MD/PhD salary

[francisdoss]

Does anybody has any info about Md/PhD salaries?How do they work?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Scottish Chap]

Does anybody has any info about Md/PhD salaries?How do they work?

So many factors affect this. Generally, the double degree will not get you more money, though. If you work in academic medicine (to do research) you will earn less. If you work in private practice (clinically), you'll earn more. Pharmaceutical companies will reward you somewhere in between (unless you are the CEO).

 

[Kazazzle12]

Does anybody has any info about Md/PhD salaries?How do they work?

Do you mean during the MD/PhD program or after? I'm pretty sure that NIH-funded MSTP programs usually pay about 21-25K a year (depending on the school) for all 7-8 years of the MD/PhD program. There are other schools with smaller (non-MSTP) programs that have more variation - some pay less per year, some only during the PhD years, etc. Hope that helps!

 

[SeventhSon]

Does anybody has any info about Md/PhD salaries?How do they work?

the idea is you go into academic medicine, taking the same positions as anyone else. I.E. you still will work as a postdoc, you're not going to make any more money than any other postdoc. You get a faculty position in academic medicine, you're not going to make any more than someone who is just a PhD UNLESS you are practicing too, in which case you'd probably make a little more.

If you're going into industry, you might mkae a little more.

Bottom line, money is a horrible reason to do the MD/phd

 

[deuist]

Very little. There is no economic benefit to getting a Ph.D. unless you go into pharm. There only real reason that you should get an advanced degree is if you want to do research; and even then, I'm not so sure that spending 3-4 years on a research project is such a good idea. A solid residency program or fellowship will give you ample opportunities to do research.

 

[OHare]

You will make less as an MD/PhD even if you do both. You will probably see patients 20% of the time or less, since your main focus is your research group. If you want to make a lot of money don't do MD/PhD unless you have an upcoming blockbuster drug. It's not all about the money.

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

can we get some posts of real numbers or at least a range of money for an academic MD/PhD.

Are we talking <100K, or like 100-150K...?

 

[mjs]

can we get some posts of real numbers or at least a range of money for an academic MD/PhD.

Are we talking <100K, or like 100-150K...?

The from the first number (~$85k), through the second and a little higher is about the range I've heard. So there's quite a range depending on how long you've been at it.

 

[hardy]

can we get some posts of real numbers or at least a range of money for an academic MD/PhD.

Are we talking <100K, or like 100-150K...?

100-200k for an academic position with a few clinical responsibilities. But it really depends on location and exact circumstances. I know of an MD/PhD at a major academic hospital who only does research and barely makes 60k a year.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

There was a website that specifically compared renumeration for PhD vs. MD vs. MD/PhD. Can't remember where it was though.

 

[hoomsy]

that's depressing...

so then what's the point of even doing the MD? might as well just do the PhD.


i got into a few MD/PhDs and I'm debating if i should do it...

this is tough...

but having an MD/PhD...is there any advantage if you want to be a practicing physician?...like can u get into a better residency...or do funky jobs open up...like WHO, or being the surgeon general

hoomsy

 

[deuist]

Given that the current surgeon does not have a PhD, I'd say that that getting both degrees is not going to open up any jobs for you in the near future.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Most 80/20 physician scientists in the primary care specialties will earn an equivalent salary with their clinic-only counterparts. If you're in a much higher paying specialty, then your salary is negotiable, but be warned that the more you get paid, the more chairs will ask you to commit to clinical volume rather than research funding. You must be able to support your salary off your grants, and this may be more difficult when you are your clinic-only counterparts are working less and making more money for the department than you are.

If you're totally research, then you earn equivalent salary with your basic science tenure-track counterparts (much less than clinician), and your MD is really useless.

 

[NGN47]

I think people have basically already said all of this, but as an MD/Phd you won't make more money than would an MD who is in the same position.

Will an MD/PhD be of benefit in applying for many of the most competitive residencies and fellowships at academic centers? Definitely, if your research is strong, and it probably will be with the PhD.

As for academic medicine, my opinion is that the MD/PhD is probably the gold standard. You could also do a straight MD and then a long fellowship with research, but in the end the time spent is similar to doing the dual degree. Personally I would rather learn research as a relatively young graduate student than later in my career post-residency when I may be asked to take call between running experiments.

