"Not a real PhD"

[I'mIn NowWhat?]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Rather than trigger another "what's better? MD vs PhD vs MD/PhD etc" debate...I just want to know what are some good retorts to the "the PhD part of the MD/PhD is not a real PhD".......

Having been told by a grad student (PhD) that the PhD of an MD/PhD is the equivalent of a master's degree I was left only to keep quiet (as I was verbally assaulted from across the room while using a microtome) given that it was the last day of my second rotation.

I assume some of this might stem from the problem grad students face when they graduate and meet people who tell them "oh you're not a real doctor" probably because they mean it in the sense of "you're not a physician" since the widest usage of doctor in society is to mean physician and people aren't familiar with the PhD-as-doctor concept. Also, the resentment may arise because some grad students feel that since they typically go through more years of research training but don't make as much money as physician scientists it is inherently unjust.

All I could muster was to ask him "if the PhD isn't real then what's the purpose of doing MD/PhD anyway?"....his answer? to pay for medical school and have another bullet point on your resume.

I won't be joining that lab thank you.

Sad too because I like the PI and the area of research but there is a very anti-MD atmosphere among the post-docs and grad students. Comments like "do your research here and we'll make sure you get a real PhD...but you won't be done in four years!" were common as was the general condescension and being talked down to: "the pipet has two stops, when you pull in liquid use the first stop and release, when expelling liquid push all the way through to the second stop" despite this being my second rotation and having been in labs for three years before joining the program. (not to mention two years of ... gasp!...clinical research)

So, for those of you in programs, I ask: ever dealt with this? any funny way to handle it?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Rather than trigger another "what's better? MD vs PhD vs MD/PhD etc" debate...I just want to know what are some good retorts to the "the PhD part of the MD/PhD is not a real PhD".......

Having been told by a grad student (PhD) that the PhD of an MD/PhD is the equivalent of a master's degree I was left only to keep quiet (as I was verbally assaulted from across the room while using a microtome) given that it was the last day of my second rotation.

I assume some of this might stem from the problem grad students face when they graduate and meet people who tell them "oh you're not a real doctor" probably because they mean it in the sense of "you're not a physician" since the widest usage of doctor in society is to mean physician and people aren't familiar with the PhD-as-doctor concept. Also, the resentment may arise because some grad students feel that since they typically go through more years of research training but don't make as much money as physician scientists it is inherently unjust.

All I could muster was to ask him "if the PhD isn't real then what's the purpose of doing MD/PhD anyway?"....his answer? to pay for medical school and have another bullet point on your resume.

I won't be joining that lab thank you.

Sad too because I like the PI and the area of research but there is a very anti-MD atmosphere among the post-docs and grad students. Comments like "do your research here and we'll make sure you get a real PhD...but you won't be done in four years!" were common as was the general condescension and being talked down to: "the pipet has two stops, when you pull in liquid use the first stop and release, when expelling liquid push all the way through to the second stop" despite this being my second rotation and having been in labs for three years before joining the program. (not to mention two years of ... gasp!...clinical research)

So, for those of you in programs, I ask: ever dealt with this? any funny way to handle it?

I don't understand why some think getting a PhD is like serving a jail sentence, that you must "do the time," that a real PhD is 5 or 7 or 9 or whatever number of years. The PhD you get in an MD/PhD program is granted by a graduate program/department, not by the MD/PhD program. You obviously have to fulfill the requirements of the department/program to get the PhD.

Yes, it's true that a 6 year MD/PhD will not give you the amount of research training that a 6 year PhD will, but I would venture to say that if it is done in an excellent program and lab, it will give you 70-80+% of that. There is a point of diminishing returns, and I think it starts to occur in the fifth year of the PhD. I am not convinced that an 8 year PhD graduate (who may have been plodding on the same project all that time) is any better off than a 3 year PhD graduate who then spent the remaining 5 years in residency/post-doc working on fresher projects and gaining new insights and experiences.

Besides, not to be arrogant, but didn't many of the great physicists and chemists (some of whom went on to win Nobel Prizes) do their PhDs in 3 or even 2 years?

It's what you do, not how long you languish as a highly skilled slave of a two-bit thug PI.

 

[JimiThing]

The funniest way to handle the situation is to draw the person out. Let them spill every vitriolic ounce of their guts out to you and watch them foam at the mouth as you act befuddled. “You mean you didn’t finish your PhD in 4 years? Did you fall terribly ill,” you might ask as they rant on about medical schools not selecting for intelligence - just for the ability to learn things really fast.

The most truthful way to handle it is to acknowledge that it is not a real PhD, whatever they mean by that. The purposes of PhD and MD/PhD training are not the same, much the same way that PhD’s in history and plasma physics have different ends in mind. As I would like to think of it, MD/PhD teaches you how to fit square pegs into round holes, getting a PhD teaches you how to make the holes( – or pegs).

The most confrontational way to handle it is to ask super cool lab mate if he/she thinks that one of the more respected MD/PhD PIs at your institution produces inferior quality science.

My practical advice is to grow thicker skin and just let it pass. You are never going to escape criticism, be it from MD’s or PhD’s. It’s kind of like how Abraham Quintanilla described being Mexican-American in the J.Lo vehicle Selena, “We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It's exhausting, damn!” Don’t waste your energy on worrying about what some grad-student (who by no means is guaranteed to get a “real PhD”, you’ll see your fair share get graduated simply because they came to the lab everyday for 8 years) or even post-doc thinks of your career plans. Focus on producing good science.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, I too would avoid that lab like the plague.

