md/phd thesis?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

cyclopes93

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
75
Reaction score
19
So it makes sense that if you want to do PhD alongside MD, you should do a senior honors thesis. The only problem is that for my major I'd have to set up a meeting with not only my program director but also the dean because there is no honors class for that under what I'm studying (so frustrating and unfair). I don't understand why students from the other colleges can just do an honors thesis while my college can't. I've been doing 4 years of research under the same lab and over the break I really thought about doing a thesis since I have most of the data already prepared and I will have a lot of time to devote to the research. Am at a disadvantage if I don't do a senior honors thesis? I don't have anything substantial but I think the thesis work will keep me busy and will sum up my work.
 
If your program doesn't offer the honors thesis as an option, I don't see how you'd be at a disadvantage not doing one. Four years is a good stretch and you should hopefully have a good letter and stuff to show for it.
 
So it makes sense that if you want to do PhD alongside MD, you should do a senior honors thesis. The only problem is that for my major I'd have to set up a meeting with not only my program director but also the dean because there is no honors class for that under what I'm studying (so frustrating and unfair). I don't understand why students from the other colleges can just do an honors thesis while my college can't. I've been doing 4 years of research under the same lab and over the break I really thought about doing a thesis since I have most of the data already prepared and I will have a lot of time to devote to the research. Am at a disadvantage if I don't do a senior honors thesis? I don't have anything substantial but I think the thesis work will keep me busy and will sum up my work.

To be honest, this "experience" sounds like it was a complete waste of time if you are thinking about a "senior thesis". 4 years is a long time, it will reflect very poorly on you if all you have to show for it is a senior thesis and no publications. The question that will be asked among research folks is, "He got minimal stuff done in 4 years, why would we want him?"
 
To be honest, this "experience" sounds like it was a complete waste of time if you are thinking about a "senior thesis". 4 years is a long time, it will reflect very poorly on you if all you have to show for it is a senior thesis and no publications. The question that will be asked among research folks is, "He got minimal stuff done in 4 years, why would we want him?"

That's assuming he doesn't have pubs or posters, etc or won't before graduating.

OP, after that much time, it would be good to have something to show for yourself other than a letter. It doesn't have to be a senior thesis.
 
That's assuming he doesn't have pubs or posters, etc or won't before graduating.

If the work has been published, why is it being put together in a 'senior thesis'? Further, if you are putting in several thousand hours over 4 years, there is something seriously wrong if you are talking about a poster that you did. I hear it all the time from people about not getting published in a year or two. And yes, I certainly understand that sometimes it just isn't feasible or that things are pending. But, a lot of the time, you look at it and talk to the student and can't help thinking, "I'm not really surprised, you didn't really do anything."
 
If the work has been published, why is it being put together in a 'senior thesis'? Further, if you are putting in several thousand hours over 4 years, there is something seriously wrong if you are talking about a poster that you did. I hear it all the time from people about not getting published in a year or two. And yes, I certainly understand that sometimes it just isn't feasible or that things are pending. But, a lot of the time, you look at it and talk to the student and can't help thinking, "I'm not really surprised, you didn't really do anything."
Eh, I mean it's very possible to go that long without a publication, especially in a typical 10-15 hr/week undergrad position. Really, it's pretty tough to do any good research independently without a solid 30+ hours/week to devote to it. If the PI actually put an undergrad in charge of a project to do on their own, then it would be damn impressive if they got a publication (how many times have you seen a paper with just an undergrad and the PI?). Really, most undergrad "publications" come from other peoples' work, and sometimes names are included for simply being present, while other times they aren't included despite significant contribution. Not saying it means nothing unless you're first author, but it means very little.

Look to LORs and knowledge of the research during the interview to assess peoples' research experience. Seriously, you can tell within 3 minutes of talking to someone about their research if they are a true contributor or a pair of hands for an overwhelmed post-doc/grad student.
 
The research I am doing is very engineering based and I am a life science student. Having said that, I have worked hard on the project. I will have a poster and a grant (gotten for a summer) to go with it. Publication in a basic science (non-clinical) setting is very hard, especially with how funding is going. This isn't even the PI's main research. I have gone from pure scratch to something that people can see and operate. It is anguishing to know that nothing groundbreaking has been produced and my own ideas were not entirely accepted as options sometimes. We are currently in the middle of testing a new product line after not getting desired results. It is no surprise that it has taken nearby big research companies to not have found a cure for this in the last 15 years. Meanwhile, my friends working under medical research are all having publications within 1.5 years of work put in and they just do what the postdoc or PI says. Sometimes I do envy them because I have nothing at that caliber, but then I feel that this experience is a very real possibility of what might happen as a PhD student. For that reason, I chose a major where I get that lab experience all the time. So no, in my opinion my research is highly different and approached by people who are trying their best to learn about its intricacies. At the end of this spring, the project will come to a close as there is no funding. I don't think I meant senior honors thesis would show as the only proof of the product's success. I just felt that having to do it would not only give me credit hours but that those credit hours would give me good incentive to work much harder on the project as I have often done in the past. Working on a project this risky begs that question of how much work should I really put into it for it to be beneficial to me and as a busy student I just want to know that all those hours of overtime are accounted for in some official form or way (not just in uncounted volunteer hours). Starting out, I had a dream that this project would get me in the headlines and I would go to outside countries to try the device built, but sometimes that doesn't work out and maybe that shows a flaw in my abilities but it also shows a good quality and that is persistence.

I also would like to say of a funny incident that my PI encountered: a student I had never met before and that he had only conversed through email completely disappeared from the picture for like a semester and then she sent an email to my PI after a year asking if there were any publications and that if she could be included or mentioned. So yea I don't want to sound like someone who had no knowledge of my research and wasted my time because I have a step-wise research wherein I had no help from engineers or anyone except for my PI and his networking. Last year, the project performance was amazing and then something got changed and we're back to square one.....engineering is very frustrating.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, this "experience" sounds like it was a complete waste of time if you are thinking about a "senior thesis". 4 years is a long time, it will reflect very poorly on you if all you have to show for it is a senior thesis and no publications. The question that will be asked among research folks is, "He got minimal stuff done in 4 years, why would we want him?"

This isn't entirely true. I was pursuing a PhD at a high powered institution (aka something grandma would recognize) and I applied without any publications. I only did research for like 1.5 years and was minimally productive at that. I still had my pick of PhD programs based on my LORs and my stats.

