OK, I suck.

[AA]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Urgh, just got my grad for 2nd-sem orgo. B. I knew I was gonna mess up when I took the test since I had a paper due the day before and I didn't sleep until 11 in the morning, then I got up to study for chem. Didn't work out that well. I barely stayed awake during the test.

I've pretty much made up my mind that I'm going to do MD/PHD or just PHD. MD only is not much of an option. My overall GPA is 3.7 (brought down a little bit by this B, the first B I've ever gotten in college.) I know this is a stupid question to ask, but will the adcom actually look at my 2nd sem orgo grade and go like, yikes, we're not going to think about accepting this kid b/c of her bad grade in 2nd sem orgo (I got an A last semester. With a harder prof. too...). Also, will taking biochem (which is what I'm doing next sem) and do well in it helps? (Professor really matters to me. Our orgo prof really sucked this semester... I mean, multiple choice midterms and finals?! Urgh!) Well, before you answer my stupid questions, let me tell you something about my status.

- I am an intl student, with no greencard. That said, it's very very very hard for me to get into MD programs already, let alone MD/PHD.
- I haven't been volunteering much b/c of my own health condition, but that is also why I want to do MD/PHD but not MD alone. I've done blood drive volunteer, a bit of hospital volunteer (before my own situation arise anyways), and campus tour guides (also in the past).
- My GPA sucks for my status (I felt so anyways).
- PHD is always an option for me, but I want to do clinical research so getting a MD might be helpful.
- I go to a top liberal arts college in new england, and I'm a rising-junior. I've gotten my bio and chem req out of the way (also for my major). Will do math and physics next year (also for my major).
- I've done research last summer and is doing more this summer and into the semester.

I'm confused (about whether I should do MD with PHD, b/c if so, I need to take the MCAT next april) and worried (about this stupid grade). Can someone give me some suggestions? Even those telling me to dream on about being a MD/PHD will help me too... 🙁

 

[Taty]

I think that B in orgo is not the end of the world.
I also think that major thing is MCAT.

 

[AA]

I haven't taken the MCAT. In fact, I need to decide whether or not I am going to take it in the spring. My two options:

a) Ph.D. in Biology/molecular biology/immunology, etc.
b) M.D./Ph.D.

For (a), I don't need to worry about admissions and stuff (GRE) until senior year. But for (b), I need to take MCAT... soon 🙁 I know a B in orgo is not the end of the world. I'm actually not that upset about it, for some reason. It just seems to me that all international premed students are incredibly smart and diligent and get great (if not perfect GPA)... urgh. I also have the feeling that for Ph.D., I don't have to CARE about my GPA that much anymore (may just be my illusion though).

 

[canadagirl]

Do you want to be a physician? Or do you JUST want to do research? Would you be happy if you just did a PhD?

Is it just me that thinks "an MD might be helpful" is NOT a good reason to MD/PhD? You can do great research with just a PhD. If I didn't really want to be a DOCTOR, then I would have just gone with the PhD option. Less time, less money, easier route into academics. MD/PhD is a commitment of a decade of my life before I even get into the beginning of an academic career...

 

[phar]

B is not the end of the world. HEY, b is a good grade!!!!!!!you ought to be happy as it is better than c or f.

organic is a 'weed out' class. You should have kissed your professors ass to get the A.

 

[DarkChild]

how strong is your research background?
if anything i think that is the biggest determining factor in the MD/PhD game.
About the int'l student issue. Thats going to be tough. Off hand I know Columbia takes international students.

 

[bahraini]

"organic is a 'weed out' class. You should have kissed your professors ass to get the A "

AA: Please disregard this comment. Your undergraduate education should be about you learning the skills that you need to become a doctor and/or a scientist. Learning the material, and being able to apply it is more important than an A or an F.

PHAR: Seriously, I recommend that you keep this kind of advice out of SDN. Applicants would get no where if they 'kissed ass' to achieve what they wanted, and you certainly wouldn't achieve anything either.

 

[AA]

Originally posted by canadagirl
Do you want to be a physician? Or do you JUST want to do research? Would you be happy if you just did a PhD?

I don't know. I used to really really want to be a M.D., but after I got sick myself, I realize being a M.D. only cannot help people that much. One needs to do research to actually make a difference (in finding possible treatment, etc.) So that's why I ruled out the M.D. option.

