd say worrisome, but in all my interviews they looooove to talk about my clinical experience, not so much my research exp.

 

[Robin-jay]

No, but it should be. I don't know how so many students can claim to love science and have genuine interest in it without at LEAST a few hundred hours of research.

I personally believe medical school students should at MINIMUM have a masters degree in a hard science. Not even a masters with thesis. Just a masters.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

No, but it should be. I don't know how so many students can claim to love science and have genuine interest in it without at LEAST a few hundred hours of research.

I personally believe medical school students should at MINIMUM have a masters degree in a hard science. Not even a masters with thesis. Just a masters.

Yeah no.

 

[Robin-jay]

Yeah no.

You can disagree and that's fine. I do think its a good way to weed out people who don't care about the sciences, which physicians should have an incredibly good grasp of. The amount of skills you learn doing novel research is far too important to ignore, "in my opinion".

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

The amount of skills you learn doing novel research is far too important to ignore, "in my opinion".

Do tell, what kind of skills do you think are learned doing novel research?

I do think its a good way to weed out people who don't care about the sciences, which physicians should have an incredibly good grasp.

Absolutely not, you can love science and medicine without caring for research and physicians don't need to do research to have a good grasp on science and how to apply it on clinical cases

 

[infectiousdisease101]

While not required, it does show you at least explored research and know it is not for you.

 

[Robin-jay]

Do tell, what kind of skills do you think are learned doing novel research?



Absolutely not, you can love science and medicine without caring for research and physicians don't need to do research to have a good grasp on science and how to apply it on clinical cases

Doing research isn't just sitting around learning science. It shows incredible dedication and problem-solving skills to advance the research of your advisor. The sheer amount of positive qualities doing research is extraordinary. I didn't say ignoring clinical experience through shadowing, scribing, etc. are any less important.

Whats more impressive than "learning" science?

How about "advancing/inventing" it? Thats research.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Doing research isn't just sitting around learning science. It shows incredible dedication and problem-solving skills to advance the research of your advisor. The sheer amount of positive qualities doing research is extraordinary. I didn't say ignoring clinical experience through shadowing, scribing, etc. are any less important.

Whats more impressive than "learning" science?

How about "advancing/inventing" it? Thats research.

1st bolded, what? Doing western blots over and over is extraordinary? There is a reason that research is low in adcom polls as a factor. Obviously research focused schools want to see it, but the importance of research is vastly overstated by most pre-meds.

2nd bolded, basic science research (the type done by the vast majority of pre-meds) hardly ever (like once a decade) actually leads to a difference in clinical approach. No pre-med research is advancing or inventing anything.

I'm not saying research as a whole is unimportant, but that the idea that it is necessary for incoming physicians "to show their love of science" is a little absurd. The idea that medical students should have a masters in a hard science is also absurd, that's what medical school is..... a doctorate degree in the clinical side of medical science. Hard sciences have very little relation to the practice of medicine.

 

[Robin-jay]

1st bolded, what? Doing western blots over and over is extraordinary? There is a reason that research is low in adcom polls as a factor. Obviously research focused schools want to see it, but the importance of research is vastly overstated by most pre-meds.

2nd bolded, basic science research (the type done by the vast majority of pre-meds) hardly ever (like once a decade) actually leads to a difference in clinical approach. No pre-med research is advancing or inventing anything.

I'm not saying research as a whole is unimportant, but that the idea that it is necessary for incoming physicians "to show their love of science" is a little absurd. The idea that medical students should have a masters in a hard science is also absurd, that's what medical school is..... a doctorate degree in the clinical side of medical science. Hard sciences have very little relation to the practice of medicine.

No, figuring out a synthetic organic chemistry synthesis problem that no one could discover for several years, or creating a logical equation to explain harmonics in quantum chemistry is extraordinary. Doing western blots over and over again for the sake of doing western blots is not.

I don't think you're going to win an argument simply stating that "research doesn't require a tremendous skill set", because it does.

Many clinical experiences, such as using a needle and syringe, or other tools, start at the basic research level.

I believe research weeds out individuals who are somewhat lazy and lack the skills such as problem-solving and work ethics by only showing they can get a good GPA/MCAT without the "doing science" part.

I'll meet you halfway, I'll say that "maybe" incoming med students don't need to have a masters in a hard science, but they should have several hundred hours before applying one way or another. But I think it should be heavily preferable they have at least a hard science masters.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

No, figuring out a synthetic organic chemistry synthesis problem that no one could discover for several years, or creating a logical equation to explain harmonics in quantum chemistry is extraordinary.