 

[QofQuimica]

I think it's best to handle these kinds of situations with humor and then just let them slide off your back. You aren't going to change people's minds, and this grad student isn't important in the whole scheme of your life anyway. I like Jimi's humorous approach. I'd say you should agree with the grad student and take things one more outrageous step further. You could have said something like, "Dude, I *totally* know what you mean; here I tried to get into a PhD only program, but the only acceptance I got was to this MSTP. What could I do???" 😉

Grad student-med student relationships don't have to be like that. I think it is a holdover from how bad grad student-PREMED relationships are sometimes. But FWIW, your PhD is as valuable as you make it. It isn't the time you spend on it that matters; it's what you do in that time. Best of luck with your education, and I agree that if everyone in the lab (especially if it's the PI too) has it out for you because you're in an MSTP, you'll probably be happier in another lab. Alternatively, you can try talking to the PI, which will make him aware of the situation. You should probably do that regardless; it may help future students even if it doesn't help you.

 

[ClarinetGeek]

I am sure how I would respond to such verbal attack. Most likely (depending on how well I knew the person), I would have basically ignored the person. Reflecting back on my summer rotation, I just realized how fortunate to be in a lab that was very supportive to MSTP students and MD students. I think that partially stems from the PI as he is heavily involved in the MSTP (although he is a PhD) and that he lectures for classes in M1 and M2 classes. I guess it is important find a lab that is support of your career goals. In this small basic science lab, there were 2 M1's doing summer research, a pre-med, and neurology fellow conducting research. It was a great environment to work. I never was harassed about career path. Perhaps it also helps to prove yourself in a way in the lab. I mean we can go in there and "do science like the best of them." In some ways, MD/PhD students are able get into to a lab and hit the ground running because often we have more years of research under belts. Granted that definately not always the cases and probably depends on the institution. In a another perspect, we could agrue that as MD/PhDs our PhDs take "6 years" and not 4 years. Much of our medical school classes meet graduate school class requirements. Our rotations are completed during our M1 and M2 years. So when we hit our "1st year" we more like 1-2 years into our graduate career.


Those are just my random, ealry morning, sleepy comments.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Policies for granting PhDs again are dependent on the program - I would wager that at institutions more concerned about their time-to-graduation would be more willing to grant PhDs with substandard publication records than others. Even so, if one has a substandard PhD, it will hurt when it comes to residency, and no powerhouse postdoctoral lab will take you, and even if they do, you will have to pay your time back in order to make up for deficiencies in your PhD.

Even amongst normal PhDs the quality of work and quantity of publications differs, and that inevitably, any student's work will be judged by their publication record as a PhD and more importantly as a postdoctoral/clinical fellow. Therefore, making such blanket statements as "MD/PhDs don't get a real PhD" is ridiculous.

Signing off from Cold Spring Harbor -

 

[tr]

In a another perspect, we could agrue that as MD/PhDs our PhDs take "6 years" and not 4 years. Much of our medical school classes meet graduate school class requirements. Our rotations are completed during our M1 and M2 years. So when we hit our "1st year" we more like 1-2 years into our graduate career.

Depends on the program; but I think by and large that's true. An 8-year MD-PhD here involves 2 preclinical years, 4.5-4.8 years of research, and 1.5-1.2 years of clinical rotations. Since grad students spend their first year taking classes and rotating through labs, a 5.5-5.8 year PhD is going to have the same 4.5-4.8 years of research.

But anyway, counting years is silly. As someone else said, you hit the point of diminishing returns around year 3. It is true that more of an effort is made to smooth out the edges for MD/PhDs than for PhDs, but I see that more as a failing in PhD programs than in MD/PhD programs. Often the last year of the straight PhD involves killing time while applying for postdocs anyway.

 

[OddNath]

Even amongst normal PhDs the quality of work and quantity of publications differs

Exactly. People can't even agree on the exact criteria to define "a real PhD" anyways. It depends on the field, the technique, the school, the department, the advisor...

When I get comments like what the OP had to deal with, I just think about how my dad finished his PhD in 4 years (chem eng) and he has never, ever had to justify the validity of his degree because of it. Whereas my most-likely-4-year PhD will always be doubted by those bitter types, no matter how much I end up publishing and accomplishing during that time. Personally, I still get upset when I hear stuff like that, so keep the tips coming!

 

[Hard24Get]

There are MSTPs that don't get real PhDs, just as there are striahgt PhDs that don't get real PhD - not in terms of years, but quality.

But, in general, we work more efficiently. Not only are most of us able to work hard and multitask, getting more experiments done, but we also have thesis committee meetings more regularly. I know a lot of straight PhDs that simply took longer because they worked 9-5 and had a thesis commitee meeting every 2 years (our program requires one every 6 months). My advisor is straight PhD and she is very proud of my thesis (she finished her PhD in 3 years, by the way).

So, anyway, here's my retort (though I usually get mad respect from straight PhDs, maybe 'cause I'm almost done and do good work):

"go to the thesis defenses of our department and try to distinguish PhDs from MSTPs based on the quality of the thesis. I'm betting you can't" 😎

Depends on the program; but I think by and large that's true. An 8-year MD-PhD here involves 2 preclinical years, 4.5-4.8 years of research, and 1.5-1.2 years of clinical rotations. Since grad students spend their first year taking classes and rotating through labs, a 5.5-5.8 year PhD is going to have the same 4.5-4.8 years of research.

But anyway, counting years is silly. As someone else said, you hit the point of diminishing returns around year 3. It is true that more of an effort is made to smooth out the edges for MD/PhDs than for PhDs, but I see that more as a failing in PhD programs than in MD/PhD programs. Often the last year of the straight PhD involves killing time while applying for postdocs anyway.

 

[dl2dp2]

you need to remind him that the past two years we have mostly MDs getting the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine.

Considering how much time the PhDs spent in the lab, the yield/effort ratio seems to be much diminished for a regular grad student.