Is it just me that thinks "an MD might be helpful" is NOT a good reason to MD/PhD? You can do great research with just a PhD. If I didn't really want to be a DOCTOR, then I would have just gone with the PhD option. Less time, less money, easier route into academics. MD/PhD is a commitment of a decade of my life before I even get into the beginning of an academic career...

I do want to be a doctor, b/c I think that is the most direct way one can help another human being, but I just don't think that is enough. For a uncommon or unknown disease, continuing research is the only way to make an impact. I believe all those considering MD/PHD track would agree with me 🙂

 

[mosquito]

you stated that you are a intl student. not totally sure, but i think that one must be a permanent US resident to be eligible for govt/NIH MSTP md/phd funding. might want to check into this.

 

[AA]

thanks for the reminder, mosquito 🙂 I am indeed aware of that. I believe some schools provide non-MSTP funding. I am also considering applying to grad school first then apply for M.D/Ph.D. after second year. Has anyone done that? I've heard and done some research on it, but am not entirely sure how it works (the Ph.D. -> MD/PHD thing).

 

[Nuel]

Originally posted by AA
I haven't taken the MCAT. In fact, I need to decide whether or not I am going to take it in the spring. My two options:

a) Ph.D. in Biology/molecular biology/immunology, etc.
b) M.D./Ph.D.

For (a), I don't need to worry about admissions and stuff (GRE) until senior year. But for (b), I need to take MCAT... soon 🙁 I know a B in orgo is not the end of the world. I'm actually not that upset about it, for some reason. It just seems to me that all international premed students are incredibly smart and diligent and get great (if not perfect GPA)... urgh. I also have the feeling that for Ph.D., I don't have to CARE about my GPA that much anymore (may just be my illusion though).

I am an international student as well hoping to venture the MD/PhD route, and I do not consider myself incredibly smart, neither do I go to the top schools . . . I have to take money into consideration since I get no grants nor loans. As well, not all international premed students are incredibly smart. There were successful international students applying MD/PhD this past cycle. "Hard" and "impossible" are two entirely different things . . . I doubt if there is a common factor. Keep your head up.

 

[AA]

Originally posted by Nuel
I am an international student as well hoping to venture the MD/PhD route, and I do not consider myself incredibly smart, neither do I go to the top schools . . . I have to take money into consideration since I get no grants nor loans. As well, not all international premed students are incredibly smart. There were successful international students applying MD/PhD this past cycle. "Hard" and "impossible" are two entirely different things . . . I doubt if there is a common factor. Keep your head up.

Money... that is another reason for me not to do M.D. alone (not the main reason though). Though I do go to a expensive private undergrad school, I am fully-funded through a foundation. I would feel bad if my family has to pay for my grad/med school education (and yeah, it's a lot of money we're talking about here). It's just me though.

 

[AA]

Originally posted by DarkChild
how strong is your research background?
if anything i think that is the biggest determining factor in the MD/PhD game.
About the int'l student issue. Thats going to be tough. Off hand I know Columbia takes international students.

I've done some research last summer, and I'm doing it again this summer (rising-jr.) at my own school. Hopefully I can extend this research into the year. So I expect to have around 2 years of research experience when I graduate. I'll write a senior thesis, but paper-wise, who knows? 😛

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by heelpain
Umm, getting a phd is NOT going to be any easier. I can tell you from experience. It is a huge committment. It takes a long time to obtain a phd. One is hallucinating by thinking this route is much easier.😱

No doubt about it. I have an MS and I 've spent months trying to convince folks on the threads that gettign a PhD is VERY difficult. In fact, I think it's much harder than getting an MD because it's so subjective in nature. There is no "here is what you need to do to graduate" like there is in medical school.

 

[canadagirl]

Who said getting a PhD was easy? I didn't. I think getting a PhD is easier than getting BOTH a PhD AND an MD in a combined program. In the combined program you have to do the PhD, and the MD is just an extra four years of work. Am I missing something here? It was strongly emphasized to me at my school that the PhD you earn is on par with the PhD's that people in PhD-only programs earn. How can it possibly not be easier to do just the PhD than the PhD AND the MD?

