MD/PhD vs PhD opinions from an MD/PhD resident

[Palaver87]

I talked to an MD/PhD resident at a top school (wont mention for anonymity) today about the pros and cons of going MD/PhD instead of PhD. The following are not exact quotes but just the gist of the convo. He said -


Pros
1. Easier access to special patients for his research

2. Carries street credit with MD's (e.g. could get easier access to perform trials in a clinical research center than a PhD)

3. Financial and academic stability -
"If you drop out science as a PhD, you can get pulled off track, and it's hard to get back."
"When I was an undergrad in a lab, I remember graduate students complaining about what they will do after they graduate. This is not really an issue with an MD/PhD"

4. Translational research is easier to do
"You can do translational research as a PhD, but you're going to need a clinician around at some point. It's just easier if you are that clinician"



Cons
1. He feels old (if he did PhD only, he would be ending his postdoc and applying to junior faculty positions by now)
"I think your most productive years are between 25-35. I am in my early 30's (exact age not mentioned for anonymity) right now and I'm still only beginning my residency..."

2. MD requirements hold him back from doing science
Examples he mentioned:
Had to learn about topics he is not interested in in medical school - "Enough about the kidney"
Intensive clinical-only times during residency - "you become zombie-like for months"

3. MD is a watered-down science
"Learning about how certain receptors or organs work is fine, but science is more... intellectual. In science, you ask questions like how can I test this? What is the best way to approach this problem? How can I improve upon this technique? etc. rather than just learning about how things work from a textbook"





I would like some opinions about these issues from you guys. I am debating applying PhD or MD/PhD, and the time to decide is coming soon for me.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Neuronix]

I think that's a pretty good summary, I would add:

Cons
2. MD requirements hold him back from doing science
Examples he mentioned:
Had to learn about topics he is not interested in in medical school - "Enough about the kidney"
Intensive clinical-only times during residency - "you become zombie-like for months"

As part of that, continued pressure to do clinical work even at the professor level unless you are big name and bring in a lot of grant money OR are in a really money losing specialty.

Other cons:

Decreased pay, but increased hours and decreased job security in your area of interest. This is better than straight PhD, worse than straight MD.

Loss of flexibility and long training times. Maybe this doesn't bother you yet, but it has been a huge strain on me. MDs train for 4 years and then unless you're going into something uber competitive or must be at a top place, you are free to move onto just about anywhere you want. Similarly, when you get a job, you have a lot of flexibility and mobility to work where and for as many hours as you want to (depending on specialty of course).

MD/PhDs sit in one place for 7-8 years, then compete for very competitive training positions, then have to compete for very competitive professor positions. Once you have that your career really dictates your hours, your location, etc... I'm finding that your personal life can either revolve completely around you or you can just have no personal life. Joy!

 

[j-weezy]

Other cons:

Decreased pay, but increased hours and decreased job security in your area of interest. This is better than straight PhD, worse than straight MD.

by area of interest do you mean only medical? Because according to grant funding rates, MD/PhDs do better than MDs and PhDs (at least in rate of getting first grant funded) - which may relate to increased job security at the academic level....

 

[Shunwei]

The M.D.-Ph.D. is not worth it, in my opinion. On the surface, it provides you with dual degrees and to many that looks good . . . . on paper. Until you realize that upon graduation, you still need additional training in both
fields in order to do anything with it: you need to do a serious postdoc in order to specialize further and to know how to run your own lab (and besides, the postdoc is a virtual necessity nowadays given that fresh graduates are essentially unemployable), and you also need a residency if you want to use that M.D. Together, the M.D./Ph.D. will require an insane amount of time, with about 8 years being the avearage for the M.D./Ph.D. start alone. Tack on another 7-8 years for both the Postdoc and residency, and I think the time investment is insane.

There are several advantages with the M.D./Ph.D., from what I know. It is easier getting grant nowadays as a physician scientist, and the grants you get will usually be greater than Ph.D. alone. Because of this, your pay will also be correspondingly higher, since a part of your grant funds your salary. Finally, from what I hear the tuition is usually waived if you go this route. However, given the current glut of scientists in the field already, I don't think this combo is a wise thing to do. I also don't think that these M.D./Ph.D., DO/Ph.D., or whatever, are "real" Ph.D.'s because the requirements for these joint degrees are often too lax. In the long run, these specialized and compartmented doctorates are just going to exacerbate the already horrific conditions of the biomedical research field.

 

[Picklesali]

There are several advantages with the M.D./Ph.D., from what I know. It is easier getting grant nowadays as a physician scientist, and the grants you get will usually be greater than Ph.D. alone. Because of this, your pay will also be correspondingly higher, since a part of your grant funds your salary. Finally, from what I hear the tuition is usually waived if you go this route. However, given the current glut of scientists in the field already, I don't think this combo is a wise thing to do. I also don't think that these M.D./Ph.D., DO/Ph.D., or whatever, are "real" Ph.D.'s because the requirements for these joint degrees are often too lax. In the long run, these specialized and compartmented doctorates are just going to exacerbate the already horrific conditions of the biomedical research field.

Well, on all the interviews I have been on, the average time of the PhD is 4 years which if you tack on 1 year that's covered by you medical coursework you are at 5 years which is a normal length of time for a biomedical PhD. Is that a cheap PhD?

 

[Neuronix]

by area of interest do you mean only medical? Because according to grant funding rates, MD/PhDs do better than MDs and PhDs (at least in rate of getting first grant funded) - which may relate to increased job security at the academic level....

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/11/1343/JOC50107F3

According to this figure MD/PhDs are pretty much on a level playing field with other degrees nowadays for percentage of first major grants funded (Ley, Rosenberg JAMA 2005; 294: 1343-51). I have seen some data showing that MD/PhDs are more successful at getting their first little K grants funded. Those don't at all establish a career. You need to move up to the bigger grants if you want to have a job in science, and that's where I'm always hearing the most troubles come. Of course, I'll hit this point around the age of 40, when I should be well established in any other profession.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/7/836/TABLEJOC32232T2

According to this MD/PhDs are no more successful at getting R01s than other degree types (Kotchen, et Al JAMA 2004; 291: 836-43), and these are the main career defining grants. We do also know that MD/PhDs take longer to their first R01 than MD or PhD alone.

 

[Shunwei]

Well, on all the interviews I have been on, the average time of the PhD is 4 years which if you tack on 1 year that's covered by you medical coursework you are at 5 years which is a normal length of time for a biomedical PhD. Is that a cheap PhD?