If you have interest in working in pharma then having both degrees is definitely an advantage over either single degree. One only need scan through a lot of the high-level research positions in industry and many of them--disproportionately I think, but this is only an estimate--are filled with MD/PhD's.

I gave a lot of thought to this before I 'signed up.' My best advice to anyone starting out is to try your best to define what goals you have for your career. Then decide if they are best served by the dual degrees or either one alone. Don't let the added time of doing a PhD intimidate you! Look ahead to the very long term--thirty years from now the added few years of a PhD will probably not seem like a significant period of time, but what you learned during it and the potential doors it might have opened could be hugely important. Anyway, I am nearing the end of the PhD part and I can tell you that it goes by faster than you think!

 

[Zmoney12]

I know an MD/PhD who makes >500,000 per year by doing a lot of stuff on top of research-- mainly consulting for biotech companies, but maybe that sort of thing is going to be happening less and less now....

 

[hoomsy]

Hey,

Sorry if my question was asked 10000 times. I really appreciate the responses. The school I want to go to med school is McGill University in Montreal. I got in as an international student. First they accepted me for MD. Then on Friday they told me I got in as MD/PhD. I have until May 31st to let them know if I want the joint program. At McGill, even if you accept you have until the first 1.5 years into the program to decline the PhD part. I don't know if I want to do that. I feel it's a real bad move. I want to make the decision NOW then later. But maybe I should wait?

How McGill works...the first 1.5 years is basically all classes (with some hospital). But after that the last 2.5 years is ALL hospital rotations. So you do the PhD in between those times. They also let you do the PhD in ANYTHING you want. It could even be in engineering.

Ehh...this is tough...

I've always wanted to be a cardiologist...have a family...live a comfortable life...but at the same time I do like research....i want an exciting life and not routine.

God damn...

Hoomsy

 

[Myempire1]

"At McGill, even if you accept you have until the first 1.5 years into the program to decline the PhD part. I don't know if I want to do that. I feel it's >a real bad move. I want to make the decision NOW then later. But maybe I should wait?"


Wait until you do some rotations at least. Med school is nothing like grad school (an obvious statement). Grad school will actually prepare you to do research, while in my experience med school doesn't.

Dont' get me wrong though. Grad school can be tough... especially when all your former classmates are about to match... and you're still in the lab.

 

[hoomsy]

Ehh...well the thing is I'm also graduating this semester with a Masters in Chemical Engineering. It's a purely research masters. I had to take like 3 classes this entire program.

I actually got a freakin patent out of it too!!

I know how research is like...

ehh i dunno!!...I'm 23 years old...I feel like maybe if I was 21 it would be different...I wish I wasn't accepted to have this choice!!!


Hoomsy

"At McGill, even if you accept you have until the first 1.5 years into the program to decline the PhD part. I don't know if I want to do that. I feel it's >a real bad move. I want to make the decision NOW then later. But maybe I should wait?"


Wait until you do some rotations at least. Med school is nothing like grad school (an obvious statement). Grad school will actually prepare you to do research, while in my experience med school doesn't.

Dont' get me wrong though. Grad school can be tough... especially when all your former classmates are about to match... and you're still in the lab.

 

[BozoSparky]

Very little. There is no economic benefit to getting a Ph.D. unless you go into pharm. There only real reason that you should get an advanced degree is if you want to do research; and even then, I'm not so sure that spending 3-4 years on a research project is such a good idea. A solid residency program or fellowship will give you ample opportunities to do research.

There's no way a residency or fellowship compares to a PhD thesis as far as research experience goes. If you want to do research, get a research degree!

 

[huknows00]

Haven't really thought about this until now, but there is a decreasing trend in physician compensation. So now a specialist clinician may make 250k-500k or whatever, but in the future it will most likely not remain as high, when we enter the workforce. As a physician scientist working 80/20, if you can continue to pull 200K (I'm assuming they're less influenced by managed care), then the difference really isn't that great. Who knows, the lack of loans, reduced clinical workload, higher independence may pay off in terms of lifestyle in the future. I'm being way over optimistic.

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

who would make more money in general? In industry? In academia?

 

[deuist]

I've always wanted to be a cardiologist...have a family...live a comfortable life

Pick two.

 

[deuist]

who would make more money in general? In industry? In academia?