At my school, the two Nobels on the faculty are both MDs (they don't even have a PHD!! let alone the whole is the MD/PhD's phd a masters). I think you shan't worry too much about this sentiment. MOST of the hot shots in basic medical research have medical degrees, and frankly it's the PhDs are getting shafted, beacuse they literally know Nothing about medicine. If you know nothing about diseases, then how can you ask the right questions about treating them and finding their mechanisms?

Don't worry, you are in good hands.

 

[KateChopin]

Um what, I don't get it. :cry:

 

[dr.z]

Ph.D is a Ph.D whether it took 3, 7, or any number of years that it may take. I know a lot of students who get Ph.D that doesn't know anything...

 

[Gut Shot]

"Hey man, I'd be pissed off too if I had your career prospects."

 

[NGN47]

Just show them your publication record and engage them in a technical discussion of your research field (or better yet, theirs). You have proved your point if you can do this.

 

[jameslynton]

....
Having been told by a grad student (PhD) that the PhD of an MD/PhD is the equivalent of a master's degree I was left only to keep quiet (as I was verbally assaulted from across the room while using a microtome) given that it was the last day of my second rotation.... I ask: ever dealt with this? any funny way to handle it?

The person who said that is most likely pretty insecure. Feels the need to one up someone else. Humor is the best way to deal with it. When things like that happen to me. I just smile and say yea - you are right - then ask for the next question or just continue what you are doing. Those who are mature and have self confidence will cross the questioner off as a jerk, silly person or dummy. Don't argue with them - it is a no win situation for you. Best to save your snappy come backs for later behind the barn.

There are many different times it takes to get a PhD - depending on the school the requirements, etc. They are all PhD's.

 

[relentless11]

Ph.D is a Ph.D whether it took 3, 7, or any number of years that it may take. I know a lot of students who get Ph.D that doesn't know anything...

I second this. Ultimately what makes your degree "real" or not is how you use it, whether its an MD, PhD, MD/PhD, etc. Being "real" is not determined by how many years it took you to receive it. There are some PhD students out there who took longer because (1) they had to retake classes, (2) had to retake their qualifying exam, (3) sat around spinning their wheels since they couldn't think of anything, or (4) lazy. Of course there are others who actually had projects that took longer than expected. One cannot say, and thus one cannot make assumptions about how "real" a degree is.

However playing devil's advocate, I can somewhat sympathize with the disgruntled grad student which the OP mentioned. For many, as someone stated, the word doctor = MD only. Thus, PhDs, DOs, DVMs, etc do not get their respect. We all know this is not true, but it is frustrating to have this happen. My friend is a vet student, and she often runs into people thinking its a 2-year degree. Anyway, I must digress, as much as I sympathize with this grad student, I do not agree with what he/she said. My PI did an MSTP from UCSF, and I can tell you that his PhD, or at least the knowledged he gained from the PhD component was no less rigorous than what we do in a standard PhD program. Its entirely possible that MSTP's (or some) may have to work harder to finish on time compared to their traditional PhD counterparts. People often times focus on how one can fail, or the sometimes pseudo-inferior nature of something they may not understand or are jealous about.

My suggestion to the OP is to just take it in stride. This is the first of many challenges to the value of your degree. Your actions in the profession will vindicate both you and the letters after your name, not what you say to some disgruntled graduate student. The worst thing you can do is to go down to the level of this grad student, or worse, become a disgruntled grad student yourself. 🙂

 

[I'mIn NowWhat?]

Thank goodness for this online forum. I really appreciate everyone's comments; it's unfortunate that these things happen but it's nice to know I'm not alone.

It's tough enough trying to make sense of a program that so many people have a problem with and we constantly have to justify let alone trying to actually concentrate on the research we're doing and getting immersed in a project. It's really nice to have a forum to be able to discuss these things openly. I am definitely going to bring this up to the PI so he knows what's going on in the lab, especially since we need to talk about whether I'm joining the lab. If I want to have him on my committee or to have further contact with him I don't want to burn any bridges, but, small as the lab is, I don't think I can work in an environment where remarks like this fly about MSTPs (another post-doc was openly anti-MSTP as well). This is all so odd because one post-doc is an MD and one grad student is an MD as well (did MD first, started residency then decided to go into research)... I thought the lab would be a good place....but I quickly caught on that those two are never in the lab and if they are, they don't talk to anyone. Whether that's because they don't feel welcome or whether it's their behavior that makes the others so MD-phobic I don't know but I really can't go on...this whole summer has felt more like trying to decipher a convoluted soap opera plot than getting a feel for the supposed cutting edge science going on.

At this rate, I'm going to do so many rotations I'll probably take long enough to graduate with a "real" PhD.

 

[Mr. Tee]

The crazy thing is that this topic has been asked at MSTP interviews 😱

 

[QofQuimica]

I am definitely going to bring this up to the PI so he knows what's going on in the lab, especially since we need to talk about whether I'm joining the lab. If I want to have him on my committee or to have further contact with him I don't want to burn any bridges, but, small as the lab is, I don't think I can work in an environment where remarks like this fly about MSTPs (another post-doc was openly anti-MSTP as well).

Good. Be positive and constructive when you talk to him, but do let him know. People deserve respect for what they do, not for which program they join. Those remarks are the manifestation of the general bad attitude in the lab, not the cause of it. And since I'm a "real" PhD (going to med school separately after grad school), it's not even sour grapes for me to say so. 😉

 

[number77]

It seems that your associate has an issue with a title...a piece of paper....
Anybody educated, and good at their topic will tell you that this guy's arguement doesn't mean anything. Under his logic (arguing titles), every person with a title [PhD of Harvard] is better at their stuff than anyone with a PhD at a public University.
I for one don't want a PhD and MD to tell everyone. I want it so that I can be good at what I do. Be better than I otherwise would be. Reading some school's admissions websites though, it seems they don't care if you see it this way (although I'm betting their instructors do).

