MD, MD & MS, or MD/PhD?

[Endoxifen]

---

Members do not see this ad.

TLDR: I really like doing mathematical proofs. I also love gene regulation and cancer work. Should I get an MD, MS and an MD, or an MD/PhD? If I should get an MS or a PhD, should it be in mathematics/statistics or bioinformatics?

So, I've been chewing on a couple career path decisions lately that I'd like some input on. This semester, I've been doing what is tantamount to a biostat internship at my university's medical school. I enjoy the work (even if the IRB can be mind numbingly slow sometimes), but I was frustrated that I didn't understand the statistics or the programing more than empirically. I ultimately decided to teach myself the statistics from proofs up. I also taught myself how to code in R so that I had more control.

So far I'm about half way done with two classes worth of material (doing them in parallel). Since starting this, I've been enjoying myself more than I have in a long time. There's something about that moment when you learn something new in math and everything comes into focus. I definitely want to do more of this in my career. However, this does put me in a bit of a difficult position. Should I just continue self-learning, get a masters in stat, or do an MD/PhD in stat/mathematics?

The alternative to studying stat would be to study bioinformatics. I worked in gene regulation and cancer labs the first two years of college and I really loved the subject matter. I just didn't like the hands on work. Studying bioinformatics would probably solve that problem and I think that, largely, bioinformatics would be more useful to me. It would allow me to get my hands dirty with real science again, which I've really missed.

What does everyone think? Do I need a PhD or will a masters or self-teaching suffice? Do you think I need a degree in bioinformatics to best work in the field as a doctor or do you think that a mathematics degree would be most useful for someone with a pretty weak coding background. I know I definitely want to be an oncologist (all of my interests coincide perfectly in that field), but I also want to do a lot of research.

Thanks for all the help!

Edit: Just to be clear, though I hope this isn't necessary, I'm not using this to make my decision. I'm just curious what others would recommend. Thanks again!

 

[eteshoe]

The question you need to ask yourself is what type of career would you like to have in oncology?:
- surgical oncology, medical oncology, or radiation oncology?
- Private practice, academia, mixture/hybrid?
- Run a lab and/or being the medical collaborator of a basic science lab?
- Industry - e.g. pharma, biotech, consulting?
- Government - national labs, gov't sponsored hospital, etc.?

The answers to these will help you set up the correct framework and thus point you down one path over the other. Of course, if you don't mind the pain and sacrifices, you can always pivot your career goals. Do you need a PhD? Depends on what and where you ultimately see yourself working.


Lastly, I'll give you a quick blurb about myself. I want to be a medical oncologist, running a small translational research lab (where I can train med fellows, grad students, postdocs) in the future in an area that will allow me to interact (consult, etc.) w/ pharma/biotech on cancer therapeutics. This is why I'm doing the MD/PhD in the lab I chose with a PI who has been able to accomplish the goals I'm trying to achieve.

PM me if you have questions or concerns.

 

[jesie]

Do more math work and get some more experience with that kind of work before you let what may be a short term interest hijack your career goals

 

[Endoxifen]

The question you need to ask yourself is what type of career would you like to have in oncology?:
- surgical oncology, medical oncology, or radiation oncology?
- Private practice, academia, mixture/hybrid?
- Run a lab and/or being the medical collaborator of a basic science lab?
- Industry - e.g. pharma, biotech, consulting?
- Government - national labs, gov't sponsored hospital, etc.?

The answers to these will help you set up the correct framework and thus point you down one path over the other. Of course, if you don't mind the pain and sacrifices, you can always pivot your career goals. Do you need a PhD? Depends on what and where you ultimately see yourself working.


Lastly, I'll give you a quick blurb about myself. I want to be a medical oncologist, running a small translational research lab (where I can train med fellows, grad students, postdocs) in the future in an area that will allow me to interact (consult, etc.) w/ pharma/biotech on cancer therapeutics. This is why I'm doing the MD/PhD in the lab I chose with a PI who has been able to accomplish the goals I'm trying to achieve.

