MSTP after PhD ?

[thinkpositive]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey guys,

I am currently applying to MSTP but I also thought about going the route of applying to grad school should I not get in, so does it look bad if you drop out of PhD after a year to go to med school if you get in then ?

Thanks!

 

[researchprof]

dropping out of grad school sucks. either do the PhD and apply MD when you are about to finish, or simply wait another year. And you might even get into MSTP programs, so just chill.

 

[pathdr2b]

Hey guys,

I am currently applying to MSTP but I also thought about going the route of applying to grad school should I not get in, so does it look bad if you drop out of PhD after a year to go to med school if you get in then ?

Thanks!

Instead of dropping the PhD (which makes applying MSTP seem a little strange in the first place) why not just transfer from PhD to MSTP? It''s difficult but not impossible if you're a strong candidate.

 

[Neuronix]

I am currently applying to MSTP but I also thought about going the route of applying to grad school should I not get in, so does it look bad if you drop out of PhD after a year to go to med school if you get in then ?

Do not do this. Your odds of getting into a MD/PhD program from a PhD program are very low and the idea of dropping a PhD program to start a MD/PhD program elsewhere will not settle well at all with program directors. If your app is not good enough for MD/PhD now, improve it, now. Do not start a different PhD or professional degree program, as PDs will simply see that you thought the PhD might help you into their program. It doesn't work that way. Instead, it will make it impossible for you to join a MD granting program (MD or MD/PhD) until you have completed whatever program you join and even then there is no guarantee.

 

[j8131]

Why is it so difficult to make this transition? So if you're in the first year of a grad program, you have to stay until the end before you can enter an MD program? People in PhD programs sometimes apply to law school or an MBA program for a joint degree. I can see with PhD --> MSTP because then it looks like you "gamed" the process, but if you still plan to finish the first degree, why is it so impossible to add the MD? And from what people on this board say, that's true even with a compelling rationale, research experience, and a strong academic record?

 

[Neuronix]

Why is it this way? Well, the major reason I've always heard is that you've started your PhD, and the goal of the MD/PhD program is to start with the MD side. They don't want to add any more transitions (i.e. PhD -> MD -> PhD -> MD). It's not a really solid reason, I know. Meanwhile, medical school is already very competitive to enter, and since they're picking from the cream of the crop they have no need to take students who are transitioning or could possibly be viewed as "failed" PhDs, even if you're not.

It is possible to join a MD/PhD program after starting grad school, but it is very rare and even great applicants who would have been accepted MD/PhD a few years ago end up being rejected everywhere they apply. So sure, it may be POSSIBLE, but DO NOT ENTER A PHD PROGRAM IF YOU WANT TO DO A COMBINED PROGRAM! Your chances are much better to just apply and try to get into a MD/PhD or MD program.

 

[j8131]

Okay, I'm getting the message loud and clear. This board is a great service.

For clinically oriented research, does an MD provide an advantage over a PhD even without residency/license? On the one had, you have more clinical credibility; on the other, you loose the credibility of being a specialist (you're a generic MD, not an immunologist, cancer biologist, neuroscientist, etc.).

 

[milliardo_L]

Why is it this way? Well, the major reason I've always heard is that you've started your PhD, and the goal of the MD/PhD program is to start with the MD side. They don't want to add any more transitions (i.e. PhD -> MD -> PhD -> MD). It's not a really solid reason, I know. Meanwhile, medical school is already very competitive to enter, and since they're picking from the cream of the crop they have no need to take students who are transitioning or could possibly be viewed as "failed" PhDs, even if you're not.

It is possible to join a MD/PhD program after starting grad school, but it is very rare and even great applicants who would have been accepted MD/PhD a few years ago end up being rejected everywhere they apply. So sure, it may be POSSIBLE, but DO NOT ENTER A PHD PROGRAM IF YOU WANT TO DO A COMBINED PROGRAM! Your chances are much better to just apply and try to get into a MD/PhD or MD program.

But some schools do have a second cycle of admisions, in which they consider 1st yr med students for MSTP. So it is ok for MD students to make the transition but not for PhDs? That does not seems fair...

 

[pathdr2b]

But some schools do have a second cycle of admisions, in which they consider 1st yr med students for MSTP. So it is ok for MD students to make the transition but not for PhDs? That does not seems fair...