Sure, you could spend an extra 2 years on your research while trying to get a straight PhD, but what is so bad about spending 1 year on it, and entering the field a year earlier(or however many years)? I see the PhD as more of a certification. Your certified to competently do intellectual and physical research and have enough experience to know the ropes.

 

[Hohenheim]

I just think its unfortunate that this is all about credentials and status. I mean - dont grad students who ask those questions have things to do? Whats the point of gaining skills if all you are looking for is status? I'll put my money on the student yielding results over mere credentials anytime. I think grad students like that should be ignored.

Heres what you should do: Get a "Dead To Me" board a la Colbert and place that fellows name on it with a smug smirk on your face.

 

[beetlerum]

I just think its unfortunate that this is all about credentials and status. I mean - dont grad students who ask those questions have things to do? Whats the point of gaining skills if all you are looking for is status? I'll put my money on the student yielding results over mere credentials anytime. I think grad students like that should be ignored.

Heres what you should do: Get a "Dead To Me" board a la Colbert and place that fellows name on it with a smug smirk on your face.

While I agree this attack is unfair, it is important to be understanding of the fact that PhDs are often treated shabbily by MDs, and biomed PhDs often feel, justifiably, that they get the short end of the stick as members of the biomed community. And some of the comments on this thread on a little ironic in light of the sources of common MD superiority, which often come from counting years and focusing on credentials and status. Now MD PhDs tend not to be the main source of this, so this is not a comment directed at this board specifically. But I guess the point is that if a biomed PhD student feels a little insecure, well, it's understandable.

 

[rishi]

...biomed PhDs often feel, justifiably, that they get the short end of the stick as members of the biomed community.

Not if they go work in industry. 🙂 Then, they get the BIG end of the stick and the MDs get the little itty bitty one. 😕

 

[dl2dp2]

Not if they go work in industry. 🙂 Then, they get the BIG end of the stick and the MDs get the little itty bitty one. 😕

this is not true, by the way. MD jobs in the industry (directing drug trials etc) are often much more cushy than the ones PhDs can get.

 

[rishi]

this is not true, by the way. MD jobs in the industry (directing drug trials etc) are often much more cushy than the ones PhDs can get.

True true, but ya gotta gimme that we're comparing Phds to "REAL" docs that don't work in industry. Cause "real" docs don't make that kinda money.

 

[Myempire1]

Most MSTPs at UTSW spend 4 to 5 years to complete their thesis. Any PhD student with the opinion you mentioned must have had a unique perspective or has an inferiority complex. Some people deserve to graduate in after 2 years of research (i.e. 1st author papers in Science and PNAS as proof). Other's need more time.

MSTPs who get out fast have lots of luck, direction, and work 90 hour weeks. If you have bad luck or work 40 hour weeks, it might take a bit longer. So it all depends.
That's my 2 cents at least

 

[MasonPrehealth]

Saying that getting an MD/PhD is inferior to getting a "real PhD" is ludicrous. I dare anyone to tell a student pursuing an MD/PhD that their MD is inferior. Or an MD/JD that the JD is inferior. Some people are just jealous.

And yes, MD jobs in industry and government pay a lot more than PhD jobs in many cases. Of course MBA and JD positions in those firms probably earn even more money...

 

[Hard24Get]

Also, remember that most programs have external reviewers. I got a dissertation review 2 weeks ago from someone who didn't even know me that said they had "no doubt" my work warranted the granting of a Ph.D. 😎 Not even sure he knew I was a Mud-Phud. Ignore the haters!

Signed-
A newly minted REAL Ph.D. 😀

 

[Nuel]

MD/PhD's generally take shorter times to complete their PhDs than the straight PhD student. One reason is due to directional guides provided by advisors. PIs know that the MD/PhD student needs to graduate in time, plus there is some pressure from the MD/PhD program to get their students out in a timely manner; so PIs might provide more guidance.

Good mentorship generally helps in quicker completion of a thesis, as opposed to the PI letting you "figure things out for yourself." Figuring out things is not a bad thing, but there is a limit after which the PI or someone senior in the lab should intervene. It seems many PhD students are left to trouble-shoot until "they figure it out" themselves--I thought PhD training and post-doc fellowships weren't the same things?

 

[gbwillner]

Sometimes it is true, as unfortunate as it sounds. And it sucks for the rest of us, because it cheapens our PhDs. Some programs forcus on time, others focus on publications. There can be a huge disparity. I dare people from different programs to compare the difficulty of their qualifying exams. Some programs don't even have qualifying exams, and for others it can take 6 months or more.

The best example of the "cheap PhD" isn't even MSTPs. Its foreign PhDs, who come here often for post-Doc work. Did you know that in most programs in the UK the policy is 3 years and you're out? How can you compare that to a US student from a tough program who spent 5-6 years on a difficult and hypothesis-driven project that yielded a Cell paper?

And how do you compare a hypothesis-driven PhD in molecular biology to a PhD in bio-engineering, which is not at all hypothesis-driven (maybe not actually science at all)???

In the end it may not matter, because if you want the best possible position/post-doc you will get it with the more difficult road.

 

[Hard24Get]

MD/PhD's generally take shorter times to complete their PhDs than the straight PhD student. One reason is due to directional guides provided by advisors. PIs know that the MD/PhD student needs to graduate in time, plus there is some pressure from the MD/PhD program to get their students out in a timely manner; so PIs might provide more guidance.