 

[dr2loo]

Your PhD in an MSTP or dual degree is an abridged one at every institution I know of except U. Illinois. A PhD typically takes 8 or so years. So, tack 4 more years on for medical school and you're talking about a 12+ year program not the typical 8-9 years. You cut corners with the dual degree both in the research and in the clinics. Hence, in the professinal world, your PhD is not worth the same thing to your straight PhD collaborators and your clinical skillls will constantly be in question... this all ends when you prove that you know what you are doing. The great part about the dual degree is that you will receive some formal researcdh training. If you know you want to be a physician that will do research already, then the dual degree is a great track. However, there are MANY successful basic science researchers who have an MD alone.

As for the original poster, a B is not anything to fret over. Your grades need ot be good, but you also have your MCATs and research to worry about. Also, there are plenty of schools that offer slots to INTL. students. These slots will be institutionally funded not NIH (MSTP) funded, however.

For example:
U. Illinois
Dartmouth
Harvard + Harvard/MIT (HST program)
Wash. Univ.
UTexas SW
and I think Baylor to name a few....

You'll have to do your homeowrk when the time comes....
In the mean time, relax and enjoy your life and things will become clear..

good luck!

 

[dr2loo]

AA: you have loan options available to you for straight MD programs even if you are intl.

 

[canadagirl]

Originally posted by dr2loo
Your PhD in an MSTP or dual degree is an abridged one at every institution I know of except U. Illinois. A PhD typically takes 8 or so years. So, tack 4 more years on for medical school and you're talking about a 12+ year program not the typical 8-9 years. You cut corners with the dual degree both in the research and in the clinics. Hence, in the professinal world, your PhD is not worth the same thing to your straight PhD collaborators and your clinical skillls will constantly be in question... this all ends when you prove that you know what you are doing. The great part about the dual degree is that you will receive some formal researcdh training. If you know you want to be a physician that will do research already, then the dual degree is a great track. However, there are MANY successful basic science researchers who have an MD alone.

A PhD *typically* takes 8 or so years? Where did you get that from? I don't buy it for a minute. And I certainly would never enroll in a program with stats like that.

A few quick Google searches (I searched 'graduate program biology school name') yield:

biophysics at Harvard: maximum six years
cell biology at Yale: average five years
biology at Columbia: maximum six years
biomedical informatics at Stanford: average five years

MD/PhD students taking 7-9 years to finish their degree are spending 3-5 years in the PhD portion. This seems to me to be totally on par with the faster of our PhD-only classmates. I fully expect my PhD to be a real PhD, with PhD-level work.

And your other claim,

You cut corners with the dual degree both in the research and in the clinics.

Are you serious? I'm doing my MD/PhD in Canada, and here, at least, the clinical portion of my education is IDENTICAL to that of my MD-only classmates. Is it different in the US?

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by canadagirl
A PhD *typically* takes 8 or so years? Where did you get that from? I don't buy it for a minute. And I certainly would never enroll in a program with stats like that.

When I Finished UNC-Chapel Hill a few years back, it took the average PhD student 6.5 years to finish. You may not "buy it" but it is the reality which no offense, you'd know if you've been around the PhD game long enough. (I've been doing research about 15 years now)

Originally posted by dr2lool
Hence, in the professinal world, your PhD is not worth the same thing to your straight PhD collaborators [/B]

As unfair as it is, this is also true and the reason should be obvious. An MD/PhD student that takes 3 years to finish a PhD with no prior graduate level training can rarely be on par with someone that spent 5 or more years in a graduate program. Training an affective scientist usually takes years. MD/PhD programs are often in a rush to have thier students finish the PhD which is why PhD only folks don't value them as much.

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by pathdr2b
An MD/PhD student that takes 3 years to finish a PhD with no prior graduate level training can rarely be on par with someone that spent 5 or more years in a graduate program.

It makes sense that it would take MD/PhDs at least a year less to complete their PhD. They have to put up with less BS.

Most MD/PhD programs have no teaching requirement or very little teaching requirement. MD/PhD programs have you do rotations over the summer before you start, and even so, their rotations are generally shorter. Not to mention that at many schools, medical school classes count for graduate school credit and/or MD/PhDs take grad classes while in medical school. Graduation times are often deceiving as well. At many schools, you get half a year towards elective credit for your PhD.