Pubs help, but they aren't required, even to get into great MD/PhD programs. The bigger question is why the hell would you waste so much time on an MD/PhD program. All my friends that pursued MD/PhD programs regret that decision and would much rather be practicing and be done right now rather than beginning their intern year.
 
This isn't entirely true. I was pursuing a PhD at a high powered institution (aka something grandma would recognize) and I applied without any publications. I only did research for like 1.5 years and was minimally productive at that. I still had my pick of PhD programs based on my LORs and my stats.

Pubs help, but they aren't required, even to get into great MD/PhD programs. The bigger question is why the hell would you waste so much time on an MD/PhD program. All my friends that pursued MD/PhD programs regret that decision and would much rather be practicing and be done right now rather than beginning their intern year.

I think people have a serious dilemma when they are choosing between MD/PhD and MD only. Serious applicants enjoy research a ton, but are also weary about the amount of training. Then, when you look at the "prestige" of an MD/PhD and the "free" ride through school, the MD/PhD option is almost a deceptively alluring option when in reality, most MD/PhD students came into the programs with a few years of undergrad research and perhaps some years working as junior specialists and the like. And honestly, 3-4 years of 15 - 20 hrs/wk and maybe 1-2 years full time as a junior specialist might be enough to understand the research process and be a competent scientist, but is definitely not a grueling enough trial to retain only those who can see themselves in academia for the rest of their lives.
 
There are several personal reasons I want to pursue an MD/PhD dual degree.
1) I would not have loans circulating over my head (as finances were a pain for me in college-I wouldn't do it over again)
2) I would be more competitive for my choice of residency that many people don't know much about but I already seem to know a lot about
3) Clinical research interests me and I actually want to be in academia and hold administrative positions
4) I would eventually like to become a clinical professor and teach for some part of my job and hold that even till retirement
5) I don't want to do private practice; to me making the most money or more money is unimportant. At the same time, I do not want to entirely work at the hospital as I have gotten a feel for that too and don't particularly like it.
6) The MD/PhDs I have met and talked with in the field I am interested in actually match my personality and I believe that I would be content most in this line than having an MD.

anyways I've flip flopped over having an MD/PhD dual before and my own PI has assured me that an MD alone would be sufficient if I am interested in medical research but after having worked at the hospital, I have lost that notion and know that dual degree allows you to do much more. Being as patient as I am, I think I will savor my time in this longer path. I think it depends on personality types and what you know you are sacrificing but at the same time receiving back. As they say, the grass is always greener...so everyone has a reason I guess.

On the other hand, I will be applying half MD straight and the other half of my list will compose of MD/PhD programs that meet my ideology. I do feel that the criticism on my unproductive research years shouldn't be taken lightly. For that I will spend some years doing clinical research to see if I can make a publication. If not, then I feel that I should focus on just MD as becoming a researcher is no easy feat on its own either. From my parent, I can tell that those not prepared often do elongate their PhD years much longer than anticipated for which I really don't want (I'm not that patient lol).

The only regret I have of my research is that when I sensed I wasn't going to get the results I desired in 4 years, I should have networked harder and switched labs. Now it just looks really bad on the record that I didn't accomplish as much. Unfortunately, call it bad luck or whatever, no professor would accept me whenever I wanted to switch labs.
 
Last edited:
I think people have a serious dilemma when they are choosing between MD/PhD and MD only. Serious applicants enjoy research a ton, but are also weary about the amount of training. Then, when you look at the "prestige" of an MD/PhD and the "free" ride through school, the MD/PhD option is almost a deceptively alluring option when in reality, most MD/PhD students came into the programs with a few years of undergrad research and perhaps some years working as junior specialists and the like. And honestly, 3-4 years of 15 - 20 hrs/wk and maybe 1-2 years full time as a junior specialist might be enough to understand the research process and be a competent scientist, but is definitely not a grueling enough trial to retain only those who can see themselves in academia for the rest of their lives.
This is probably true. I don't understand why the debate is MD/PhD vs. MD. It should be MD/PhD vs. PhD, as the PhD degree is pretty useless to someone who is spending 80% of their time in the clinic. I want to do MD/PhD because I want to be a researcher. I want to practice medicine as well not only because it is a fantastic profession, but because it will inform my research. I currently do research associated with PhDs from a medical school and they are almost hilariously uninformed about how their technology could actually be translated into the clinic. Meanwhile, the clinical MDs are too busy with clinical work to really be running their labs (although some get all the credit regardless), and doing an MD and a research fellowship after isn't really a cost-effective option for those of us who'd have to pay full freight for med school.

6) The MD/PhDs I have met and talked with in the field I am interested in actually match my personality and I believe that I would be content most in this line than having an MD.
This is actually surprisingly true for me. Not a huge influence in my decision, but I get along with researchers WAY more than clinicians. I've found that for whatever reason, PhD and MD/PhD researchers tend to show me the time of day and generally treat me like an equal at least from a "we are both human beings" perspective (obviously not when we're talking research). This includes a few REALLY well-known people (like, in-the-Nobel-discussion caliber). Meanwhile clinicians, from heads of prestigious departments to community physicians, tend to act like I don't exist unless they're forced to interact with me. Idk, maybe it's just a personality thing with me, but I get the "holier-than-thou" treatment from most MDs I work with. Cordial, but not certainly not friendly.
 
This is actually surprisingly true for me. Not a huge influence in my decision, but I get along with researchers WAY more than clinicians. I've found that for whatever reason, PhD and MD/PhD researchers tend to show me the time of day and generally treat me like an equal at least from a "we are both human beings" perspective (obviously not when we're talking research). This includes a few REALLY well-known people (like, in-the-Nobel-discussion caliber). Meanwhile clinicians, from heads of prestigious departments to community physicians, tend to act like I don't exist unless they're forced to interact with me. Idk, maybe it's just a personality thing with me, but I get the "holier-than-thou" treatment from most MDs I work with. Cordial, but not certainly not friendly.