PM me if you have questions or concerns.

Thank you very much for your help.

I see myself in medical oncology, working in an academic hospital and teaching (though this isn't a very unique dream). I don't really know if I'd want to run a lab or work as a collaborator. I think the latter would be a much more secure position, but I may like it less. I honestly don't have enough information. I have no interest in industry beyond consulting and, while I'm interested in government policy, I'd prefer to stay out of national labs. I don't know how I feel about government sponsored hospitals.

Fundamentally, I don't know where this puts me. If I wanted to run a lab, it wouldn't necessarily require that I have a PhD. I've seen several PIs, some with very large labs, that only had an MD. Beyond that, I don't really know how much better off I would be with a PhD rather than a simple masters. I think I would probably gain roughly the same understanding of statistics with the masters, I just wouldn't necessarily have the same experience.

 

[Endoxifen]

Do more math work and get some more experience with that kind of work before you let what may be a short term interest hijack your career goals

I'm extremely slow at making decisions like these. It took me two years of back and forth before I decided that I didn't like lab work. Really, this is just a continuation of an internal argument I'm having and I definitely won't be using this to make my ultimate decision.

As far as my math coursework goes, I've take math through diff. eq. My school doesn't require us to take it beyond calc 1, so I did it mostly for fun. I also do have quite a bit of experience (for a college student) in actual biostat work. I've submitted two first author papers and am working on 2-4 more (if you count waiting for IRB approval).

 

[eteshoe]

Thank you very much for your help.

I see myself in medical oncology, working in an academic hospital and teaching (though this isn't a very unique dream). I don't really know if I'd want to run a lab or work as a collaborator. I think the latter would be a much more secure position, but I may like it less. I honestly don't have enough information. I have no interest in industry beyond consulting and, while I'm interested in government policy, I'd prefer to stay out of national labs. I don't know how I feel about government sponsored hospitals.

Fundamentally, I don't know where this puts me. If I wanted to run a lab, it wouldn't necessarily require that I have a PhD. I've seen several doctors, some in very large labs, that only had an MD. Beyond that, I don't really know how much better off I would be with a PhD rather than a simple masters. I think I would probably gain roughly the same understanding of statistics with the masters, I just wouldn't necessarily have the same experience.

Are you still an UG? Also I definitely didn't want to imply that straight MDs cannot run labs (small or large) - especially if they don't have intense practices (e.g. surgeons) or stopped practicing all together. The PhD does provide protected time to develop as a scientist.

 

[Endoxifen]

Are you still an UG? Also I definitely didn't want to imply that straight MDs cannot run labs (small or large) - especially if they don't have intense practices (e.g. surgeons) or stopped practicing all together. The PhD does provide protected time to develop as a scientist.

Yes, I'm just finishing up my third year. I should mention that I'm taking a gap year regardless. I want to let my papers be successfully published and I need more time to let my ECs grow.

Edit: BTW, I don't need the masters to help with my GPA.

 

[eteshoe]

Yes, I'm just finishing up my third year. I should mention that I'm taking a gap year regardless. I want to let my papers be successfully published and I need more time to let my ECs grow.

Edit: BTW, I don't need the masters to help with my GPA.

That sounds like a solid enough plan. If you wanted to do a MSc in bioinformatics or bio stats (those I think will serve you well), will you be paying for it? Or is it covered? I say this because paying for a graduate degree when you're in no need of GPA repair is not the most economical use of your gap year (do something that'll get you paid).

 

[Endoxifen]

That sounds like a solid enough plan. If you wanted to do a MSc in bioinformatics or bio stats (those I think will serve you well), will you be paying for it? Or is it covered? I say this because paying for a graduate degree when you're in no need of GPA repair is not the most economical use of your gap year (do something that'll get you paid).

