PhD leading to MD

[mobio201]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello,

I'm new to this forum and I would like to get some opinions. I'll be starting my PhD Fall 2007 in molecular biology. I royally screwed up my undergraduate, but I've been working in a research lab and taking courses at Penn. I've taken 12 credits of biochem/neuroscience grad courses with a 4.0. Starting this summer I'm going to begin retaking all of my med school prereqs here at Penn. I should be able to retake calc 1 and 2, organic 1 and 2, and two more grad courses before I start my PhD. Then, while doing my PhD, I plan on sneaking in two physics courses during my thesis work. I really don't plan on getting anything less than an A, but that may be overly optimistic. My question is this. If I prepare, starting now, to take the MCAT the final year of my thesis, will it be possible to get into medical school with a 2.6 GPA? Will my PhD help my cause? I really want to pursue a purely translational approach to my research. In other words, if I come up with some really novel gene therapy approach 20 years from now, I want to actually be the one to inject it during my clincial trials. These are very lofty goals for a 2.6, but any thoughts, comments, hysterical laughter is greatly appreciated. I plan on volunteering at HUP beginning this summer, and I'll continue to do it until I leave here to go to grad school. Thanks in advance.

 

[dr.z]

I think even if you complete your Ph.D, you'll need to bring up the undergrad GPA to at least 3.0. Admissions seems to care a lot more about your undergrad record than graduate school record. You will also have to do well on the MCAT. Having Ph.D doesn't help as much as you think it would. I certainly don't think my Ph.D helped me much.

 

[relentless11]

I agree with what Dr.Z said. Someone in these forums said that a PhD can be seen as an extracurricular. Although it pains me to hear that, I can see why that may be the case. In the eyes of the adcoms, it is merely an extended, very rigorous research "internship" which may or may not address the coursework that they are interested in. On top of that, most people apply with ONLY undergrad grades, and thus it is only fair to compare undergrad grades. The potential equalizing factor may be MCAT, but to what extent a high MCAT can play depends on which school, who's looking at your application, and the rest of your application.

In general, it is my impression that a PhD degree will raise an eyebrow(in a good way). A PhD degree says you can do rigorous research. Your grad GPA says you can handle graduate coursework, which can be easy, or very hard (depends). But alas, grad coursework does not equal undergrad coursework🙁.
The MCAT may help make this better, but it is my impression that one must show other evidence such as doing well in undergrad courses (post-bacc). You are doing the right thing by taking additional undergrad classes. Maintain a high GPA, finish your thesis on time, and destroy the MCAT, and you should be competative in some way or another😉.

I too am in the near exact same position as you. I have a 2.65 undergrad GPA, but have been doing post-bacc and now doing a PhD program. I'm trying to squeeze in a few upper division undergrad classes while I slave my way through this PhD in hopes that my undergrad GPA will get to 3.0. Thats the beauty of all this. Taking undergrad classes even as a PhD student is actually considered post-bacc. I confirmed this with our pre-health advisors AND our director of admissions at the med school. You really need to prove your ability to do undergrad work. I don't know how much is enough, but some is better than none. Adcoms will understand that you have to work on a thesis, so they know you're not slacking off, but at the same time, is it enough to take 1-2 upper division classes each quarter along with grad classes, and PhD level research? Thats the million dollar question for us🙂.

Oh yea one other thing to consider. I don't know how this really flies, but if some of your grad courses are actually medical school courses. Doing well is good. But to what extent, I don't know either. 🙁 I know that Special Masters Programs have their students take classes with med students and those SMPs have a high success rate for students getting into med school. But those SMPs are well known. I believe half of my core requirements were taken from our med school (and some from vet school). My guess is my school will recognize these classes, and will make note of it, while other schools will just blow it off as another grad class. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[pseudoknot]

I've been in a PhD program for the past five years, and I'll be defending in May. I applied to med school this cycle, with one acceptance so far. I would absolutely advise you against going to grad school if you think you'll be applying to med school later. I didn't intend to do medicine when I started the PhD, or I never would have done it. Do a postbacc.

Also, not to be excessively cynical, but "translational research" is just a catchphrase people throw around to attract funding and students. Virtually no one really does what you describe, mainly because a) it's impossible to be good enough at both, and b) the personality types that are interested in basic research and patient care are pretty different, and most people find they're into one and not the other.

 

[Scottish Chap]

Hello,

I'm new to this forum and I would like to get some opinions. I'll be starting my PhD Fall 2007 in molecular biology. I royally screwed up my undergraduate, but I've been working in a research lab and taking courses at Penn. I've taken 12 credits of biochem/neuroscience grad courses with a 4.0. Starting this summer I'm going to begin retaking all of my med school prereqs here at Penn. I should be able to retake calc 1 and 2, organic 1 and 2, and two more grad courses before I start my PhD. Then, while doing my PhD, I plan on sneaking in two physics courses during my thesis work. I really don't plan on getting anything less than an A, but that may be overly optimistic. My question is this. If I prepare, starting now, to take the MCAT the final year of my thesis, will it be possible to get into medical school with a 2.6 GPA? Will my PhD help my cause? I really want to pursue a purely translational approach to my research. In other words, if I come up with some really novel gene therapy approach 20 years from now, I want to actually be the one to inject it during my clincial trials. These are very lofty goals for a 2.6, but any thoughts, comments, hysterical laughter is greatly appreciated. I plan on volunteering at HUP beginning this summer, and I'll continue to do it until I leave here to go to grad school. Thanks in advance.