I agree, but how many pre-meds do you know that do this? You're looking at less than 1 percent who write their own papers and make these types of discoveries.

I don't think you're going to win an argument simply stating that "research doesn't require a tremendous skill set", because it does

It doesn't, making scientific discoveries is a lot more luck and being in the right place at the right time than it is skill.

I believe research weeds out individuals who are somewhat lazy and lack the skills such as problem-solving and work ethics by only showing they can get a good GPA/MCAT without the "doing science" part

What? Yeah no. Someone not doing research doesn't tell you anything about someone's work ethic. There are lots of ways you can see that, completely unrelated to research.

I'll meet you halfway, I'll say that "maybe" incoming med students don't need to have a masters in a hard science, but they should have several hundred hours before applying one way or another. But I think it should be heavily preferable they have at least a hard science masters.

What are you smoking? I'm a medical student and a masters degree in hard sciences, as well "several hundred hours" of research, would have 0 effect on me and my ability to do learn or understand medicine. None whatsoever. Literally no help, and is actually a huge waste of time for a future clinician. Huge waste of time.


For the record, I had multiple years worth of research on my application.

 

[Robin-jay]

I agree, but how many pre-meds do you know that do this? You're looking at less than 1 percent who write their own papers and make these types of discoveries.

Exactly, not many current pre-meds have excellent success in research, that's the issue. Yes, sometimes it takes a few thousand hours before you can solve an organic synthesis problem to ready for a publication, but it takes dedication and hard work, NOT LUCK. You do logical steps when synthesizing a reaction. There is hardly any of this luck bs. You run a reaction with a few trial and errors, maybr changing the base or equivalent, solvents, etc. Based on the initial trial and errors, you then make LOGICAL approaches on what synthesis techniques to attempt next. You do this in a logical series of steps. The "luck" thing is bs. Thats an exception. Usually its hard work, intelligence, and dedication that gets you published, or on a larger scale, serious "discoveries".

It doesn't, making scientific discoveries is a lot more luck and being in the right place at the right time than it is skill.

see above.



What? Yeah no. Someone not doing research doesn't tell you anything about someone's work ethic. There are lots of ways you can see that, completely unrelated to research.

If you can do 40 hours of research a week with a tight schedule, or 80 hours a week with a lenient schedule, then that says a lot of your work ethic. I had many research students I mentored, and the research hours they put in says a lot of their work ethic.


What are you smoking? I'm a medical student and a masters degree in hard sciences, as well "several hundred hours" of research, would have 0 effect on me and my ability to do learn or understand medicine. None whatsoever. Literally no help, and is actually a huge waste of time for a future clinician. Huge waste of time.

I don't know what you earned a masters in, but the work ethic learned earning a difficult masters is a positive in its own right. The hands-on techniques, understanding of research publications (physicians should understand how to read these in great depth), and all of that have been instrumentally important on a path through medical school. But then again, I say most of my experiences have been significant for medical school success. Again, we will essentially agree to disagree.

For the record, I had multiple years worth of research on my application.

 

[allantois]

You can disagree and that's fine. I do think its a good way to weed out people who don't care about the sciences, which physicians should have an incredibly good grasp of. The amount of skills you learn doing novel research is far too important to ignore, "in my opinion".

You seem to have a lot of opinions as to who should or shouldn’t be in medical school, given that you aren’t even in medical school

 

[68PGunner]

I'm a senior and I have zero research experience. I initially started out a Microbiome lab, but quit due to health reasons. The time commitment was heavy and I failed my first Orgo Exam (this was Fall of Sophomore year) so I focused on academics. I tried again in Junior Year (after emailing 50-100 or so labs), had a PI take me on, but I just lost interest after 2 months. My mentor never explained things well and bragged about she started researching in high school. I tried pushing through (this is all wet lab research by the way), but I was missing out on gaining clinical experience.
I'm a senior and I have zero research experience. I'm going to take two gap years to work as a clinical scribe and take some classes at my local state school to boost my sGPA. I was wondering if I could have a chance at DO schools with more clinical and volunteer experience, however.
Also, I tried a different lab before the summer started, it was a Cardiology research lab, and met with the PI....only to have him tell me that he said my resume was worthless. My major advisor barely wants to meet with me, and professors I asked for help told me that they couldn't help someone who didn't excel in academics.
I have 3.5gpa/3.4sGPA, and I'm studying for my MCAT.
I know my stats are below other bio majors, but I'm genuinely confused and worried if my two gap years will only hinder me. I know getting a research-based job is near impossible post-grad with zero research experience. Basically, I feel like my life is a ****hole and I'm just doing this all wrong. Any advice?

