Is there a reason I shouldn't do this?

[DrEcho]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi all,
I've been reading through SDN, specifically this forum and have found a lot of helpful things, but I thought it might help to make my own topic. Sorry if this post is annoyingly long. For reference, I'm a rising senior trying to finish the AMCAS right now.
So I've been interested in becoming a physician since I was about 7 years old, it's basically what I've wanted my entire life. Then the summer after my freshman year I had an absolutely amazing research experience at the University of Virginia. I loved my lab, and I really liked the research we were doing (cardiovascular). Since then, with some nudges from my PI, I've been looking at MD/PhD programs. In looking for information on MD/PhDs (including on this site) I've seen A LOT of controversial things. Some say it's entirely worthless, some say you should only do it if your primary focus is research, some say you should only do it if you're totally committed to patient care, so it's hard for me to get a feel of the right move, especially since you can also do some amount of research as an MD only.

Right now I feel like an MD/PhD is a perfect fit for me, but I frequently see people say that if you're more interested in serving patients, then you should just do MD-only. It seems like, then, that if anyone would choose the MD over the PhD if forced, then they just shouldn't do an MD/PhD at all. Given the choice between the two I will admit I would pretty easily choose the MD, but I also feel like I'd be missing out on something if I didn't get to do high level research. I like the idea of contributing knowledge to the scientific community in addition to contributing personal ability as a physician. I know about the recommended 80/20 split, and personally I wish that was a closer to 50/50, but I also realize that would make life as a competitive researcher very difficult.

So a few questions.
1. Is an MD/PhD a viable goal for me? I want to stress again that I really do enjoy research, I like it a lot, and I'm certainly not interested just for a free MD. That said, I don't think I could ever give up medicine entirely for solely research/ would never just get a PhD.
2. Before I was interested in an MD/PhD I was planning on cardiology. Do cardiology physician scientists exist or is it simply too much time? Does it help that my research interests are cardiovascular?
3. I had another one but i forgot 😕

My stats just to see if I'm even a fit for MD/PhDs or MSTPs:

3.97 GPA (I haven't yet worked out science vs nonscience)
?? MCAT (waiting on results, I'm thinking ~34 though, I think it could've gone better)
Volunteered in summer, Shadowed in summer
Research all summers of college, and during the year since junior year, at multiple institutions.
Goldwater scholar, few other scholarships/awards.
Honestly not a lot of leadership activities, that's where I'm lacking. I spent more time on stuff like marathon training than working to get a leadership position.

Thanks so much for advice/comments. This is really a great community.

 

[Build]

I think trying to look at general rules about if you like X the most you should do plan A and if you like Y more do plan B is a little too general. To me, the best assessment is 1) are you excited and interested in a career in medicine and research? and 2) do you have enough exposure to md's and md/phd's, research, and clinical experiences to make thoughtful decision? To me, you sound excited to go for the dual degree and make a career out of clinical medicine and scientific research. If you feel confident about it, go for it. If not confident, I'd try to identify current students who are doing things closely aligned to your own interest. Send a courteous email and ask to talk with them to see if it sounds like a good fit for you.

Good luck!

 

[Neuronix]

Some say it's entirely worthless, some say you should only do it if your primary focus is research, some say you should only do it if you're totally committed to patient care, so it's hard for me to get a feel of the right move, especially since you can also do some amount of research as an MD only.

Opinions are like *******s. Everyone has one and they all stink!

Have you been to the AAMC's site for the official view? Reading this website might be contributing to your confusion. You should get a clear idea of what the MD/PhD program is trying to do and decide if that fits with what you want to do.

http://www.aamc.org/students/considering/research/mdphd/

Then you can come to all of our discussion on SDN. In summary, the MD/PhD isn't a degree that's specifically for one position that can't be done by someone with another degree. So a lot of people do have different opinions about what the MD/PhD training is good for (if good for anything). So that makes it kind of confusing for the pre-meds. What exactly is this whole MD/PhD thing for anyways? Memorize the party line. It is: to train majority researchers who have some clinical time. Do you have to do that with your degree MD/PhD? Of course not. But that pathway makes the most sense going into it and is why they are training you.

Is that all really feasible? Is it worth it? What should we do to prepare ourselves for the next step after the program? What else can we be doing with our degrees? That's what we're usually going on about.

Right now I feel like an MD/PhD is a perfect fit for me, but I frequently see people say that if you're more interested in serving patients, then you should just do MD-only. It seems like, then, that if anyone would choose the MD over the PhD if forced, then they just shouldn't do an MD/PhD at all.

Just say you really want to do research and see patients. You can't separate the two! You can't feel complete without doing both! That's how I felt back then.

I know about the recommended 80/20 split, and personally I wish that was a closer to 50/50, but I also realize that would make life as a competitive researcher very difficult.

You don't have to decide now. But you are thinking the right way. Only you can then make the decision of what's most appealing to you now. If clinical seems most appealing: do MD. You can always get the research later.

1. Is an MD/PhD a viable goal for me? I want to stress again that I really do enjoy research, I like it a lot, and I'm certainly not interested just for a free MD. That said, I don't think I could ever give up medicine entirely for solely research/ would never just get a PhD.
2. Before I was interested in an MD/PhD I was planning on cardiology. Do cardiology physician scientists exist or is it simply too much time? Does it help that my research interests are cardiovascular?
3. I had another one but i forgot 😕

I think you're reading all the right things, asking all the right questions, and have perfectly legit reasons for choosing MD/PhD if you decide that's the way you want to go. One of our assistant directors here is a cardiologist and it's a common fast-track pathway.