Yea I just loved my conversation with this one MD/PhD guy who had graduated from a great program and was not at all arrogant about it. He was genuinely approachable and very inviting to teach and point out things. He was also very knowledgeable, which I find very satisfying. He shared me his stats and then I asked him about his lifestyle. It seemed personable to me even though I know he has worked quite hard to make of the life he has now (even though he's still in training). I think MDs are great people too but they are pretty busy with their own work as it is all patient care and that stuff can get pretty rough and busy at times. I have a pretty choosy personality and I think I would take an income loss if I saw that I had a better environment and content professional life with one path. If there is anything in medicine I have learned to prize more and most is the environment (will never forget this lesson). Having said that I do want to echo that the guy had translational research experience and probably had a publication in the works during application season.
 
There are several personal reasons I want to pursue an MD/PhD dual degree.
1) I would not have loans circulating over my head (as finances were a pain for me in college-I wouldn't do it over again)
2) I would be more competitive for my choice of residency that many people don't know much about but I already seem to know a lot about
3) Clinical research interests me and I actually want to be in academia and hold administrative positions
4) I would eventually like to become a clinical professor and teach for some part of my job and hold that even till retirement
5) I don't want to do private practice; to me making the most money or more money is unimportant. At the same time, I do not want to entirely work at the hospital as I have gotten a feel for that too and don't particularly like it.
6) The MD/PhDs I have met and talked with in the field I am interested in actually match my personality and I believe that I would be content most in this line than having an MD.


1.) MD/PhD loses money in nearly every case, especially with better paying specialties. Even more so if get trapped in academia. Financially, MD/PhD is a honey coated poison pill.

2.) True, but at the same time, that's a hell of an investment for marginal benefit. You can be competitive for every specialty from any medical school as long as you excel. To do a PhD just to be marginally more competitive for a specialty is foolhardy.

3.) This is something that could be fulfilled by going MD/PhD, but absolutely not required. Clinical research is a far cry from basic bench work, which is what most PhD programs trains you for.

4.) MD/PhD helps, but again, not required.

5.) Okay, but for 10 years, you will be balls-deep in the hospital. More so if your priorities change. If you don't like clinical medicine, get out now. Your 3-4 year stint as a PhD researcher will be a distant memory by the time you're done with all your training. Do you really want to get into your residency and then realize you can't stand the thought of doing clinical work for one more day? Like it or not, money is a pillar of medicine and certain departments in the hospital enable other departments to be around. You will need to bring revenue into the system, regardless of how much distaste that leaves in your mouth.

6.) This is a poor and frankly immature reason to do a PhD. Spending 3-4 years to get a degree because you might get along better with your colleagues? Give me a break.

You really need to do some introspection and figure out what your goals really are. To me, you're all over the place. You won't survive the bull**** you need to swallow to become a clinician and you aren't gutsy enough to go for just a PhD if that's where your true passion lies.
 
There are several personal reasons I want to pursue an MD/PhD dual degree.
1) I would not have loans circulating over my head (as finances were a pain for me in college-I wouldn't do it over again)
2) I would be more competitive for my choice of residency that many people don't know much about but I already seem to know a lot about
3) Clinical research interests me and I actually want to be in academia and hold administrative positions
4) I would eventually like to become a clinical professor and teach for some part of my job and hold that even till retirement
5) I don't want to do private practice; to me making the most money or more money is unimportant. At the same time, I do not want to entirely work at the hospital as I have gotten a feel for that too and don't particularly like it.
6) The MD/PhDs I have met and talked with in the field I am interested in actually match my personality and I believe that I would be content most in this line than having an MD.

anyways I've flip flopped over having an MD/PhD dual before and my own PI has assured me that an MD alone would be sufficient if I am interested in medical research but after having worked at the hospital, I have lost that notion and know that dual degree allows you to do much more. Being as patient as I am, I think I will savor my time in this longer path. I think it depends on personality types and what you know you are sacrificing but at the same time receiving back. As they say, the grass is always greener...so everyone has a reason I guess.

On the other hand, I will be applying half MD straight and the other half of my list will compose of MD/PhD programs that meet my ideology. I do feel that the criticism on my unproductive research years shouldn't be taken lightly. For that I will spend some years doing clinical research to see if I can make a publication. If not, then I feel that I should focus on just MD as becoming a researcher is no easy feat on its own either. From my parent, I can tell that those not prepared often do elongate their PhD years much longer than anticipated for which I really don't want (I'm not that patient lol).

The only regret I have of my research is that when I sensed I wasn't going to get the results I desired in 4 years, I should have networked harder and switched labs. Now it just looks really bad on the record that I didn't accomplish as much. Unfortunately, call it bad luck or whatever, no professor would accept me whenever I wanted to switch labs.

Not only do you not have good reasons to pursue a PhD but you also show some serious red flags against pursuing an MD altogether, particularly the part of not liking to interact with clinician physicians and be in a hospital setting, but most of all because it doesn't sound like you want to deal with people, let alone patients, outside of lab at all.

I can't imagine a person in an administrative position of medical school who doesn't like to interact with fellow physicians, most of who don't have a PhD and are uninvolved with research.
 
1.) MD/PhD loses money in nearly every case, especially with better paying specialties. Even more so if get trapped in academia. Financially, MD/PhD is a honey coated poison pill.
Yes, I already understand academia is hard is bull and pays less, but I want to be researcher and stay in that realm.

notbobtrustme said:
5.) Okay, but for 10 years, you will be balls-deep in the hospital. More so if your priorities change. If you don't like clinical medicine, get out now. Your 3-4 year stint as a PhD researcher will be a distant memory by the time you're done with all your training. Do you really want to get into your residency and then realize you can't stand the thought of doing clinical work for one more day? Like it or not, money is a pillar of medicine and certain departments in the hospital enable other departments to be around. You will need to bring revenue into the system, regardless of how much distaste that leaves in your mouth.

I already do clinical work and I like it and I find it quite interesting. You are not going to work alone either so a network of PhD and other MD/PhD people will always be there to collaborate and transition the research across. Funding is very important in the field of research (now more than ever) and clinical research is still a great field to go after (some more than others).

notbobtrustme said:
6.) This is a poor and frankly immature reason to do a PhD. Spending 3-4 years to get a degree because you might get along better with your colleagues? Give me a break.

