- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
MD/PhD-only programs?
- Thread starter cushie
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,654
- Reaction score
- 37
I'm an M3 interested in pathology, pretty sure I'll be competitive at most programs. I've heard a rumor that there are some programs that only look at MD/PhD's and was sort of skeptical. Does anyone know this to be true anywhere? If so then I would try to avoid applying there. Thanks and happy new year
I don't know of any program like this officially, although some have a higher concentration of MD/PhD's.
As someone who is "just an MD" I can tell you things will be fine.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,369
- Reaction score
- 23
Ditto.
These kinds of rumors get started by academically intimidated individuals who check out a brand-name program and see there are a couple of MD/PhD's, or simply that the institution has a reputation in the research market, and all of a sudden "they only take MD/PhD's!" Mainly this seems to be an excuse to not apply to them, not because they aren't competitive applicants.
Frankly, of the MD/PhD's I've worked with a good proportion were off the mark when it came to being great teachers, great diagnosticians, great residents, or otherwise a cut above anyone else at their career stage -- except when it came to research in their particular basic-science niche, at least at the time they did their PhD, which for an attending may have been 20 years ago.
These kinds of rumors get started by academically intimidated individuals who check out a brand-name program and see there are a couple of MD/PhD's, or simply that the institution has a reputation in the research market, and all of a sudden "they only take MD/PhD's!" Mainly this seems to be an excuse to not apply to them, not because they aren't competitive applicants.
Frankly, of the MD/PhD's I've worked with a good proportion were off the mark when it came to being great teachers, great diagnosticians, great residents, or otherwise a cut above anyone else at their career stage -- except when it came to research in their particular basic-science niche, at least at the time they did their PhD, which for an attending may have been 20 years ago.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2000
- Messages
- 754
- Reaction score
- 2
Ouch. As an MD/PhD I take umbrage at these sort of off-topic remarks. The question was whether there were programs that take only MD/PhDs. In my residency application process I noticed that some of the more academic programs asked for a 1 hour research presentation, almost as a penalty for being a PhD. However, it seemed like these programs were less reticent to talk to me than some of my MD colleagues and the thought of having a presentation got them "excited". Many of these programs have an academic research interest (i.e., research money) so the perception is that an MD/PhD resident will want to work in their labs for free and churn out publications.
In the long run, however, I don't think that it matters much for securing residency training any more than other criteria.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,654
- Reaction score
- 37
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,187
I did this. And was glad I did. It let me know the program took me seriously. I also got a feeling for the program's (and resident's) committment to train research-oriented pathologists.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,369
- Reaction score
- 23
Eh, take it however you like, it ain't personal. The point remains that one has no reason to feel they somehow aren't a competitive residency applicant by not having a PhD, and there are reasons, in my experience, that programs don't "require" MD/PhD's. It doesn't mean some programs don't have a stronger research focus or aren't delighted to find (even prefer to have!) MD/PhD's that might fit with their research scheme or that having a PhD is somehow negative.
Realistically, few individuals have the time and moxy to do significant basic science research work while in residency, so most of that niche focus is of little benefit to the program during that time. Hey, more power to those who do. Clinical research is another ballgame, as that has a greater chance of being overlapped with one's job as a resident, but essentially everyone does some degree of this during residency -- published or not, case report or not.
Realistically, few individuals have the time and moxy to do significant basic science research work while in residency, so most of that niche focus is of little benefit to the program during that time. Hey, more power to those who do. Clinical research is another ballgame, as that has a greater chance of being overlapped with one's job as a resident, but essentially everyone does some degree of this during residency -- published or not, case report or not.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2000
- Messages
- 857
- Reaction score
- 421
I agree with the previous comments that there are programs, usually large academic programs with a higher proportion of MD/PhD's than MD's. But that doesn't mean that being "MD only" will preclude you from even being considered as a potential resident. Pathology as a field tends to attract more research-oriented/basic scientist type of people anyway, so I think it reflects that.
At least from my alma mater, it's about attracting residents who are future leaders in medicine, be it in academics, basic science, or clinical practice.
At least from my alma mater, it's about attracting residents who are future leaders in medicine, be it in academics, basic science, or clinical practice.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 13
How does making you give a talk let you know they take you seriously, or indicate a commitment to research? Not buying it. We make our CP only residents give talks and there isn't any more commitment to research here than anywhere else.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,654
- Reaction score
- 37
Agree 100%.
There are many things that we look for, but never underestimate the importance of poise, leadership skills, work ethic and being easy to work with.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 86
I will say that when I interviewed at BWH I lost interest because I was an MD and all they kept talking about was their flexibility for research tracks and access to research, and each class was about 80% MD/PhD. I'm sure the training there is great, but I'm just not a researcher, so I didn't want to go to a place that catered primarily to researchers. To each his own.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,187
my program has a dedicated research track. Admission to that track is based on your promise as a researcher, as this is gauged by your publication record and your talk (and interviews). I think enthusiasm for research is hard to fake. Once in this track the school's commitment to research in pretty clear. But I personally got the feeling that giving the talk, and subsequent interviews led me to believe 1:the program care about my scientific development 2: the program respects the scientific process and it'sm importance to the future of our field and 3: I felt like I got to get to know the program in a much more intimate way than any standard applicant ever would. No I don't mean that in any sexual way. If you want more details PM me.
REgardless of the above, I agree with what everyone else is saying about MD only candidates. There is NO PROGRAM out there that only wants MD/PhDs. Most academic programs want a balance, and non-academic (rural) programs probably don't want any. Yeah, BWH has a few years where they take probably too many MD/PHDs, but I don't think it's what they really want. If everyone in the program was a PhD that wanted to do research, then they would all want time off to do research, and who is going to gross the colons? People who want to be great diagnosticians are every bit as important to the program as those what want to do research. Sure, the balance may be different from program to program, but I think it's pretty universal.
Similar threads
- Question