Nothing is impossible but I really think there are too many variables for someone to confidently state how well you'd do in a medical school application cycle. If you plan on finishing your Ph.D., a stellar GPA, stellar MCAT, and good publications can get the attention of some research-focused schools if you pitch your application appropriately but keep in mind the fact that U.S. allopathic schools screen heavily on the undergraduate GPA alone, so that may haunt you as it stands today. Also keep in mind that the MCAT is only viable for three years at most schools, so you might want to hold off 3-4 years before taking it. Also, it sounds like you just need a medical license to complement your research so U.S. allopathic schools will be the toughest route but they are not the only route. Good luck!

 

[relentless11]

...so that may haunt you as it stands today.

I think haunt is an understatement..lol I swear, no matter how many A's I get, my GPA goes up soooooo slowly...STUPID MATH! 😀

 

[QofQuimica]

I think even if you complete your Ph.D, you'll need to bring up the undergrad GPA to at least 3.0. Admissions seems to care a lot more about your undergrad record than graduate school record. You will also have to do well on the MCAT. Having Ph.D doesn't help as much as you think it would. I certainly don't think my Ph.D helped me much.

Yeah, sorry OP, but I agree with what dr.z said too. I didn't have undergrad grades at all, and it made applying to schools that screen very difficult, even though I was applying with stellar graduate school grades and MCAT score. Several screening schools take a pretty hard line: if your UG grades are below a 3.0, you don't get a secondary, let alone have a chance to interview. I had to ask various schools to make exceptions for me, and some still refused to do it even while telling me that they'd never seen an MCAT score like mine. I would expect that in a case like yours where you do have an UG GPA and it's just so-so, they will be even less willing to make exceptions than they were in my case. Penn in particular is a very stat-driven school in my experience. I don't know if you want to stay there, but I would advise someone in your situation against applying there. That's my two cents, for whatever you think it's worth.

One other thing you might consider doing besides all of the previous excellent suggestions is applying to DO schools. When you re-take classes, the DO schools will replace your lower grade with the higher one, instead of just averaging them all in together like the MD schools do. It's obviously a lot faster to raise your GPA above a 3.0 if you can altogether replace any Cs, Ds, and Fs with As and Bs. Of course, it is much less common to get a PhD/DO than it is to get a PhD/MD, but there are some people who do it. There is at least one guy that I know of here on SDN who is doing a PhD/DO; his ID is docbill. He posts regularly in the DO forums. You might try PMing him.

Hope this advice helps, and best of luck to you with everything. 🙂

 

[QofQuimica]

Here is the link to docbill's profile: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/member.php?userid=50962

 

[mobio201]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. Basically, I'm going to spend my PhD preparing for the MCAT and see what happens. I may get in at Penn for my PhD due to all of my grad courses and recommendations from profs here, but I wouldn't even consider applying here for med school. I don't know what their screening process is for individual schools, but I was kind of thinking about trying to "work" the system a bit. Maybe start volunteering at and introducing myself to people at the medical school where ever I go for the PhD. Life is not over if I don't get the MD because my heart is in research, but I would be 40 and regret not trying. This forum is fantastic and as questions arise I'll definitely throw them out here first. Thanks again. Oh yeah. One more thing. Do any schools even care about your socioeconomic background? Neither one of my parents even attended high school so it is of little surprise that I didn't exactly realize I wanted to pursue academic medicine until I already screwed up my undergrad. I work with an MD/PhD and he said adcoms don't want to hear excuses, but I don't know if I should even try explaining my background to the medical school.

 

[relentless11]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. Basically, I'm going to spend my PhD preparing for the MCAT and see what happens. I may get in at Penn for my PhD due to all of my grad courses and recommendations from profs here, but I wouldn't even consider applying here for med school. I don't know what their screening process is for individual schools, but I was kind of thinking about trying to "work" the system a bit. Maybe start volunteering at and introducing myself to people at the medical school where ever I go for the PhD. Life is not over if I don't get the MD because my heart is in research, but I would be 40 and regret not trying. This forum is fantastic and as questions arise I'll definitely throw them out here first. Thanks again. Oh yeah. One more thing. Do any schools even care about your socioeconomic background? Neither one of my parents even attended high school so it is of little surprise that I didn't exactly realize I wanted to pursue academic medicine until I already screwed up my undergrad. I work with an MD/PhD and he said adcoms don't want to hear excuses, but I don't know if I should even try explaining my background to the medical school.

Make sure you have TIME to study for the MCAT. This will depend on your PI, your thesis project, and coursework, some of which are out of your control. Talk to your PI and make sure he/she understands your long-long-term goals. You don't want to have to take the MCAT more than once, or prolong your stay in a PhD program, both of which may be aggravating..haha. But yea, best thing to do is lay it out upfront with your PI EARLY (like yesterday😉).
I've known my PI since undergrad so he knows of my aspirations on becoming a physician, and thus he has been very helpful, and I've been very lucky. So hopefully that will be your case too.

In regards to socioeconomic situations. It must be based on the AMCAS definition, but really the MD/PhD you work with is correct. You DO NOT want to make it sound like an excuse. Adcoms want to see you overcome challenges, rather than use a challenge to justify a low GPA. If you parents only had a high school degree, I'd put it in a positive light in your personal statement. Something like being the first person in your immediate family to get a doctorate degree, or go to college, etc. Rather than using their education as the reason for a low GPA. Seriously man, I have a relative who's parents immigrated over to the US in the 90s, they didnt even have a high school education. He went to UC Riverside for undergrad, and got into UCLA School of Medicine (before it was Geffen). So there are people who are far worse than any of us, yet they still do very well.

On my end, I help support myself and my family during all of undergrad and first quarter of post-bacc. Grades lagged. But I'm not going to claim anything. I'm just going to say: "As an undergrad, I worked 2 jobs to support myself and my family. "This work helped me appreciate my family more, and provided me with the hardworking dedication that is making me succeed today in grad school." Thats it..haha. Two sentences. I'm going to then move onto something else more current. They can infer from that first sentence that somethihng was awry during undergrad, and they can think what they want of it. But my post-bacc, grad performance, and MCAT will be a multi-pronged attack to prove show my true potential. I don't know how far that will get me, but it'll be farther than just using my undergrad GPA..lol. So yea keep it positive, don't dwell on negative things..like in life.