You really need to do some introspection and figure out what your goals really are. To me, you're all over the place. You won't survive the bull**** you need to swallow to become a clinician and you aren't gutsy enough to go for just a PhD if that's where your true passion lies.
I am sure you have been doing some clinical work and have learnt about different rotation settings. Getting along with a certain group of people is really important for me and if I don't happen to like what an MD does or how he/she is able to alot time to different things than say an MD/PhD I have a mature reason to not prefer pure MD. Again, I have a parent in the PhD line so I know to some extent what I want to do. People also spend 2-3 years in fellowship (how is that really different from obtaining a PhD?).
I have devoted a lot of time to medicine and yes I am not gutsy enough to just commit to a PhD because I don't want to do just research to begin with all my life and neither do I want to work for a company afterwards.
 
Not only do you not have good reasons to pursue a PhD but you also show some serious red flags against pursuing an MD altogether, particularly the part of not liking to interact with clinician physicians and be in a hospital setting, but most of all because it doesn't sound like you want to deal with people, let alone patients, outside of lab at all.

I can't imagine a person in an administrative position of medical school who doesn't like to interact with fellow physicians, most of who don't have a PhD and are uninvolved with research.
I didn't dwelve into this more clearly. I don't want to go do private practice entirely because I am not liking the paperwork increase and insurance dealing that most physicians are now having to do. My primary care physican has more files than drawers apparently nowadays. She has told me with more policies added on healthcare and an integrated network for pt data sharing, a private practice is becoming almost a business in need of legal assistance at times. It is certainly just increasing work for her and she says she doesn't have as much time for patients as she would like to have. Working in a hospital is great, you don't deal with insurance companies and all that flap. On the other hand, I wish the private practice setting autonomy was shifted to the hospital. I never once mentioned I don't like MD physicians (in fact I get along with them fine but they are just more reserved). I never once mentioned I don't like patients. I have dealt with the worst products of a patient for testing and you know what? I am pretty sure med students would say that's gross on first glance. My reaction? pretty cool. I have often gotten excellent remarks on my bedside manner so whatever flags you are raising are pretty superficial and inference based on things I haven't even said. I love human disease studies and for that an MD/PhD would be complimentary. I don't know how else I can portray my preference without giving too much on my specialized interests. The specialty I'm interested in doesn't even deal with pts directly anyways; having an MD/PhD is actually a plus to have (I'm saddened that pts won't be a main deal here but with the MD component I'll atleast be able to see some on a daily basis).
 
Last edited:
1.) MD/PhD loses money in nearly every case, especially with better paying specialties. Even more so if get trapped in academia. Financially, MD/PhD is a honey coated poison pill.

2.) True, but at the same time, that's a hell of an investment for marginal benefit. You can be competitive for every specialty from any medical school as long as you excel. To do a PhD just to be marginally more competitive for a specialty is foolhardy.

3.) This is something that could be fulfilled by going MD/PhD, but absolutely not required. Clinical research is a far cry from basic bench work, which is what most PhD programs trains you for.

4.) MD/PhD helps, but again, not required.

5.) Okay, but for 10 years, you will be balls-deep in the hospital. More so if your priorities change. If you don't like clinical medicine, get out now. Your 3-4 year stint as a PhD researcher will be a distant memory by the time you're done with all your training. Do you really want to get into your residency and then realize you can't stand the thought of doing clinical work for one more day? Like it or not, money is a pillar of medicine and certain departments in the hospital enable other departments to be around. You will need to bring revenue into the system, regardless of how much distaste that leaves in your mouth.

6.) This is a poor and frankly immature reason to do a PhD. Spending 3-4 years to get a degree because you might get along better with your colleagues? Give me a break.

You really need to do some introspection and figure out what your goals really are. To me, you're all over the place. You won't survive the bull**** you need to swallow to become a clinician and you aren't gutsy enough to go for just a PhD if that's where your true passion lies.
I'm way too bored tonight, and I have some time off now, so I'll respond to this. I work with a lot of MD/PhDs so I can at least share what I've learned from them. Most of the original post seems misinformed, but maybe I can do rehash what I've learned this year.

1) This is 100% correct. I've done the calculations specifically, and MD/PhDs take a big loss. The only reason a stipend is given is because without it no one would do these programs. Not wanting to deal with loans is a stupid reason to lose out on tens of thousands and 4 years of life.
2) I think I'd much rather commit myself to it and basically life like a hermit for four years than spend an extra 4 years just to get a competitive edge.
3) MD/PhD is NOT what you want for clinical research. MD/PhD is what you should do if your goal is to run a lab doing bench work. Basically, only do MD/PhD if you absolutely can't stand the thought of beakers and cell culture no longer being part of your life.
4) You can do this with an MD. In fact, it's often easier to do this than it is to get a job in private practice. Really, as long as you have a decent pedigree this isn't all that hard.
5) This is kind of legit. I could see a good argument here in that you want the variety, but yeah, you're gonna have to like the clinical work. Your PhD will not be a distant memory after training. If you have an MD/PhD, you'll do bench work during your training if you choose to pursue it. My PhD bosses hire MD/PhDs in their residencies to take on projects all the time (although they complain about them because they take longer to complete them).
6) This is a terrible reason to pick what you do, but it's a real thing. Still, even if there is a trend here, and you tend to like PhDs more, it will come down to a few people who you like or don't like. I've definitely met both MDs and PhDs that would tempt me with murder if I had to work with them all day.

If you don't see yourself running a lab doing basic science research primarily, please do everyone a favor and don't lose your own money/time while simultaneously eating up the funding someone could have used for what it was intended for.

Real reasons to pursue an MD/PhD

1) You want to do basic lab research, but you're a sensible human being and realize that the job market for life sciences PhDs is abysmal and that MD/PhD is a much better option financially.
2) You enjoy clinical medicine, but aspire to create change on a more fundamental level rather than on a case-by-case basis. A doctor treats a single patient at a time, but a researcher can notably improve the treatment of millions if he/she helps develop a new drug/therapy or the knowledge base that leads to new drugs/therapy.
3) You're primarily a researcher who wants to inform his/her research with clinical experience, thereby increasing your efficiency by properly addressing the needs of the field.
4) It can be easier to get research funds as an MD/PhD than as a PhD. This is a noted phenomenon, and PhDs absolutely hate it, but the NIH is pushing their own agenda, so you'd be fool not to take note and follow the funding trail.
5) You've always done the hardest things and been admitted to the hardest programs and been told you were the best and you'll be damned if some other idiot is going to have a degree you don't and look smarter than you on paper.
 