Good mentorship generally helps in quicker completion of a thesis, as opposed to the PI letting you "figure things out for yourself." Figuring out things is not a bad thing, but there is a limit after which the PI or someone senior in the lab should intervene. It seems many PhD students are left to trouble-shoot until "they figure it out" themselves--I thought PhD training and post-doc fellowships weren't the same things?

I dunno, this is very advisor-dependent, more than candidate-dependent IMHO. Some advisors are hands-on or hand-off with everybody, others pay it by ear. In fact, I was basically left to figure stuff out on my own, while the new crybaby straight PhD grad student in the lab gets much more help than I ever did because if she doesn't, she'll cry or burn something. In many labs, there is virtually no difference between the mentorship of PhD students and post-docs, save the fact that students have thesis commitee oversight.

Sometimes it is true, as unfortunate as it sounds. And it sucks for the rest of us, because it cheapens our PhDs.

Don't worry, when they meet us, they'll know we deserve our PhDs 😎

 

[Ecthgar]

In my experience, it all evens out when someone takes a look at your CV. Publications are basically everything.......a "real" PhD has "real" publications. Most people with power in medicine/science know this well. In the end, it doesn't really matter where you go to school or which road (PhD, MD, MD/PhD) you take......a good scientist is a good scientist and has the papers (and grants) to prove it. But I do agree, there are many "fake" PhD's running around......and they will be post-docs/glorified techs the rest of their lives.

 

[gbwillner]

But I do agree, there are many "fake" PhD's running around......and they will be post-docs/glorified techs the rest of their lives.

Maybe...

Although there is incentive to get a fake PhD. For example, an MSTP buddy of mine got a fake PhD in Bioengineering, which as far as I have seen, is the easiest way to get a fake PhD. He has no interest in pursuing research, and spent 2.5 years vacationing on and off, and now has the PhD which will get him whatever residency he wants. Then later on, the PhD can help him administratively and in the pocketbook, provided he never does any real research. So he worked the system to his advantage.

 

[Ecthgar]

Maybe...

Although there is incentive to get a fake PhD. For example, an MSTP buddy of mine got a fake PhD in Bioengineering, which as far as I have seen, is the easiest way to get a fake PhD. He has no interest in pursuing research, and spent 2.5 years vacationing on and off, and now has the PhD which will get him whatever residency he wants. Then later on, the PhD can help him administratively and in the pocketbook, provided he never does any real research. So he worked the system to his advantage.

First, it may NOT get him any residency he wants. PDs & Chairs are surprisingly good at spotting people who claim to be interested in academics but actually have other motives. However, a PhD is always helpful come residency time, so I'll give you that one. Second, don't be so quick to discount any PhD in biomedical science......at some point, your buddy had to put forth some original thought. Remember, the point of getting a PhD is not the data you generate, but learning how to think like a scientist. Personally, I don't plan on continuting with my current thesis work. I'm definitley going different directions with my own future research. Third, a person with a "fake" PhD will never get ANYWHERE administratively. That is where the rubber truly hits the road. When you're trying to get a faculty position you're competing with other MD's and PhD's. If you don't have publications and/or grants (ie research interest) you won't get a job. And finally, a PhD (whether alone or with an MD) NEVER EVER equals money.

 

[gbwillner]

First, it may NOT get him any residency he wants. PDs & Chairs are surprisingly good at spotting people who claim to be interested in academics but actually have other motives. However, a PhD is always helpful come residency time, so I'll give you that one. Second, don't be so quick to discount any PhD in biomedical science......at some point, your buddy had to put forth some original thought. Remember, the point of getting a PhD is not the data you generate, but learning how to think like a scientist. Personally, I don't plan on continuting with my current thesis work. I'm definitley going different directions with my own future research. Third, a person with a "fake" PhD will never get ANYWHERE administratively. That is where the rubber truly hits the road. When you're trying to get a faculty position you're competing with other MD's and PhD's. If you don't have publications and/or grants (ie research interest) you won't get a job. And finally, a PhD (whether alone or with an MD) NEVER EVER equals money.

Hmm.. In this particular case, the original thought put forth had zero scientific validity. This friend is going into a surgical field, which is devoid of PhDs, and in that sense the PhD will most likely help him get a better residency. As I said, he has no interest in research or academia. The PhD will most likely help him get the best possible job after residency. Who wouldn't want to hire a physician who also has a PhD??? How could it NOT help him? He played the system well. He got free medical school and a stipend, and did little to deserve it.

PS- Biomedical engineers don't have to "think like a scientist" (neither do PhDs in English or poli sci). They have to think like engineers.

 

[relentless11]

First, it may NOT get him any residency he wants. PDs & Chairs are surprisingly good at spotting people who claim to be interested in academics but actually have other motives. However, a PhD is always helpful come residency time, so I'll give you that one. Second, don't be so quick to discount any PhD in biomedical science......at some point, your buddy had to put forth some original thought. Remember, the point of getting a PhD is not the data you generate, but learning how to think like a scientist. Personally, I don't plan on continuting with my current thesis work. I'm definitley going different directions with my own future research. Third, a person with a "fake" PhD will never get ANYWHERE administratively. That is where the rubber truly hits the road. When you're trying to get a faculty position you're competing with other MD's and PhD's. If you don't have publications and/or grants (ie research interest) you won't get a job. And finally, a PhD (whether alone or with an MD) NEVER EVER equals money.

I agree with this. A PhD real or not does not guarantee getting into a good residency. Here at the med schools under the University of California, the majority of our internal medicine residents do not have PhDs. Given that internal medicine residencies are already competative, plus its California, and being at a UC medical center makes it very hard to get into.