So most students do their PhDs in 3.5-4.5 years. At other schools, a full year is shaved off, so a 7 year MD/PhD gives a 4 year PhD, which after all the normal requirements have been removed is as much thesis work as a 5 year graduate student. At Baylor, a full year is shaved off MD/PhDs and the average is still about 8 years. So then you're even talking about 5 year MD/PhDs. I guess Baylor MD/PhDs are better than other MD/PhDs 🙄

All this adds up to less time to take away from the thesis. Compare that to a 7 year PhD at my ugrad institution who had to TA almost every semester she was there. She also had a PI who would not let her finish, and that happens way too often in the graduate school world. These things are far less common in MD/PhD programs because there is way more oversight over students. Directors are not going to let their students sit in bad labs, be used as techs, or stagnate with a poor project. If anything, that points to how PhD programs need to be changed.

I know regular PhDs who have done 2 or 3 year theses. I know a 2 year PhD with a cell paper (from Baylor nonetheless). I guess they aren't up-to-par with a 5 year person either huh? If the publication record is long, don't knock it. Like the MD/PhD at Northwestern who did a 2 year PhD and got 5 top-tier publications from it.

Oh yeah, I forgot, somehow MD/PhDs get easier projects. Yeah alright. There's always going to be stigma. I got that crap all the time from the grad students who were so bitter about their graduate school experience that it seemed like they were trying to justify why they went through a crappy graduate program with a mentor who wouldn't let them go.

 

[canadagirl]

Originally posted by pathdr2b
When I Finished UNC-Chapel Hill a few years back, it took the average PhD student 6.5 years to finish. You may not "buy it" but it is the reality which no offense, you'd know if you've been around the PhD game long enough. (I've been doing research about 15 years now)

I'd buy 6.5 years a lot more than I would buy _eight_. 6.5 is in my eyes significantly less than eight, and the previous post said that 8 was "typical".

Are you claiming that all these program guides that say that their students must finish their PhD's in a maximum six years are LYING, then? What gives? Do wet lab research degrees take significantly longer than other fields? I'm in math, and four years really _is_ typical.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Neuronix
It makes sense that it would take MD/PhDs at least a year less to complete their PhD. They have to put up with less BS.
Directors are not going to let their students sit in bad labs, be used as techs, or stagnate with a poor project. If anything, that points to how PhD programs need to be changed.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Neuronix
Most MD/PhD programs have no teaching requirement or very little teaching requirement.

So the question becomes how can an MD/PhD graduate be qualified to teach and mentor gradaute students when they "missed" that requirement during the PhD training?

Originally posted by Neuronix
So then you're even talking about 5 year MD/PhDs. I guess Baylor MD/PhDs are better than other MD/PhDs 🙄I know regular PhDs who have done 2 or 3 year theses. I know a 2 year PhD with a cell paper (from Baylor nonetheless). I guess they aren't up-to-par with a 5 year person either huh?

Its comments like these that make you a pretty crappy moderator in my opinion. Sarcam aside, people come to these boards for ALL of our expereinces with this process not just those of a select few whom have deemed themselves the MD/PhD gods due to their emphasis on top programs and high stats. Also I didn't know guys actually rolled their eyes anyway !!!

Originally posted by Neuronix
Oh yeah, I forgot, somehow MD/PhDs get easier projects. Yeah alright. There's always going to be stigma. I got that crap all the time from the grad students who were so bitter about their graduate school experience that it seemed like they were trying to justify why they went through a crappy graduate program with a mentor who wouldn't let them go.

MD/PhD students that I've known over the 15 or so years I've been in the business do get the easier projects. PhD only students as a rule do have a harder time in thier programs which I've observed first hand especially about mentors "hanging on " to their PhD students. I throughly enjoyed my gradaute school experince so maybe I'm an exception.

So please stop shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by canadagirl
Are you claiming that all these program guides that say that their students must finish their PhD's in a maximum six years are LYING, then? What gives?

Yep !

Originally posted by canadagirl
Do wet lab research degrees take significantly longer than other fields?

It depends. I already know that my dissertation research is going to be a combination between the bench and computer (epidemiology). As for my bench work and given my prior expereince, I will not be using an animal based project (translation little to NO in vivo work) because you NEVER know how long it will take to get publishable results. Cell and tissue culture based projects are much more predictable.