Last edited:
I'm way too bored tonight, and I have some time off now, so I'll respond to this. I work with a lot of MD/PhDs so I can at least share what I've learned from them. Most of the original post seems misinformed, but maybe I can do rehash what I've learned this year.

1) This is 100% correct. I've done the calculations specifically, and MD/PhDs take a big loss. The only reason a stipend is given is because without it no one would do these programs. Not wanting to deal with loans is a stupid reason to lose out on tens of thousands and 4 years of life.
2) I think I'd much rather commit myself to it and basically life like a hermit for four years than spend an extra 4 years just to get a competitive edge.
3) MD/PhD is NOT what you want for clinical research. MD/PhD is what you should do if your goal is to run a lab doing bench work. Basically, only do MD/PhD if you absolutely can't stand the thought of beakers and cell culture no longer being part of your life.
4) You can do this with an MD. In fact, it's often easier to do this than it is to get a job in private practice. Really, as long as you have a decent pedigree this isn't all that hard.
5) This is kind of legit. I could see a good argument here in that you want the variety, but yeah, you're gonna have to like the clinical work. Your PhD will not be a distant memory after training. If you have an MD/PhD, you'll do bench work during your training if you choose to pursue it. My PhD bosses hire MD/PhDs in their residencies to take on projects all the time (although they complain about them because they take longer to complete them).
6) This is a terrible reason to pick what you do, but it's a real thing. Still, even if there is a trend here, and you tend to like PhDs more, it will come down to a few people who you like or don't like. I've definitely met both MDs and PhDs that would tempt me with murder if I had to work with them all day.

If you don't see yourself running a lab doing basic science research primarily, please do everyone a favor and don't lose your own money/time while simultaneously eating up the funding someone could have used for what it was intended for.

Real reasons to pursue an MD/PhD

1) You want to do basic lab research, but you're a sensible human being and realize that the job market for life sciences PhDs is abysmal and that MD/PhD is a much better option financially.
2) You enjoy clinical medicine, but aspire to create change on a more fundamental level rather than on a case-by-case basis. A doctor treats a single patient at a time, but a researcher can notably improve the treatment of millions if he/she helps develop a new drug/therapy or the knowledge base that leads to new drugs/therapy.
3) You're primarily a researcher who wants to inform his/her research with clinical experience, thereby increasing your efficiency by properly addressing the needs of the field.
4) You've always done the hardest things and been admitted to the hardest programs and been told you were the best and you'll be damned if some other idiot is going to have a degree you don't and look smarter than you on paper.

Your number 1 reason is so true right now I can't even begin. When I do more clinical research under actual MD/PhD this summer, I will have a better grasp at how he steers the lab. I know that as an MD I can still do research, but the real question is "will I get the time?" and "will my training as an MD be enough to compensate for excellent quality-wise research?". You know these 2 questions always make me think. My #6 reason is really random but that's why it was ranked the lowest; just based off of my limited experience I tended to say that.
 
Your number 1 reason is so true right now I can't even begin. When I do more clinical research under actual MD/PhD this summer, I will have a better grasp at how he steers the lab. I know that as an MD I can still do research, but the real question is "will I get the time?" and "will my training as an MD be enough to compensate for excellent quality-wise research?". You know these 2 questions always make me think.
I think the issue here is you either don't know what "clinical research" means, or you don't know what an MD/PhD trains you to do. The MD/PhD program is meant to create the physician-scientist. This is the basic lab researcher who knows his way around the clinic, but still spends 80% of his time dedicated to bench lab work. In general, if he/she is not running a basic science lab, he/she could've done it more painlessly without the PhD.

Here's the thing, with an MD you can do anything, but doing basic lab research would require at least 3 years as a post-doc in a lab. Now you're swimming in debt and watching it rise, you didn't save any time, and you're looking at much lower salaries than purely clinical physicians. That's the only reason the MD/PhD programs exist, because MDs can't all just take a fellowship and become researchers these days. The moment you step into the clinic, the PhD becomes powerless. It does not directly help you to do clinical research or administrative work or clinical academic/teaching jobs. What do you see yourself doing? You've yet to answer that question. When you have an answer, ask a number of MD/PhDs an d MDs if the PhD makes sense for that career.
 
This isn't entirely true. I was pursuing a PhD at a high powered institution (aka something grandma would recognize) and I applied without any publications. I only did research for like 1.5 years and was minimally productive at that. I still had my pick of PhD programs based on my LORs and my stats.

Pubs help, but they aren't required, even to get into great MD/PhD programs. The bigger question is why the hell would you waste so much time on an MD/PhD program. All my friends that pursued MD/PhD programs regret that decision and would much rather be practicing and be done right now rather than beginning their intern year.

No where do I say that you need publications in order to apply MD/PhD. I simply stated that you can't say, 'I spent 4 years working on this and have nothing tangible to show for it.'

1.5 years and no publications is one thing. 4 years is another. My concern (after reviewing people's research almost daily now for our incoming class) is that if you spend 4 years in a lab with nothing to show for it, what were you doing with your time? Even working 5-15 hours per week, the time there accumulates. We are talking about 1000-3000 hours of time spent somewhere and over the time course of 4 years. Never mind first authorship. Nobody thought that their contributions were worth throwing their name on something going out?

Eh, I mean it's very possible to go that long without a publication, especially in a typical 10-15 hr/week undergrad position. Really, it's pretty tough to do any good research independently without a solid 30+ hours/week to devote to it. If the PI actually put an undergrad in charge of a project to do on their own, then it would be damn impressive if they got a publication (how many times have you seen a paper with just an undergrad and the PI?). Really, most undergrad "publications" come from other peoples' work, and sometimes names are included for simply being present, while other times they aren't included despite significant contribution. Not saying it means nothing unless you're first author, but it means very little.

Look to LORs and knowledge of the research during the interview to assess peoples' research experience. Seriously, you can tell within 3 minutes of talking to someone about their research if they are a true contributor or a pair of hands for an overwhelmed post-doc/grad student.

I disagree. I read ~500 applications this year between advising pre-meds for medical school and reviewing applications for our residency. I also have been doing research for the better part of a decade. I know what undergrad research is like and what time commitments are like. At both of you and notbobtrustme, how many applicants do you think say that they have been working in the same lab for 4 years? What percentage of applicants? Off hand, I can only remember maybe 3-4. My expectation as someone who reads applications is that whatever you do with your time outside of academics, you are productive. I understand and appreciate the realities of how fickle the research world can be. But, if you can't get something worthwhile out of a 4 year time commitment, there is something wrong.