 

[pseudoknot]

One more thing. Do any schools even care about your socioeconomic background?

I frankly think that if they care, it would hurt you more than help. I had some significant hardships in that area that I discussed in my applications, and I got a lot of very suspicious questions at interviews. Medicine is a pretty elitist, class-conscious field in my opinion. Why else would it cost many thousands of dollars to apply?

It sounds like you'll do well to do the PhD first. One thing you may consider is looking for one of the PhD programs with some clinical integration. They're not too common, but they do exist. (The following is from my very shakey memory, and some of it is probably wrong...) There were several programs funded by the Markey Foundation in which grad students took a lot of med school classes in their first years and then did some clinical preceptorships later on. I think there's also a "Biomedical Sciences" grad program at UCSD that caters to people with disease-oriented aspirations.

 

[relentless11]

I frankly think that if they care, it would hurt you more than help. I had some significant hardships in that area that I discussed in my applications, and I got a lot of very suspicious questions at interviews. Medicine is a pretty elitist, class-conscious field in my opinion. Why else would it cost many thousands of dollars to apply?

It sounds like you'll do well to do the PhD first. One thing you may consider is looking for one of the PhD programs with some clinical integration. They're not too common, but they do exist. (The following is from my very shakey memory, and some of it is probably wrong...) There were several programs funded by the Markey Foundation in which grad students took a lot of med school classes in their first years and then did some clinical preceptorships later on. I think there's also a "Biomedical Sciences" grad program at UCSD that caters to people with disease-oriented aspirations.

Mines like that, do you have any experience with how the schools deal with these classes? OBviously they're not a bad thing, but how much of an affect will they have.

 

[Scottish Chap]

I work with an MD/PhD and he said adcoms don't want to hear excuses, but I don't know if I should even try explaining my background to the medical school.

I agree with him; that's the reality in most cases. Most schools simply can't cater to any single applicant because they receive thousands of other applications so they must screen heavily. In many cases, they will use any excuse whatsoever to elimate some players from the massive applicant pool (non-standard application, international, no undergraduate GPA etc). There is a section on the AMCAS application form where you can declare any hardship during your educational experience ("disadvantaged status"), but I don't know how well-recieved that section is by the adcom. They may turn it around on you and say that your parents should be commended for encouraging you to attend college, and you did them proud by graduating.

 

[pseudoknot]

Mines like that, do you have any experience with how the schools deal with these classes? OBviously they're not a bad thing, but how much of an affect will they have.

I don't. My program is very basic-science-oriented (we don't have a med school) so it hasn't been an issue for me. I guess at the very least, you can argue that your performance in that area reflects your potential as a med student, and maybe it'll help you out in the preclinical years.

I do think that have a bio PhD removes most doubt about whether you can handle med school intellectually. But, it doesn't show that you're motivated, clinically apt, or have good reasons for doing medicine. Not a silver bullet by any means.

 

[mobio201]

I agree with your suggestion and I am hesitant to bring it up in any sort of interview or statement. However, my dad immigrated here too and neither one of my parents have high school educations (they both completed up to 8th grade). I know that many have overcome much worse and gotten much better grades so that's why I wouldn't really want to talk about it. I was just wondering if its better to at least provide an explanation as to why you got a 2.6 rather than leaving it up to their immagination. Thanks for the help.

 

[dr.z]

Yeah, sorry OP, but I agree with what dr.z said too. I didn't have undergrad grades at all, and it made applying to schools that screen very difficult, even though I was applying with stellar graduate school grades and MCAT score. Several screening schools take a pretty hard line: if your UG grades are below a 3.0, you don't get a secondary, let alone have a chance to interview. I had to ask various schools to make exceptions for me, and some still refused to do it even while telling me that they'd never seen an MCAT score like mine. I would expect that in a case like yours where you do have an UG GPA and it's just so-so, they will be even less willing to make exceptions than they were in my case. Penn in particular is a very stat-driven school in my experience. I don't know if you want to stay there, but I would advise someone in your situation against applying there. That's my two cents, for whatever you think it's worth.

One other thing you might consider doing besides all of the previous excellent suggestions is applying to DO schools. When you re-take classes, the DO schools will replace your lower grade with the higher one, instead of just averaging them all in together like the MD schools do. It's obviously a lot faster to raise your GPA above a 3.0 if you can altogether replace any Cs, Ds, and Fs with As and Bs. Of course, it is much less common to get a PhD/DO than it is to get a PhD/MD, but there are some people who do it. There is at least one guy that I know of here on SDN who is doing a PhD/DO; his ID is docbill. He posts regularly in the DO forums. You might try PMing him.

Hope this advice helps, and best of luck to you with everything. 🙂

Good advice. I also applied to DO schools, and I am going DO/PhD route as well.

 

[QofQuimica]

I agree with your suggestion and I am hesitant to bring it up in any sort of interview or statement. However, my dad immigrated here too and neither one of my parents have high school educations (they both completed up to 8th grade). I know that many have overcome much worse and gotten much better grades so that's why I wouldn't really want to talk about it. I was just wondering if its better to at least provide an explanation as to why you got a 2.6 rather than leaving it up to their immagination. Thanks for the help.