This is a sticky subject because I understand that no one wants their degree to be called "cheap," but I am just calling a spade a spade according to the vast consensus in the Ph.D. field. Too often we see our physician colleagues display an inability to run a lab properly, or have trouble getting the most out of their research. Funny thing is, if you talk to a lot of them they seem to tacitly agree to this as well.

I should also point out that the averag length of a biomedical Ph.D. nowadays is actually close to seven years, not five.

 

[jlamacc1]

This is a sticky subject because I understand that no one wants their degree to be called "cheap," but I am just calling a spade a spade according to the vast consensus in the Ph.D. field. Too often we see our physician colleagues display an inability to run a lab properly, or have trouble getting the most out of their research. Funny thing is, if you talk to a lot of them they seem to tacitly agree to this as well.

I should also point out that the averag length of a biomedical Ph.D. nowadays is actually close to seven years, not five.

I agree that an MD/PhD may be excessive if a career confined strictly to research is desired. I also don't doubt that there are many researchers with an MD who are not able to run their lab as smoothly as a PhD-only due to time constraints, competing interests, etc. However, the MD/PhD track is not designed to train mere biomedical researchers but rather physician-scientists whose job is to translate progress in basic science into relevant clinical applications. Now it may sound like I've been drinking the MSTP kool-aid a bit too much, but I really believe that there are advantages to having both degrees, and that these advantages lie at the clinical-basic science interface. So while an MD/PhD may be a little out of place in the lab, and a little out of place in the clinic, his/her niche is the ability to traverse from one arena to the other.
As far as the PhD training in an MSTP is concerned, it is absolutely full-on due to the fact that MSTs are usually subject to the exact same graduate school requirements within their respective departments and are not fast-tracked in any way. In other words, an MSTP Structural Bio student is indistinguishable in any way from his PhD-only counterpart while in grad school.

 

[Shunwei]

I agree that an MD/PhD may be excessive if a career confined strictly to research is desired. I also don't doubt that there are many researchers with an MD who are not able to run their lab as smoothly as a PhD-only due to time constraints, competing interests, etc. However, the MD/PhD track is not designed to train mere biomedical researchers but rather physician-scientists whose job is to translate progress in basic science into relevant clinical applications. Now it may sound like I've been drinking the MSTP kool-aid a bit too much, but I really believe that there are advantages to having both degrees, and that these advantages lie at the clinical-basic science interface. So while an MD/PhD may be a little out of place in the lab, and a little out of place in the clinic, his/her niche is the ability to traverse from one arena to the other.
As far as the PhD training in an MSTP is concerned, it is absolutely full-on due to the fact that MSTs are usually subject to the exact same graduate school requirements within their respective departments and are not fast-tracked in any way. In other words, an MSTP Structural Bio student is indistinguishable in any way from his PhD-only counterpart while in grad school.

Actually, once you get into the field (and I am assuming that you are interested in doing so) you will see that the advantages a physician scientists brings to the table are very minimal. There is nothing really that a M.D./Ph.D. can do that a Ph.D. can't--and I am saying this in all earnestness and from years of experience of watching and collaborating with my M.D./Ph.D. colleagues. My ideal situation would be to not split hairs and issue these associated Ph.D.s (DDS/PhD, MD/PhD, etc.) because a Ph.D.s can easily collaborate with a colleague in any field of interest. After all, the definition of a PhD is not really a hyperspecialization in any field but it is a Doctor of Philosophy certificate that shows that you have the mental ability to think and cogitate, which is the most important determinant of research ability. Not to mention that fact that the biomedical research field is fast approaching chaos and hell with the employment and funding situation, and the addition of these kinds of Ph.D.'s only adds fuel to the impending disaster.

Rather than have people traverse the different fields but in the end being an expert in none, I think it is much better to have specialists working together. That's what science is all about--collaboration among colleagues, etc. I have seen a lot of M.D./Ph.D.'s set up their own labs knowing very little how to run it, or have their standards lowered dramatically: in these situations, the advantages are vastly outweighed by the quality of research done.

 

[tbo]

Actually, once you get into the field (and I am assuming that you are interested in doing so) you will see that the advantages a physician scientists brings to the table are very minimal. There is nothing really that a M.D./Ph.D. can do that a Ph.D. can't--and I am saying this in all earnestness and from years of experience of watching and collaborating with my M.D./Ph.D. colleagues. My ideal situation would be to not split hairs and issue these associated Ph.D.s (DDS/PhD, MD/PhD, etc.) because a Ph.D.s can easily collaborate with a colleague in any field of interest. After all, the definition of a PhD is not really a hyperspecialization in any field but it is a Doctor of Philosophy certificate that shows that you have the mental ability to think and cogitate, which is the most important determinant of research ability. Not to mention that fact that the biomedical research field is fast approaching chaos and hell with the employment and funding situation, and the addition of these kinds of Ph.D.'s only adds fuel to the impending disaster.

Rather than have people traverse the different fields but in the end being an expert in none, I think it is much better to have specialists working together. That's what science is all about--collaboration among colleagues, etc. I have seen a lot of M.D./Ph.D.'s set up their own labs knowing very little how to run it, or have their standards lowered dramatically: in these situations, the advantages are vastly outweighed by the quality of research done.

Shunwei, while I generally disagree with your comments, I think you present logical, compelling arguments. I suppose we are shaped by our collective experiences and formulate our opinions based on the data at hand. My experience on the topic is that having an MD/PhD is a case of Your Miles May Vary. Not all MD/PhDs know what they are doing (eg. running a lab) but the same holds true of PhDs. There are a few things that from what I've seen make an MD/PhD worthwhile to some.

First, I've seen how some MDs really don't know how to "think and cogitate" scientifically to use your words. I may even fit some of my colleagues (whom I have the utmost respect for) into this category. And the respect that I have for them centers around one primary thing. They know what questions are worth investigating. They see it day in and day out. They understand the deep nuance that is involved in any physiologic endeavor. That is their bread and butter.

Your counter is that we should all collaborate with experts. Based on what I've seen, that simply doesn't happen. Doctors are notoriously independent and autonomous. They do NOT want to work with others. I bet if you did an analysis of the # of interdisciplinary departments on author lists of prestigious journals (interventional radiology and cardiology, medicine and surgeons), you would find 1 department to be the overwhelming majority. I've been at three research organizations in the past few years and I can't think of any reasonably smooth collaborations between scientists (MDs and PhDs) and statisticians. Sadly (for most of us), big pharma would beat out the two academic settings that I speak of.