 

[dr2loo]

Just to clarify, I know M.I.T. has a lot of mentors in bio sciences that require ~ 8 yrs. before the PhD is granted. I don;t know about all schools, but I do know that very few science PhDs in the Boston area (Harvard included) finish their PhDs in the amount of time that a dual degree student will finish his or her PhD. The quotes for time are not a rule for PhD students at any school. Your length of time largely depends on your mentor and the department. These things are curbed fort he dual degree where a medical school has their hands inthe process as well. For the person frm Canada, it is typical for some clinical training to be shaved (John's Hopkins, for example). The reality is that a dual degree of such magnitude can;t be finished in the same way thaat either is alone... you'd need two life times. However, this in no way means that any dual degree student will be an ineffective physician or researcher. In fact, you will have a very particular role to play in reseach and in the clinics that can't be filled as well or at all (in some cases) by those possessing the single degree, MD or PhD. A dual degree will bring cutting edge research knowledge to the clinics and will bring the importnat question about what patients truly need to have investigated in the labs to the bench.... this is a unique and valuable role!!! So, y comments are not ment to undercut the value of the dual degree, but rahter to point out the obvious...the dual degree is not the same as an individual degree tracks... the end.... thinking that your PhD is the same as someone holding a PhD they spent 6-10 years working on will simply create agitation and divide whatever future lab you might work in..I;ve seen this affect a lot... The big issue is that your playing with HUGE egos in medicine and basic science research... everyone is valuable, but failing to recognize difference where difference exists will leave you at odds with others in your future.... just a thought.... the whole who's better or more qualified thing is kind of a stupid debate, in my opinion. The proof positive is the work produced by YOU no matter what you degree status and everyone will be a contributor if they set their mind to it....

 

[Neuronix]

Its comments like these that make you a pretty crappy moderator in my opinion. Sarcam aside, people come to these boards for ALL of our expereinces with this process not just those of a select few whom have deemed themselves the MD/PhD gods due to their emphasis on top programs and high stats.

It is true that the top neuroscience programs, e.g. the ones with the most big name faculty correlate very well with the top medical schools. That's why I chose Penn. Others here who are neuroscience minded have also chose their programs at least partially based on that fact. Yes, I have opinions, yes I am a moderator. You can't expect me to remain neutral, otherwise I wouldn't have enough interest to remain here.

Also dr2loo, I agree with what you're saying in principle, but rarely is that true in practice. The majority of MD/PhDs serve the normal function of a MD or PhD. The ones I have seen that serve as PhDs either do not use their medical training at all, beyond the knowledge it grants them in discussions or grant writing, or they serve MD duties that are completely separate. When people say or insinuate "MD/PhDs are not real PhDs" it cheapens the whole program and insults those MD/PhDs or even MDs who do great basic research.

One wonders whether it is worth it to argue the point. In the real world, in most circumstances, not really. I'll let people have their own opinions. On this forum, I don't mind pressing the issue a bit.

So please stop shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.

Never do I cheapen your experience or say things negatively to you or about you personally the way you do to me. Shooting the messenger would be using my power to toss you off of here, censor your messages, etc... As much as I may argue with you and disagree with your opinions, I would never do those things.

 

[canadagirl]

Thanks for your posts. They've been very informative.

So the question becomes how can an MD/PhD graduate be qualified to teach and mentor gradaute students when they "missed" that requirement during the PhD training?

This is mystifying to me, though. Yes, teaching a course CAN be an important experience on the tenure-track route. But this is a one-semester job, and really, not that big a deal. We're talking about grad students often TA'ing for most of their degree (primarily to supplement income) -- this is not (imho) something that's going to make them into a more valuable prof one day...

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Neuronix
Shooting the messenger would be using my power to toss you off of here, censor your messages, etc... As much as I may argue with you and disagree with your opinions, I would never do those things.

The idea that you would even mention your "power" to do these things says more about you than you'll ever know. As an acomplished woman scientist, I can provide insight that you could never relate to because you're a man and you've never been to graduate school. To even threaten to bann someone for reasons that can only be described as having rubbed your ego the wrong way, is asinine at best.

 

[Neuronix]

I did not threaten you. I said I would never do such a thing. The reason I said it is because you said I was shooting the messenger. For that, I would have to do those things which I have not done and said I would never do.

Just a clarification.