I know 1 person and 1 other from a friend that had no problem going from PhD to MD/PhD. However, they were in "clinical" PhD programs (pathology, tumor biology) and had classes with first year MD students. Thus when they turned in their app for MD/PhD, they were aleady able to show they could "compete" with med students. Seems like a "no brainer" to me but I think the question that should be asked is whether or not a person would be satisfied finishing the PhD before med school, should they not be able to transfer. As I'm neck deep in this decision myself, I think I could be happy with a Hopkins PhD while applying to med school! 😉

 

[j8131]

Interesting, where (which schools) were these students who transferred PhD --> MD/PhD?

What about the MD w/o residency for clinically oriented research. Come on, smart people, share your thoughts!

 

[tr]

Okay, I'm getting the message loud and clear. This board is a great service.

For clinically oriented research, does an MD provide an advantage over a PhD even without residency/license? On the one hand, you have more clinical credibility; on the other, you lose the credibility of being a specialist (you're a generic MD, not an immunologist, cancer biologist, neuroscientist, etc.).

I think that the MD definitely provides an advantage over the PhD for clinical/transitional research. You'll have access to more varieties of funding and will have an easier time getting access to patients for studies. PhD's have to jump through a lot of hoops to work with actual people, and they also have to fill out a lot more paperwork to get access to scheduled pharmaceuticals. So if you already know you are interested in clinical research, definitely get the MD.

However, I think it's a bad idea not to do the residency. There are a few MDs who don't do residency, but most of them end up doing absolutely nothing related to patient work (either they do postdocs and go into bench science, or they go to other sectors, like health care administration, pharmaceuticals, consulting, or finance).

Without the residency, the MD is just a credential. You won't be able to practice or prescribe, and this will negate a lot of the benefits of the MD for clinical research (access to subjects and drugs).

However, there are research-oriented residencies that will allow you to get a jump start on a research career while still getting your full training to become a licensed physician.

By the way, I also want to cosign Neuronix: do *not* start any other degree program while applying/deciding whether to apply to MD/PhD programs. It's not going to improve your application and it may well work against you. In particular, dropouts from PhD programs are looked on with askance in the academic world. I think it's partly because the PhD is supposed to represent a commitment to an academic career, and dropping out of it sort of indicates that you didn't really view it that way or didn't have a strong sense of the direction you wanted to take - neither of which traits are desirable to adcoms. I think another reason is that you kind of screw the school if you take the funding and then skip out with a master's, and no admissions committee is going to support that on principle. Just get a job - preferably in a research lab, but if it's just to make money, that's okay too. You'll be better off economically and you won't have to explain your entry and exit from various academic programs.

 

[researchprof]

I spoke with the admin. at Mt. Sinai and he told me that switching from the PhD to MD/PhD occurs only in very rare cases, although the impression they gave from their website made it seem like it was a common phenomenon, but apparently it isn't.

 

[pathdr2b]

Interesting, where (which schools) were these students who transferred PhD --> MD/PhD?

Howard and Georgetown. And I was personally told by Maggie Krall of UPenn that at least 1 student/year from Upenn transfers from the PhD to the MD/PhD program. Heard the same thing from the folks running the progarms at Vandy and Hopkins.

 

[researchprof]

Howard and Georgetown. And I was personally told by Maggie Krall of UPenn that at least 1 student/year from Upenn transfers from the PhD to the MD/PhD program. Heard the same thing from the folks running the progarms at Vandy and Hopkins.

Neuronix can you confirm the assertion made as regards UPenn?

 

[Neuronix]

Neuronix can you confirm the assertion made as regards UPenn?

I know several PhD students who have talked to the program about it and have been strongly discouraged from trying the PhD -> MD/PhD switch. There was a former PhD student in the incoming class this year. There were none in my year or the previous year, and I don't know back past that.

 

[pathdr2b]

Neuronix can you confirm the assertion made as regards UPenn?

Here's an excerpt from an email I received from Ms. Krall. It is in fact rare at UPenn. Sorry guys! But there is a top 20 school that does becasue they sent this to me in an email.

As for transferring, it is occasionally possible for a first or second year
PhD student at Penn to transfer into the MD-PhD program, but it is fairly
rare. It would almost certainly not be possible for you to transfer from a
PhD only program elsewhere into Penn's MD-PhD program.