My opinion is that the MD/PhD affords a researcher the ability to both ask fruitful questions and have the ability to delve into them scientifically. There's no question there's a place for this type of researcher. I think you're right that you still need to be able to think, but our ability to think and cogitate should have been tested in college. An MD/PhD is a program to enable practical discovery.

 

[Shunwei]

Shunwei, while I generally disagree with your comments, I think you present logical, compelling arguments. I suppose we are shaped by our collective experiences and formulate our opinions based on the data at hand. My experience on the topic is that having an MD/PhD is a case of Your Miles May Vary. Not all MD/PhDs know what they are doing (eg. running a lab) but the same holds true of PhDs. There are a few things that from what I've seen make an MD/PhD worthwhile to some.

First, I've seen how some MDs really don't know how to "think and cogitate" scientifically to use your words. I may even fit some of my colleagues (whom I have the utmost respect for) into this category. And the respect that I have for them centers around one primary thing. They know what questions are worth investigating. They see it day in and day out. They understand the deep nuance that is involved in any physiologic endeavor. That is their bread and butter.

Your counter is that we should all collaborate with experts. Based on what I've seen, that simply doesn't happen. Doctors are notoriously independent and autonomous. They do NOT want to work with others. I bet if you did an analysis of the # of interdisciplinary departments on author lists of prestigious journals (interventional radiology and cardiology, medicine and surgeons), you would find 1 department to be the overwhelming majority. I've been at three research organizations in the past few years and I can't think of any reasonably smooth collaborations between scientists (MDs and PhDs) and statisticians. Sadly (for most of us), big pharma would beat out the two academic settings that I speak of.

My opinion is that the MD/PhD affords a researcher the ability to both ask fruitful questions and have the ability to delve into them scientifically. There's no question there's a place for this type of researcher. I think you're right that you still need to be able to think, but our ability to think and cogitate should have been tested in college. An MD/PhD is a program to enable practical discovery.

Actually, one's ability to think is not, in my opinion, cultivated in college. That was more for rote learning, and even if creative thinking was involved, it was confined to the limits of didactics. What I was trying to get at with my posts is that the MD/PhD has distinct benefits and drawbacks. And while I agree that in theory physician scientists can be an asset to the field, in practice I see quite a few drawbacks. I had many friends who worked either as PhD or MD/PhD students in physician scientists labs, and more often than not it was quite dissatisfying to them. Either the PI was hard to get a hold of to get face time (always busy either attending or doing other stuff outside of the lab), or the PI did not understand the academia well enough to provide good mentoring advice (as a hybrid degree holder).

Although you are right in that there are Ph.D's that manage their labs badly, generally though you find these folks better at managing a research
"sweatshop" than the physician scientists. Collaboration is always a thorny issue to some folks because of the ego and authorship issues, but if such a thing has existed in the field from Day 1 then I'd say it's do-able between a PhD scientist and a MD, especially given the latter should, in theory, have good people skills. Ideally, what I envision as a good solution is not to train hybrid scientists, but have PhD's work closely with healthcare professionals with the latter acting as consultants/advisors on certain topics in clinical/translational research.

As mentioned before, I think one advantage with the MD/PhD is its ability to procure grants in the current research climate. On the face of it, an indiscriminating individual might attribute this to the MD/PhD degree--until he/she realizes that PhD's who work in translational or clinical research also gets funding more easily. I would argue, then, it's actually the topics that determine the ease of procuring grant money. I seriously doubt, though, that this grant-seeking advantage will last.

However, having said that, I honestly can't recommend anyone right now to pursue either the MD/PhD or the PhD route. Science has been contaminated by too many factors beyond the control of any one single person (although I hold organizations like the NSF and NIH responsible for the mess), and it is a jungle out there. Anyone who wants to pursue research for a living should understand this before investing so much time into the endeavor. I will just leave it at that.

 

[QofQuimica]

This is a sticky subject because I understand that no one wants their degree to be called "cheap," but I am just calling a spade a spade according to the vast consensus in the Ph.D. field. Too often we see our physician colleagues display an inability to run a lab properly, or have trouble getting the most out of their research. Funny thing is, if you talk to a lot of them they seem to tacitly agree to this as well.

I should also point out that the averag length of a biomedical Ph.D. nowadays is actually close to seven years, not five.

If you know a lot of PhDs, one thing you also ought to know is that there is very little consensus about anything regarding graduate education. Ask ten PhDs their opinions, and you'll get twelve answers.

My personal opinion (as a PhD who is now going to medical school) is that MD/PhD programs differ in training quality, just as PhD programs do. Even within the same program, some PIs are much better mentors and scientists than others are. You can't categorically say that any 4-5 year PhD isn't equivalent to any 6-7 year PhD; it depends on the individual student and the science s/he has done. The length of PhDs varies greatly depending on where one does their training; in Europe, it is quite common for PhDs to be done in 3-4 years. (Apparently they can do this because they don't take classes for a couple of years like we do.) There is also an element of serendipity involved. One person might make an interesting discovery early on, while another might slave away for eight years trying to get a project to work. One of my labmates took ten years to graduate, but I don't think most people would argue that his PhD is any better than other labmates who finished in half the time. He just spent a lot of time floundering around. This is why I believe it is key to be working on a few projects at once; some are not going to work. After all, as you suggested, this is research and not didactic coursework where we know all the answers.

 

[pseudoknot]

The length of PhDs varies greatly depending on where one does their training; in Europe, it is quite common for PhDs to be done in 3-4 years. (Apparently they can do this because they don't take classes for a couple of years like we do.)

Of course, in Europe they also start with the equivalent of a master's degree. So much for shortcuts!

 

[RxnMan]

I was under the impression that PhDs outside of Bio-Med took 4-5 years on average. There were some rocks in my graduate department, but the majority of students at my school got out in 4-5. That's straight out of college.

The hard science folks I knew were funded by NREL and the NSF, which have higher grant success rates than the NIH, and they got out faster. Does heightened grant competition push advisors to hold onto students? (lower student turnover -> higher quality student -> more pubs -> more grant money)

I think it's crazy that Bio PhDs will spend 6-7-8 years before being awarded their degree. The PhD is a marker of critical thinking ability, and it doesn't take 7 or 8 years to develop that. Will the extra 2 years produce a better researcher? Sure, but that's because they've got two more years experience. Putting it another way: what does a 8-yr PhD have, that a 4-yr PhD with 4 years of post-doc experience doesn't?