I didn't know that one year masters existed. If they don't, I'm ok with taking a couple years to finish an actually useful degree. Also, do you know anything about masters that pay? I was under the impression that those didn't exist. I should a GPA strong enough to get me into most anything (3.92) and the publications certainly can't hurt, though I don't know when most student apply for masters.

 

[eteshoe]

I didn't know that one year masters existed. If they don't, I'm ok with taking a couple years to finish an actually useful degree. Also, do you know anything about masters that pay? I was under the impression that those didn't exist. I should a GPA strong enough to get me into most anything (3.92) and the publications certainly can't hurt, though I don't know when most student apply for masters.

The masters usually don't pay. In my case, I won a fellowship with a stipend component (being a TA and RA) to do my masters. Depending on the program, there are MSc level fellowships out there. Another option would be doing a 2 yr stint as RA or tech in a (cancer) genomics or bioinformatics lab which will kill two birds (give you additional time for research/publications/ECs and getting paid).

 

[Endoxifen]

The masters usually don't pay. In my case, I won a fellowship with a stipend component (being a TA and RA) to do my masters. Depending on the program, there are MSc level fellowships out there. Another option would be doing a 2 yr stint as RA or tech in a (cancer) genomics or bioinformatics lab which will kill two birds (give you additional time for research/publications/ECs and getting paid).

I'll definitely look into those fellowships. As far as RA positions are concerned, my original plan was to do this a year. However, I wouldn't be getting any formal training, which I could probably use since most of know statistics knowledge is ad hoc.

 

[Endoxifen]

Bump: Is there anyone else who has any other recommendations? I would really appreciate it.

 

[aalamruad]

TLDR: I really like doing mathematical proofs. I also love gene regulation and cancer work. Should I get an MD, MS and an MD, or an MD/PhD? If I should get an MS or a PhD, should it be in mathematics/statistics or bioinformatics?

So, I've been chewing on a couple career path decisions lately that I'd like some input on. This semester, I've been doing what is tantamount to a biostat internship at my university's medical school. I enjoy the work (even if the IRB can be mind numbingly slow sometimes), but I was frustrated that I didn't understand the statistics or the programing more than empirically. I ultimately decided to teach myself the statistics from proofs up. I also taught myself how to code in R so that I had more control.

So far I'm about half way done with two classes worth of material (doing them in parallel). Since starting this, I've been enjoying myself more than I have in a long time. There's something about that moment when you learn something new in math and everything comes into focus. I definitely want to do more of this in my career. However, this does put me in a bit of a difficult position. Should I just continue self-learning, get a masters in stat, or do an MD/PhD in stat/mathematics?

The alternative to studying stat would be to study bioinformatics. I worked in gene regulation and cancer labs the first two years of college and I really loved the subject matter. I just didn't like the hands on work. Studying bioinformatics would probably solve that problem and I think that, largely, bioinformatics would be more useful to me. It would allow me to get my hands dirty with real science again, which I've really missed.

What does everyone think? Do I need a PhD or will a masters or self-teaching suffice? Do you think I need a degree in bioinformatics to best work in the field as a doctor or do you think that a mathematics degree would be most useful for someone with a pretty weak coding background. I know I definitely want to be an oncologist (all of my interests coincide perfectly in that field), but I also want to do a lot of research.

Thanks for all the help!

Edit: Just to be clear, though I hope this isn't necessary, I'm not using this to make my decision. I'm just curious what others would recommend. Thanks again!

Seek psychiatric help immediately.

 

[Endoxifen]

Seek psychiatric help immediately.

There's no helping me at this point.

 

[enchantediris]

I think this decision requires deep introspection into what you truly want, and whether extra degrees (MS, PhD) would help you toward what you want to do. You're right that really only you can answer these questions. When trying to figure out the answer to this question for myself, I found it challenging to sort through what I really wanted vs. what I thought my parents, PI, etc. wanted. I ultimately found that I like research and it's something I would want to continue while being a physician, but I don't have the undying passion for it that I think is required to successfully be an MD/PhD.

