MD vs. MD/PhD

[anumama]

Hey guys,

I just talked with one of my TAs for a class I took during my sophomore year regarding medical school options. He is currently a MD/PhD student in his 7th or 8th year and hes actually planning on not finishing his PhD. He said that after doing research for 5 years he got sick of it and doesnt think he'll ever use it again. Ive actually heard this from a lot of the MD/PhD students on this campus and Im having doubts about applying for the program. I dont know if I can spend 8-10 years of my life working my butt off and not really getting much out of it. I mean Ive been doing undergraduate research since the summer of my freshman year and honestly I am starting to get a little unmotivated myself (maybe its just the topic of my research?).

But anyway back to my original point, my TA told me about some NIH funded MD/PhD programs in which you do M1, M2 and take 2 years off to do the PhD. But he said that the 2 years of the PhD is more like a masters program and at the end of it you get a PhD regardless of what you do. Obviously then you go back and finish M3, M4. Does anyone really know about these kinds of fully NIH-funded programs? (He said there were 30 schools back when he was applying for med school, but I think in recent years with the Bush administration it might have decreased due to lowered NIH funding...). Any thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[degoo_]

Although I do not have a response to your question, I just wanted to say that I have also lost some motivation towards an MD/PhD. It mostly comes from the fact that all the MDs I've done research with were MDs only and were doing interesting research (clinical) without a PhD. I've even heard of some professors who have full labs who have just an MD. It really seems to me like the PhD is overkill and the MD itself is enough to be able to do good research.

 

[DrBowtie]

I'd be skeptical of any program that guarentees 2 years of PhD and you'll be out.

Check out the MD/PhD forum a little further down the main page.

 

[AtreyuRocks]

Hey guys,

But anyway back to my original point, my TA told me about some NIH funded MD/PhD programs in which you do M1, M2 and take 2 years off to do the PhD. But he said that the 2 years of the PhD is more like a masters program and at the end of it you get a PhD regardless of what you do. Obviously then you go back and finish M3, M4. Does anyone really know about these kinds of fully NIH-funded programs? (He said there were 30 schools back when he was applying for med school, but I think in recent years with the Bush administration it might have decreased due to lowered NIH funding...). Any thoughts?

I know of some 2 year PhD MD/PhD programs-- but not NIH funded. I would personally steer away from these programs as your TA pointed out. IMO, I believe most candidates can finish a proper PhD in three years, if the program is appropriately designed. I plan on finishing in 3 (ultimately 3.5 myself). I believe this is possible because at my institution not only is the director extremely involved, and the program well-integrated, rotations are done prior to the PhD years, thus time is not wasted and can be spent toward actually achieving a proper PhD.

In reference to the poster discouraged by MDs who can do great research without a PhD, I think this is touching on a different point. No one said that you cannot do research if you do not have a PhD. Personally, I am interested in the type of training and experience that comes with obtaining a PhD. In addition, clinical research is an entirely different realm, and I am interested in bench research since it has been my life devotion for the past four years.

I believe there is a place for researching MDs and a place for MD/PhDs. I do not see them occupying the EXACT same positions.

If you cannot see yourself spending a decade in furthering your career, then I agree that you shouldn't go for it. Research can be really disappointing and tough at times, but if you love it, you will keep going. You say you have done research since your freshman year? How long exactly? And what sort of work have you done? If you have done extensive research and are not convinced that research is for you, I would agree to stay away. Otherwise, keep getting experience and take your time to decide. It is a long road.

EDIT: OP, I just re-read your post and realized that your TA is a 7th or 8th year? This seems odd to me. This would mean that s/he is now completing their PhD degree (you mentioned 5 years of PhD) and ready to go back to med school for clinical rotations. Why would they stop now? Plus, that would mean potentially paying back 2 years of med school, giving back the 7-8 years of stipend, and paying for the final 2 years of med school.

In my experience, I don't know too many MD/PhDs who TA since the PhD phase is mostly dedicated toward actually obtaining a PhD. MD/PhD students often don't have the luxury of gaining teaching experience in the PhD years. Additionally, TA's usually are TA's so they can get paid, or it is part of their contract for their stipend. It is possible that at your institution an MD/PhD candidate merely obtains both degrees, but the program is not well integrated... in this case I can see your TA actually TAing as an MD/PhD candidate.

**I think this thread should be moved to MD/PHD...?

 

[Sinfekl]

Research isn't for anyone. Don't embark on an MD-PhD program unless you've looked into research as a lifestyle: most people who get the dual degree do so primarily to become researchers, although clinical practice will play some role in their life. Obviously, situations change, particularly over eight years, so some students definitely drop out. Not to mention, just like any academic program, its easy to get down sometimes, some people get through those periods, some drop out. All you can do is explore the research lifestyle before you apply and convince yourself that its what you want to do with your life.

Whether the program is worth it is dependant on your research field. Yes, you can do research with an MD. Often, this is clinical research (essentially, recruiting patients, organizing trials, and doing statistics), which to me is not that exciting, but to each his own. However, for many basic science fields, the science education and research training you receive in med school is so superficial that you will not be able to perform anything close to cutting edge research as a PI and will have to figure out a way to get experience in another way. For most MD researchers I've talked to, that meant post-docs, many years as an associate/assitant professor working under someone else, and many years of struggling with their research to figure things out.

As far as the two-year PhD programs, I highly doubt they exist. Sounds too good to be true. Are you sure its not a Masters? If they're real, I imagine everyone would be going for them. ;-)

Also, I really agree with Atreyu: MDs and MD/PhD researchers fill different niches, you need to figure out which niche you'd feel more comfortable with.

 

[hawkeey]

Come talk to us in the MD/PhD forum. For the most part it just has to deal with what you want to do with research, and how you want to spend your time.

 

[FemalesCANTDriv]

OP, I don't know about 2 years but I think if you are a Goldwater Scholar, you will get info for some program that is NIH funded which sends you to a British institution (Cambridge, Oxford, etc) to get your PhD in 3 years between M2 and M3 years. I think that is how the email read that they sent us... I didn't read it too thoroughly tho cuz I didn't apply MD/PhD. The way I see it... and the reason I didn't apply MD/PhD... is that if you want to do research, why not just get a PhD. If you want to do clinical research, MD is all you need.