Ph.D. during Residency?

[ghgi8]

Does anyone know...

Is it possible to pursue a Ph.D., in say physics, during residency? If so, how often is this done. What is the time commitment and compensation?

Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MHotep]

Unrealistic if you do not plan to extend your training by a considerable amount of time. PhD's require didactics and research; some programs also require you to teach undergraduates.

One of the major goals in getting a PhD is to learn how to take a very complex scientific project from "start" to "finish". In my opinion, even the Holman pathway does not afford that kind of time. However, there are many PhD programs out there, and each one has its own criteria for what amount of research constitutes a PhD.

If you have an MD already, there is usually not too much utility in gaining a PhD. What are your reasons for wanting to pursue a PhD?

 

[IooI]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but I'm also interested in getting a PhD during residency in something like cancer biology or bioengineering or bioinformatics. To me, those three areas are super interesting but I don't have the technical/advanced training to be a major contributor to those fields. The extra coursework and additional basic science training seem to be valuable trade-offs to become an "expert" in a specific area. I suspect it'd be easier to do this in a bio-related field than something like physics..

Is my interest something I should bring up during interviews or set aside for until I match? In other words, would programs generally frown upon this kind of plan? Ideally, I'd do the extra courses and labwork during residency (hopefully by getting into the Holman pathway early). I wouldn't mind tacking on extra time, just not 3 extra years or something.

 

[gorgias]

getting a PhD during residency in something like cancer biology or bioengineering or bioinformatics. To me, those three areas are super interesting but I don't have the technical/advanced training to be a major contributor to those fields. The extra coursework and additional basic science training seem to be valuable trade-offs to become an "expert" in a specific area. I suspect it'd be easier to do this in a bio-related field than something like physics..

Is my interest something I should bring up during interviews or set aside for until I match? In other words, would programs generally frown upon this kind of plan? Ideally, I'd do the extra courses and labwork during residency (hopefully by getting into the Holman pathway early). I wouldn't mind tacking on extra time, just not 3 extra years or something.

Well, I have a PhD in an engineering discipline but no experience in Residency yet. I think there are a few red flags in your case:

1. Biology or Bioengineering or bioinformatics: A PhD in each of these areas will require a significantly different skill sets and course work. I think you will really have to firm up your plans before bringing this up in interviews.

2. Physics or Engineering. Unless you were an undergrad in one of these fields, you will likely have to take quite a bit of undergrad coursework to be ready for the grad level courses. I have known a few bio majors who went into Applied Science for their PhDs, but even they had a tough time. A bio-related PhD might only require a year or less of coursework, with medical school courses substituting for some of the requirements.

3. Doing all this as part of the Holman. Holman affords 21 months for research. I doubt that most PDs are going to support you doing coursework for most of that. In grad school, you do not really have time to get serious in the lab until most of the required coursework is done. Holman Pathway requires "a PhD or significant research experience." I am not sure how many people have done it with just the "significant research experience," but I suspect that this would require at least a few years of previous time dedicated to research, but I really do not know. Again, maybe in a Bio PhD; very unlikely in Engineering or Physics.

Having said all this, I do know a guy who did a PhD in Neurology during his NeuroSurg residency, but that is a 7 year program....

I'd love to hear from people who think this could work, though. If you find more encouraging info, please post it. Good luck.

 

[DrJD]

Just wanted to comment with a few things to add. At our medical school you can get a biology related PhD using essentially only the first two years of medical school as the coursework portion. Then the research portion takes anywhere from 12 to 36 months depending on the project, ie imaging vs basic science lab work.

So if you found a school like that and could complete your dissertation in those 21 months, then maybe?

But the above poster is definitely right, the Physics required for medical school isn't enough to get you into a PhD program in physics. But check around, because a lot of places will let you take undergrad classes for free if you are a resident.

Good luck!

 

[Gfunk6]

Not to be overly negative, but a PhD obtained after only 12 months of research is very likely not worth the paper it is written on.

With regard to the original topic, it may be possible to do a PhD in Rad Onc residency if you do Holman and extend your residency by two years or so. However as other posters alluded, you would be better served doing Holman followed by a dedicated research fellowship. Also unless you have a very strong background in physics, residency is not a good time to pursue a PhD in it. Honestly the physics we learn as residents may seem complex to outsiders but in reality it is very basic and superficial knowledge that you need to know for clincical applications.

