This is not strictly a thread for discussion as opposed to just me whining
What irks me more than anything else is that, sure, MD/PhDs may not always have a phenomenal PhD, but neither do regular PhD students. I look at the regular PhD students @ my school and their publications, and I realize that most often they get about equivalent amount accomplished with more time. And yet just because they waste more time they are some how more "real"?
On a per capita/hr time basis, I'd say MD/PhD students have more Nature/Science/Cell papers in my school. Most MD/PhD students, if simply go for a postdoc instead of a residency, would do about as well, if not better than their PhD counterparts. So what does it mean exactly that the "standards" are lower?
Of course, I shouldn't be bitter, because, at the end of the day, having an MD/PhD certainly does not disadvantage you for getting a grant/job, despite how "real" a PhD-only PhD may be. Research you did as a PhD student doesn't matter much for faculty jobs these days.
What they need to do is to just eliminate post-doc, and just assign people jobs after PhD based on PhD research quality, like they do it in econ/other social sciences. Postdocs are essentially slave labors and a complete waste. There is not enough positions of course for all these PhDs, which means they need to cut PhD enrollment. Hire technicians for scut work.
It is difficult to say how prevalent this is overall, but at my institution MD/PhDs were not given ANY institutional breaks- although having a "soft" committee and a willing PI could have the same results. Of course, this could work for any student, whether they are MD/PhDs or just PhDs.
I also want to debunk the notion of the "3 publication" rule. This is BS- I've never heard of any institution really having such a rule. Perhaps certain PIs do- if they work on translational projects/ case reports. I guarantee you that if you publish a Cell paper as a first author anywhere you can graduate. After all, it's about the story you create, not the # of papers. My institution tried to pass a rule stating that you must publish at least 1 first-author paper to graduate- and it was rejected. Not because people thought it was unreasonable to get one paper, but that faculty thought students would feel entitled to a PhD after publishing a paper- regardless of quality.