I should also reiterate that I was never strongly discouraged from trying to transfer by UPenn. Obviously, this depends on what the applicant is bringing to the table.

 

[researchprof]

So the impression I am getting, which I sympathise with, is that you either do the PhD and stick with it, and return to the MD after. That is fine with me.

 

[pathdr2b]

So the impression I am getting, which I sympathise with, is that you either do the PhD and stick with it, and return to the MD after. That is fine with me.

Me too 👍, but you NEVER know until you try!

 

[Dodohead]

There was a former PhD student in the incoming class this year.

More to add to this...the "former PhD" student who got in this year was a unique situation. Their research wasn't at all related to medicine, and as I understand it, they had been trying to get into Penn for several rounds when they finally were accepted. They got in 4th year into an MSTP program and are now basically going to have to repeat some of those 4 years that they spent in their training b/c they will be out of the research field for 2 years starting their MD.

I hope that made sense.

 

[tr]

I think it's going to be a long road to do them separately.

If you know you want both degrees, why not start out with a dual-degree program now? Otherwise you could end up with a six-year PhD (common) and a four-year MD (standard), which will bring you to 10 years. You can shave two to three years off of that as well as a hundred grand in debt if you enter a dual-degree program to begin with.

Otherwise, I would just go straight MD and skip the PhD part. You'll be a little behind on your science training if you want to do benchwork at all, but a quality postdoc will fix that. Plenty of MDs do basic research. However, you can't do any kind of postdoctoral training after a straight PhD that will give you the freedom and breadth of possibilities you will have with an MD.

 

[pathdr2b]

Otherwise you could end up with a six-year PhD (common) and a four-year MD (standard), which will bring you to 10 years.

Once again, I think the time issue depends on what you're bringing to the table. Has anyone ever asked why it takes some people 6 years to graduate? I have some ideas:

1) Delay in picking a PI/lab to work. I say have this worked out by the end of the first semester of grad school.

2) Picking a long term project. Animals = long term from what I've seen but I think Treg is the ONLY exception I've ever known of.

3) Not having a clue about the type of research project you want to do.

4) Not having a clue about how to do research and not having a PI willing to put you on the right path.

Another key word is R-E-C-I-P-R-O-C-I-T-Y meaning that grad schools classes taken with medical students count both ways.

Finally when you're doing something that's right for YOU, then the time it takes doesn't matter. I could come up with a gazillion reasons why it would be better for a married woman of child bearing age, say 27-35, to get the PhD out of the way first.
But I imagine that since this board predominately male under 30, these issues aren't on the top of your priority list. And the fact is that most of you will probably marry bimbo's anyway! 🙄

The bottom line is this: when was the last time you asked your doctor, PI how long it took then to graduate?

 

[pathdr2b]

More to add to this...the "former PhD" student who got in this year was a unique situation. Their research wasn't at all related to medicine, and as I understand it, they had been trying to get into Penn for several rounds when they finally were accepted. They got in 4th year into an MSTP program and are now basically going to have to repeat some of those 4 years that they spent in their training b/c they will be out of the research field for 2 years starting their MD. I hope that made sense.

Anyone that hasn't been accepted by the end of second year of grad school ought to give it up until they finish. Doing what this guy did just doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever to me!

 

[tr]

"Once again, I think the time issue depends on what you're bringing to the table. Has anyone ever asked why it takes some people 6 years to graduate?"

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. From what I've seen, first of all people who take 6 years to graduate have better theses than people who take 4. They've been there longer, they know more, they turn out higher-quality work. Regarding not having a clue, well, *nobody* has a clue when they start. After 3-4 years you get a clue, but if you're graduating by then you just don't have that high-quality a thesis, unless you've been really lucky.

For the MD-PhDs, there are a group of faculty directors who are paying attention to getting the students to graduate quickly. Sometimes (usually) that's at the expense of a high-quality thesis, but that's a tradeoff most of us are willing to make. For a straight PhD student, you don't have that backup. You graduate when your committee says you've done a good job. Ain't no program director going to come throw his weight around and say you worked hard and it's time to graduate.

And regarding getting your classes to count for med school, I doubt that is possible unless you stay at the same institution. If you switch institutions, good luck getting the program directors at your new school to waive requirements for you.