Usually industry. However, you can't get tenure while working for a company. Also, the intellectual property restrictions are much harsher in the private sector (although I have seen some universities with some pretty strict IP rules).

 

[Nuel]

I think the salary thing is quite variable for MD, PhD and MD/PhD. I was privileged to see salaries for medical faculty at a big academic medical center during an interview trail. It appeared the clinicians made slightly more money than their biomedical research colleagues (about 20-40K in excess of PhD and MD/PhD counterparts). New MD clinicians (clinical assistant professor) started at 90-120K. PhD and MD/PhD investigators at about 70-110K (assistant professor), but no one started below 70K except the MD guys who were "Instructor of Medicine" (at about 60K). MD/PhDs with some clinical responsibilities made slightly more money (roughly 20K in excess on average compared to research-only faculty).

However, for senior faculty it became much more variable. It seemed experience and career accomplishments/administrative positions largely dictated their salaries. Highest earners were the surgeons of course (about 150-250K). Research-only full professors made anywhere from 90K-185K, with an exceptional one at 220K--this guy had been at the school for 20 years and was now director of a research center.

Bottomline: Want money, go to industry or private practice. Or do strictly clinical medicine.

 

[solitude]

I think the salary thing is quite variable for MD, PhD and MD/PhD. I was privileged to see salaries for medical faculty at a big academic medical center during an interview trail. It appeared the clinicians made slightly more money than their biomedical research colleagues (about 20-40K in excess of PhD and MD/PhD counterparts). New MD clinicians (clinical assistant professor) started at 90-120K. PhD and MD/PhD investigators at about 70-110K (assistant professor), but no one started below 70K except the MD guys who were "Instructor of Medicine" (at about 60K). MD/PhDs with some clinical responsibilities made slightly more money (roughly 20K in excess on average compared to research-only faculty).

However, for senior faculty it became much more variable. It seemed experience and career accomplishments/administrative positions largely dictated their salaries. Highest earners were the surgeons of course (about 150-250K). Research-only full professors made anywhere from 90K-185K, with an exceptional one at 220K--this guy had been at the school for 20 years and was now director of a research center.

Bottomline: Want money, go to industry or private practice. Or do strictly clinical medicine.

These numbers seem about right, although senior academic surgeons (e.g. MD/PhD full professors in surgical departments that do a few days per week of surgery) will rarely make only 150K. More generally 250K to 500K depending on the specialty and institution (e.g. neurosurgery at private med schools is on the highest end). Agree with the bottom line. If you want money, doing pure surgery or clinical medicine will be most effective. The more research, the lower the salary. In surgical departments, one or two days worth of research instead of salary can mean a 100K/yr decrease in salary. That's big money, and you really have to love research.

 

[Nuel]

Well, the cost of living in the town where I picked this data is quite low. And it was the general surgeons who were making 150K (the least though).

 

[solitude]

Well, the cost of living in the town where I picked this data is quite low. And it was the general surgeons who were making 150K (the least though).

Yeah that makes sense then. Sorry if I seemed nitpicky.

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

what about researchers that take home tons of grant money? how much do they see from that? I heard a rumor that the institution takes a cut (50%), the PI gets some(50% of what's left), and the rest goes to actual research. any truth in this? that would surely increase researchers money.

 

[solitude]

what about researchers that take home tons of grant money? how much do they see from that? I heard a rumor that the institution takes a cut (50%), the PI gets some(50% of what's left), and the rest goes to actual research. any truth in this? that would surely increase researchers money.

The institution does take a cut of grant money, although generally not as high as 50%. It can get quite high depending on the institution, however. Private institutions seem to be more ruthless in their percent takes. Professors that receive a lot of grants do not necessarily receive a huge salary. At some institutions, much or all of a professor's salary is derived from grant money, yet the institution can dictate how much the professor actually receives. Thus the institution not only takes a cut of the grant, but dictates the size of the cut that the professor can take. In terms of physician-scientists, it is likely that a large component of the salary will come from grant money, but that a sizable portion will also come from the institution (usually money derived from clinical and administrative duties).

The gist: it's not like the prof can just dictate their salary and withdraw that much from their grants, and then use the rest on their research. There is tons of bureaucratic red tape in place to limit this.