Regarding authorship, there is a big difference between first author and non-first author. But, there is a big difference between non-first author and no author after 4 years, as well.
 
Haven't read through all the previous posts, but I must emphasize that this is utterly untrue! there are postdocs in very good labs who work full time for years and not yet have any publications. Publication productivity varies greatly among different fields or even among different branches of biology. Definitely do not need pubs to apply to MD-PhD programs as long as you have strong letters of recommendation, even if you worked in a lab for 4 years!

Further, if you are putting in several thousand hours over 4 years, there is something seriously wrong if you are talking about a poster that you did. I hear it all the time from people about not getting published in a year or two. And yes, I certainly understand that sometimes it just isn't feasible or that things are pending. But, a lot of the time, you look at it and talk to the student and can't help thinking, "I'm not really surprised, you didn't really do anything."
 
I think this is an eye opening conversation and I appreciate the frank opinions and advice. My PI has always said that research can be impatient at times but certainly I need to have a product put out too (this situation never made sense to me either). I still have one more semester left, which means I need to do something quite different and start getting this project wrapped up well. In addition, I think I need to step up and discuss much thoroughly and seriously about its outcomes.
 
I just want to comment on the people who think OP should have publications by now.

I think it's really dependent on what his project is and who he is working with. I know people with several 3rd author papers that basically just did what a grad student told them to do. I know a grad student who has NO papers and it's her 4th year because her project is really challenging (she's building her own plasmonics related microscope on her own) and the lab is not cohesive at all so the only person she has to bounce ideas off of and work with is the PI.

I also know of people who get into regular PhD programs in top programs in their field like Harvard, MIT, Caltech, etc. and they didn't have any publications. I guess I don't see why some mid-tier MD/PhD program would be harder to get into than Harvard. The people who get into these programs have 3.9+ GPAs and are Goldwater, Churchill, and Rhodes scholars, not premeds who couldn't make it.

In my case the project I work on is just me and the PI who still forgets my name because he doesn't care (yes I should have left but I was in too deep by the time I truly realized). I really do not feel I get some of the same support my classmates do from lab mentors, but I've been pretty productive nonetheless. It took me 3 years to do my project (well I did two projects but stopped the first one because PI liked project 2 better) because of the lack of communication from my PI, even when things were going well and he was excited about my results, and I had to teach myself everything. Really.

Another setback is the time it took for my particular synthesis. Two weeks of intensive prep to get my sample. If I was a grad student I could work on two projects at once while my preparing new stock but it's all I had time for while taking classes. I'm not just running gels or FPLC all day.

So there's another anecdote on why I apparently wouldn't be prepared for MD/PhD. I get that having authorship makes you look better on paper, but sometimes that's not feasible.

Oh and idk if this totally cancels out the points I was trying to make, but for the people who think my work must be ****ty and I don't know what I'm doing, my paper was just accepted to JACS, which is pretty respectable. I got hella lucky that my last few experiments worked like a charm, but I never would have gotten to that point if I hadn't literally been skipping class and staying in lab until 2 or 3 am every night last semester because I wanted something to show for all my work. I don't expect that everyone can do that, because I ended up neglecting both my grades and my other ECs.
 
As other people have said, MD/PhD is for folks who would choose PhD over MD but would also like to practice or need a stronger medical background for some of their research.

As for the 4 years and no pubs, in some fields it takes a very long time to get research into something publishable. I'm in mathematics, and for graduate school, I will likely only come out with 3 publications from my time in medical school through graduate school. Some fields require a higher level of training before actual research is possible. OP, if you are in a very theoretical area of engineering research (signal processing algorithm design, for instance), it is understandable that you haven't published yet. My program suggests 1 publication before graduation with the PhD.
 
No where do I say that you need publications in order to apply MD/PhD. I simply stated that you can't say, 'I spent 4 years working on this and have nothing tangible to show for it.'

1.5 years and no publications is one thing. 4 years is another. My concern (after reviewing people's research almost daily now for our incoming class) is that if you spend 4 years in a lab with nothing to show for it, what were you doing with your time? Even working 5-15 hours per week, the time there accumulates. We are talking about 1000-3000 hours of time spent somewhere and over the time course of 4 years. Never mind first authorship. Nobody thought that their contributions were worth throwing their name on something going out?



I disagree. I read ~500 applications this year between advising pre-meds for medical school and reviewing applications for our residency. I also have been doing research for the better part of a decade. I know what undergrad research is like and what time commitments are like. At both of you and notbobtrustme, how many applicants do you think say that they have been working in the same lab for 4 years? What percentage of applicants? Off hand, I can only remember maybe 3-4. My expectation as someone who reads applications is that whatever you do with your time outside of academics, you are productive. I understand and appreciate the realities of how fickle the research world can be. But, if you can't get something worthwhile out of a 4 year time commitment, there is something wrong.

Regarding authorship, there is a big difference between first author and non-first author. But, there is a big difference between non-first author and no author after 4 years, as well.
I'm just going to emphasize that I disagree again. Not only do I disagree, but most researchers I know disagree as well. The professors I work with (PhDs and MD/PhDs) always tear apart undergrad publications because they could mean literally anything from years of hard work to two or three months of following orders. Meanwhile, some of their most productive students have come in with exactly the situation described, 3+ years in a lab with no publications. I even had a professor who graphed non-first author undergrad publications vs. graduate school publications of his admitted students and there was literally no correlation. R^2 = 0.08 or something. (He was trying to objectively recruit the best students). There was a higher correlation with GPA/GRE.

I know you have a ton of experience in clinical medicine and research, and you've probably gotten incredibly good at assessing applications and students, but I urge you to look past undergrad research deliverables. Most of it is luck and opportunity, and subtracting the noise from these thin metrics is impossible. If the researcher is unproductive or inefficient, this will be reflected in a mundane LOR. If the researcher simply followed orders and never designed his/her own experiments, then it will be reflected in the interview.