1. What would be the purpose of getting an MS/PhD in statistics or mathematics?
Just because you liked learning about it this semester? Do you know the kind of theoretical work that goes into getting an MS or PhD in these fields, or the topics that are usually pursued? Have you taken/enjoyed other upper-level math courses like Real Analysis, Group Theory, etc.? I would think that in order to be accepted into a math PhD program, you would need additional coursework if you've only taken classes through DiffEq.

In addition, mathematical PhDs are notoriously long – I'm not sure that either of these are necessary if your motivation comes from enjoying the math proofs in statistics and learning how to analyze data in R. I would lean toward self-teaching for these two disciplines. (I say this as a person who got a degree in physics and similarly love proofs, learning how things work from the smallest framework, etc. – but I would never get a PhD in physics. That's too long of a time and effort for something that is barely tangentially related to what I want to do, which is be a physician and do some research.)

2. What would be the purpose of getting an MS/PhD in bioinformatics?
Bioinformatics is a huge field, that spans things on the micro level (DNA sequencing and comparisons) to the organism level – what exactly are you interested in, and why do you think you might need an MS/PhD in bioinformatics to be a physician? You can teach yourself coding, so I wouldn't get too hung up on that aspect. A bioinformatics PhD would probably also be easier to complete than one in mathematics because it's more applied.

I do a lot of programming and data analysis in my research, which is nice because I don't think I would do well in a wet lab scenario. Knowing how to actually do things for yourself is helpful in research. But again, do you really need this for what you see yourself doing? If we're comparing math and bioinformatics, I would think that bioinformatics would be more helpful in oncology. The only issue is that there are hundreds of people with PhDs in bioinformatics who parse through data and build databases for a living – do you think you could compete with them in terms of research productivity and grant writing? If it's just something you're interested in because it's relevant to oncology and personalized medicine, maybe an MS would give you more formalized training.

3. What kind of clinic:research breakdown would you want in your future career? What degree of job security are you willing to have?
The vast majority of MD/PhD and MD physicians I've talked to only recommend the MD/PhD path if you want to do research for the majority of your time, and see patients every once in a while (like an afternoon a month – only one MD/PhD I know has close to a 50/50 split, but I think he does more clinical research than bench research).

How much do you like writing grants, and knowing that much of your salary will be coming from the grants you recieve? Because MD/PhDs don't see as many patients, their salaries are lower than their MD-only counterparts and much more contingent on their ability to successfully recieve grants (which these days only award to the top few percentile) – it's much less assured. I honestly nixed an MD/PhD path for myself because I don't think I would be up for the continuous cycle of writing grants and the pressures of not receiving them.

 

[Endoxifen]

I think this decision requires deep introspection into what you truly want, and whether extra degrees (MS, PhD) would help you toward what you want to do. You're right that really only you can answer these questions. When trying to figure out the answer to this question for myself, I found it challenging to sort through what I really wanted vs. what I thought my parents, PI, etc. wanted. I ultimately found that I like research and it's something I would want to continue while being a physician, but I don't have the undying passion for it that I think is required to successfully be an MD/PhD.

1. What would be the purpose of getting an MS/PhD in statistics or mathematics?
Just because you liked learning about it this semester? Do you know the kind of theoretical work that goes into getting an MS or PhD in these fields, or the topics that are usually pursued? Have you taken/enjoyed other upper-level math courses like Real Analysis, Group Theory, etc.? I would think that in order to be accepted into a math PhD program, you would need additional coursework if you've only taken classes through DiffEq.

In addition, mathematical PhDs are notoriously long – I'm not sure that either of these are necessary if your motivation comes from enjoying the math proofs in statistics and learning how to analyze data in R. I would lean toward self-teaching for these two disciplines. (I say this as a person who got a degree in physics and similarly love proofs, learning how things work from the smallest framework, etc. – but I would never get a PhD in physics. That's too long of a time and effort for something that is barely tangentially related to what I want to do, which is be a physician and do some research.)