 

[ghgi8]

Is it difficult to obtain the Holman Pathway? If so, why?

I imagine it is more troublesome to assimilate the Radiation Oncology knowledge base when faced with other committments, to what extent is this true? Do you think the Holman pathway detracts from clinical competency?

I noted a requirement for 21 months of research time... Is there a requirement for the number of publications that should be generated during this time?

Thanks!

 

[Gfunk6]

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Holman Pathway. Since so many applicants are asking about it, I may as well put it in the FAQ. In the meantime, here are the answers to your questions:

Is it difficult to obtain the Holman Pathway? If so, why?

It depends how you define "difficult." If your definition is the number of applicants accepted into the Holman pathway divided by the number who apply then the answer is no, it is not difficult as the value is close to 1.0.

If you define "difficult" as (a) matching at a residency that is actually receptive to residents doing the Holman pathway (very few), (b) finding a mentor who is willing to take you on, (c) having a residency that is willing to tackle the hardships of having a resident mostly out of the clinic for 18-21 months then the answer is yes, it is difficult to get all of your ducks in a row.

I imagine it is more troublesome to assimilate the Radiation Oncology knowledge base when faced with other committments, to what extent is this true? Do you think the Holman pathway detracts from clinical competency?

This is a controversial question. If you ask non-Holman residents (the vast majority of Rad Onc residents) the answer to them would be an obvious "yes it detracts from your clinical competency." Maybe even, "hell yes! It detracts from your clinical competency."

As a resident who has completed the Holman pathway, who has talked to other residents going through it at other institutions, and directly interacted with faculty who completed it I'd say, "in the short term it may detract from your clinical competency, but in the end you will be as competent." My reasons for this are (a) you have to be above average as deemed by your PD and Chair to enter the Holman pathway in the first place and (b) people who do Holman tend to be aggressively "beef up" their clinical knowledge base in the last year or so of residency.

I noted a requirement for 21 months of research time... Is there a requirement for the number of publications that should be generated during this time?

First off the research time can be as short as 18 months and still qualify for Holman. Second, when you apply to the Holman pathway you are simply asking the ABR to allow you to remain board eligible in Radiation Oncology with abbreviated clinical training for the purposes of meritorious research. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. The ABR relies heavily on your PD, Chair and mentor to ensure that you are qualifed to do Holman and only vetoes your application in unusual circumstances. There are no requirements once you are in the Holman pathway other than submitting annual progress reports to the ABR.

 

[Werg]

UTHSCSA (San Antonio) has a combined residency/PhD program. That type of program would probably be the best way to go, as they would at least understand what you were doing and support you. I met a guy there doing a rad onc residency and a rad bio PhD (I think).

http://gsbs.uthscsa.edu/main/graduate/mdresidencyphd

I assume somewhere else offers a similar residency/PhD program.


That being said, I don't know that getting a PhD will really win you much. Once you get your MD, if you gain the knowledge and research experience, you can use it, regardless of whether you have extra letters after your name. Your education does not end at graduation (fortunately).

 

[cdf95cro]

I'm currently completing the PhD-residency track here at UTHSCSA.
The program is specifically designed to complete a PhD in Radiological Sciences/Human Imaging and residency in 6-years.

While the program is technically still running, there is limited fiscal support from Radiology (who administers the grad program) for tuition, as the T32 grant that covered my cohort is up for renewal. Likewise, project funding is limited to what you can get on your own (e.g. ASTRO, RSNA, SIIM, SNM, etc).

I have been exceptionally pleased with my experience in the program, had great clinical/research mentors, adequate funding, and feel like the PhD has provided added traction in the long-term for aspects relevant to the academic jobs I'm looking for (i.e. demonstrated NIH fundability).

That said, the logistics of getting a PhD during residency (even in a specifically streamlined program like mine) are daunting, and you have to jump through a LOT of hoops. Also, if you want an academic job that is 80/20 clinic/lab, or if you never plan to send in an R01 and what you really want to do is clinical trials, you'd be better served by specific training in that area, rather than the full-on PhD.

I'd be happy to relate more via PM if desired.