As someone who's an actual medical student instead of a premed pulling your chain, I will give you some real advices that will get you to your goal:

1) Your gpa is average, so that's good enough
2) Aim for at least a 504-505+ on your MCAT
3) Get 20 hrs of shadowing from one DO and another 20 hrs of shadowing from another physician
4) Have a cool EC that you can talk about

Research experience doesn't mean crap unless you're gunning for a top 15-20 MD school. If you are that kind of person, you better have 3.7+ gpa and sgpa and a 510+ MCAT min.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

your wrongly quoted post here

Sorry but your research experience means nothing to medical school. You have a lot of opinions about physicians and medical school for someone not in medical school.

 

[Robin-jay]

As someone who's an actual medical student instead of a premed pulling your chain, I will give you some real advices that will get you to your goal:

1) Your gpa is average, so that's good enough
2) Aim for at least a 504-505+ on your MCAT
3) Get 20 hrs of shadowing from one DO and another 20 hrs of shadowing from another physician
4) Have a cool EC that you can talk about

Research experience doesn't mean crap unless you're gunning for a top 15-20 MD school. If you are that kind of person, you better have 3.7+ gpa and sgpa and a 510+ MCAT min.

Why not shoot for 50-100 hours job shadowing D.O.? Minimums aren't good.

Sorry but your research experience means nothing to medical school. You have a lot of opinions about physicians and medical school for someone not in medical school.

Agree to disagree.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Why not shoot for 50-100 hours job shadowing D.O.? Minimums aren't good

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Stop giving crappy advice. You don't need that many hours shadowing because shadowing is stupid and adcoms don't care once you cross a certain point which is about 40 hours like @68PGunner mentioned. It's not about minimums, it's about maximizing your application.

 

[Robin-jay]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Stop giving crappy advice. You don't need that many hours shadowing because shadowing is stupid and adcoms don't care once you cross a certain point which is about 40 hours like @68PGunner mentioned. It's not about minimums, it's about maximizing your application.

Job shadowing an osteopathic doctor 20 hours won't give you a very solid idea of what a typical physician does, let alone understand the philosophy behind the osteopathic practice (you should at least see what makes osteopathic different through viewing their techniques that MD physicians aren't taught).

Lets have 20 hours of job shadowing, no research, an average gpa, a good MCAT, and call it a day?

 

[68PGunner]

Job shadowing an osteopathic doctor 20 hours won't give you a very solid idea of what a typical physician does, let alone understand the philosophy behind the osteopathic practice (you should at least see what makes osteopathic different through viewing their techniques that MD physicians aren't taught).

Lets have 20 hours of job shadowing, no research, an average gpa, a good MCAT, and call it a day?

Feel free to ignore the advices of your seniors and do whatever you want. However, to all the lurkers out there:

Robin-jay is a PRE-MED

 

[Robin-jay]

Feel free to ignore the advices of your seniors and do whatever you want. However, to all the lurkers out there:

Robin-jay is a PRE-MED

That's a good argument.

John Doe : "gravity exists"
Jerrie Doe: "You're not a physicist"

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

That's a good argument.

John Doe : "gravity exists"
Jerrie Doe: "You're not a physicist"

Job shadowing an osteopathic doctor 20 hours won't give you a very solid idea of what a typical physician does, let alone understand the philosophy behind the osteopathic practice (you should at least see what makes osteopathic different through viewing their techniques that MD physicians aren't taught).

Lets have 20 hours of job shadowing, no research, an average gpa, a good MCAT, and call it a day?

Lol you really don't know what you are talking about, and your making yourself look stupid. The fact you call it "job shadowing" shows me how distanced you are from this process.

 

[68PGunner]

Lol you really don't know what you are talking about, and your making yourself look stupid. The fact you call it "job shadowing" shows me how distanced you are from this process.

Just ignore him and stop responding to him. He's trying to dilute the msg.

 

[SterlingMaloryArcher]

I agree minimums aren't good for most activities, but I've seen a good argument that makes shadowing an exception: You can't accomplish anything as a shadow. You see what you see, you go home.

Put time into other things that you can actually make meaningful.