2. What would be the purpose of getting an MS/PhD in bioinformatics?
Bioinformatics is a huge field, that spans things on the micro level (DNA sequencing and comparisons) to the organism level – what exactly are you interested in, and why do you think you might need an MS/PhD in bioinformatics to be a physician? You can teach yourself coding, so I wouldn't get too hung up on that aspect. A bioinformatics PhD would probably also be easier to complete than one in mathematics because it's more applied.

I do a lot of programming and data analysis in my research, which is nice because I don't think I would do well in a wet lab scenario. Knowing how to actually do things for yourself is helpful in research. But again, do you really need this for what you see yourself doing? If we're comparing math and bioinformatics, I would think that bioinformatics would be more helpful in oncology. The only issue is that there are hundreds of people with PhDs in bioinformatics who parse through data and build databases for a living – do you think you could compete with them in terms of research productivity and grant writing? If it's just something you're interested in because it's relevant to oncology and personalized medicine, maybe an MS would give you more formalized training.

3. What kind of clinic:research breakdown would you want in your future career? What degree of job security are you willing to have?
The vast majority of MD/PhD and MD physicians I've talked to only recommend the MD/PhD path if you want to do research for the majority of your time, and see patients every once in a while (like an afternoon a month – only one MD/PhD I know has close to a 50/50 split, but I think he does more clinical research than bench research).

How much do you like writing grants, and knowing that much of your salary will be coming from the grants you recieve? Because MD/PhDs don't see as many patients, their salaries are lower than their MD-only counterparts and much more contingent on their ability to successfully recieve grants (which these days only award to the top few percentile) – it's much less assured. I honestly nixed an MD/PhD path for myself because I don't think I would be up for the continuous cycle of writing grants and the pressures of not receiving them.

This is wonderful advice and something that I'll have to consider for some time. However, I can say that I think an MS would be more beneficial to me than a PhD. While I do love research, I think I'd rather be a doctor than run a lab. When I was originally deciding if I wanted a PhD, I ultimately decided that I wasn't satisfied with grant writing and little job security. I've seen labs start to fold because grant money stopped flowing and I don't think I want that.

I suppose I need to decide whether an MS is right for me. Regardless, I should definitely apply for the Rhodes, Marshall, and Gates fellowships. My stats are competitive and I should soon have publications which may help. I'm happy giving up two years of my life, but I don't know if I'm OK spending the money. I think I'm going to have to reach out to some biostat and bioinformatics MD/PhDs and ask their opinion.

Thank you again!

 

[enchantediris]

This is wonderful advice and something that I'll have to consider for some time. However, I can say that I think an MS would be more beneficial to me than a PhD. While I do love research, I think I'd rather be a doctor than run a lab. When I was originally deciding if I wanted a PhD, I ultimately decided that I wasn't satisfied with grant writing and little job security. I've seen labs start to fold because grant money stopped flowing and I don't think I want that.

I suppose I need to decide whether an MS is right for me. Regardless, I should definitely apply for the Rhodes, Marshal, and Gates fellowships. My stats are competitive and I should soon have publications which may help. I'm happy giving up two years of my life, but I don't know if I'm OK spending the money. I think I'm going to have to reach out to some biostat and bioinformatics MD/PhDs and ask their opinion.

Thank you again!

No worries, and good luck! 🙂 My only advice for the Rhodes/Marshall/etc. fellowships is to go for it and don't be discouraged if you're not selected for an interview or the final scholarship. I know so many qualified people with amazing experiences who applied and didn't make it – not necessarily through any fault of their own, but because you're never quite sure what the panel/judges are looking for.

Also, another thing I was looking at is that some medical schools offer MD/MS programs. That might be an option if you don't get the opportunity to study abroad 🙂