 

[dr2loo]

Neuronix
I am not quite sure where you theory and practice comes from. If you are planning to only do the work of a PhD, then why not just get a PhD or an MD if you only want to practice medicine? I agree that most poeple are heavy with their time in either the labs or int he clinics, but it is a misconception that most people end up in one field or the other.... this is not always true nor does it have to be... at any rate, there's a lot of ill feeling toward dual degree folks at least in the land I work in UNLESS you do take some responsibility for the limitations presented by the degrees obtained (limitations meaning the abridged format of these degrees). As I suggested, I am all for the dual degree and think physician scientists have a VERY important role to play. This role is just different than the role or expertise one will have by singularly focusing their attentions.... Most importantly, I think the dual degree is a spectacular road for those who want to practice medicine (at least in some limited way) andare also very interested in research form the outset. Dual degree students have set up the opportunity to get some training for research set up for them as opposed to MDs who make this decisiona nd often have to find the training experience through fellowships and whatnot.

 

[dr2loo]

Neuronix
By the way, congrats on your decision to go to Penn. I have some friends their with a neuroscience focus as MSTP students...wonderful place for what you are looking for...congrats!

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by dr2loo
I am not quite sure where you theory and practice comes from. If you are planning to only do the work of a PhD, then why not just get a PhD or an MD if you only want to practice medicine?

I'm not sure where you are in the game, so forgive me if you are a current student. Have you applied yet? The reason I ask is because I was asked this question by my interviewers several times. The interviewer will explain to you what I just explained, and then wonder "Given that, why do you want a dual degree?"

Your answer was something like mine. I want to cure disease, and I don't care about being the best researcher or the best clinician. What I think is that the MD/PhD sets me up to do either research-oriented medicine or clinically-oriented research, and either one is fine by me. Some of my interviewers didn't like that answer, but maybe they were just giving me a hard time.

There are a couple jobs on the borderline of medicine and research or requiring both that I think are well-suited for MD/PhDs. Still, for the stigma that MD/PhDs are not "real PhDs", there sure seems to be alot of young MD/PhDs holding research faculty spots at the best schools. This seems strange when one considers that there are maybe a couple hundred MD/PhDs who graduate every year and thousands of PhDs. But, I digress. Some would argue it is because the school gets a clinician as well as a researcher.

at any rate, there's a lot of ill feeling toward dual degree folks at least in the land I work in UNLESS you do take some responsibility for the limitations presented by the degrees obtained

If you work with PhDs you just have to go along with it. If you work with MDs or MD/PhDs, I'm sure you will get no ill feelings. Isn't diplomacy great?

While I'm on the subject, it seems to me that your post-doc is what really sets you up for a career in research. If MD/PhDs don't get the same research training, how do they perform in a post-doc? This is also my argument for why one should not just go MD and do a post-doc, besides the cost. They will be way behind the curve, and will likely be unproductive for several years while they learn research. Yes, they come in with respect, but that respect is quickly lost if they've never learned how to pipet.

Thanks for your congrats 🙂 I will tell you one thing I found about UPenn though. The director is very focused on producing what he calls "physician-investigators". Perhaps more than any other school I applied at, they really want to produce basic science researchers from their MD/PhD program.

 

[tofurious]

From somebody who
1) has been through graduate school (be it a requirement to speak out or not)
2) has seen people spend more than 6 years to get their PhDs
3) knows people who "typically" spend 8 years to get their PhDs
4) has now been through most of med school

Every school has different "schedules" for the completion of their PhDs. For folks who work in primate biology, especially in neurodegenerative diseases where you can't sac the animals 3 days after they are born (not even 6 months like in mice), it takes *A LONG TIME* for your subjects to get to the right age for your experiments to begin. I know people who spend 8 years to get their PhD, but they also make their T-time at 3PM every day. As far as I know, there is no "maximum" number of years an MD-PhD student can do before getting a PhD for sure. A PhD is never a sure thing. People do drop out, and either go back to med school or just get a job with a masters degree. I've never heard of any guarantee for a PhD in any MD-PhD/MSTP programs.

Teaching wise, I hardly think TA-ing actually gives you all the skills required in teaching. In fact, it is now well recognized that graduate level teaching across the country is simply horrible on average. Many graduate schools have now begun formal education classes for their science graduate students and young faculty so they know how to teach. It is unreasonable to assume that someone who knows how to do experiments *can* automatically teach. Thus, whether you spend 2 years TAing or no time teaching at all doesn't really make a difference in how *well* you teach, only how long you have been teaching. I'm sure we all know professors who have been at places forever who are horrible teachers.