 

[QofQuimica]

Of course, in Europe they also start with the equivalent of a master's degree. So much for shortcuts!

A lot of other countries let students go straight to med school after high school, too.

 

[pseudoknot]

A lot of other countries let students go straight to med school after high school, too.

I guess you and I felt that we needed a bit of extra preparation

 

[GeoLeoX]

first of all let me wear my years on my sleeve - 5 years of grad school, 3 years of post-doc, 4 years of medical school, 3.5 years of residency (so far with only .5 of that left). in interest of full-disclosure i wanted you to see that i have a dog in this fight.

it's a long road, but i regret nothing. i have had experiences that my colleagues from neither grad school nor medical school will. at this point i feel like i am starting to fit the niche where i would like to be. i approach things in a manner unlike my research friends or my medicine friends. many of the arguments made in this thread have been subjective. i wouldn't go to medical school unless you want to be a physician. many of my MD/PhD friends "suffered" through medical school because they didn't really want to be there (in the same vein, many also dropped out of the PhD program and went back to medical school). in the end you have to decide what's right for you.

nuff said.

 

[Sulfinator]

many of the arguments made in this thread have been subjective. i wouldn't go to medical school unless you want to be a physician. many of my MD/PhD friends "suffered" through medical school because they didn't really want to be there (in the same vein, many also dropped out of the PhD program and went back to medical school). in the end you have to decide what's right for you.

nuff said.

Well said, well said. I think this has been the best contribution to this thread so far.

 

[NickMB]

There's lots of talk about MD vs PhD, but what about MD + research but no PhD?

I really love research, and I have always wanted to go into an MD/PhD program, but of course there's always the possibility of not being accepted into an MD/PhD program, and chances of that are higher than being admitted to a straight MD program. I always like to keep my options open

Now, I know lots of MD-only graduates who do research just like the MD/PhD graduates. So thinking long term, would it be recommended to take the MD route and do summer/year off research fellowships? Would that help me continue research after graduation/during a neurology residency? Are there any MD-only PI's out there (who obviously have done research before)?

 

[GeoLeoX]

There's lots of talk about MD vs PhD, but what about MD + research but no PhD?

Of course there are many MD PIs out there. I have worked for a few. Speaking in broad strokes MDs do not get the same research training (if any) as PhDs. Graduate school is a very different place than medical school and the training is very different. Some of the skills that I accumulated in graduate school can't be had in medical school (at least not to the degree as one has in grad school). I was a TA, graded papers, taught undergrads, wrote several papers/theses, developed a hands-on appreciation of the scientific method, suffered through committee meetings, lab meetings, etc., etc.

You have to decide what your focus will be. If you want to spend the majority of your time in research then I highly recommend the PhD (whether alone or in combination with the MD). If you would like to do research on the side while maintaining a practice, then perhaps a PhD may not be as necessary.

One of my advisors in medical school (and a MD/PhD himself) used to refer to the MD/PhD degree as "if you are selling it, I am buying". I think that the combined degree is a wonderful opportunity to be able to approach medicine as a scientist and science as a clinician.

G

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Actually, once you get into the field (and I am assuming that you are interested in doing so) you will see that the advantages a physician scientists brings to the table are very minimal. There is nothing really that a M.D./Ph.D. can do that a Ph.D. can't--and I am saying this in all earnestness and from years of experience of watching and collaborating with my M.D./Ph.D. colleagues. My ideal situation would be to not split hairs and issue these associated Ph.D.s (DDS/PhD, MD/PhD, etc.) because a Ph.D.s can easily collaborate with a colleague in any field of interest. After all, the definition of a PhD is not really a hyperspecialization in any field but it is a Doctor of Philosophy certificate that shows that you have the mental ability to think and cogitate, which is the most important determinant of research ability. Not to mention that fact that the biomedical research field is fast approaching chaos and hell with the employment and funding situation, and the addition of these kinds of Ph.D.'s only adds fuel to the impending disaster.

Rather than have people traverse the different fields but in the end being an expert in none, I think it is much better to have specialists working together. That's what science is all about--collaboration among colleagues, etc. I have seen a lot of M.D./Ph.D.'s set up their own labs knowing very little how to run it, or have their standards lowered dramatically: in these situations, the advantages are vastly outweighed by the quality of research done.

This is an absurd post. Philosophy? I hope you don't delude yourself into thinking that ANY PhD nowadays has anything to do with philosophy. The ancient philosophers "loved" knowledge as a whole - from the natural philosophy (what we call science) and logic, to metaphysics and ethics. A modern PhD in Philosophy, for instance, will currently focus on the influence of Hegel on Marx; a PhD in English will focus on lesbian poets of the Victorian age and their agitations for suffrage; a PhD in Chemistry will focus on characterizing the physical and chemical properties of a novel compound (Q, correct me on this, but I think the general gist is accurate). There is no "philosophy" here - very little synthesis indeed. I'm not trying to insult PhD's (I will be insulting myself, of course, also), but I really think the PhD itself is almost a glorified technical degree - you learn how to give a talk, to present data, statistical analyses, how to write a paper, how to write a grant, how to critique the literature, appropriate experimental controls, laboratory techniques, "novel" directions in research from current data, etc. The PhD has now become so specialized that it inevitably loses sight of the deeper questions: "what is life?" "what is energy?" "what is the nature of an element?" "what is time?" "what is self/non-self (a definition, not a collection of prescriptions and descriptions)?" In the strenuous attempts to produce that flashy experiment with the flashy technique and plaster it into Nature/Science, we easily lose sight of the "bigger picture" (I know it's a stereotype to use these words, but here they are most appropriate).

Given what the PhD has become, I bear no illusion that it will "teach me how to think." Logical algorithms and experimental controls may be taught, but creativity cannot be. The application of the mathematical/empirical juggernaut to nature can only do so much - string theory and microarrays have demonstrated as much. What is lacking is a creative spark. Medicine may not generate that spark, but at least it provides an additional substance on which the "practice of science" can operate - something the super-specialized PhDs do not have. I think this is the utility of the MD/PhD.

Also, I think the 8 year PhDs are absurd and inhumane (barring circumstances in which it is a question of the student not putting in the required work, of course). It's a credential, not indentured servitude, and it should be treated as such.

 

[GeoLeoX]

This is an absurd post.