I also agree that a PhD in ANY field, as much as one says it is fake or real, it has to be approved by ones thesis committee. Although ones major professor plays a big role, and he/she usually chairs this committee, there's usually 2-3 other professors that have to sign off that the grad student did PhD quality research. Ultimately, what counts in the long run are as you said, publications, and grants. If you are well known in your field, you will go very far. Its not really how you got your PhD, but its really about what you do with it that gets you faculty positions, residencies, and so forth.

Hmm.. In this particular case, the original thought put forth had zero scientific validity. This friend is going into a surgical field, which is devoid of PhDs, and in that sense the PhD will most likely help him get a better residency. As I said, he has no interest in research or academia. The PhD will most likely help him get the best possible job after residency. Who wouldn't want to hire a physician who also has a PhD??? How could it NOT help him? He played the system well. He got free medical school and a stipend, and did little to deserve it.

PS- Biomedical engineers don't have to "think like a scientist" (neither do PhDs in English or poli sci). They have to think like engineers.

Thinking like a scientist and thinking like an engineering, although different fields, they do greatly overlap. Engineering, (especially biomedical engineering) like medicine is an applied science. Sounds like your friend got into an MSTP...which is a medical scientist training program...not a medical engineering training program. I agree that a PhD in a non-science field...does not require one to think like a scientist, which is obvious since its not a scientific field. But engineering has its foundations in science.

So say a person who did his/her PhD in physics...and of course they would be called a physicist. Would they have to think like a physicist? How different is that from a scientist, or engineer, especially if the person was an applied physicist? My PI was also an MSTP, who did his PhD in bioengineering, thus I am defending in bioengineering related fields this winter. Despite the "engineering" involved, we are still required to think like scientists. Otherwise our thesis committee members, who are scientists themselves, wouldn't sign off on our thesis.

Ultimately its a bunch of semantics...😛 ...and we're all required to think like scientists, engineering background or not.

 

[RxnMan]

...an MSTP buddy of mine got a fake PhD in Bioengineering, which as far as I have seen, is the easiest way to get a fake PhD.

I find this hard to believe. I knew some guys who were intuitively good engineers - They'd blow the curve with half the studying the rest of us would do to just get a "C." But even they'd have to work. In fact, I can't think of a more difficult medically-related PhD to get, MSTP or otherwise. If you don't believe me, ask him what subjects his quals covered. Ask to see his dissertation.

A PhD might make you a better trained scientist/engineer, or a better academician, but no patient cares if he's got a PhD. Some practices might turn him away - no employer is going to pay extra for a skill set that won't help their bottom line. Extra training =/= better employee.

Then later on, the PhD can help him administratively and in the pocketbook, provided he never does any real research.

This makes no sense. The strength of a PhD is the ability to do independent research. If you're not doing that, then you're not going to make money off of it.

And about the 'free' med school - he paid 2.5 years in time and money lost.

 

[gbwillner]

So say a person who did his/her PhD in physics...and of course they would be called a physicist. Would they have to think like a physicist? How different is that from a scientist, or engineer, especially if the person was an applied physicist? My PI was also an MSTP, who did his PhD in bioengineering, thus I am defending in bioengineering related fields this winter. Despite the "engineering" involved, we are still required to think like scientists. Otherwise our thesis committee members, who are scientists themselves, wouldn't sign off on our thesis.

Ultimately its a bunch of semantics...😛 ...and we're all required to think like scientists, engineering background or not.

I agree... semantics. But Physics IS a science, and engineering is NOT. Not any more than medicine, which you can also claim is applied biology. And you do not HAVE to think scientifically to be a good engineer or doctor. Science requires the use of the scientific method, and engineering does not. Hypotheses in bio-medical engineer can be "can I build a microscope that does x or Y" That kind of thinking is hardly scientific. This does NOT mean that engineers cannot think scientifically, only that many times they don't HAVE to.
I only bring up engineer as the prime example because our affiliated engineering program has neither qualifying exams nor thesis committees. You're just done whenever your boss agrees you're done. Also, (and more importantly for me) Bio-engineers can publish in non-peer reviewed journals. This all shows the lack of uniformity and consistency among PhDs in any fields.

 

[gbwillner]

I find this hard to believe. I knew some guys who were intuitively good engineers - They'd blow the curve with half the studying the rest of us would do to just get a "C." But even they'd have to work. In fact, I can't think of a more difficult medically-related PhD to get, MSTP or otherwise. If you don't believe me, ask him what subjects his quals covered. Ask to see his dissertation.

Read above post. And this engineering program is considered one of the best around.

This makes no sense. The strength of a PhD is the ability to do independent research. If you're not doing that, then you're not going to make money off of it.

And about the 'free' med school - he paid 2.5 years in time and money lost.

I hardly think I have to provide this link... but you can see that MSTPs do get the best residencies around, so the PhDs certainly mean something. It stands to reason that those who get PhDs and the best residencies will be offered the best jobs. And an MSTP grant is worth roughly $170,000.

http://www.dpo.uab.edu/~paik/match.html

And in regards to the competitiveness of Internal medicine in California... MSTPs only make up less than 2% of IM residents- probably because there are only 300 MSTPs/year and thousands of IM slots. But MSTPs get the slots in the Harvards and Yales.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Don't let that statistic fool you - there are more than 300 MSTP'ers who graduate each year. I just haven't gotten data from all of them (yet).

 

[RxnMan]

our affiliated engineering program has neither qualifying exams nor thesis committees.

This is news to me - I've never heard of a PhD program without quals or committees. And about non-peer reviewed journals, anyone can do that. Like other posters have said, it's the strength of your pubs that get you places.

And an MSTP grant is worth roughly $170,000.

Yeah, at the expense of years at the end of his career, which are the highest-paying. An attending in any speciality can make 170k+ in 2.5 years. Once he's out, he won't get a higher wage for a degree that doesn't apply to a private practice.