With all that said, the very rough statement could perhaps be made that the more grants that a prof is bringing in, the higher the salary. For example, HHMI investigators, a title which generally carries with it at least 2mil/year, plus other grants (e.g. NIH, NSF), are generally well-compensated. I think this has a lot to do with the monstrous size of the grants, and the gratitude of the institution for the steady cut which they reap from the monstrous-sized grants. Plus these scientists are usually doing extremely insightful science (emphasis on usually).

 

[Mischka]

I am a postdoc at an institution following the NIH salay scale for postdocs.
I am an MD/PhD and ended up earning only 38.000 and will slowly make a little more during the years of my postdoc.
Does anyone know how the NIH salary scale treats dual MD, PhD degrees?

 

[Fencer]

Very little. There is no economic benefit to getting a Ph.D. unless you go into pharm. There only real reason that you should get an advanced degree is if you want to do research; and even then, I'm not so sure that spending 3-4 years on a research project is such a good idea. A solid residency program or fellowship will give you ample opportunities to do research.

The first and last statements are not true. With the 80 hr week, a solid residency exposes you to bits of research and lots of clinical care. A solid fellowship might have some time for research in a 2nd or 3rd year, but not the same as a PhD.

Now if you are very successful in your professional career in research while providing clincial care, then you become chief/chair potential. To give you an idea, a chair might earn 150K more than a full professor ("05-'06 medians for professor and Chair - all specialties - all MD schools; $227K vs $391K).

Who becomes a chair?
a well-known clinician scientist in an area.
Will the PhD gives you an advantage over just an MD to develop leading edge research?
you bet!

However, the first sentence of your middle statement is very true!
"There only real reason that you should get an advanced degree is if you want to do research"

 

[jlm0185]

what do you plan on doing with your MD/PhD degree?

 

[gstrub]

I am going to cut my phd into squares and use it for toilet paper after I enter a private surgical practice and take no insurance.

Can you tell I've been in the lab too long?

 

[jlamacc1]

what do you plan on doing with your MD/PhD degree?

Probably the standard 80/20 academic thing, although I do entertain the thought of working in industry (either consulting or as a project manager) from time to time. But I must be honest: one of my all-time dream jobs would be working for Major League Baseball as a performance enhancement expert and being responsible for the development of new drug tests to "detect the undetectables." I also think it'd be pretty sweet to serve as an expert witness for legal cases, although I'd have to watch out for those shady lawyers and their $10,000 conflicts of interest.

 

[deuist]

The first and last statements are not true. With the 80 hr week, a solid residency exposes you to bits of research and lots of clinical care. A solid fellowship might have some time for research in a 2nd or 3rd year, but not the same as a PhD.

Now if you are very successful in your professional career in research while providing clincial care, then you become chief/chair potential. To give you an idea, a chair might earn 150K more than a full professor ("05-'06 medians for professor and Chair - all specialties - all MD schools; $227K vs $391K).

Who becomes a chair?
a well-known clinician scientist in an area.
Will the PhD gives you an advantage over just an MD to develop leading edge research?
you bet!

However, the first sentence of your middle statement is very true!
"There only real reason that you should get an advanced degree is if you want to do research"

You're talking about competitive spots that are very rare to come by. Given that earning a Ph.D. will result in 3-4 years of lost income, you will have a difficult time making up that salary unless you seek a competitive specialty. In which case, you might as well apply directly to the competitive specialty with just an M.D. I stand by my previous statement, there is no financial benefit to getting a Ph.D.

 

[jlm0185]

After receiving a MD/PhD degree, does one have to go into research or can they go and work for a hospital? I want to go for my MD/PhD and become a cardiologist and have the option of doing research in that field if I wanted to in the future...

 

[solumanculver]

After receiving a MD/PhD degree, does one have to go into research or can they go and work for a hospital? I want to go for my MD/PhD and become a cardiologist and have the option of doing research in that field if I wanted to in the future...

You can do what you're saying, but then getting that PhD would be more or less a complete waste of time... you would have the option to do research with just an MD anyway, only you would be four years younger and a million dollars richer.

My impression is that if you want to dabble in research, then a PhD is overkill... It's probably not worth getting just because it sounds cool, if you're not really going to make it your career, then it can only get in the way of your career.

