Is the PharmD/PhD worth it?

[heeyebsx3]

Hello.
So this coming Fall I'll be entering Pharmacy school. Now I don't mind working as a retail or hospital pharmacist making 100k a year.. but I'm also very interested in research, and at some point in my career would love to do some pharmaceutical research / drug development.
My question is, is a PhD completely necessary for this or are there ways to have a career in research with only the PharmD? Many pharmacy schools offer ample research opportunities for their students so I'm wondering if thats sufficient. Also, to be honest salary (obviously) is important to me with all the loans I'll have to pay back, so I'm curious as to how what the salaries look like for PharmD/PhD workers and those doing pharmaceutical research.

Any and all input is welcome

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Thestrugglez]

Absolutely not if money is an important factor to consider.

1. NIH has been significantly cutting back on research funding in the last few years.
2. The 3 extra years you will spend getting your PhD will cause your loans to gain additional interest and the opportunity of earnings from actually working.
3. PharmD <<<<< MD when it comes to getting grants for research as evidenced by the fact that MD/PhD tuition is subsidized.

I would ONLY recommend getting a PharmD/PhD if research is truly something you can see yourself doing in the long run and your institution is a top research institution (like UCSF). Otherwise, you will be thrown in a cesspool along with all the fresh PhDs that institutions have no problems admitting/graduating since they can pay graduate students less than technicians.

 

[fewaopi]

I would also think though that those pharmd/phd programs are at schools with strong research funding and NIH funding already. They would be big state/public schools usually that offer this. Not sure if USC would but that would be an exception. Programs like UCSF are good. You're not going to see PharmD/PhD schools at schools that are well...lower quality, for profit, C students. UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Kentucky spring to mind as good pharmd and phd programs. You could say presence of a pharm/phd program is a rough barometer of the quality of school but it's not end all be all.

Salary isn't going to be much different. It'll delay your loan payments or even add more to it for a salary that won't justify the increased cost and lost opportunity cost that could be spent working (assuming there are good stable jobs left).

You don't necessarily need a phd, that's more bench research. Clinical research a pharmd could suffice. You might see more potential for promotion or upside w/phd but it's too hard and far away to tell.

MD/PhD much better agreed. The MD is actually free but not sure it's worth talking MD/PhD on prepharm forums.

You're probably better off what experienced and recently hired/currently looking, P4's are going to tell you, be a dentist, nurse, software engineer, plumber/electrician, PA, computers, etc.

 

[heeyebsx3]

Absolutely not if money is an important factor to consider.

1. NIH has been significantly cutting back on research funding in the last few years.
2. The 3 extra years you will spend getting your PhD will cause your loans to gain additional interest and the opportunity of earnings from actually working.
3. PharmD <<<<< MD when it comes to getting grants for research as evidenced by the fact that MD/PhD tuition is subsidized.

I would ONLY recommend getting a PharmD/PhD if research is truly something you can see yourself doing in the long run and your institution is a top research institution (like UCSF). Otherwise, you will be thrown in a cesspool along with all the fresh PhDs that institutions have no problems admitting/graduating since they can pay graduate students less than technicians.

Well the school in question would be Ohio State which is a pretty high ranked school. I don't think research is something I'd want to do for the entirety of my career, but it is DEFINITELY something i am interested in doing for a decent portion of my career.
And I know that MD >PharmD but I'm starting pharmacy school this Fall so it's really out of the question for me to switch now.

I would also think though that those pharmd/phd programs are at schools with strong research funding and NIH funding already. They would be big state/public schools usually that offer this. Not sure if USC would but that would be an exception. Programs like UCSF are good. You're not going to see PharmD/PhD schools at schools that are well...lower quality, for profit, C students. UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Kentucky spring to mind as good pharmd and phd programs. You could say presence of a pharm/phd program is a rough barometer of the quality of school but it's not end all be all.

Salary isn't going to be much different. It'll delay your loan payments or even add more to it for a salary that won't justify the increased cost and lost opportunity cost that could be spent working (assuming there are good stable jobs left).

You don't necessarily need a phd, that's more bench research. Clinical research a pharmd could suffice. You might see more potential for promotion or upside w/phd but it's too hard and far away to tell.

MD/PhD much better agreed. The MD is actually free but not sure it's worth talking MD/PhD on prepharm forums.

You're probably better off what experienced and recently hired/currently looking, P4's are going to tell you, be a dentist, nurse, software engineer, plumber/electrician, PA, computers, etc.

Salary wise, are there any career paths utilizing the PhD in the PharmD that would drastically increase pay?
...Could you also explain the difference between bench and clinical research, and is a PhD completely necessary for bench research?

