Originally posted by dphoenix
As a MD/PhD at Columbia, I can tell you from personal experience why people think that Muddphuds are "tweeners" as you put it.
First on the MD side, you have to realize that just about 99% of all medical students will thrive on finding some way that they can be "better" than someone else; this is just the competitive nature that most premeds, especially those at highly ranked schools.
Med students are substantially different than fully trained MDs. I would regard the med students opinion on this matter as worthless; they really dont know what the hell they are talking about and have no experience to speak from.
What regular med students think regarding MD/PhD is no more relevant that what their favorite color is.
So in general, unfortunately, academic research is regarded as a waste of time, since it does not directly contribute to earning power.
Only regular med students think this; doctors generally dont think about it and/or dont care.
Obviously academic MDs are likely to regard research with higher value than the clinical MDs; but even the clinical MDs would object to the statement that "academic research is a waste of time." Indeed, I have never met a single MD, MD/PhD, or PhD who expressed that opinion.
In any case, MDs are going to disregard MD/PhDs, not because they aren't good doctors or smart (in fact, MD/PhDs tend to be higher academic achievers for obvious reasons), but because they want to believe the PhD is a waste of time and also are somewhat resentful that you are currently earning ~50K more than them.
Given the fact that most MD/PhDs pursue academic medicine, they will tend to make LESS than the MDs, not more.
Again you seem to be relying on med students, as opposed to trained MDs, opinions on MD/PhD. You might as well ask the regular joe blow on the street because both opinions are equally irrelevant and worthless regarding the combined degree training.
There are a few MDs who regard the PhD as a waste, but they are few and far between. I would say less than 10% of MDs in academic medicine or clinical practice agree. At any rate, they are largely ignorant of what a PhD is or what kind of training is involved, so I dont know that they are qualified to speak about it as if they are intimately familiar with it. I have never heard an MD/PhD say that his PhD was a waste of his time; in these cases his/her interests changed and they no longer wants to pursue research. But thats more of a reflection on their own failure to think thru their decision to pursue the combo than a reflection on the "failure" of the PhD to do anything for them.
If people believed that a PhD would earn them more money or get them into a better position in the long run, everyone and their mother would be applying.
Yes PhDs generally dont earn all that much relative to their education level; but the vast majority are in it for teh intellectual stimulation, not the money.
Just because PhDs make less money doesnt diminish it as a career; anybody who thinks that obviously made a mistake in choosing medicine (MD or MD/PhD) as a career.
On the other hand, on the PhD side, its a bit opposite. PhDs are resentful of the fact that MD/PhDs generally take less time to do PhDs, and in the long run earn more money (I hate to relate all of this to money, but given our society, this is a strong influence on attitudes). PhDs value achievement intellectually and tend to see MD/PhD as not a "pure" way of going through things.
I disagree. Thats an outlier opinion (< 10%) of PHDs, not the norm. The vast majority appreciate the clinical background the MD can give you.
Out of maybe 40 PhDs, I've only met 1 guy who thought that, and even he was mostly ambiguous/nonchalant about it.
Ok, now for my viewpoint as an MD/PhD. I think that this is the best program for those who are truly interested to be on the forefront of academic medicine; what i mean by that is to really improve on medicine today by understanding the basic science. The MD/PhD program was made for one reason only: people saw that there is a dichotomy of thought process between the two fields; medical students pride themselves on knowing "everything", drug effects, symptoms of disease, etc. being a big sponge of knowledge. PhDs pride themselves on being able to solve things, that given a unknown real life problem, they can fix it. I think in order to do real medical research, you need to have both, which is tough, but the MSTP program is trying to get you there.
As a last thought, if you are interested in doing an MD/PhD, I think you should think to yourself where you see yourself in 10 years. For me, I'm not in any rush to start working or dealing with "real life," so 3-4 years doing research is perfect for me. Make no mistake about this, med school is NOT college, nor is residency. You WILL spend the better half of your 20's either on the wards or in a library. I don't think anyone really understands the extent of this going in, at least I didn't.
Good luck with whatever decision you make.
I agree with everything else you said
).