All of those "top" residencies listed in your link are training centers for academicians and have resident research requirements, both of which you've said that your friend has no interest in. It's not like he's 'taking your spot.'

Can you explain what you meant by this:

Then later on, the PhD can help him administratively and in the pocketbook, provided he never does any real research.

The time and money he invested is a wash at best, and while he might have more choices of residencies because of the PhD, none of those residencies will help him get where you've said he wants to go - into private practice.

 

[relentless11]

And in regards to the competitiveness of Internal medicine in California... MSTPs only make up less than 2% of IM residents- probably because there are only 300 MSTPs/year and thousands of IM slots. But MSTPs get the slots in the Harvards and Yales.

These are biased statistics. For one this does not include non-MSTP MD/PhDs, there are quite a few of those out there. Additionally, I doubt there are only 300 MSTPs/year, considering all 5 UC med schools have some kind of MSTP, yielding 7-12 MD/PhDs a year, thats already 35-70 students. Thats not including Stanford, USC and Loma Linda. I hardly believe that University of California contributes nearly 23% of the MSTPs in the US.

Getting more slots at Harvard and Yale doesn't neccessarily mean the PhD helped them. There is correlation, but not agreement in these statistics. Their research background probably did, but the quality of their PhD work is what determines them getting in as what RxnMan and I have been saying. Academic institutions select you for your abilities, which translates into them making money, and make them look good. An MD/PhD with a lacking PhD who does not have evidence of true hypothesis based research, success with grants, and quality publications, will not get in. Conversely, a lowly MD can do all the above, its just a matter of if you want a PhD or not.

This is news to me - I've never heard of a PhD program without quals or committees. And about non-peer reviewed journals, anyone can do that. Like other posters have said, it's the strength of your pubs that get you places.

Same here, never run into a program or heard of one that doesn't have a qualifying exam. If this is such the case, then it would be well known among other bioengineering PhDs that the school does this and being the best around or not, the PhDs have every right to bias against such programs if they wish. UCSD, the top biomedical engineering school in the nation, along with its sister UC schools, including mine, rank very high in BME, and we all have a qualifying exam and thesis committee.

 

[RxnMan]

relentless11 - dude, I've never heard of any PhD program that didn't have a comittee or quals! Even synchronized-underwater-basket-weaving majors have SOME standards!

I'm just puzzled why gbwillner compares himself to his friend - If gbwillner's had good training, it'll show, regardless of what anyone else does. If he had (what he percieved to be) a relatively hard time getting his PhD, then that sucks, but he got what he wanted. This friend of his isn't even competing for the same career path as gbwillner, and there's more than enough "top" residency spots to go around.

 

[QofQuimica]

I've never heard of a PhD with no quals either, unless it was from a diploma mill. (Yes, there really ARE PhD diploma mills out there. I'm thinking, geez, to think all I REALLY had to do to get a PhD was to write a 20-page paper and email it in to this place....) Even my grad student friends in humanities and social sciences had to take quals.

I think Rxnman has a very good point. It's best to keep your eyes on your own plate, and not use others as a yardstick with which to measure yourself. That is only going to make you miserable. You know where you are, you know where you want to be, and you know what you need to do to get there. If other people want to take easier paths and believe that they're going to end up in the same place as you, well, all I can say to that is more power to them if they can pull it off. I know that I'm sure not willing to risk it. 🙂

 

[cerulean grass]

Qualifying exams come in wildly different forms. The most exhaustive programs require a written comprehensive test of course mastery, an oral test on course mastery, plus some form of grant-writing with or without a defense of the faux grant. Other programs require some combination of the above. Here's a sampling of the requirements of different PhD programs in the graduate school I'm familiar with: Written comprehensive test, written grant plus oral defense of grant (cannot have anything to do with eventual thesis work); written grant plus oral defense of grant (again, no relation to thesis work) but no written comprehensive test; written comprehensive test, written grant plus oral defense (based on thesis, basically a "thesis proposal defense").

I am pretty sure I know which bioengineering program gbwillner is referring to (and which student -- it's a pretty small world). That program doesn't require any sort of comprehensive exam, but does require a thesis proposal with defense. The thesis proposal is designed to be a skeleton document of the thesis, and page count is somewhere between 40 and 80. (Contrast this with programs that require a "mini-grant" of 10 to 15 pages.)

I do concede, however, that the thesis proposal process in this case is "softball." The thesis committee (yes, there is one) rarely contests the advisor's opinion (which is always, "this work should pass"). But if you think about it, a good advisor rarely let's his or her students go on to a defense (thesis proposal or actual dissertation, whichever) without being fairly certain that the student will pass. The advisor is usually tuned into what constitutes pass or fail, and in the case where a student has done shoddy or minimal work, the advisor will typically try to strong-arm (diplomatically, of course) the rest of the committee into passing his or her student. (This is typically the situation in students who have been languishing in the lab for too many years with no end in sight, but it can also apply to students like the one gbwillner is referring to, who make their intentions very clear and put pressure on their advisor to let them go.) This is true of some programs and untrue of others, plus it depends on the advisor.

Ultimately, a qualifying exam does not a PhD make, but it does serve as a standardizing practice to establish a certain degree of comprehensive understanding in a field. The utility of a qualifying examination process that does not test both depth and breadth is questionable, but each student knows what he or she is getting into, and students should realize that future employers aren't going to be scrutinizing their qualifying exam performance, but rather the content, number, and relative impact of papers on the CV. I have no trouble resenting colleagues of mine who don't have to jump through the number or degree of hoops that I do, but to some extent I understand that "this is the way things are" and there's no reason to get my panties in a bunch.