I think if you talk about it, like previous posters said, it should be in a completely positive light, as something you have overcome. You want your PS to be all rainbows and sunshine, not dark and depressing about your tough past life. Someone should come away from reading it feeling like you are the most incredible person ever, that you'd be a fantastic doc, and that they'd love to meet you. So I would spin it that you've really overcome these disadvantages and succeeded like crazy in spite of them. You started out with these poor grades due to lack of knowledge, but then you graduated from your PhD program with a great GPA, killed the MCAT, made straight As in your post-bac classes, etc. On the way, you still had time to publish papers, volunteer for a cause that matters to you, and shadow a physician. I know it sounds totally hokey, but it's going to get you a lot farther than if you sound like you feel sorry for yourself because of your lot in life. Remember that we all have things that we wish we had done differently in college, or else we wouldn't be applying to med school as non-trads. 😉

 

[QofQuimica]

Good advice. I also applied to DO schools, and I am going DO/PhD route as well.

I didn't realize you were doing a DO/PhD! Are you doing your degrees together or separately? I actually spoke to docbill about it a while back because he wanted to know why I wasn't applying DO considering that I was defending them so much in one of those stupid MD vs. DO threads. The biggest reason is that I just didn't know until I talked to docbill that anyone ever did DO/PhDs. I know plenty of DOs in clinical practice (my dad is one, actually), and plenty of MD/PhDs, but no DO/PhDs. You never hear about programs for them like you do the MSTPs....at least I didn't. 😳

 

[dr.z]

I didn't realize you were doing a DO/PhD! Are you doing your degrees together or separately? I actually spoke to docbill about it a while back because he wanted to know why I wasn't applying DO considering that I was defending them so much in one of those stupid MD vs. DO threads. The biggest reason is that I just didn't know until I talked to docbill that anyone ever did DO/PhDs. I know plenty of DOs in clinical practice (my dad is one, actually), and plenty of MD/PhDs, but no DO/PhDs. You never hear about programs for them like you do the MSTPs....at least I didn't. 😳

There really isn't enough DO/PhD programs. I'm getting my Ph.D first. I should have graduated last summer, but my mentor is not helpful. I hate him to be nice. I did leave the lab though, and I am hired as a post-doc. I'll go back and defend soon.

 

[yoshka]

11

Hello,

I'm new to this forum and I would like to get some opinions. I'll be starting my PhD Fall 2007 in molecular biology. I royally screwed up my undergraduate, but I've been working in a research lab and taking courses at Penn. I've taken 12 credits of biochem/neuroscience grad courses with a 4.0. Starting this summer I'm going to begin retaking all of my med school prereqs here at Penn. I should be able to retake calc 1 and 2, organic 1 and 2, and two more grad courses before I start my PhD. Then, while doing my PhD, I plan on sneaking in two physics courses during my thesis work. I really don't plan on getting anything less than an A, but that may be overly optimistic. My question is this. If I prepare, starting now, to take the MCAT the final year of my thesis, will it be possible to get into medical school with a 2.6 GPA? Will my PhD help my cause? I really want to pursue a purely translational approach to my research. In other words, if I come up with some really novel gene therapy approach 20 years from now, I want to actually be the one to inject it during my clincial trials. These are very lofty goals for a 2.6, but any thoughts, comments, hysterical laughter is greatly appreciated. I plan on volunteering at HUP beginning this summer, and I'll continue to do it until I leave here to go to grad school. Thanks in advance.

 

[beastmaster]

dr.z et al, can you explain to me your motivations for a DO/PhD ?

I just can't see how it would be an advantage to your career over a MD/DO degree by itself. If you want to do research, there is abundant opportunity for interested med students. You can use your phd years to finish residency and get involved with research specific to your specialty -- as somewhat a specialist in the field -- rather than the molecular bio scraps left over for grad school or undergrad med school level research.

And that's if you want to be some fortified researcher with medical training. To be a a clinician with a beefed up research background through the accessory PHD route I feel is an even worse idea. But that's just my opinion, I'd like to hear an opposite point of view defending the PhD degree in today's climate.

 

[relentless11]

dr.z et al, can you explain to me your motivations for a DO/PhD ?

I just can't see how it would be an advantage to your career over a MD/DO degree by itself. If you want to do research, there is abundant opportunity for interested med students. You can use your phd years to finish residency and get involved with research specific to your specialty -- as somewhat a specialist in the field -- rather than the molecular bio scraps left over for grad school or undergrad med school level research.

And that's if you want to be some fortified researcher with medical training. To be a a clinician with a beefed up research background through the accessory PHD route I feel is an even worse idea. But that's just my opinion, I'd like to hear an opposite point of view defending the PhD degree in today's climate.

There is no comparison between PhD level research vs. research as a med student, masters student or as an undergrad. One is too busy as a med student to do such a project in a standard MD/DO program. This is why they have MSTPs.

Your viewpoint that research during med school is more applicable to ones speciality is flawed. My PhD is in pathology, and thus my coursework covers several core requirements for med school (e.g.: general, and systemic pathology). Pathology applies to ALL areas of medicine. My thesis project is a clinical study involving ICU patients. This applies to my goals on becoming an intensivist (and a professor). Many other research programs are HIGHLY applicable to medicine. Molecular bio for example is extremely useful due to the recent sequencing of the human genome, not to mention its capacity for the detection of infectious diseases. Of course there are also programs in pharmacology/toxicology, and biomedical engineering, which have obvious applications as a physician.

Functionally, MD's are the same as DO's, and educationally, doing a non-MSTP MD/PhD is similar to a MSTP. Physicians are essentially mechanics who work on humans, and get paid lots of money compared to car mechanics. Scientists come up with the theory, and concepts that physicians memorize and apply in the workplace. Physician-Scientists bridges this gap. (see http://www.mdphds.org/guide.shtml#1) Thus a PhD degree is very helpful when you want to become a professor at a medical school. I can go into more detail, but this thread pretty much explains it all ( http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=248372 )

 

[dr.z]

dr.z et al, can you explain to me your motivations for a DO/PhD ?