 

[Shunwei]

You're talking about competitive spots that are very rare to come by. Given that earning a Ph.D. will result in 3-4 years of lost income, you will have a difficult time making up that salary unless you seek a competitive specialty. In which case, you might as well apply directly to the competitive specialty with just an M.D. I stand by my previous statement, there is no financial benefit to getting a Ph.D.

I agree. The salary figures given by one of the posters above for in the $200-$300 range is waaaaaaay too optimistic. How many people become chairs? How long does it take to become a chair? What credentials and accomplishments do you have to have (papers, connections, politics, specialty, etc.) to become a chair?

With kids coming straight from college, often I find too idealistic and optimistic of a mindset when it becomes to gauging the practicality of a career. The MD/PhD's I know have a salary mostly around 100k/yr, and that's if you can pull grants in to supplment you income. I have seen good researchers work with just a M.D. after doing a serious postdoc for training.

If you are getting into research for the money, I'd say you are seriously deluded. If money is what you are after, in the end what's very likely going to happen is that you are going to be so busy on the side doing medical work that your original goal of getting the PhD, which is research, will be compromised. In that case, then why get the PhD at all?

 

[deuist]

One of my residents is an M.D./Ph.D. who also has an MPH. She's currently working on a dual meds/peds residency. She is going to be the most over educated primary care physician in the country.

 

[RxnMan]

After receiving a MD/PhD degree, does one have to go into research or can they go and work for a hospital? I want to go for my MD/PhD and become a cardiologist and have the option of doing research in that field if I wanted to in the future...

No, you don't need a PhD to do research. If you want to do it for the fun of it, OK (though that is a lot of forfeited income), but you don't need it to get you where you want to go, and for your stated career goals, it's overkill.

One of my residents is an M.D./Ph.D. who also has an MPH. She's currently working on a dual meds/peds residency. She is going to be the most over educated primary care physician in the country.

Ugh. Forget primary care - she sounds like she can't make up her mind. Or is afraid of being "limited."

A fact of life is that you have to make some decisions. For the set of folks who want to do a mix of clinic and research, or who want to do a residency and use that experience to fuel full-time research, the MD/PhD path is probably the best thing out there. But you can't be everything. And that's OK.

 

[gstrub]

I'm going to throw this out there. There is some financial benefit to the MD/PhD that has not been mentioned. One, it does pay for medical school and provide a stipend, so if you don't take too long to finish, you may break even or maybe come out ahead financially when you count the few years of lost physician income. And two, if you are seeking a competitive specialty in a desirable location, having the MD/PhD will make you a more desirable applicant for a wide variety of programs, especially if you are in the "borderline" range for those specialties as far as grades and board scores. This may be more "valuable" than just the dollars...if you want to say do ENT at Stanford for example, well the combined degree is going to help you a lot, and may put you in position to make much more $ than if you did pathology at upstairs hollywood medical college.

 

[deuist]

If you take a look at the application data from this past year's match, you'll notice that you do not need an M.D./Ph.D. to get into the more competitive specialties. While I'll agree that the diploma might push the applicant forward who is otherwise considered borderline, nothing compares to good ole board scores and recommendation letters.

 

[Neuronix]

http://drslounge.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=5867533&postcount=13

I wrote this recently, and I'll repost/rephrase a bit here.

What I'm saying is a generalization and totally depends on the institution, the department, etc... But, it seems to me that the more like a researcher you are, the more like a PhD's salary you will have. The more like a clinician you are, the more like a MD's salary you will have.

There is many caveats to that, however. If the clinical department brings in little revenue anyway (many of the traditional MD/PhD residency/fellowships) and is losing money for every patient it sees (this happens in several at my institution), then they don't mind you doing research as long as you're successful. In this case you'll probably make roughly the same if you're an 100% clinical MD as you would as a PhD in the department anyway. For many departments I'm aware of, starting salaries are in the range of an assistant professor (PhD-only), and private practice may pay better but the job market is not great.

If you're in a wildly profitable specialty, however, you're going to get dinged. This is why I said it's a total generalization. I know in the field I'm going into you take a tremendous pay cut by doing mostly research at most institutions, and so it's almost impossible to find new young MD 80% or greater researchers.