"Finally when you're doing something that's right for YOU, then the time it takes doesn't matter. I could come up with a gazillion reasons why it would be better for a married woman of child bearing age, say 27-35, to get the PhD out of the way first.
But I imagine that since this board predominately male under 30, these issues aren't on the top of your priority list. And the fact is that most of you will probably marry bimbo's anyway! 🙄"

First of all, I'm a chick and I resemble that remark. 😉

Second of all, I thought exactly the same thing when I started. Who cares how long it takes, as long as I'm doing something I love? But you know what? Ultimately what I want to be doing is my *own* research. I like what I'm doing now, but the real thrill is going to come when I get to pick the topic and direction. I want to have some time left in my life to work on that when I get there.

Also, I think people run out of steam after a while. In your 20s and 30s, you're willing to do whatever it takes. But people who are still postdocs in their 40s seem to get a little burnt out. So I'd like to minimize the length of time I spend training in hopes of still having a little energy left by the time I (cross-my-fingers) get a faculty position.

"The bottom line is this: when was the last time you asked your doctor, PI how long it took them to graduate?"

Never, of course. But I'm looking around at some of the older junior faculty around here - people in their late forties who are getting their very first faculty-level position, which is a terribly stressful and difficult period in anyone's life - and I'm thinking that I don't want to be that.

 

[pathdr2b]

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. From what I've seen, first of all people who take 6 years to graduate have better theses than people who take 4. They've been there longer, they know more, they turn out higher-quality work. .

I'll have to strenuously disagree that staying in a program makes you a better scientist. Lenght of program has very little to do with how good a scientist a person is/becomes. I finished my Master's thesis in 1.5 years in a top 5 chemistry department and given all the research oopportunites I currently enjoy, I'd say that I'd learned a thing or two.

As for time lenght to comleting programs, an associate of mine when I was in grad school took 10 years to finish her PhD for no other reason that her PI hated her guts. This of course highlights a good reason for entering a combined program. Because reputations are on the line as well as NIH funding, MSTP schools have extra pressure to have their students graduate in a "decent" number of years.

Regarding not having a clue, well, *nobody* has a clue when they start. After 3-4 years you get a clue, but if you're graduating by then you just don't have that high-quality a thesis, unless you've been really lucky..

I have a "clue" as do most of the people I work with. This having a "clue" manifests itself in many ways the least of which is that I now direct my research projects with permission of course being granted by my PI. I also collaborate heavily with the more experienced in my lab and often after I do a presentation, during the questions/answere phase folks address me a Dr.. They do that for a resoan and I have my grad advisors and the rigoruous training at UNC-Chapel Hill for my Master's work to thank for where I am today.

I'm in no way "special" in this regard but I work hard, I am PREPARED and SUPPORTED and in the world of research, this makes a HUGE difference.

For the MD-PhDs, there are a group of faculty directors who are paying attention to getting the students to graduate quickly. Sometimes (usually) that's at the expense of a high-quality thesis, but that's a tradeoff most of us are willing to make. For a straight PhD student, you don't have that backup. You graduate when your committee says you've done a good job. Ain't no program director going to come throw his weight around and say you worked hard and it's time to graduate...

Agreed! But I count mainly on my hard work to get me through my program knowing that good, solid results will be rewarded. OTOH, IF for some reason I started to get "screwed around" in a PhD program I would have NO hesitation about leaving with my Master's in Pathology, and going to med school. However, being the stubborn person I am, you'd better believe that I'd plan to finish that PhD as a resident! It's called finishing what you start, a motto I absolutely live by!

And regarding getting your classes to count for med school, I doubt that is possible unless you stay at the same institution. ...

Of course I'd TRY to stay at the same institution, otherwise why even go this route in the first place 😕 This is where being satisfied with the PhD only comes in.

If you switch institutions, good luck getting the program directors at your new school to waive requirements for you....

Of course schools don't let you transfer credit between school. However, I don't see the attainment of knowledge a waste of time. Worst case scenario is that I'd have a heads up in med school.

First of all, I'm a chick and I resemble that remark. 😉....

Manolo Bhlaniks and Kate Spade bags, I feel you!

But people who are still postdocs in their 40s seem to get a little burnt out. So I'd like to minimize the length of time I spend training in hopes of still having a little energy left by the time I (cross-my-fingers) get a faculty position.