I just can't see how it would be an advantage to your career over a MD/DO degree by itself. If you want to do research, there is abundant opportunity for interested med students. You can use your phd years to finish residency and get involved with research specific to your specialty -- as somewhat a specialist in the field -- rather than the molecular bio scraps left over for grad school or undergrad med school level research.

And that's if you want to be some fortified researcher with medical training. To be a a clinician with a beefed up research background through the accessory PHD route I feel is an even worse idea. But that's just my opinion, I'd like to hear an opposite point of view defending the PhD degree in today's climate.

Since I am just about done with my Ph.D, I can't go back in time and give it back. It's a training that I wanted to go through eventhough it looks like a waste in your eyes. I have had a lot to learn from, and I made money doing so.

 

[dr.z]

There is no comparison between PhD level research vs. research as a med student, masters student or as an undergrad. One is too busy as a med student to do such a project in a standard MD/DO program. This is why they have MSTPs.

Your viewpoint that research during med school is more applicable to ones speciality is flawed. My PhD is in pathology, and thus my coursework covers several core requirements for med school (e.g.: general, and systemic pathology). Pathology applies to ALL areas of medicine. My thesis project is a clinical study involving ICU patients. This applies to my goals on becoming an intensivist (and a professor). Many other research programs are HIGHLY applicable to medicine. Molecular bio for example is extremely useful due to the recent sequencing of the human genome, not to mention its capacity for the detection of infectious diseases. Of course there are also programs in pharmacology/toxicology, and biomedical engineering, which have obvious applications as a physician.

Functionally, MD's are the same as DO's, and educationally, doing a non-MSTP MD/PhD is similar to a MSTP. Physicians are essentially mechanics who work on humans, and get paid lots of money compared to car mechanics. Scientists come up with the theory, and concepts that physicians memorize and apply in the workplace. Physician-Scientists bridges this gap. (see http://www.mdphds.org/guide.shtml#1) Thus a PhD degree is very helpful when you want to become a professor at a medical school. I can go into more detail, but this thread pretty much explains it all ( http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=248372 )

Thanks for your help. You explained it a lot better than I would have. 👍

 

[beastmaster]

Physicians are essentially mechanics who work on humans, and get paid lots of money compared to car mechanics. Scientists come up with the theory, and concepts that physicians memorize and apply in the workplace. Physician-Scientists bridges this gap. Thus a PhD degree is very helpful when you want to become a professor at a medical school. I can go into more detail, but this thread pretty much explains it all

You were sort-of making sense upto this point. Physicians as overpaid mechanics, scientists are the thinkers while physicians execute their research results, MD/PHD the great in-between person. Please, this is fantasy. I worked at some of the great research institutions and the top guys there are single degree holders. The MDs ran basic science research labs and held posts as attendings in nearby affiliate hospitals. The PHDs had the exact same job minus the clinical duties which they used teaching, giving guest away lectures, grants, etc. The grad students and post-docs did all the dirty work (and it was dirty) and presented it in monthly meetings so the lab heads would know what was going on in their labs. MD/PHD students would attach themselves to a lab for a few years, functioning like glorified grad students, and leave as abruptly as a med student would if he/she was doing a well-organized summer research program program. I saw PHD heads of clinical and surgical labs and MD heads of very basic science labs. I saw straight MDs doing a conventional post-doc. About the only degree I didn't see represented was the DO degree.

 

[Scottish Chap]

dr.z et al, can you explain to me your motivations for a DO/PhD ?

I just can't see how it would be an advantage to your career over a MD/DO degree by itself. If you want to do research, there is abundant opportunity for interested med students. You can use your phd years to finish residency and get involved with research specific to your specialty -- as somewhat a specialist in the field -- rather than the molecular bio scraps left over for grad school or undergrad med school level research.

And that's if you want to be some fortified researcher with medical training. To be a a clinician with a beefed up research background through the accessory PHD route I feel is an even worse idea. But that's just my opinion, I'd like to hear an opposite point of view defending the PhD degree in today's climate.

I've seen several physicians become successful in basic research without a Ph.D. While it's not totally necessary to do a Ph.D., the training itself is as in-depth and as detailed as it gets and 1-2 years post-residency is not a substitute for that. Neither is research completed during medical school. If you're serious about basic research, it makes sense that you would take as much advantage of the training as you could.

I did a Ph.D., two postdocs, and I'm in an allopathic medical program so I've seen it from all angles. Too many residents expect instant results and quick experience and that's not how it works; in the end, many of them where I worked were only sucessful by joining a prominent lab and 'plugging into' a ready-made project that was funded, rather than writing a grant, defining your own project and often inventing techniques to answer questions, and defending it tooth and nail (which is what you essentially do in a Ph.D. program). It's kind of like expecting a PGYI medical resident to be ready for an attending's position. You don't have enough experience yet to make it on your own, you haven't put in the hours to circumvent problems as they arise, and the best way to get that experience is to build upon it during formal training over a number of years. The best way to do it is to do it properly.

I had no intention of going to medical school originally. However, the Ph.D. training acutely exposed my major strengths and weaknesses like nothing else I have ever experienced. That's something you can't buy or give someone and I don't think I'd have the same appreciation of basic science coupled with clinical medicine if I had not experienced it as a separate entity without outside distractions. In fact, had I not done it this way, I would not have applied to medical school, but that's just my personal journey.....