Lastly, what an MD-PhD/MSTP student does after the combined program is a purely academic discussion. It seems to me that only people without both degrees are really bent on trying to characterize folks with joint degrees one way or another. Like pure MDs or pure PhDs, there are people who do something on one end of the spectrum and there are others who do something completely different. It says nothing about the success of the programs or the degree holder. People have looked into how much grant money MD-PhD faculty get compared to pure MDs and pure PhDs, and I think the results were that the joint degree holders do a little better percentage wise on NIH grant. As far as I know, that's been the only objective measure of the "success rate" of combined degree training programs. Until a better systemic review of the MD-PhD trainees is done, any "assessment" is only really subjective personal bias.

 

[dr2loo]

NeorOnix:

I'm not too sure what I said that would lead you, as everyone alse pedantically does in this game, to question my respect or intentions with a dual degree. I am jsut someone who sees the degree and the subsequent work enabled by that degree as amazing, having a VERY important place in the cog of medical advancement wheel, but I aslo do see the MD and PhD received as being abridged, which they fundamentally are - how can this be contested unless you are at U. Illinois (a school that can't get MSTP funding despite being about the oldest program out there) because UI requires FULL medical training and FULL PhD work unlike MSTP schools.

 

[tofurious]

I think there are people who can benefit from the FULL MD and FULL PhD trainings. Those people are best suited to attend and finish both schools independently. I did not have the full PhD training because I had one full year of pathophysiology in med school and no one saw the need for me to take that for 3 months in grad school. I did not have the full med school experience because I had more than sufficient experience in my PhD training that I did not have to put in 3 more months of research time as other medical students do. I would suggest that people who have not been through the program not question how much hell we have to go through to "complete" the requirements of each degree. There are some programs with plenty of flexibility, but there are also many that are very stubborn with their students finishing the respective requirements of the medical and graduate schools.

As for UI, they have their own problems that I am aware of as I have worked on a national organization with a student representative from UI. There really is no need to say one program is better than all the rest because of their program difference in design. However, I am fully confident that an MD-PhD graduate is as competent in medicine as most MDs and as competitive in science as most PhDs. There will ALWAYS be those MDs who are spectacular and those PhDs who are Nobel winners, but those represent such a small percentage of the field (unlikely any of us will be them as we spend too much time on this board) that when MD-PhD gradutes don't measure up to them, it really has nothing to do with the program/training but the fact that most MDs and PhDs don't achieve that level either. Before any large scale systemic review can be done, one man's opinion is really worth no more than 2 cents.

 

[Primate]

I can only speak for myself.

The credit that I've carried from the PhD into Med School is 3 months (I don't have to do a mini-research project). However, I'll have more than that amount of time after finishing all my clinical requirements and electives, so I'll do a full MD plus some extra research (outside of the PhD). No cutting of requirements for the MD.

For the PhD, I took one full year of classes in grad school while taking my full MD curriculum in the first two years. I then took a full year of grad classes for my third year, so I've taken the exact same number of grad classes as my PhD colleagues. I then spent three years in the lab proper (not counting rotations done over the preceding 3 years) before my committee gave me permission to defend, for a total of 5 years of PhD work. That is about 1/2 year less than the last national average I saw for a neuroscience PhD - pretty much normal.

Did I get a 1/2 year of grace for being in a combined degree? It didn't feel like it, but is possible. Even if it were, I've had the same training in both programs as my single degree classmates. After all, some PhD students finish in the same time (as 5.5 years is the average - some over/under).

I realize that this is not always the case. However, that cuts both ways.

What I think is important to realize is that precisely BECAUSE there is so much variation in the process/requirements, some of the broad statements made in this thread are inaccurate on their very face. Of course they are sometimes trues. But they are also sometimes way off.

What I don't understand is why anyone cares. It's not as though there is a single career into which all MDs or PhDs or CDs go, so why can we not realize that there are similarly diverse training programs and let people be?

This is something of a rhetorical question, as I know that I get my feathers up when people question the training I've received. However, on reflection it's clear to me that I don't really care what others think if they're at least able to evaluate my abilities based on performance. It is in this hope that I even posted on this thread.

With any luck, this'll be the end of the name calling and the beginning of a new age of cooperation and understanding. I suspect that this won't be the case. 🙁

P
(preparing for flames that I hope don't materialize)

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by tofurious
I did not have the full PhD training because I had one full year of pathophysiology in med school and no one saw the need for me to take that for 3 months in grad school. I did not have the full med school experience because I had more than sufficient experience in my PhD training that I did not have to put in 3 more months of research time as other medical students do.