This should liven things up a bit in this thread. I had hoped that the original poster would be able to see past the opinions of someone who has formed them "from years of experience of watching and collaborating with my M.D./Ph.D. colleagues".

 

[Shunwei]

This is an absurd post. Philosophy? I hope you don't delude yourself into thinking that ANY PhD nowadays has anything to do with philosophy. The ancient philosophers "loved" knowledge as a whole - from the natural philosophy (what we call science) and logic, to metaphysics and ethics. A modern PhD in Philosophy, for instance, will currently focus on the influence of Hegel on Marx; a PhD in English will focus on lesbian poets of the Victorian age and their agitations for suffrage; a PhD in Chemistry will focus on characterizing the physical and chemical properties of a novel compound (Q, correct me on this, but I think the general gist is accurate). There is no "philosophy" here - very little synthesis indeed. I'm not trying to insult PhD's (I will be insulting myself, of course, also), but I really think the PhD itself is almost a glorified technical degree - you learn how to give a talk, to present data, statistical analyses, how to write a paper, how to write a grant, how to critique the literature, appropriate experimental controls, laboratory techniques, "novel" directions in research from current data, etc. The PhD has now become so specialized that it inevitably loses sight of the deeper questions: "what is life?" "what is energy?" "what is the nature of an element?" "what is time?" "what is self/non-self (a definition, not a collection of prescriptions and descriptions)?" In the strenuous attempts to produce that flashy experiment with the flashy technique and plaster it into Nature/Science, we easily lose sight of the "bigger picture" (I know it's a stereotype to use these words, but here they are most appropriate).

Given what the PhD has become, I bear no illusion that it will "teach me how to think." Logical algorithms and experimental controls may be taught, but creativity cannot be. The application of the mathematical/empirical juggernaut to nature can only do so much - string theory and microarrays have demonstrated as much. What is lacking is a creative spark. Medicine may not generate that spark, but at least it provides an additional substance on which the "practice of science" can operate - something the super-specialized PhDs do not have. I think this is the utility of the MD/PhD.

Also, I think the 8 year PhDs are absurd and inhumane (barring circumstances in which it is a question of the student not putting in the required work, of course). It's a credential, not indentured servitude, and it should be treated as such.

This is your opinion. Like the famous saying goes, opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one. I merely offered my point of view as someone who's been in the field a long time (and how long have you been in there?). No need to get hyper about all of this.

And I don't know why you are getting so amped up about the word Philosophy. If you know what the degree Ph.D. stands for, you should know that the degree is "Doctor of Philosophy." That is the name of the degree. Frankly, I think you have just lost yourself in lala-land with all the stuff about Hegel or Marx (frankly, I didn't even finish your first paragraph) . . . . seems totally irrelevant to me (you sure you weren't drunk?). The very term of Ph.D. means that the scientists should be able to think . . . . . and have the ability to cogitate like a Philosopher, who have traditionally been attributed the ability to come up with original ideas. So I don't even know where or what you are thinking.

And Geo, don't get your popcorn ready for a slugfest. I am not into that kind of thing. A lot you guys are fresh college graduates who are enamored with the MD/PhD because you have glorified visions about becoming a Medical Doctor and be able to contribue to research as a Ph.D. as well. I have a feeling that many of you know very little about how Research actually works . . . . . remember it is very different working as an undergraduate researcher than as someone who does it professionally. All I am trying to say is that the MD/PhD is a heavy committment of time and effort that is not to be taken lightly, and that ultimately if research is absolutely what you want the dual degree is not necessary (either MD or PhD would be enough). Some of you may look back ten years later and realize that this is the best advice anyone can give you.

 

[GeoLeoX]

And Geo, don't get your popcorn ready for a slugfest. I am not into that kind of thing. A lot you guys are fresh college graduates who are enamored with the MD/PhD because you have glorified visions about becoming a Medical Doctor and be able to contribue to research as a Ph.D. as well. I have a feeling that many of you know very little about how Research actually works . . . . . remember it is very different working as an undergraduate researcher than as someone who does it professionally. All I am trying to say is that the MD/PhD is a heavy committment of time and effort that is not to be taken lightly, and that ultimately if research is absolutely what you want the dual degree is not necessary (either MD or PhD would be enough). Some of you may look back ten years later and realize that this is the best advice anyone can give you.

1. I did not intend to imply that I was "getting my popcorn ready for a slugfest". I would never bring popcorn to a slugfest, it's more of a Mike&Ike occasion.

2. I can just about guarantee that I know a lot more about this topic than you. Instead of watching others for however many years working toward their degrees I have been one of those people - over 15 years of research experience, thank you very much. I am a MD/PhD. I have done a post-doc. I am 6 months from completing a 4 year residency, as well. Et tu, Shunwei?

3. I completely agree with your last statements. As I stated before, do not go to medical school unless you want to be a physician. However, if you interested in translational research or other research with human subjects than a MD/PhD is a better way to go about it than the PhD. I do take exception to your denigration of the combined degree based on experiences you had watching MD/PhDs struggle, presumably during their research years, which any MD/PhD (or PhD for that matter) can attest can be among their most difficult.

 

[Shunwei]

1. I did not intend to imply that I was "getting my popcorn ready for a slugfest". I would never bring popcorn to a slugfest, it's more of a Mike&Ike occasion.

2. I can just about guarantee that I know a lot more about this topic than you. Instead of watching others for however many years working toward their degrees I have been one of those people - over 15 years of research experience, thank you very much. I am a MD/PhD. I have done a post-doc. I am 6 months from completing a 4 year residency, as well. Et tu, Shunwei?

3. I completely agree with your last statements. As I stated before, do not go to medical school unless you want to be a physician. However, if you interested in translational research or other research with human subjects than a MD/PhD is a better way to go about it than the PhD. I do take exception to your denigration of the combined degree based on experiences you had watching MD/PhDs struggle, presumably during their research years, which any MD/PhD (or PhD for that matter) can attest can be among their most difficult.

Good for you man. Keep honking your own horn. However, don't get too amped up about your own personal experiences just yet, though. My qualifications and publication record (# and impact level) are just as good as yours (or perhaps, just maybe, even better) Glad to hear that you are happy with your MD/PhD, but remember not everyone thinks the same. I am just offering my perspectives. Now go and have a cookie.

Obviously you can't hold a rational discussion without getting excessive blood to your head. I will let you have the last word on this. Just remember to breathe, ok?