 

[relentless11]

You were sort-of making sense upto this point. Physicians as overpaid mechanics, scientists are the thinkers while physicians execute their research results, MD/PHD the great in-between person. Please, this is fantasy. I worked at some of the great research institutions and the top guys there are single degree holders. The MDs ran basic science research labs and held posts as attendings in nearby affiliate hospitals. The PHDs had the exact same job minus the clinical duties which they used teaching, giving guest away lectures, grants, etc. The grad students and post-docs did all the dirty work (and it was dirty) and presented it in monthly meetings so the lab heads would know what was going on in their labs. MD/PHD students would attach themselves to a lab for a few years, functioning like glorified grad students, and leave as abruptly as a med student would if he/she was doing a well-organized summer research program program. I saw PHD heads of clinical and surgical labs and MD heads of very basic science labs. I saw straight MDs doing a conventional post-doc. About the only degree I didn't see represented was the DO degree.

So you are basing your interpretations as a person who has never done a PhD degree, nor an MSTP? I don't know what kind of MSTP's you have at your school, but here at the med schools of the Universities of California (UCSF, UCD, UCLA, etc), you spend a full 4 years to do your PhD. One can complete an excellent thesis within 4-years. Any more or any less does not increase or decrease the value of the degree, it just depends on what you are doing and its scope. MSTPs are NOT the glorified grad students as you portray them to be. Since you are not an MSTP, or attended a PhD program, you are making baseless comments by portraying MSTP's or MD/PhDs in that manner.

I suggest you re-read my comments, considering I never stated that MD's can never head up a research lab, or PhD's not allowed to head up clinical departments. In fact I said a PhD is HELPFUL for becoming a professor. MD's who want to emphasize research in their work usually do a research fellowship, while PhD's who want to do clinical work do a clinical fellowship. So again, they need the training to do these things. How adequate is the training? Its enought to show you how to do research but it is definately not the whole package. One lacking area includes not having to do a qualifying exam or thesis defense. Therefore if you were an MD/DO running your own research lab, how can you relate to your grad students when they have to take the qualifying exam or defend their thesis considering you've never done it yourself? My PI is an MD/PhD. He did the MSTP from UCSF, so is able to help me with my upcoming qualifying exam, as well as help me with my future clinical knowledge as a physician. Scottish Chap pretty much includes other aspects of why a PhD is helpful.

Really, what you are saying is baseless, considering you haven't even attempted to do the things you are arguing against. As the saying goes: don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Personally, I don't if I delay my residency by doing a PhD. I'm going to school for free, and getting training from top clinicians and scientists within the UC system. So if free education at a decent school isn't on the top of your list of things to care about then fine. Thats your thing. You can say what you want, but you haven't done a PhD, or a combined degree program therefore I can't expect you to understand what these programs are like, nor can I justify your statements as to why a PhD is a "waste of time" if you want to be a physician. Considering your comment about molecular biology was misplaced, it is relatively clear that you should take the time to appreciate the basic science foundations of the career that you are working on, rather than critique something that you have not experienced.

 

[QofQuimica]

Woah, woah, play nice, guys. Let's not get personal here.

beastmaster asked a fair question. There are many people who feel like s/he does that the extra time required to do the PhD is not worth it for the benefit gained. There are also many of us who do feel that it is worth it. This is not one of those questions that is going to be definitively answered to the satisfaction of all people one way or the other.

I don't agree with relentless that physicians are merely highly paid mechanics. There is just too much art to the practice of medicine for that to be the case. However, I *do* believe that the two methods of training are very different, and the benefits from each are very different as well. Graduate training is highly individualized. No two grad students have the exact same training, even if they entered the same school at the same time in the same lab. The entire culture is geared toward producing people who will become independent researchers. Classroom time is minimal, and the emphasis is heavily on research: learning lab techniques, yes, but also learning to design projects, identify new topics of interest, etc.

This is pretty different than the kind of training that medical students get, which is much more practical, and which is done in a lock-step fashion where everyone studies the exact same things at more or less the exact same time. To give a concrete example, I took both a graduate biochem course and a medical biochem course. The grad course was heavy into mechanisms and organic chemistry. We had to learn enzymatic pathways, figure out intermediates, etc. We learned very little about the clinical significance of these pathways though. The med course was completely the opposite. There was basically not a single chemical structure in sight, but we were expected to learn all about inborn errors of metabolism and which diseases they correlate with, as well as what drugs were used to treat them. It was like studying two completely different subjects that both just happened to be called "biochemistry."

You might ask, well, which course should one take? Which course is "better" for producing an effective researcher? I would answer that question by saying that both courses are valuable, and in fact they are valuable in complimentary ways. After having taken each course, I had been exposed to two very different perspectives on biochemistry, and that made my personal perspective unique from both the people who took only the grad course AND the people who took only the med course. I think that this complimentarity is the true advantage of earning both degrees. An MD/PhD is greater than the sum of its parts. It is synergistic and leads to an entirely different perspective than either degree alone. To me, the extra years of study to gain that new perspective are worth it.

 

[relentless11]

I agree with what you are saying QinQuimica. It was not my intention on making it sound like a personal attack, if it was then I apologize. I was merely making a lengthy reply in regards to the particular statement on the benefits of having a PhD for someone he has not experienced this area of study. It is understandable that many have not, but it does not justify assumptions that are made. However the most important point can be all summed up by your elegant statement:

An MD/PhD is greater than the sum of its parts. It is synergistic and leads to an entirely different perspective than either degree alone. To me, the extra years of study to gain that new perspective are worth it.

On a side note my PI actually threw in that physician = mechanic thing. I agree that there is more to medicine than just bring them in and fix'em up, but it was my intention to illustrate the differences between the two professions. But my fault if it came off in a wrong way🙂.