 

[gbwillner]

relentless11 - dude, I've never heard of any PhD program that didn't have a comittee or quals! Even synchronized-underwater-basket-weaving majors have SOME standards!

I'm just puzzled why gbwillner compares himself to his friend - If gbwillner's had good training, it'll show, regardless of what anyone else does. If he had (what he percieved to be) a relatively hard time getting his PhD, then that sucks, but he got what he wanted. This friend of his isn't even competing for the same career path as gbwillner, and there's more than enough "top" residency spots to go around.

I compare myself because we both will ahve graduated from the same MSTP program. The fact he has a PhD makes the rest of us look bad. It makes the program look bad. It leads to people saying MSTP PhDs are fake, etc..
It lowers the overall perceived value of our program, and although you may think that means little, note that most of a school's rank is based on reputation.

 

[gbwillner]

Whoah... let's not get into any more specifics here.... Chances are there are other people who know who I am, and I don't mean to have my "panties in a bunch" but rather use this open forum as a means of airing what I perceive to be problems with the program. More specifically, the lack of uniformity across all PhD programs nation and world-wide.

For the record I don't think there is anything wrong with Bio-Engineering. In Fact, it is very interesting. I just think, in this case, it serves as an example of how the lack of uniformity can hurt both the program and the students within.

 

[relentless11]

I compare myself because we both will ahve graduated from the same MSTP program. The fact he has a PhD makes the rest of us look bad. It makes the program look bad. It leads to people saying MSTP PhDs are fake, etc..
It lowers the overall perceived value of our program, and although you may think that means little, note that most of a school's rank is based on reputation.

Ah so the truth comes out. So you're more concerned that your MD/PhD will look bad, rather than the fact the pseudo-reason that he would get into residencies better. Correct?

I can name numerous degree programs that appear to be "easy". At the faculty level, those with an MSTP from UCSF, Harvard, Yale, or whatever..if you don't publish you are out on the streets. They don't care where you came from, they only care if you PRODUCE QUALITY material. At UC, to be a professor, you need to: 1) be a national (if not international) expert in your speciality, 2) continue to create/contribute something new to the field each year. Both of these translate to publications. As you pointed out, your friend wants to go to surgery, so....if he did well on step I/II/III then he is on par with other med students/residents who have or don't have a PhD after their names.

This seems to be turning towards one of those school prestige topics, rather than a discussion of the adequacy of MSTP vs. traditional PhD. Despite the common conclusion that short of getting your PhD from some website, what ultimately matters is the evidence (e.g., publications, abstracts, presentations) that you are going to be (if not already) a leader in your field.

 

[RxnMan]

I compare myself because we both will ahve graduated from the same MSTP program. The fact he has a PhD makes the rest of us look bad. It makes the program look bad. It leads to people saying MSTP PhDs are fake, etc..
It lowers the overall perceived value of our program, and although you may think that means little, note that most of a school's rank is based on reputation.

I thought so.

PhDs w/o/quals, committees, or defences ARE bad.

In undergrad, I sometimes felt bad because my GPA didn't stack up to others, even though I spent X more hours studying than they did. I mean, didn't I deserve an A more than they? I'm not saying this is your case, but the way I dealt with it may help you. I realized that my career trajectory was completely different than theirs. They wanted to drill the north face of Alaska or research fuel cells or be an engineer for some big oil company. I wanted to be a physician. It was apples and oranges, and there's no comparison.

Your buddy won't make the school (and you) look bad - he made the mistake of spending time and effort getting training he won't use. You'll go off and shine (presumably), and add to your school. Focus on that, not the people who choose to fall by the wayside. You'll have graduated from one of the most competitive programs on the planet with more education than 99.999% of the population - that's pretty darn impressive in of itself.

Lastly, about the residency thing. Here's a link for ortho selection criteria. It isn't the same for every field, but it can serve as a rough guide. See how Step I, publishing, having a PhD, and AOA membership rank.

 

[cerulean grass]

Another distinction I wanted to just throw out there is that gbwillner did have a point when he said "bioengineers [in the program affiliated with his MSTP] are not required to publish in peer-reviewed journals." This isn't actually true -- I'd wager that the great majority of bioengineering publications from that institution are peer-reviewed, and the journals that aren't are considered unrespected trash -- but what *is* true is that the relative impact factors of the primary literature in bioengineering is an order of magnitude below typical impact factors of publications in the traditional basic sciences.

Basic scientists typically aim for Cell, Dev Cell, Neuron, Genes Dev, the Nature journals, Science, PNAS, and the like. Bioengineers still shoot for the Nature journals, Science, or PNAS, but by and large, the culture has typically focused on publishing incrementally, in field-specific journals like Tissue Engineering or Annals of Biomedical Engineering (which are much lower impact, but are the "standards" in the field, in the same way that Journal of Neuroscience is the standard, society-level journal in neuroscience, albeit much higher impact than TE or ABME). Publication in TE or ABME or Optics Letters, etc., is rewarded by the bioengineering community, despite impact factors less than 10.

What this means is that while you can compare MD/PhD graduate Dr. X (a basic scientist) and MD/PhD graduate Dr. Y (a bioengineer), and announce, "Dr. X published in Neuron once and J Neurosci a couple of times, which is far better than the performance of Dr. Y, who published in lower-tier journals such as Biomaterials once, TE once, and ABME three times," you are really just comparing apples and oranges. Dr. Y would never have a chance getting hired by a basic science department, but he'd have no trouble getting a job in bioengineering academia. Similarly, Dr. X's publications are impressive and he'd have no trouble getting a position in basic science, but he'd have to vastly retool his research program (through several postdocs) if he wanted a job in bioengineering. Seriously, apples and oranges.

Okay, sorry for the long post. I'm going to retreat into hiding for another decade or so. 🙂