 

[GeoLeoX]

Good for you man. Keep honking your own horn. However, don't get too amped up about your own personal experiences just yet, though. My qualifications and publication record (# and impact level) are just as good as yours (or perhaps, just maybe, even better) Glad to hear that you are happy with your MD/PhD, but remember not everyone thinks the same. I am just offering my perspectives. Now go and have a cookie.

Obviously you can't hold a rational discussion without getting excessive blood to your head.

You do bring up an excellent point - I am very happy with MD/PhD. I, too, am offering my opinions. Opinions about whether or not to take a PhD or a MD/PhD path toward one's goals. My qualifications to discuss this matter have been previously posted in this thread. If this were a discussion of publication impact, rather than personal satisfaction as I had read the initial post to mean perhaps your recent point would be well-taken.

Cool the vitriol, I am going to have my cookie. Then I am going to brush for the two minutes that the ADA recommends.

 

[Neuronix]

I'd like to point out to the applicants reading this thread that the arguments Shunwei are offering are very common among the PhD community towards MD/PhDs. You should think about them critically because it's not the last time you will hear them. As much as I hear MD/PhD students/applicants gripe about pre-meds/medical students/MDs, I have gotten far more criticism about my career choice from graduate students/PhDs. This began with professors at my undergrad, who were uniformly anti-MD/PhD, then from several PhD-only PIs at the MD/PhD program I joined, and then from PhD students/faculty in my lab. People with these opinions exist EVERYWHERE, not just at my program in some larger numbers.

Still, I am very involved with admissions at my program and I am struck by how few applicants know about that there is anti-MD/PhD sentiment out there. MD/PhD programs when recruiting you are not going to let you meet with PIs who aren't pro-MD/PhD. When you request PIs to interview with, sometimes you don't get them because they're unavailable, which is the standard answer. Very often you don't get them for other reasons, and one common reason is that they don't believe in MD/PhD and would tell you as much if you met with them. My advice is to keep both sides of these arguments in mind when choosing a lab and think about both sides of this argument so you have your own answers to these questions when the times arise.

I did get a PM recently asking me why I was posting so many negative things about MD/PhD and if things weren't going well for me. If someone PMed me to ask me this others must think I am also being anti-MD/PhD as of late. I am not. Things are actually going quite well for me professionally. In an attempt to be as moderate and unbiased as possible, I point things out that I think are incorrect. I will point them out on both sides if nobody else already has. Because this is an MD/PhD forum, the vast majority of the posters are very gung ho about MD/PhD. This is a good thing! But, I want everyone to know the realities of the greater community both so that we don't become isolated and also so that pre-meds make an informed decision about their careers.

So I welcome the spirited debate in this thread. Please respect each others opinions, present facts when at all possible, and don't let it get personal.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

This is your opinion. Like the famous saying goes, opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one. I merely offered my point of view as someone who's been in the field a long time (and how long have you been in there?). No need to get hyper about all of this.

And I don't know why you are getting so amped up about the word Philosophy. If you know what the degree Ph.D. stands for, you should know that the degree is "Doctor of Philosophy." That is the name of the degree. Frankly, I think you have just lost yourself in lala-land with all the stuff about Hegel or Marx (frankly, I didn't even finish your first paragraph) . . . . seems totally irrelevant to me (you sure you weren't drunk?). The very term of Ph.D. means that the scientists should be able to think . . . . . and have the ability to cogitate like a Philosopher, who have traditionally been attributed the ability to come up with original ideas. So I don't even know where or what you are thinking.

And Geo, don't get your popcorn ready for a slugfest. I am not into that kind of thing. A lot you guys are fresh college graduates who are enamored with the MD/PhD because you have glorified visions about becoming a Medical Doctor and be able to contribue to research as a Ph.D. as well. I have a feeling that many of you know very little about how Research actually works . . . . . remember it is very different working as an undergraduate researcher than as someone who does it professionally. All I am trying to say is that the MD/PhD is a heavy committment of time and effort that is not to be taken lightly, and that ultimately if research is absolutely what you want the dual degree is not necessary (either MD or PhD would be enough). Some of you may look back ten years later and realize that this is the best advice anyone can give you.

I don't have glorified visions of anything. In fact, my view of the "MD/PhD future" is quite more mundane than that of my colleagues. What I took issue with was your talk on philosophy and what the PhD means. It doesn't teach anyone "how to come up with original ideas" - as evidenced by the fact that science is progressing at an even rate over the past few centuries (or even in decline recently), and there is a plethora of PhDs at the present, and having that degree hasn't put an original thought in anyone's head. It merely gives one the apparatus to test ideas, but it doesn't inspire one with ideas. Furthermore, the hyperspecialization of science at present is, in my opinion, a great weakness, and one of the reasons why science has been in decline of late.

A degree in music composition can only teach you about harmony, counterpoint, and how to develop an idea. The "original thought" comes from within and cannot be taught.

 

[RxnMan]

I don't have glorified visions of anything. In fact, my view of the "MD/PhD future" is quite more mundane than that of my colleagues. What I took issue with was your talk on philosophy and what the PhD means. It doesn't teach anyone "how to come up with original ideas" - as evidenced by the fact that science is progressing at an even rate over the past few centuries (or even in decline recently), and there is a plethora of PhDs at the present, and having that degree hasn't put an original thought in anyone's head. It merely gives one the apparatus to test ideas, but it doesn't inspire one with ideas. Furthermore, the hyperspecialization of science at present is, in my opinion, a great weakness, and one of the reasons why science has been in decline of late.

A degree in music composition can only teach you about harmony, counterpoint, and how to develop an idea. The "original thought" comes from within and cannot be taught.

Having a degree means that you completed a program, the requirements of which means you have competency at least a base set of skills. A skill that a PhD should give you is the ability to think critically - look at a statement, come up with your own rejection or acceptance of the statement, or reserve judgement until you have more information (by further testing, etc). It does not take 8 years to instill this talent, and keeping anyone longer (in my mind) is either by student laziness, the PI holding onto students longer than they should, or the need for a larger CV that the current funding environment fosters.

In that vein, longer PhD =/= equal better, so saying that the PhD component of a MD/PhD is less than a sole-PhD is more bias than fact.

I don't know where the "originality" discussion came from, and may have been confused with the above. PhD is a doctorate in philosophy, and scientists used to be referred to as "natural philosophers" (probably because they posited reasons for then-untestable natural phenomena). I don't think anyone here thinks that getting a degree will give you inspiration (for research, whatever) - finding good questions to investigate is everyone's personal challenge.