 

[beastmaster]

relentless, I didn't say "my school." Obviously I'm at a DO school without an MSTP or PhD track. I spent time at two top10 allopathic institutions and equal caliber research centers. I have many friends at these places and I respect and believe the stories they tell me over lunch. I worked with these people. I understand how it may seem like I don't have the relevant life experience in this arena, but I've seen and heard quite a bit. Don't assume I have no insight or appreciation for I'm talking about. We can very well be disputing two equally valid but different opinions. But again, I'm just trying to poke and prod a bit to uncover motivations. Everyone who responded since my last post was helpful so thank you to that. There's quite a diversity in how you guys are coming to acquire the two degrees.

 

[relentless11]

relentless, I didn't say "my school." Obviously I'm at a DO school without an MSTP or PhD track. I spent time at two top10 allopathic institutions and equal caliber research centers. I have many friends at these places and I respect and believe the stories they tell me over lunch. I worked with these people. I understand how it may seem like I don't have the relevant life experience in this arena, but I've seen and heard quite a bit. Don't assume I have no insight or appreciation for I'm talking about. We can very well be disputing two equally valid but different opinions. But again, I'm just trying to poke and prod a bit to uncover motivations. Everyone who responded since my last post was helpful so thank you to that. There's quite a diversity in how you guys are coming to acquire the two degrees.

Nah, I didn't assume that you didn't have insight on the matter, I just said said you didn't do the PhD part🙂. I have no doubt that you have insight and/or appreciation for this topic, since I totally agree with your statement that people holding an MD can still become a researcher, etc. More importantly, I want to emphasize that my statements were not intended as personal attacks on you (if taken the wrong way, I apologize), but instead to emphasize there's more to the PhD degree than what is seen on the outside. The responses to this topic by everyone has provided much insight and generated very valid points. You very well may be correct that we are disputing two valid but different opinions since as other posts have shown (MD/PhD forum) this topic generates some heated debates. But that is the purpose of these forums, and I thank you, and everyone else for providing such a great discussion. 👍 🙂

 

[RobHan]

i have to 2nd that altho i am so 'brand new' in here. ph.d as a gpa booster would be an over-kill, think about it, you will need at least 4-5 yrs to finish it. why not a serious post-bacc or a ms in biomed or genetics or something? good luck anyways!

dr.z et al, can you explain to me your motivations for a DO/PhD ?

I just can't see how it would be an advantage to your career over a MD/DO degree by itself. If you want to do research, there is abundant opportunity for interested med students. You can use your phd years to finish residency and get involved with research specific to your specialty -- as somewhat a specialist in the field -- rather than the molecular bio scraps left over for grad school or undergrad med school level research.

And that's if you want to be some fortified researcher with medical training. To be a a clinician with a beefed up research background through the accessory PHD route I feel is an even worse idea. But that's just my opinion, I'd like to hear an opposite point of view defending the PhD degree in today's climate.

 

[RobHan]

damn well said. ph.d is great for academia medicine, as a pi later in your career, a md/phd is more likely to get fundings

There is no comparison between PhD level research vs. research as a med student, masters student or as an undergrad. One is too busy as a med student to do such a project in a standard MD/DO program. This is why they have MSTPs.

Your viewpoint that research during med school is more applicable to ones speciality is flawed. My PhD is in pathology, and thus my coursework covers several core requirements for med school (e.g.: general, and systemic pathology). Pathology applies to ALL areas of medicine. My thesis project is a clinical study involving ICU patients. This applies to my goals on becoming an intensivist (and a professor). Many other research programs are HIGHLY applicable to medicine. Molecular bio for example is extremely useful due to the recent sequencing of the human genome, not to mention its capacity for the detection of infectious diseases. Of course there are also programs in pharmacology/toxicology, and biomedical engineering, which have obvious applications as a physician.

Functionally, MD's are the same as DO's, and educationally, doing a non-MSTP MD/PhD is similar to a MSTP. Physicians are essentially mechanics who work on humans, and get paid lots of money compared to car mechanics. Scientists come up with the theory, and concepts that physicians memorize and apply in the workplace. Physician-Scientists bridges this gap. (see http://www.mdphds.org/guide.shtml#1) Thus a PhD degree is very helpful when you want to become a professor at a medical school. I can go into more detail, but this thread pretty much explains it all ( http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=248372 )

 

[chrisjohn]

I applaud getting a PhD instead of a MS. Did that myself and should have gotten the PhD, especially considering my thesis project.

Will a PhD get you in? Nope. A stellar MCAT and some graduate work will certainly help, but be prepared to apply multiple times. Fact is that screwing off in undergrad sets one back three years for every screw off year. It's taken me eight years to matriculate after returning to college. To some that sounds a** crazy and in that amount of time I certainly could have completed an engineering degree and or RN/APN. You either want it or you don't.

Please please please realize that graduate school is a grind, generally not fun, and will really turn you off to research, probably, unless you're doing work with an awesome PI at an above average institution. PIs steal your ideas, data, time. Other graduate students do the same. There SO much fradulent data being published that Woo-Suk is just the tip.

 

[Scottish Chap]

damn well said. ph.d is great for academia medicine, as a pi later in your career, a md/phd is more likely to get fundings

This is the biggest myth out there. At the NIH RO1 level, all of the proposals are outstanding. Each successful grant is based on scientific merit and promise, not an added medical credential.

 

[chrisjohn]

Yes, RO1 awardees have mastered the art of manipulating the road map. You better believe that a well written RO1 from a PhD will loose out to an equally well written RO1 from an MD/PhD. It happens all the time.

Awards are based on scientific merit and promise eh? Scottish Chap, I admire your academic achievements and fully understand your loyalty to the NIH as it feeds the medical research in this country. With that caveat, I can only take.... Oh, it doesn't matter…

If you want to practice medicine, there are easier and saner ways of achieving that goal than getting PhD. For example, rock the MCAT with a 35 and get a MS. If you're really interested in writing grant proposals, notice I didn't say research, get the PhD. If you want to pursue research, follow in the footsteps of M Arrowsmith, but just cut to chase; rent a cabin in Vermont and hustle drugs out the back door to fund your quest to make the ineffable less so.