There just isn't a good way to objectively measure research productivity for those who aren't leading the experiments (non-first authors). You have to rely on LORs and the students' knowledge during the interview. To make an analogy to something more concrete, it's like comparing two wide receivers by touchdowns alone. One might have been taking passes from Tom Brady against the Lion's secondary, the other might have been taking passes from Chad Henne against the Seahawks.
 
You're heavily overestimating the difficulty of getting into a top life sciences PhD program. No, the people getting into these programs are definitely not "premeds who couldn't make it," but they're absolutely not "3.9+ GPAs and are Goldwater, Churchill, and Rhodes Scholars" (though there are some of these people, of course). From a pure "numbers" perspective, the average GPA for students admitted to MIT for a biology PhD is 3.62 (GRE ~85 percentile/section, though the GRE matters very little). From a "research experience" perspective, I have close friends with research experience comparable to my own who had no difficulty getting into every top PhD program in their field (some with scholarship), while I'm having much more modest success as an MSTP applicant (4 top 25 interviews, not even sure about actually getting in yet). Having attended and/or done research at one of these top schools for ~5 years, I also know a lot of PhD students, and most of them are definitely not as accomplished as you think they are.

I think you're being fooled by big names like Harvard (my friends definitely were ... until they got into every school they applied to). I'm not sure what you consider to be a "mid-tier MD/PhD program", but most people who get into a top 25 MSTP would have absolutely no trouble getting into a top 5 PhD program. I've heard some people even say the same for people attending "bottom-tier" MSTPs. This is not to take away from students at top 5 PhD programs; MSTPs are just getting ridiculously competitive.
I don't think PhD programs are as competitive as MSTP by any means, especially by the numbers. But the reason I mentioned big name schools is because they actually do some of the best research. I know there are non-big name schools that are actually leaders in very specific disciplines, like GTech and click chemistry and IU and physical virology. UIUC has an amazing chemistry graduate program overall, same with UW Madison and Michigan. I just listed the big names everyone knows because in general the quality of their research is superb for a reason.

Is everyone at Harvard a goldwater? Noooo. The person I know at Harvard had no pubs and no national scholarships, just very strong research experience. I guess the point I was trying to make was that the researchers who take on normal grads also take on MSTP students, so they should know that publications aren't everything. I think in an interview the student with years of experience but no pubs will outshine the student with multiple publications that had their hand held every step of the way.

This isn't directed at you, but I always feel like the people who get publications and then say that people who don't have publications just aren't working hard enough don't realize how lucky they got. They by no means didn't work hard or anything, but I feel like they don't realize not everyone's project works immediately/moves at the same rate and not everyone has a great mentor who believes that undergrads can contribute meaningfully. There's nothing wrong with getting help (Everyone needs help sometimes) but for people that get less of it, especially when they're starting out, they will obviously move more slowly.
 
While having pubs is, for the most, out of an undergrad's control, I do think that there is a strong correlation between having pubs and a student's overall "ability." What I mean by "ability" is not necessarily how good one is at bench work, but the ability to be efficient and "get things done." If you look at the top-tier applicants, they are very strong not because they are necessarily smarter or hard working, but because they are efficient and know how to get things done.

Take the case of William Hwang for example (yes, lol). The guy has it all but even when he enters MD/PhD at Harvard, he manages to come out with 1st author Nature paper. Now, that is something even many PIs dream about in their careers. You might think its infeasible to plan realistically that you will join lab A and get a Nature paper. However, the ability of the student to maximize their chances for success by looking into the lab environment, publishing history, PI personality, etc is just as important, if not the most important, as working hard or being smart. It's just like those students who come into undergrad with 1-2 years of research in high school and they have a huge advantage when applying to colleges because most high schoolers don't even know what research is. I know people like this and they really aren't good at research, their parents just knew how to make them stand out.

My point is that the reality is pubs and other signs of achievement are important in this world. Having the ability to recognize that and weave some in is just as important as being a good scientist or doctor. If your PI is not good working with undergrads, doesn't give you good responsibilities, etc, then that lab is not the correct FIT for some people. It is your responsibility to recognize that and seek other opportunities. Always talk to the undergrads/grads/post docs in a lab for the best assessment of that lab. Now, there are some places that just LITERALLY do not have those opportunities; however, I bet the best students will CREATE opportunities for success no matter WHERE they are. This is something I can never prove but if you look at the best applicants, it is a common theme. I know many of these people as I was a finalist for Rhodes.

As for me, my first lab experience was not what I knew would "get me places" or even beneficial to me purely in terms of learning science and hypothesis-testing. So I quit politely and when I searched for the next lab, I was very upfront with the PIs I interviewed with. "I want my own project and I believe I have what it takes to produce a first author paper. I know many students have no idea what it takes (and it is true that I do not completely know what it takes) but I am willing to give it my all". Many PIs passed over me but a PI took a chance on me. I've had a 1st author published, another just accepted, and will likely have 1 more first author before graduating in a basic science lab. It's true that I have spent weekends, holidays, evenings, etc in the lab but it is because I ENJOY it. I have pumped out a paper faster than the grad student in the lab because I plan ahead well, have some luck with experiments, and keep pushing. I've been asked to carry out experiments our lab technician and grad student hasn't been able to accomplish with several years of experience under their belts. Do I succeed on the first try? No, but I see it as a challenge, keep pushing, and get lucky or just smile that some things are not meant to be.

Long story short, my point is that having the ability to MAKE something happen is equally as important as being good at whatever you do. There is a fine line difference and some people may not understand it, but that is what distinguishes the best students from the rest.

Edit: As an example, would you hire Person A with accomplishments or Person B without, assuming both are equally as talented? Without a doubt Person A because he/she can make things happen, whether it is through luck or plan, he/she exhibits the best potential to make things happen. You might have situations that arise that require the student bring in funding sources. Person A might apply and get it whereas Person B would not even think to apply for those funds or not really care as long as they excel at their science. Person B is who I'd consider truly genuine at the highest level for what they do, but Person A could be equally genuine and also know how to navigate life better. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
This isn't directed at you, but I always feel like the people who get publications and then say that people who don't have publications just aren't working hard enough don't realize how lucky they got. They by no means didn't work hard or anything, but I feel like they don't realize not everyone's project works immediately/moves at the same rate and not everyone has a great mentor who believes that undergrads can contribute meaningfully. There's nothing wrong with getting help (Everyone needs help sometimes) but for people that get less of it, especially when they're starting out, they will obviously move more slowly.
This is oddly reminiscent of the (annoying) URM debates on SDN. Opportunity comes in all shapes and sizes, and those with the opportunity rarely recognize it. People tend to think their accomplishments are completely theirs and they oversee the luck that went into it. In the case of publications, it can be all luck or all hard work and talent, but it's a poor metric because of it.