In the intermediate pay specialties, everyone knows there's a huge pay grade going from PP (highest) to smaller/less prestigious academic institutions to big name academic instituitions (lowest). Why is this? Well there's a reputation factor, but the reality is the biggest name places have the most resources and most other big name faculty and will likely be the most flexible about giving you protected time for research. So while everyone in at the big name academic place is getting paid the same, the pay is lousy compared to the rest of the field regardless. All this and you'll probably work harder and get less vacation with your less pay to boot. So the more you want to just be a clinician, the more sense it makes to get away from the big name academic place where we will likely go to get a 80/20 (if it's even possible).

That being said I'm aware of at least one department with a very obvious pay difference between MDs. In the department with which I'm most familiar, the pay differential comes in the form of bonuses and I think this is an institution wide thing. The yearly bonuses are a very substantial contribution to one's salary, and they're entirely based on RVUs. But this is kind of a moot point because I'm not even sure it's possible to get a position here as an 80/20. I've been laughed at for mentioning 80-90% research as a MD/PhD so many times I don't even bother anymore. Also, your pay is determined by the "track" you're on. Some tracks pay better than others--and of course the ones that pay more have more clinical duty. There's all kinds of games played at this at other institutions. Sure, one other big name place might give you as much protected research time as you want and you're making the same lousy pay as everyone else, but all the routine clinical stuff gets outsourced to a different department. BTW, make no mistake. When I say lousy, in my specialty we're talking about 2-fold pay cuts between comparative institutions where you'd do 100% clinical and even 3-fold compared to private practice.

As far as I can see you have to make tremendous sacrifices to be a MD (or MD/PhD) who does significant research, especially in the current funding environment. Every recent graduate from my lab has gone into private practice or is very discouraged by the academic environment they've seen (except one guy who didn't even do residency), and you'd have be really dense to not figure out why.

Regardless, you're still going to improve your pay quite a bit in most specialties by going into private practice and being 100% MD. The short answer to the op's question is still, yes, expect to take a salary cut by doing the MD/PhD. There are cases where this isn't true of course, but you should expect it. If this doesn't appeal to you, don't go MD/PhD.

 

[Neuronix]

if you want to say do ENT at Stanford for example, well the combined degree is going to help you a lot, and may put you in position to make much more $ than if you did pathology at upstairs hollywood medical college.

ENT is ENT no matter where you do residency. Doing it at Stanford, which may be very academic and care about your PhD (I don't know this, just speculating), doesn't increase your earnings potential. If you want to do ENT in general and have the same earning potential, the majority of programs are at academic places that don't put out much research or are community places, and hence don't really care if you have a PhD. They may select against you in fact, because they know you are very research oriented with your PhD and they don't have those resources.

So I don't really see how the MD/PhD helps you make money or even really to get a residency. The MD does, but the PhD really does nothing for your salary as far as I can tell. If you want I can pull out papers for my specialty of interest that mention PhD or research experience pretty far down on their list of things they care about in a residency applicant. The PhD might help you get into the top tier at some places, though I've had some surprising conversations that make me think twice even there, but you still need to have board scores/grades to back it up (these would get you into the specialty anyway), and that doesn't do anything for your earnings potential.

Then if you do go into ENT there's almost no way the lost time doing the PhD will make up for loss of full-time salary. The lack of loans may put you ahead in the long run for the salary you'd get as an MD in many pediatrics subspecialties, for example, but those aren't competitive to begin with. For those who don't quite follow my last sentence--don't fool yourself, earnings potential is the #1 correlator to specialty competitiveness (can get ref if you want).

 

[xnfs93hy]

I'm going to throw this out there. There is some financial benefit to the MD/PhD that has not been mentioned. One, it does pay for medical school and provide a stipend, so if you don't take too long to finish, you may break even or maybe come out ahead financially when you count the few years of lost physician income. And two, if you are seeking a competitive specialty in a desirable location, having the MD/PhD will make you a more desirable applicant for a wide variety of programs, especially if you are in the "borderline" range for those specialties as far as grades and board scores. This may be more "valuable" than just the dollars...if you want to say do ENT at Stanford for example, well the combined degree is going to help you a lot, and may put you in position to make much more $ than if you did pathology at upstairs hollywood medical college.

Is this true for all programs? What is the catch?