As a woman in her late 30's, I resemble that remark! 😛 Please do youself a favor and don't buy into that "over the hill by a certain age" stuff. It's a load of crap. Wanna look good in a pair of low rise jeans as I do? Stay in shape, eat right and exercise and you'll have PLENTY of energy! 👍

But I'm looking around at some of the older junior faculty around here - people in their late forties who are getting their very first faculty-level position, which is a terribly stressful and difficult period in anyone's life - and I'm thinking that I don't want to be that.

Some of the BEST scientists I know at NIH don't have tenure. So what if I never get tenure, I'm not in this for that. I want to do good research that benefits people and if the result is people outside my inner circle recognize that, then hooray for me. If not, then hooray for me. At the end of the day I'll be able to say I did the absolute best job I could and that 's all that matter to me!

 

[tr]

"I'll have to strenuously disagree that staying in a program makes you a better scientist. Length of program has very little to do with how good a scientist a person is/becomes."

That is essentially true, because good science has a lot to do with intrinsic character traits. But anyway, I'd like to draw a distinction between being well trained and producing research of interest. Most of the learning takes place in the first three years. After you've gone from a bumbling newbie to a competent researcher, *then* you can really take off. Most of the PhD's I know say they got most of their data in their last year. So if you graduate in 3-4 years, your training is probably fine and equivalent to that of a 6-year PhD, but the actual PhD thesis you've produced is probably not. MD-PhDs are well trained scientifically, but they don't usually produce theses that are the equivalent of those of the straight PhD's. That's what I've seen at my institution.


"As for time length to completing programs, an associate of mine when I was in grad school took 10 years to finish her PhD for no other reason that her PI hated her guts. This of course highlights a good reason for entering a combined program. Because reputations are on the line as well as NIH funding, MSTP schools have extra pressure to have their students graduate in a "decent" number of years."

Okay, so that's all I was trying to say, really.


"I have a "clue" as do most of the people I work with..."

It sounds like you're well into a PhD program, with a Master's already under your belt. Of course you have a clue. But you didn't spring from the womb with that clue fully formed; nobody does. You acquired it through training, and that took time. What I'm saying is that when you start your research training, it's going to take you at least 2-3 years before you become competent enough in your field to start being scientifically productive.

In MD-PhD programs, once you've reached this point, there is pressure from the directors to let you graduate. You're well trained, yes, but you haven't really had time to put that training to use. In straight PhD programs, the committee seems to want a bit more out of you in the way of results, and that's mostly why a straight PhD takes longer than the PhD part of a combined degree. And that's why I suggested to the OP that he or she just go for the combined degree right off, instead of doing the two sequentially. It saves time and money.

"Of course schools don't let you transfer credit between school. However, I don't see the attainment of knowledge a waste of time. Worst case scenario is that I'd have a heads up in med school."

Okay, but there's a time tradeoff for that. If you're okay with that, I admire you for it. For myself, like I said, I'm trying to get to the point where I can choose my own direction as quickly as I can.

"As a woman in her late 30's, I resemble that remark! 😛 Please do youself a favor and don't buy into that "over the hill by a certain age" stuff. It's a load of crap. Wanna look good in a pair of low rise jeans as I do? Stay in shape, eat right and exercise and you'll have PLENTY of energy! 👍"

Again, good for you for having high energy. Not everyone is like that; in fact, I'd say most people are not. (Also, I don't think there's a parallel between not getting fat and having the psychic drive to deal with the demands of an academic career. But I think I look just fine in the low-risers, thank you very much. 😉 )

"Some of the BEST scientists I know at NIH don't have tenure. So what if I never get tenure, I'm not in this for that..."

I think you're reading into my post. I didn't say anything about tenure. But regardless of tenure, it is more difficult to be junior faculty than it is to be senior faculty. Junior faculty have to work harder for their grants because they don't have a proven track record, and they also have to work hard to get good graduate students and postdocs, because good people who have their choice of labs often want to go to places that already have a strong research record. It's a big pile of crap to deal with, and I'd rather have to do it when I'm in my thirties rather than in my forties.