To NickMB - I have not looked at the numbers, but I would guess that by number of graduates alone, there are probably more MD grads doing research than MD/PhDs (rates of each is probably another story). Some of the MD researchers I've worked with wished that they had done the PhD. There are many different options out there - you touched on a few (year-off programs), but there are also the research residencies via Path/IM/Peds, as well as during fellowship.

Thanks to Neuronix for bringing an informed and balanced view.

 

[reine1jb]

I'd like to point out to the applicants reading this thread that the arguments Shunwei are offering are very common among the PhD community towards MD/PhDs. You should think about them critically because it's not the last time you will hear them. As much as I hear MD/PhD students/applicants gripe about pre-meds/medical students/MDs, I have gotten far more criticism about my career choice from graduate students/PhDs. This began with professors at my undergrad, who were uniformly anti-MD/PhD, then from several PhD-only PIs at the MD/PhD program I joined, and then from PhD students/faculty in my lab. People with these opinions exist EVERYWHERE, not just at my program in some larger numbers.

Still, I am very involved with admissions at my program and I am struck by how few applicants know about that there is anti-MD/PhD sentiment out there. MD/PhD programs when recruiting you are not going to let you meet with PIs who aren't pro-MD/PhD. When you request PIs to interview with, sometimes you don't get them because they're unavailable, which is the standard answer. Very often you don't get them for other reasons, and one common reason is that they don't believe in MD/PhD and would tell you as much if you met with them. My advice is to keep both sides of these arguments in mind when choosing a lab and think about both sides of this argument so you have your own answers to these questions when the times arise.

I did get a PM recently asking me why I was posting so many negative things about MD/PhD and if things weren't going well for me. If someone PMed me to ask me this others must think I am also being anti-MD/PhD as of late. I am not. Things are actually going quite well for me professionally. In an attempt to be as moderate and unbiased as possible, I point things out that I think are incorrect. I will point them out on both sides if nobody else already has. Because this is an MD/PhD forum, the vast majority of the posters are very gung ho about MD/PhD. This is a good thing! But, I want everyone to know the realities of the greater community both so that we don't become isolated and also so that pre-meds make an informed decision about their careers.

So I welcome the spirited debate in this thread. Please respect each others opinions, present facts when at all possible, and don't let it get personal.

It is funny that you say that your undergrad PhD professors were so against MD/PhD....I have met much of the same kind of attitudes from some of my professors. Also, as a pre-med club member, there was a time when an MD only doctor came and spoke and asked the eboard members what we wanted to do...I said I wanted to become a physician scientist and he completely made me feel like i was an idiot for wanting that and that it would be a complete waste of time and that MD should be clinical only...

Obviously while it was kind of rude for the doctor to make me feel that way I think it's just an inevitability of pursueing duel degrees and obviously as you have stated neuronix it comes from scientists and physicians alike...

 

[QofQuimica]

a PhD in Chemistry will focus on characterizing the physical and chemical properties of a novel compound (Q, correct me on this, but I think the general gist is accurate).

Oh, come on, I had to design the compounds too; I even did a little molecular modeling. Mad skillz I have, I tell ya.

Good for you man. Keep honking your own horn. However, don't get too amped up about your own personal experiences just yet, though. My qualifications and publication record (# and impact level) are just as good as yours (or perhaps, just maybe, even better) Glad to hear that you are happy with your MD/PhD, but remember not everyone thinks the same. I am just offering my perspectives. Now go and have a cookie.

Actually, Geo's credentials *are* relevant to this discussion. This person is a PhD who went to med school, and therefore s/he has personal experience with earning both (separate) degrees. Not that premeds and others who haven't attended grad or med school can't also comment, but knowing Geo's credentials does affect the weight I'd give to his/her opinion. If you have also completed your MD and/or PhD, it's perfectly reasonable for you to post here and say so. I'm really not sure what your pub record has to do with anything.

P.S. Cheers to Geo for being (I believe) the official oldest poster in this thread.

I'd like to point out to the applicants reading this thread that the arguments Shunwei are offering are very common among the PhD community towards MD/PhDs. You should think about them critically because it's not the last time you will hear them. As much as I hear MD/PhD students/applicants gripe about pre-meds/medical students/MDs, I have gotten far more criticism about my career choice from graduate students/PhDs. This began with professors at my undergrad, who were uniformly anti-MD/PhD, then from several PhD-only PIs at the MD/PhD program I joined, and then from PhD students/faculty in my lab. People with these opinions exist EVERYWHERE, not just at my program in some larger numbers.

This really surprises me. I have never heard any such thing over many years while attending two different grad schools, not even once. That being said, it may be that this is a nonissue among chemists, b/c not many of us become MD/PhDs.

So I welcome the spirited debate in this thread. Please respect each others opinions, present facts when at all possible, and don't let it get personal.

Agree. You don't have to personally attack someone to disagree with their opinion.

 

[tr]

What I took issue with was your talk on philosophy and what the PhD means. It doesn't teach anyone "how to come up with original ideas" - as evidenced by the fact that science is progressing at an even rate over the past few centuries (or even in decline recently), and there is a plethora of PhDs at the present, and having that degree hasn't put an original thought in anyone's head. It merely gives one the apparatus to test ideas, but it doesn't inspire one with ideas.

Right on. The PhD has become (as stated previously on this thread) a credential. Frankly the reason the PhDs are so long is because modern biology requires a lot of brute labor, the bulk of which is provided by PhDs and postdocs. The law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quickly wrt the educational value of research training.

My qualifications and publication record (# and impact level) are just as good as yours (or perhaps, just maybe, even better)

If you're so happy with your career why are you applying to dental school??

 

[GeoLeoX]

P.S. Cheers to Geo for being (I believe) the official oldest poster in this thread.

from MCAT prep and med school apps to 6 mos. from finishing residency. i appreciate the acknowledgement , but look at the dude above me here!

now why don't i have the 5+ year member thingie?

 

[RxnMan]

...now why don't i have the 5+ year member thingie?

There are posting requirements in addition to time requirements - so at ~480 posts, you've only done 2 years of posting. Time to pad it up.

 

[QofQuimica]

from MCAT prep and med school apps to 6 mos. from finishing residency. i appreciate the acknowledgement , but look at the dude above me here!

Heh, I was talking about your *chronological* age. This forum tends toward the young end; there aren't too many of us over 30. But based on your timetable, I estimate you have about five years on me. I'm pretty certain you're a guy now too--I saw you posted about being red-green colorblind in the path forum.

now why don't i have the 5+ year member thingie?