Now that I've decided to do my PhD in Pathology (with some epidemiology flavor), I'm going to be in the same situation regarding the reprocity (SP?) I'll receive for my classes. BUT, I have also completed a Master's degree in Chemistry so I don't worry to much about people thininking I'm not qualified or other wise undertrained. I'll have other reasons going for me for people to make crass assumptions about my qualifications like the fact that I'm an AfricanAmerican woman in MD/PhD game.

What I think is important to realize is that precisely BECAUSE there is so much variation in the process/requirements, some of the broad statements made in this thread are inaccurate on their very face. Of course they are sometimes trues. But they are also sometimes way off. [/QUOTE]

I think it's important for this thread to reflect different experiences so that we can all consider the things others mention that we mat not have thought of in navigating the MD/PhD process. I was originally considering getting a PhD in cancer epidemiology but changed in part because of what some of the folks here had to say about the various PhD programs. Information, opinions can only be a good thing as I see it.

 

[Primate]

I'm not sure if you're post agrees or disagrees with what I posted 😕 , pathdr2b. If so, the following is not specifically directed to you.

My point was not to stifle discussion of the different avenues. As I hoped my post made clear, the drastically divergent career options open to MD/PhD/CDs are what make any generalizations about who is better than whom a waste of electrons (in days gone by, a waste of breath). They do make a discussion of how one might pursue a particular career track appropriate, but there has been sufficient vitriol in this thread to make me think that this has not always been the point. There are other threads that definitely address these questions.

What I think are ridiculous, in the true sense of the word, are the blanket comparisons some have made. I still think that evaluations should be made on an individual basis, not on the combination of letters after (or in) a name.

Discussion of options is one thing. Claiming a lack of competence based on which degree(s) one holds is another. THAT'S all I'm suggesting we avoid (or get over).

P

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Primate
Discussion of options is one thing. Claiming a lack of competence based on which degree(s) one holds is another. THAT'S all I'm suggesting we avoid (or get over).
P

I agree as I did with your previous post.

EVERYONE'S expereinces/opinions are valuable and I guess that's my point. As I mentioned before I've been dealing with issues of having my competence questioned almost as soon as I enrolled in my first science class in college so for me personally, the entire discussion is moot. However, professionally the reality is that as MD/PhD's we will all have our competencies questioned at some point and for a few of you, this will be the first time in your careers.

 

[Primate]

Cool, and I agree. 🙂

One thing that did come to mind (as I was mowing the lawn) is that we should all have our competencies questioned every 6 months or so by our committees. If this isn't happening, you need a better committee. 😉 Seriously, though, my competency is questioned all the time. I just have to continually demonstrate that I'm performing as advertised. 😀 I agree that CDs should be prepared for it.

To be forewarned......


P

 

[ERMudPhud]

I just stumbled on this thread and I have to say it seems to have strayed quite a distance from its starting point. That being said, as someone who has already been through the whole MD/PhD-MSTP thing I had a few points to make

1. Phd and MD/PhD programs DO seem to routinely lie or underestimate how long the whole thing will take.

2. There are (or at least were a few years ago) a number of places that offered full MD's and PhD's I chose Columbia for exactly that reason some years ago. I did extra course work during the first two years of med school and rotations during the summer before med school and the next two summers. When I started graduate school the med school said, "see you later, give us a call when you are done" When I returned to med school I did a full 3rd and 4th year. My MD/PhD class averaged around 5 years for the PHD which was slightly faster than the PhD's but remember we did our rotations and other first year stuff during the first two years of med school. We were also on a bit of a deadline, finish the PhD 3-4 months later than you were planning on and you weren't going to graduate in time for the match but you can start a post-doc anytime. At that time the shortest PhD in our MD/PhD program was around 3 years and the longest was 7-8! I taught during grad school and took enough extra elective courses for fun so I don't think the regular PhD's had me beat there either.

3. Finally, addressing an early point in the thread, if I had to compare the amount of work, stress and so on that I dealt with getting each degree I would say that for me the PhD was much more harder. For the MD, if you do your time and do your work you get the degree. However, to paraphrase someone else, I enjoyed both journeys equally well.

Oh yeah, I got a C in 2nd semester Orgo and that was as low as you could go at my alma mater (no D's or F's)