 

[Dodohead]

I agree with the post about how it generally takes a good 2 years of your PhD before you really get going and know what is going on. I'm going the "straight-PhD" route, and I know I had that happen, and that was after 4 years of undergrad research under a great PI and an amazing mentor! Grad school is quite unlike anything most undergrads have experienced, really. Once you get past taking classes, it becomes more like a job, and depending on your personality, you may be left, as I was, struggling without deadlines and due-dates 🙂

That being said, I wonder if two aspects of the MD/PhD route may change that slightly. First, in most programs, I know you can double-count a lot of your coursework for both med school and grad school. This significantly reduces the amount of time that you spend in class your PhD years. I think that would increase the amount of time that you spend doing research in those first few "floundering years," thus decreasing the amount of time you actually spend floundering.

Secondly, I think that a lot of MD/PhD programs tend to want their applicants to have more "quality" research training than a lot of the Biomedical Sciences PhD programs do. I know that in our program (which is one of the top in the country as far as Biomedical Engineering PhD programs go), we have quite a few people who come in with little independent research experience. I don't see that happening so much in the MSTP programs. I think if you've already done a couple national presentations and had your name in some way associated with a paper, you tend to know how to do research better and be able to get more of a running start than someone who did alot of work, but not so much analysis (my undergrad experience) or worse.

Anyway, just my thoughts on that matter 🙂

Dodohead

 

[pathdr2b]

I think you're reading into my post. I didn't say anything about tenure. But regardless of tenure, it is more difficult to be junior faculty than it is to be senior faculty.

I could be wrong about this, but doesn't senior facutly = tenure? 😕

I agree with the post about how it generally takes a good 2 years of your PhD before you really get going and know what is going on.

Hands down if I were a 20-soemthing knowing what i know now, I'd say it's better to "flounder" someplace like NIH for 2 years as a fellow after finishing undergrad THEN go MD/PhD, than to go straight MD/PhD after less than a year, not including summers, of research.

The "paying your dues" until you learn what's going on, happens to everyone at some point or another. I'd just personally rather it NOT happen in a PhD or MD/PhD program because I've seen it for myself, once you're labelled "slow" the stigma sticks with you until you graduate, IF they let you graduate. In other words, I rather prefer the idea of "hitting the ground running". 👍

 

[pathdr2b]

But I think I look just fine in the low-risers, thank you very much. 😉 )

Yeah, EVERYONE looks good in low rise jeans in their 20's. Duh!!!!! 😛

But get back to me AFTER you've been married, had a child, and are looking the big 40 square in the face! Now, I'm impressed!

 

[Dodohead]

I've seen it for myself, once you're labelled "slow" the stigma sticks with you until you graduate, IF they let you graduate.

I disagree, I don't think that you are necessarily labeled as going "slow" if you "flounder" your first two years. As you said, its expected. I think that its even accounted for in the 5-year-to-graduation mark.

It took me a while to figure out what I was doing, but I am still set to graduate on time. The point of my post is that most traditional PhDs have a built-in "floundering" time, whereas it doesn't seem that way in the MSTP PhD portion (hence the shorter time to graduation).

 

[pathdr2b]

I disagree, I don't think that you are necessarily labeled as going "slow" if you "flounder" your first two years. As you said, its expected. I think that its even accounted for in the 5-year-to-graduation mark.

It took me a while to figure out what I was doing, but I am still set to graduate on time. The point of my post is that most traditional PhDs have a built-in "floundering" time, whereas it doesn't seem that way in the MSTP PhD portion (hence the shorter time to graduation).

This is actually a great point about not having a built in "floundering" period in MSTP programs.

But let me keep this thing real for you guys, the absolute LAST thing a minority student in todays academic climate wants to do going into grad school is to give the slightest appearence of being "slow". Those good ol boys, especially at those "proper southern institutions" are in dug into academia like a ticks on a dog. It's just generally better to have your sh@!together going in, least you end up like another classmate of mine that finished valedictorian from both high school AND college, but has been in his PhD program at one of those top 5 ranked southern programs for going on 11 years, with NO end in sight! 😱

 

[tr]

Regarding floundering: Perhaps this differs from school to school. Where I am I see a lot of MD-PhDs floundering in the first research years. I know I did. But at my institution, often MD-PhDs mess around for a couple of years, come up with something reasonable in the third and fourth years, then graduate. The PhDs have a similar timeline, except that then they spend years 5 and 6 really polishing things up and making a good solid contribution. (Some PhDs also stick around because they don't see any reason to graduate quickly. I've known a few who stayed on for personal reasons - SO & location mostly - years after they could have graduated.)

