I thought I would try and add a mature perspective to some of the idiocy (and bearpaw, I'm talking to
you).
notJERRYFALWELL said:
The reason why PhD programs are relatively easier to get into is because there are many many MANY more spots available than MD programs. As far as the application process goes, yes, the MD is more "cutthroat," and unforgiving, but there is a much higher demand for PhD students overall.
Actually, there are far fewer PhD slots available per year than MD-only ones. According to this
study, while there are (roughly) 15,000 MD graduates per year (and ~60,000 in training) the number of PhD graduates has been stable for years at around 5,000 (with ~54,000 in training). However, I will grant that the standards for admission are, for the most part, less stringent than medical school.
I'm not even sure why or how you could say that one is superior to the other. They serve two entirely different purposes. Just because a person with a person has a doctorate doesn't mean that they want to treat patients. So for the person who claimed that PhDs "call themselves doctors because they wish they could've gotten into med school." is ignorant. I would even say that those who obtain PhDs in the biomedical sciences cannot be directly compared to MDs, because, again, no one with just a PhD is going to scrub in for surgery, and the vast majority (if not all) have no desire to.
Exactly right. For the life of me I cannot imagine why the folks on this board get their panties in a wad about this. Seriously. I work with many PhD's who have NO desire to practice medicine and conversely I know several MD's for whom the thought of sitting at a lab bench gives them the shudders. Plus, they're completely different degrees. They are professionally equivalent degrees in absolutely different arenas.
...med school...are significantly more forgiving when it comes to academic requirements. Students are often carried through the program, whether they realize it or not, and many can gain their doctorate with the a minimal grasp of the "diverse and plentiful" concepts that you all brag about. The difference between an MD and a PhD is that MDs can get away with that;
Again, agreed. As a research scientist you cannot get away with not knowing the details of a wide variety of topics. For example, in our developmental biology program, students (and PI's) are expected to know (in detail): genetics, transcriptional mechanisms, antibody production and variation, programmed cell death mechanisms, DNA structure and variation, protein expression and regulation (including ubiquitination), cell-to-cell signalling, proteomics, statistics, and of course developmental regulation of genetic cascades. That's just a partial list, and if you don't know it, woe be to you (especially on an oral or written exam). Furthermore, if it becomes necessary to learn an area in order to pursue a line of research, you'd best become a mini-expert in that area because you'll be questioned relentlessly by your peers and other scientists.
...If you manage to survive this verbal drilling (which can last for hours), you then have to go on to do three to six years of work on an original thesis. Don't underestimate the amount of work that goes into this; graduate students literally become slaves to their PI and the laboratory for years. And there is intense pressure to produce positive results. While doing their research, they're also expected to write and publish papers on it, as well as papers reviewing research done elsewhere. If you make it this far without committing suicide, you have to hand in a humongous thesis (often close to 1000 pages), and defend it in front of a group of critics. Its not just a 'turn it in, and you're a PhD,' again you have to sit through hours of drilling . If you survive this without being reduced to tears, you will finally get your PhD.
Agreed. It ain't easy to come up with your own project from start to finish.
I'd also like to add that whether a certain degree is "preferred" in certain departments is entirely dependent on one thing: Can the PhD or MD get and maintain research funding? Because academic institution's lifeblood is grant money, and if you can get it then you'll be a star.
For example, if your department is oriented towards translational research (trying to get basic scientific advances into the clinic) then an MD who understands basic research might be a better choice. However, if you're looking for the basic research to drive the translational work, you're *likely* to be better off with PhD's driving the research. The reason for this is clear: MD's are generally
not well trained in developing carefully controlled research projects. I think that we could all acknowledge that MD training is about assimilating the received wisdom and learning to excel at pattern recognition. That's not to say that MD's cannot excel @ basic research, as Rod McKinnon's recent
Nobel prize demonstrates.
So please, let's stop with the immaturity and realize that both MD's and PhD's are integral members of the biomedical community, and ridiculous bickering about which one is "better" creates useless strife.
Peace