MD/PhD vs PhD

[curiousstudent]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi, I am a student who wishes to pursue a career in biomedical research, preferably in academia (although an organization like the NIH isn't out of the question either). How do MD/PhD and a PhD in the biological sciences compare in terms of grad placement, which one is better for a career in academia, and difficulty of admission? Thanks!

edit: also, do these programs have a bias to accept students attending as an UG at the school?

 

[bluegrass_druid]

If you can get it, and if you are willing to do it, an MD/PhD projects you into a much better career path. Not necessarily because you will be better trained for research (some might argue the opposite), but because having both degrees 1) leaves your options VERY open 2) puts you in greater demand 3) gets you paid better and, most importantly 4) makes it easier to get grants initially. PhD's are, for better or worse, a dime-a-dozen these days, and many never leave the position of post doc. There is simply a greater supply and less demand for that degree alone. I just read a great article that was from a link somewhere in the sdn forums that highlighted the troubles that PhDs are having moving past post-docs, getting grants, and getting paid. Often, unfortunately, these highly trained and very capable people are basically used as gifted underpaid techs by their PIs...which is a horrible travesty, because many of these people are the most talented, intelligent scientists around. A PhD is still a very impressive and respectable degree, they are just suffering from a basic supply/demand issue.

That said, getting in to an MD/PhD is VERY competitive, as anyone here can tell you. You truly need to be committed to a career in medical science and need to be able to project a career path and rationale as to why they should pick you (they will be fully funding you, so they want to be 100% sure you are the real deal). Add to that a long list of research experience, hopefully some publications, clinical volunteer time, and some personality always helps. It is also a very long and strenuous pathway, and my impression is that about half who start this way become disillusioned and burned out before the end (based on people I have spoken to). It basically entails 7+ years of school + residency + research fellowship (or a fast-track research fellowship that will run ~ 5 years), and ends up taking a minimum of 12 years before you are out and working.

I am not aware of any bias to accept UGs from the school. In fact MSTPs (NIH-funded MD/PhD programs) seem to be the only programs that really don't care where you are from, but that really go after applicants based on qualifications and research direction. If you really want to work in biomedical research and are not daunted by the time commitment, I personally think it is the way to go.

I hope this was helpful, and if you have any other questions, feel free to PM me.

 

[dr.z]

edit: also, do these programs have a bias to accept students attending as an UG at the school?

As far as MSTP program goes, I haven't heard bias to accept students attending UG at the school. However, for a Ph.D program I have been told that many good programs are hesitent to take their own undergrads. I was told most UC schools will not take thier own.

 

[curiousstudent]

Thanks for all the info!

As far as MSTP program goes, I haven't heard bias to accept students attending UG at the school. However, for a Ph.D program I have been told that many good programs are hesitent to take their own undergrads. I was told most UC schools will not take thier own.

Is there any particular reason for this? Professional schools (especially law) seem partial to their own UGs, and it seems odd that PhDs would work in the opposite fashion.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Thanks for all the info!



Is there any particular reason for this? Professional schools (especially law) seem partial to their own UGs, and it seems odd that PhDs would work in the opposite fashion.

I suspect that there is a *slight* bias towards their own students, if for no other reason than that the people on the adcom may actually have worked with the student or know (and presumably respect) the recommendation letter writers. I have heard that law schools have a much somewhat stronger bias.

 

[kermitdfrog]

My understanding of it is that the reason is typically based on an "inbreeding" theory, where if you have the same undergrad instructors as grad, you may not be incorporating new or different ways of thought ect. (the all important diversity factor), thus potentially stagnating the program and your education process. It is similar to why it may be difficult to get a job at an institution that you’ve earned your graduate degree at. Professional school applicants for law school, typically major in something outside of the law school, business students usually have to get a few years of “real world” full time experience before being admitted to an MBA program, in either case they are being exposed a variety of ideas and trainings. I don’t know of any MD/Ph.D. with a bias towards its undergrads. If your application is excellent, and you have a personality the “fits” with the program, you shouldn’t have any problem getting a spot even if you did your UG there. When I interviewed at schools, including UC’s, there were always a handful of UG from that institution in the interview group. I’m personally in favor of the idea of going to a different institution, because I believe it gives you the chance to make more contacts, which if you haven’t learned it yet, networking is a crucial part of a career in research. If you want to go to the same school you did your UG at, put in an application, the worst that can happen is that you’ll be out a few bucks and be given a rejection. As far as which is better for a career in academia, I think the more appropriate question is which is better for you and your path to becoming a researcher, as you can get a job with both. Remember that in either your secondaries, personal statements, or interviews at which ever type of program you apply to, you are going to have to fully explain why you want to pursue that path, and the answer of because I think it will give me a better chance of getting a job just won’t cut it. Because of the much fewer spots, MST programs for the most part are far more competitive, but if you want to go for that path do it, even if you don’t feel you are the most competitive applicant out there. I think those are all great questions to ask, but as with lots of things in life you just have to roll the dice and see what happens. If you’re a great researcher, with good publications, great contacts, a passion for what you’re doing, and with a little luck you’ll have no problem getting a dream job in the future whether your name is followed by M.D./Ph.D. or Ph.D.

Thanks for all the info!



Is there any particular reason for this? Professional schools (especially law) seem partial to their own UGs, and it seems odd that PhDs would work in the opposite fashion.

 

[curiousstudent]

Hate to bump my own thread, but how do MD/PhDs compare to PhDs in the fields of immunology, virology, and genetics? These are the areas I am interested in, and it seems that even most regular PhD programs in these are more focused on clinical research than PhDs in other biological areas, although I could be wrong. Thanks!

 

[j8131]

How does MD/PhD require a greater commitment than a PhD? The degree only takes a couple more years to get and you have less risk, more options, and better salary prospects?

 

[spinman]

Actually training time is quite a bit longer for an MD PhD, it depends on what you consider training

MD/PhD

7-9 years - predoc training
3-7 years - residency training
? years - fellowship training
? years - postdoc

or you can enter a CI program for residency to fast track you - it's only 7-8 years 🙂

Total - 14-17 years after undergrad

PhD

3 (rare) - 6 years - predoc
3-6 years - for 2 post docs

Total 6-12 years - average (need to look this up) but my guess is 10 years

As far as pay is concerned (let's limit our discussion to the traditional academic route) - it depends upon what department pays your salary and what services you perform. If you are a research only MD PhD, some schools will pay you for your services as a scientist, not a practicing physician. If you split your time, you may be paid by the clinical department (i.e. more pay in many cases) or you may not - it depends on the school/hospital. If you are a clinician with no ties to research (despite your degree) yuo will be paid as a clinician

Bottom line: the pay for a dual degreee is not additive 🙂 Don't choose this path to get rich - wrong field, consider derm or radiology.

Curious - I applaud you on your efforts to secure your future, few prospective students really dig deep like this. Honestly, I know some incredibly brilliant PhD's and MD PhD's in immunology and virology. You should view your training, as an MD PhD, in two phases. While in grad school, learn to be a scientist. That is your first and only priority. 🙂 If all goes well and you choose a lab that fits, you have the opportunity to be as well trained as any PhD out there... The MD gives you perspective on what diseases to explore in your scientific career but it does not train you at all in hypothesis driven research. That said, it is true that having both degrees can help secure funding more consistently as you will be more comfortable selling your research as something that have future clinical significance