 

[Thestrugglez]

Well the school in question would be Ohio State which is a pretty high ranked school. I don't think research is something I'd want to do for the entirety of my career, but it is DEFINITELY something i am interested in doing for a decent portion of my career.
And I know that MD >PharmD but I'm starting pharmacy school this Fall so it's really out of the question for me to switch now.

Salary wise, are there any career paths utilizing the PhD in the PharmD that would drastically increase pay?

...Could you also explain the difference between bench and clinical research, and is a PhD completely necessary for bench research?

If you're truly passionate, try to talk to professors and get involved in their research during P1 year to get a better idea of what you're getting yourself into. OSU is definitely one of the better programs that offer PharmD/PhD. As long as you understand the risks, I think research can be a very fulfilling career. I myself have been heavily involved in research during my undergraduate years as well as during my current gap year.

Not familiar with salary. However, to my knowledge, I do know that MD/PhDs get paid less than MDs that only practice. For PharmD/PhD, I think it should be more or less the same. Your institution will salary you a certain percentage of your pay. Most of your salary will come from your ability to obtain funding. (I could be wrong about this. Please correct me if I am).

Bench is more focused on theory, whereas clinical studies a disease/disorder based off the data of a group of patients to draw conclusions. As a PharmD/PhD, you would be more clinical based (otherwise the PharmD portion would be useless). Successful PIs don't really do bench work. That's what technicians (and post docs who don't have undergraduates/technicians running their stuff for them) do. I would say yes, a PhD is probably necessary if you're interested in more theory based research.

There are pros to having a PhD though: you will be able to distinguish yourself from other PharmDs interested in research and are more likely to end up in an institution with a desirable location.

 

[heeyebsx3]

If you're truly passionate, try to talk to professors and get involved in their research during P1 year to get a better idea of what you're getting yourself into. OSU is definitely one of the better programs that offer PharmD/PhD. As long as you understand the risks, I think research can be a very fulfilling career. I myself have been heavily involved in research during my undergraduate years as well as during my current gap year.

Not familiar with salary. However, to my knowledge, I do know that MD/PhDs get paid less than MDs that only practice. For PharmD/PhD, I think it should be more or less the same. Your institution will salary you a certain percentage of your pay. Most of your salary will come from your ability to obtain funding. (I could be wrong about this. Please correct me if I am).

Bench is more focused on theory, whereas clinical studies a disease/disorder based off the data of a group of patients to draw conclusions. As a PharmD/PhD, you would be more clinical based (otherwise the PharmD portion would be useless). Successful PIs don't really do bench work. That's what technicians (and post docs who don't have undergraduates/technicians running their stuff for them) do. I would say yes, a PhD is probably necessary if you're interested in more theory based research.

There are pros to having a PhD though: you will be able to distinguish yourself from other PharmDs interested in research and are more likely to end up in an institution with a desirable location.

Yeah, whether I pursue the PhD or not I"m definitely going to try and get involved in research as soon as possible, especially since I never got the opportunity to do research in undergrad.
The big pro for me in having the PhD is options. It affords me the ability to not be pigeonholed into a pharmacy retail job for the rest of my life, I'd be able to do research or even teach if I chose to.
When you say the risks, what exactly are you referring to?

And thank you for clearing up the difference between bench and clinical research.

 

[Thestrugglez]

Yeah, whether I pursue the PhD or not I"m definitely going to try and get involved in research as soon as possible, especially since I never got the opportunity to do research in undergrad.
The big pro for me in having the PhD is options. It affords me the ability to not be pigeonholed into a pharmacy retail job for the rest of my life, I'd be able to do research or even teach if I chose to.
When you say the risks, what exactly are you referring to?

And thank you for clearing up the difference between bench and clinical research.

You should definitely test out the waters in that case. Also, you don't need a PhD to teach: plenty of PharmDs teach clinical classes. The risk is if you spend 3 years getting a PhD and then end up not using it.

 

[heeyebsx3]

You should definitely test out the waters in that case. Also, you don't need a PhD to teach: plenty of PharmDs teach clinical classes. The risk is if you spend 3 years getting a PhD and then end up not using it.

That is very true about wasting 3 years... I may just try and get heavily involved in research and hopefully that should be sufficient to do some research work after graduation, and I didn't know I could teach without the PhD so thank you for that!

 

[mp808]

I am also starting pharmacy school in the Fall. I will be applying for the PharmD/PhD program at my school. So instead of 3 years, I will be in school for 5 years, but I will only have to pay for the first two years of PharmD and get stipends for the two years of PhD. I feel like the PhD would be beneficial in the long run, and if not, you always can fall back to community pharmacy. Having worked in community pharmacy I can't see myself working there for the rest of my life...

 

[Thestrugglez]

Edit: Wow that's intense. Good luck with that.