I think MD-PhD programs go to a lot of trouble to insist that they are turning out 'real' PhDs, the equivalent of any other. I am not sure that this is true in terms of original contributions to scientific research. But I do think that the quality of training is essentially equivalent, since the learning curve is steep in the first two years and flattens out thereafter.



"I could be wrong about this, but doesn't senior faculty = tenure?"

No, you're probably right. I'm confused about the terminology myself. I do know of several institutions where tenure is rather rare, and people hang around for a significant period of time without ever getting it (Harvard, BU, and I thought the NIH also, but you would know more about this than I). I know of at least one guy at BU whose title is 'Professor' but who does not have tenure, even though he runs a big lab and has been there for years. So does he count as 'senior faculty', since his title is 'Professor,' or as 'junior faculty,' since he doesn't have tenure? I don't know; but in any case, like anything else, the job of running a lab is much easier after you've been doing it a while. That's all I meant to say.

"Hands down if I were a 20-something knowing what i know now, I'd say it's better to "flounder" someplace like NIH for 2 years as a fellow after finishing undergrad THEN go MD/PhD, than to go straight MD/PhD after less than a year, not including summers, of research."

I think it's definitely a good idea to get full-time research experience before heading into any graduate-level program. I didn't go straight through myself, and I wouldn't advocate that route for anyone else either. I just think that once you have the non-degree experience under your belt, for a student who is just starting out it makes more sense to go straight into an MD-PhD program than to go sequentially. Obviously not everyone takes that path in life, and if you start out somewhere else for whatever reason and end up earning the degrees sequentially, that's fine too. I just wouldn't suggest it to someone just starting out, for reasons of time and money.

The "paying your dues" until you learn what's going on, happens to everyone at some point or another. I'd just personally rather it NOT happen in a PhD or MD/PhD program because I've seen it for myself, once you're labelled "slow" the stigma sticks with you until you graduate, IF they let you graduate. In other words, I rather prefer the idea of "hitting the ground running"."

I am not sure what you mean about a 'stigma.' As far as I can tell, it's kind of expected that there will be some dead time early on. It's just that graduation seems to be determined more by timing for MD-PhDs and more by output for PhDs.

 

[pathdr2b]

I am not sure what you mean about a 'stigma.' As far as I can tell, it's kind of expected that there will be some dead time early on. It's just that graduation seems to be determined more by timing for MD-PhDs and more by output for PhDs.

By "stigma" I mean this. When was in grad school, a guy (non URM-PhD only)was asked to draw the lewis structure for water as part of his oral examination. He wasn't able to do it (which was a HUGE problem for more than the obvious reason because he was in the inorganic division). From that point on, he was treated like he was stupid until the day he graduated.

Do I think this would have happened to him if he were an MD/PhD student? Kinda hard to say although I'd guess there are those reading this that probably believe that an MD/PhD student would NEVER miss something like this!

 

[pseudoknot]

By "stigma" I mean this. When was in grad school, a guy (non URM-PhD only)was asked to draw the lewis structure for water as part of his oral examination. He wasn't able to do it (which was a HUGE problem for more than the obvious reason because he was in the inorganic division). From that point on, he was treated like he was stupid until the day he graduated.

Well, he may or may not have been stupid, but clearly he was not prepared for his orals, and it seems reasonable for someone to conclude that he was incompetent. It can be difficult to overcome something like that, but that depends more on the personalities of those making the judgements.

Do I think this would have happened to him if he were an MD/PhD student? Kinda hard to say although I'd guess there are those reading this that probably believe that an MD/PhD student would NEVER miss something like this!

Why shouldn't it have happened? Are you saying that an MD-PhD student wouldn't or shouldn't have been asked that question, or that the guy would have been more prepared, or what?

 

[pathdr2b]

Why shouldn't it have happened? Are you saying that an MD-PhD student wouldn't or shouldn't have been asked that question, or that the guy would have been more prepared, or what?

MD/PhD students get "special" treatment so they probably would have said, "Well he just took Step 1, so let's cut him some slack"!

 

[pseudoknot]

That may be true. My perspective on this is probably a bit warped since Caltech doesn't have a med school, so the faculty here don't really give MSTP students any breaks. There is probably more pressure at places where the med and grad school parts are happening at the same institution.