The difference in lab atmospheres is enormous. A buddy of mine entered a lab that published prolifically and whose PI took pride in having never had an undergrad come through who didn't publish. After being put on a project nearly at its end, he was quickly given a 3rd authorship and then his own project, which he then had 2 years to complete. The PI met with him for an hour weekly to advise him, and he published a first author paper along with two other undergrads. Meanwhile, another girl I know who is just as capable, if not more capable, entered a lab in a field where most grad students finish in 6 years with 2-3 pubs, sometimes only 1 of those is 1st author. The PI rarely met with her because she was just an undergrad, and she had difficulty ordering what she needed and moving forward with experiments so things moved slowly. She got great experience and completely ran her own experiments. She could tell you every tiny detail of the research, she could identify what made for a good or bad paper in her field, and she could generate new (good) ideas on her own for how to move her research forward. Were she in the other lab, she almost definitely would have generated a paper or two. Both of these students were extremely capable, both learned the research process and accomplished a lot, but only one of them will look good to an admissions committee that looks to publications as a primary measure of undergrad productivity.

People complain about different majors being more or less difficult, but this is a far larger issue of discrepancy.
 
Last edited:
This is such a GREAT thread. A total joy to read and think about.

I want to address Dr. Zoidberg's list of reasons to go for MD/PhD. Specifically the following two:

2) You enjoy clinical medicine, but aspire to create change on a more fundamental level rather than on a case-by-case basis. A doctor treats a single patient at a time, but a researcher can notably improve the treatment of millions if he/she helps develop a new drug/therapy or the knowledge base that leads to new drugs/therapy.
3) You're primarily a researcher who wants to inform his/her research with clinical experience, thereby increasing your efficiency by properly addressing the needs of the field.
To what degree do these two things actually happen? These were the reasons I was originally interested in MD/PhD, but I've recently found myself shy away from it. One of the reasons being that I had gathered the impression that these two reasons are appealing, but lofty, largely unrealized ideals. I've often read that "bench to bedside" is little more than a buzzword.

Again, AWESOME thread.
 
I want to address Dr. Zoidberg's list of reasons to go for MD/PhD. Specifically the following two:

2) You enjoy clinical medicine, but aspire to create change on a more fundamental level rather than on a case-by-case basis. A doctor treats a single patient at a time, but a researcher can notably improve the treatment of millions if he/she helps develop a new drug/therapy or the knowledge base that leads to new drugs/therapy.
3) You're primarily a researcher who wants to inform his/her research with clinical experience, thereby increasing your efficiency by properly addressing the needs of the field.
To what degree do these two things actually happen? These were the reasons I was originally interested in MD/PhD, but I've recently found myself shy away from it. One of the reasons being that I had gathered the impression that these two reasons are appealing, but lofty, largely unrealized ideals. I've often read that "bench to bedside" is little more than a buzzword.
2) This rarely actually happens. It's the possibility of it happening that keeps you going, or you just like the idea of adding a small contribution to something larger than yourself rather than a large contribution to something much smaller (a single patient + family). It's like asking how often someone wins the Nobel prize. I still find the possibility of making that huge difference to be a powerful motivator. For others, they need to see more immediate results. They tend to go clinical.

3) This, on the other hand, is real. This is very, very, real. I'm a researcher at a startup company that came out of a med school (there are a million of these nowadays...). I've been fortunate enough to interact with a ton of other companies through my position, and they are painfully out of touch with the clinical applications. This is the typical formula:

-Awesome research is done in the lab.
-One of the researchers (post-doc, grad student, or professor) decide to start a spinoff company, OR pharma/biotech notices you and tries to license the technology with a development deal within the uni.
-They get a bunch of funding (state/federal), OR start developing with pharma and begin to commercialize.
-They realize that there is a glaring flaw in their technology because of x, y, and z after talking to the clinicians who would implement the treatment (clinicians are likely to point out logistical flaws, reimbursement issues, or even problems in patients' attitudes).
-They completely change the indication (years of research on disease X, and rarely, very rarely, does the drug/technology actually get developed for disease X) to something more treatment friendly or something more likely to hit trial endpoints. Whether or not that other, better suited indication exists is entirely luck. So basically the approach now is to find a drug that does "something" and hope it has a good indication, since we rarely land on the intended disease, but rather related diseases.

And don't get me started on medical devices...

Bench to bedside is a buzzword because people rarely make it work, but it's a gaping hole in research. Most new drugs/therapies aren't breakthroughs. Technology just goes from "hot" to "didn't pan out" (*cough* nanotechnology *cough*) and people lose faith (hoping immunotherapy isn't next on that list). Nearly all new drugs are the same old biologics and small molecules we've known and loved for generations, many of them are simply old drugs re purposed to new diseases. Some of this is because the science is tricky and doesn't work correctly in humans, but a big portion of it is also that it's largely being developed without the clinical (and manufacturing) atmosphere in mind. This is why I felt an engineering undergrad and an MD/PhD post graduate degree would be perfect for research in new therapies. You get all sides of the issue. Engineering for manufacturing and industry considerations, PhD for the basic science, and MD for the clinical considerations.
 
Above all else the number 1 motivator for me is that the MD/PhDs and MD researchers are simply more passionate than PhD researchers. It's a really subjective observation, but it's palpable. I've seen these people coming out of their offices red in the face practically shouting, not at any particular person, but because the treatments aren't coming, because it's been years and years and the treatments just aren't coming. They're watching patient after patient suffer and somewhere in their lab is the answer, but it's so hard, or even impossible, to find.

I mean, I want a job that's going to make me red in the face like that. I want to be motivated by real patients and not by H-index, Nobel Prizes, or NIH grant funding. I'm currently working on a disease that my Grandmom suffers from. It's no sob story, but every time I see her she asks me how it's coming along, and I have no idea how to tell her how difficult it is, and how unlikely it is she'll ever see the end product. Sometimes it makes me sad, but it also makes me love my job. That's why I want to be a physician scientist, and not just one or the other.
 
Top