 

[Robin-jay]

Lol you really don't know what you are talking about, and your making yourself look stupid. The fact you call it "job shadowing" shows me how distanced you are from this process.

"You're making yourself look stupid"

Distanced from what process? I've shadowed over 200 hours. I did it for many reasons, ranging from shadowing a primary physician, medical and osteopathic specialties, etc. Its a great experience, and helps you understand what physicians do. Its my personal opinion that 20-40 hours is fine, but still meh.

Also, I never explicitly gave advice, I was just saying what "I think" for research, and stating the more hours shadowing is better. Even if after so many hours its essentially diminished returns.

I agree that MCAT and GPA are the most significant. But "in my opinion", shadowing, research, etc. should be taken seriously as well. While I'm at at, i think volunteering for underserved communities is also important. The lack of emphasis on extracurricular activities in this thread is too much for me.

Again, these are opinions.

 

[SterlingMaloryArcher]

Many successful people throughout history have said, not in reference to the other, but reporting their first-hand experience, in some variation:

"The harder I work, the luckier I get."​

IMO, most people have the flawed worldview of minimalism:

"Consciously or subconsciously, people everywhere seem to be asking "What is the least I can do and still keep my job? What is the least I can do and still get reasonable grades in school? what is the least I can do and still keep my marriage alive? . . . What is the least I can do...?
Minimalism is the enemy of excellence and the father of mediocrity. It is one of the greatest philosophical diseases of our age."
(From Rediscover Catholicism, but you don't have to be Catholic to believe this.)

From my own experience, one piece of advice I would give to anyone, no matter what they're after, is: "Do the extra."

And yes, the more I do, the luckier I tend to be, especially when it comes to networking.

I take the time write this because these are ideas that changed me, and that I live by. I definitely notice the minimalist attitude in premed activities (in general). So not to get too deeply involved in one side or the other of a pissing match, but Robin-jay I see what you're saying, and I don't think your line of thinking is inherently wrong, but let me ask you this: If you could apply and reasonably get into an MD/DO program straight from undergrad, is it your plan to pursue an MS before applying to medical school?

 

[Robin-jay]

Many successful people throughout history have said, not in reference to the other, but reporting their first-hand experience, in some variation:

"The harder I work, the luckier I get."​

IMO, most people have the flawed worldview of minimalism:

"Consciously or subconsciously, people everywhere seem to be asking "What is the least I can do and still keep my job? What is the least I can do and still get reasonable grades in school? what is the least I can do and still keep my marriage alive? . . . What is the least I can do...?
Minimalism is the enemy of excellence and the father of mediocrity. It is one of the greatest philosophical diseases of our age."
(From Rediscover Catholicism, but you don't have to be Catholic to believe this.)

From my own experience, one piece of advice I would give to anyone, no matter what they're after, is: "Do the extra."

And yes, the more I do, the luckier I tend to be, especially when it comes to networking.

I take the time write this because these are ideas that changed me, and that I live by. I definitely notice the minimalist attitude in premed activities (in general). So not to get too deeply involved in one side or the other of a pissing match, but Robin-jay I see what you're saying, and I don't think your line of thinking is inherently wrong, but let me ask you this: If you could apply and reasonably get into an MD/DO program straight from undergrad, is it your plan to pursue an MS before applying to medical school?

No I do not regret the time I put into graduate school. Not only that, but I feel more mature and fully prepared to excel in medical school more than if I just went in straight after undergrad.

 

[SterlingMaloryArcher]

No I do not regret the time I put into graduate school. Not only that, but I feel more mature and fully prepared to excel in medical school more than if I just went in straight after undergrad.

I suppose it all comes down to what people individually value, and I think your personal pursuit sounds great; but I'm curious, why not MD-PhD?

Edit: Well I guess I know, you wanted to use it as a preparing for med-school type of thing? A lot of people would say that's not necessary, and I would agree, of course, it's not necessary, but if that's something you felt was personally enriching/fulfilling then nobody has the right, med-student or not, to disparage that. And before anyone can say "well, what do you know, you're not accepted into medical school." I'll reference a quote by the Director of Admissions at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine:
"One of the trends we've noticed is our applicant pool is becoming more interdisciplinary, in all senses of that word, we have students that . . . want to do different things, like they might want to work in the business sector for a little bit (lists other things not "directly" related to medicine) . . . who want to accomplish a lot of things . . . We really do value those students that have that diversity."
I will say though, I definitely, am not going to grad school (of any kind) before medical school if I don't have to!