Like Rxnman said, you haven't posted enough to get it yet. I forget how many posts per year it takes, but once you reach that total, you'll be moved up. Obviously, you need to post in here more often!

 

[pseudoknot]

An admin said it was 100 posts/year to be considered an "active" member. That's a lot of padding!

 

[tr]

from MCAT prep and med school apps to 6 mos. from finishing residency. i appreciate the acknowledgement , but look at the dude above me here!

Uh, yeah. Not something I'm necessarily proud of. I think KimberliCox is the only one I've seen who's been around longer than I have. (In just under two years I'll be eligible for a 10-year member award... how scary is that?! )

I joined as an undergrad when I was applying to MD/PhD programs, popped in occasionally over my time in med and grad school (took me 7 years to break the 1K barrier, guess I'm not too far over the minimum requirement of 100 posts/year - although half of those probably happened while I was 'writing' my dissertation), and now I'm sailing smoothly through my intern year. I think you guys might beat me for chronological age, though.

 

[GeoLeoX]

Uh, yeah. Not something I'm necessarily proud of.

yeah, me too. i tend to lurk. you post too much and people learn too many things about you. like your gender however, i guess this qualifies as one of those "pads" toward upping my rating.

and to summarize - MD/PhD good.

 

[tr]

however, i guess this qualifies as one of those "pads" toward upping my rating.

 

[RxnMan]

yeah, me too. i tend to lurk. you post too much and people learn too many things about you. like your gender however, i guess this qualifies as one of those "pads" toward upping my rating.

and to summarize - MD/PhD good.

And this once-serious and productive discussion spirals into a blizzard of

 

[QofQuimica]

And this once-serious and productive discussion spirals into a blizzard of

Well, there's not much debate left to have now that Shunwei has gone AWOL. Anyone want to play devil's advocate?

 

[reine1jb]

i have a question for people who are either in their MD/PhD or have actually completed it...For those of you who plan to go predominately into research, do you regret the choice of doing the MD/PhD and not just the PhD? I know hindsight is only 20/20 but humor me

also at the end/middle of your training are you coming to the place that you envisioned. I feel like we all have this very optimistic view of what we will do with our MD/PhD, did that/has that come true for you.

My dilema is that I absolutely love doing research, but I also love and am interested in basic science research that will ultimately translate into some kind of treatment or at least the knowledge of the etiology of a disease. I know you can do that with just a PhD but I think that even if you just end up an independent investigator and never really interact with a patient, all that MD training must give you some sort of unique perspective that your PhD counterparts might night have...Put simply I know I want to do research (well at least as much as an undergrad an know) and I see myself maybe doing some clinical stuff) kind of like the 80/20 split that everyone seems to talk about..but the vision of me as a clinician is a little hazy, at least compared to me as a scientist...

any input would be greatly appreciated

Thanks!

 

[GeoLeoX]

Despite all the acrimony raised by Shunwei in the previous posts on this thread I think that he added an important perspective. Many of the discussions in this forum suffer from selection bias as most of us are MD/PhD, interested in MD/PhD, or training to be an MD/PhD. There is no doubt in my mind that as an MD/PhD I approach research in a different way than when I was a PhD. I look more for the translational components of basic research. We use the "bench to bedside" mantra a lot in translational research. Now I can now also look at things in a "bedside to bench" direction, something that would have been less feasible as a PhD.

Take home points summarized from my opinions:
- go to medical school if you are interested in medicine (actually treating patients, not the theoretical aspects of medicine).
- go to graduate school if you are interested in basic science research.
- do both if you are truly interested in getting the most out of translational research.

peace out.

 

[QofQuimica]

i have a question for people who are either in their MD/PhD or have actually completed it...For those of you who plan to go predominately into research, do you regret the choice of doing the MD/PhD and not just the PhD? I know hindsight is only 20/20 but humor me

also at the end/middle of your training are you coming to the place that you envisioned. I feel like we all have this very optimistic view of what we will do with our MD/PhD, did that/has that come true for you.

My dilema is that I absolutely love doing research, but I also love and am interested in basic science research that will ultimately translate into some kind of treatment or at least the knowledge of the etiology of a disease. I know you can do that with just a PhD but I think that even if you just end up an independent investigator and never really interact with a patient, all that MD training must give you some sort of unique perspective that your PhD counterparts might night have...Put simply I know I want to do research (well at least as much as an undergrad an know) and I see myself maybe doing some clinical stuff) kind of like the 80/20 split that everyone seems to talk about..but the vision of me as a clinician is a little hazy, at least compared to me as a scientist...

any input would be greatly appreciated

Thanks!

One thing that might help you is to spend some time shadowing/working with a translational researcher. People who apply to MD-only programs spend many hours shadowing clinicians or working in clinical settings, and I think it's equally helpful for undecided MD/PhD applicants to spend some time with MD/PhDs to see what they do. I can tell you that it made a huge difference for me. While I was in grad school, I did some research on the side with an MD/PhD researcher-clinician (who was himself a PhD-to-MD). I also spent time in the OR with him and got to see a lot of neat clinical procedures and get an idea of the clinical aspect of his work. These experiences (and his encouragement) both helped convince me that I really would need an MD along with my PhD to do the kind of research I really want to do.

 

[greg12345]

To go back to the original post, it's funny that the MD/PhD resident in question didn't mention seeing/taking care of patients as one of the "Pro's" of doing MD/PhD vs. PhD, only that there was "easier access to patients for his research". Take it from me, you will be absolutely miserable in med school/residency if you do not want to see or take care of patients, because that will be the primary focus of your training for many years with very minimal time devoted to thinking about basic science/research. Now, I'm pretty jaded and cynical when it comes to the bombs who show up in the ER 30 minutes prior to the end of my admitting shift, but I never lose sight of the fact that I did the MSTP to become a "physician-scientist" as opposed to primarily a scientist who has a unique perspective on translational issues because I went to med school and had some clinical training. Just my 2cents.

 

[greg12345]

reine1jb: sounds you have a pretty good idea of what research is about, why not get in the hospital/clinic and see what being a clinician is like? The great thing about clinical medicine is that there are so many different types/environments that almost everyone can find something they love - outpt clinic, OR, ICU, cath lab, path lab, specialty consultant in the hospital, psych ward, etc. Think about what you might be interested in and check it out.

Really, you should probably just be a dentist or orthodontist though, too late for me but there's still time for you young'un.