 

[Gfunk6]

As an MSTP grad now in residency (2.5 years from completion), let me reiterate what others have posted above (eg. Neruonix). You absolutely WILL make LESS doing an MD/PhD if you have any reasearch component in your work. Despite the economic calculus spin others use I prefer to deal in reality. If you are seriously concerned that you will be making less than your MD counterparts then do yourself a favor and avoid MSTPs like the plague. I am still planning a research career but am fully cognizant of the finacial realities I will face.

 

[WorkaholicsAnon]

As an MSTP grad now in residency (2.5 years from completion), let me reiterate what others have posted above (eg. Neruonix). You absolutely WILL make LESS doing an MD/PhD if you have any reasearch component in your work. Despite the economic calculus spin others use I prefer to deal in reality. If you are seriously concerned that you will be making less than your MD counterparts then do yourself a favor and avoid MSTPs like the plague. I am still planning a research career but am fully cognizant of the finacial realities I will face.

What about an MD/Ph.D doing research vs. an MD-only doing the same amount of research? Would the MD/Ph.D's salary still be lower?

 

[Neuronix]

What about an MD/Ph.D doing research vs. an MD-only doing the same amount of research? Would the MD/Ph.D's salary still be lower?

It's been almost a year since I wrote about this, but my opinion (based on limited knowledge, surely) is the same. See post #43 in this thread. It's a complicated answer to a simple question. The general, simple answer (with all sorts of caveats) is it probably doesn't matter which degree you have in this case you'll probably get paid the same.

This is when the MD/PhD makes sense. You get the same comparatively low salary as your research MD counterpart, but without all the debt to be concerned with. But since you're a resident you'll get a much better idea of future job opportunities within your field by asking around. The problem is that these sorts of issues do vary pretty widely from specialty to specialty, and I tried to discuss this in my earlier post.

 

[Neuronix]

Is this true for all programs? What is the catch?

4 +/- 1 years of servitude as a PhD with no earnings potential increase, and a possible earnings decrease down the line.

 

[Gfunk6]

And two, if you are seeking a competitive specialty in a desirable location, having the MD/PhD will make you a more desirable applicant for a wide variety of programs, especially if you are in the "borderline" range for those specialties as far as grades and board scores.

In some fields, like Radiation Oncology, this is very true. I don't think I would have matched (and certainly not where I am now) w/o a PhD. In other fields, the PhD may give you some leverage as well.

if you want to say do ENT at Stanford for example, well the combined degree is going to help you a lot, and may put you in position to make much more $ than if you did pathology at upstairs hollywood medical college.

Here's the problem: Academic positions at highly ranked medical institutions (ESPECIALLY at the junior faculty level) pay less than "lesser" institutions. Why? Institutional prestige for one. Harvard knows that people will be knocking down their door for the honor of being a non-tenured "Instructor" even though the pay is crap. Relatively unknown schools, however, may sweeten the pot significantly to entice promising faculty.

Two, if you go for location your pay will take a hit. This is counter-intuitive. It does not work like this in non-medical fields and my non-medical friends are always confused when I tell them this. But the reality is if you plan to work in NYC, LA, SF, Boston, Chicago, etc. then your pay will suffer. Why? See above. Programs in those places know people will line up at their door so they don't exactly have to haggle with them over pay.

Third, the whole point of academic centers is to produce academic faculty, not private practice docs. Therefore, it is wrong-headed to assume high-ranking residency = high-paying job. If you actually do what the MSTP is meant for then your pay will take a hit. If you bail out to do private practice however, that is a differnet story coming from a high-ranking residency.

Guys, my point is this. If you do research (either MD or MD/PhD) you will make less then a pure clinician. You certainly won't be a pauper but if you like the good things in life and if you have always pined for a top-of-the-line BMW and a summer home in the Hamptons, then you have chosen the wrong path.

Sure chairs make a ton of cash and so do HHMI investigators w/ multiple R01s but they are the tiniest percentage of the total pool. Plus they paid their dues along the way. Arguing for an MSTP on financial merits is kind of like arguing to enter a college football program just to eventually enter the NFL draft. Sure a lot of talented players have hit the jackpot but will you be one of them? Highly unlikely.

Bottom line: Don't sign up for an MSTP unless you are 100% certain that you want to have (at least in part) a lab-based career. 'Nuff said.