3.97 GPA (I haven't yet worked out science vs nonscience)
?? MCAT (waiting on results, I'm thinking ~34 though, I think it could've gone better)
Volunteered in summer, Shadowed in summer
Research all summers of college, and during the year since junior year, at multiple institutions.
Goldwater scholar, few other scholarships/awards.
Honestly not a lot of leadership activities, that's where I'm lacking. I spent more time on stuff like marathon training than working to get a leadership position.

Thanks so much for advice/comments. This is really a great community.

Will need an MCAT score. Otherwise you're fine. That whole leadership position thing is a non-issue. Training for marathons is a great EC to go along with everything else.

 

[DrEcho]

Thanks for the response, that's pretty much what I was hoping to hear👍. People are just so negative about MD/PhDs sometimes that it can get prospectives down 🙁

 

[ChemMed]

There are cardiovascular MD/PhD's. Check out Dr. Dudley at UIC.

 

[Neuronix]

Thanks for the response, that's pretty much what I was hoping to hear👍. People are just so negative about MD/PhDs sometimes that it can get prospectives down 🙁

Listen to them. This is a long, hard training pathway with an uncertain future. If you can accept that, then go for it.

 

[Shifty B]

I spent more time on stuff like marathon training than working to get a leadership position.

Haha, marathon training! If you had any idea how relevant that was...

Jokes aside, it seems reasonable for you to do it. Oh, I also was a Goldwater Scholar. If you have the credentials for that (which are more stringent than MD/PhD applications), it seems like you will be a more than adequate applicant as long as your MCAT is respectable.

 

[StIGMA]

Oh, I also was a Goldwater Scholar. If you have the credentials for that (which are more stringent than MD/PhD applications), it seems like you will be a more than adequate applicant as long as your MCAT is respectable.

I dont want to sir up debate, but I took offense to the 'more stringent' part of your post. At my university, the top 4 people eligible for the university's support are not always the top 4 competitive people. I got jipped out of the scholarship sponsorship at my university because I was not in the elite "university sponsored" scholarship positions (which were given out of high school). The year I applied, 1 person from my university won it - other years all four have. The person that won is pursuing an MD at a top 40 school (the best school she got into, and she didn't even apply MD/PhD), and I am at a much more competitive school in the MD/PhD program. At the time of application, I had equal research experience and a higher GPA than all of the other applicants at my school.

Additionally, Goldwater is given to ~300 people each year - around the same number of those at top MD/PhD programs. Does everyone with the Goldwater get into the top MD/PhD programs? Heck no. They have research and GPA, but the MCAT and medical interview processes also have to be worked out. It is prestigious, but the MD/PhD process, especially at the top schools, is more stringent. If you said Rhodes or Gates Cambridge/etc, those scholarships are more stringent than MD/PhD programs.

Side note that at top undergrads or where the application process is more fair, what I said may not apply. I am sure if you have the Goldwater from a top undergrad you certainly deserve it. The fact is that a lot of lesser universities get Goldwaters to students who do not compare to the Goldwaters given to other schools. There is no doubt that the Goldwater will help you in the application process and is certainly a good credential to have though.

 

[Shifty B]

I dont want to sir up debate, but I took offense to the 'more stringent' part of your post.

It is unfortunate that you did not get the scholarship, but I stand behind my statement. I said that it is more stringent, not the most fair. Your story is an excellent example, as you were not even selected to apply from your school (for whatever reason, arbitrary or not) and still were able to get into a competitive MD/PhD program.

As for your example of the person from your school who did get it, it means nothing. Most outstanding undergraduates interested in medicine don't apply to MD/PhD programs because it doesn't reflect their interest.

And yes, there are about 300 people per year that are Goldwater scholars, but perhaps only 1/4th or so state that they are interested in MD/PhD programs. That makes only 75 or so, much less than the MD/PhD entering classes. The others choose to do other things, not because they are less interested.

A few other programs, such as Rhodes, Fullbright, and Hertz, are both more prestigious and even more competitive. However, these are at the graduate level, and the Goldwater is the most competitive nationally administered science award for undergrads. Don't trust me, look at wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_M._Goldwater_Scholarship) Anyway, I said this not to irk you but rather to congratulate the OP and say I believe his chances are excellent.

No need to be so defensive. There will be many awards in your life that you don't get. Not all of them will be chosen in a fashion that you perceive as fair. Your med school grades, your residency application, etc., are all going to be somewhat arbitrary.

 

[URHere]

I've seen A LOT of controversial things. Some say it's entirely worthless, some say you should only do it if your primary focus is research, some say you should only do it if you're totally committed to patient care, so it's hard for me to get a feel of the right move, especially since you can also do some amount of research as an MD only.

Like others have said, the reasons for going the MD/PhD route aren't the same for everyone. However, my personal take on it is this: you need to think about the career you want to have down the line and then honestly ask yourself how much a PhD would contribute to that mix.

If you don't want to run your own lab, or if the research you want to do down the line is the same research you've been doing for years already (and are very competent with)...then maybe the PhD wouldn't provide very much for you. The danger with this path is falling for the "prestige" of the dual degree. I have seen many applicants (and in some cases friends), apply for MD/PhD programs just because they think it will be some mark of their mental superiority. Many of those people liked the idea of very part-time research, and even admitted that they probably didn't need years of additional research training, but allowed their egos to make their decision for them rather than their brains. I'm not trying to sound judgmental, and I'm not saying that's the case for you - but I do think that you need to make sure that you don't fall into that category before committing the next decade of your life to something you might not really want.