 

[cadilakgrl]

damn well said. ph.d is great for academia medicine, as a pi later in your career, a md/phd is more likely to get fundings

This is the biggest myth out there. At the NIH RO1 level, all of the proposals are outstanding. Each successful grant is based on scientific merit and promise, not an added medical credential.

I agree with Scottish Chap. The only advantage an MD/PhD may have in beginning is that they can apply for a K award as a postdoc which may help lead up to a R01. Other than that I don't believe MD/PhDs are more likely to get grants.

 

[beastmaster]

Yes, RO1 awardees have mastered the art of manipulating the road map. You better believe that a well written RO1 from a PhD will loose out to an equally well written RO1 from an MD/PhD. It happens all the time.

What role do school affiliations play. Say you have an investigator from a prestigious academic institution and one from a far lesser known university.

 

[desertdr]

Off topic but figured it was sort of relevant anyways :

done the traditional way, an MSTP leads to John Doe M.D, Ph.D.

what does one call someone who gets a Ph.D. first and then an M.D in a "nontraditional route"? John Doe Ph.D., M.D.?

I could be wrong, but I thought the titles after one's name was in the order that the degrees were conferred?


And back to the topic at hand! 😉

 

[group_theory]

About the only degree I didn't see represented was the DO degree.

Interesting topics discussed here and appreciate all input so far. I would like to address this one little statement.

It is reasonable to assume there are very few DOs who run basic labs. The reasons are below

The percentage of MDs who do basic science research compare to MDs who do clinical work is very small.

DOs make up only 10% of all physcians

DOs have a history of turning out practitioners, not researchers

DOs have a stated mission of producing primary care physicians (a lot of DO schools produce >50% primary care physicians amongst its graduates)

Throughout its history, DOs have been focused on gaining equal practice rights - during this same timespan, MD schools expanded greatly in terms of basic science research

Most DO schools are not attached to major research universities with massive NIH fundings. Thus while there are active basic science research labs in DO school, they are not to the extent that you will find at a large institution with MSTP funding from NIH.

So for those above reasons, it is a reasonable to expect not a whole lot of basic science DO researchers, esp at large academic centers

But someone with an DO/PhD, esp with a good PhD training ... will have the tools necessary to be a PI at a nice lab at an academic center. At that point, it is no longer the degree but the skills, the $$$$ that you can bring in, and how your peers respect you (ie, if as a DO, you win the Nobel Prize in Medicine for showing level Ia evidence that cranial-sacral therapy can cure glioblastoma multiforme, then you might have an easier time getting a faculty position and your own lab at a major academic medical center 😉 and they won't care about your DO degree but the $$$ and prestige (as a nobel laureate) that you will bring)

Of course, getting grants and tenure/faculty position is all about who you know, what you bring, and how well you play politics with people in your department, in your school, and in your university

 

[Scottish Chap]

Off topic but figured it was sort of relevant anyways :

done the traditional way, an MSTP leads to John Doe M.D, Ph.D.

what does one call someone who gets a Ph.D. first and then an M.D in a "nontraditional route"? John Doe Ph.D., M.D.?

I could be wrong, but I thought the titles after one's name was in the order that the degrees were conferred?


And back to the topic at hand! 😉

My old advisor did a Ph.D. then an M.D. and he writes "PhD, MD" but he was a basic scientist and only did just enough clinical work to keep his license. I've seen a couple of Wash U MSTP grads at Hopkins for residency and they write "Ph.D., M.D." too, so maybe they see themselves as scientists first. Personally, I never thought about it. I like to be called by my first name and Ph.D. is not part of that.

 

[QofQuimica]

My old advisor did a Ph.D. then an M.D. and he writes "PhD, MD" but he was a basic scientist and only did just enough clinical work to keep his license. I've seen a couple of Wash U MSTP grads at Hopkins for residency and they write "Ph.D., M.D." too, so maybe they see themselves as scientists first. Personally, I never thought about it. I like to be called by my first name and Ph.D. is not part of that.

Yeah, it's pretty funny, but some people with separate degrees do put the PhD first to distinguish themselves from people who "only" did a combined degree program. I found this out accidentally the hard way. 🙄 But then there ARE people with separate degrees who still put the MD first. So I guess the answer is that a person who does a combined degree will almost always be called an MD/PhD, but someone who does separate degrees can either be called an MD/PhD, or change the order to PhD/MD to emphasize that s/he has separately earned the degrees. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[relentless11]

Yeah, it's pretty funny, but some people with separate degrees do put the PhD first to distinguish themselves from people who "only" did a combined degree program. I found this out accidentally the hard way. 🙄 But then there ARE people with separate degrees who still put the MD first. So I guess the answer is that a person who does a combined degree will almost always be called an MD/PhD, but someone who does separate degrees can either be called an MD/PhD, or change the order to PhD/MD to emphasize that s/he has separately earned the degrees. Whatever floats your boat.

I saw that once for one of our physicians. I thought it was a typo..lol. Perhaps not then🙂

 

[1Path]

To give a concrete example, I took both a graduate biochem course and a medical biochem course. The grad course was heavy into mechanisms and organic chemistry. We had to learn enzymatic pathways, figure out intermediates, etc. We learned very little about the clinical significance of these pathways though. The med course was completely the opposite. There was basically not a single chemical structure in sight, but we were expected to learn all about inborn errors of metabolism and which diseases they correlate with, as well as what drugs were used to treat them. It was like studying two completely different subjects that both just happened to be called "biochemistry."

This is a GREAT example of the difference between MD/DO and PhD. Funny thing is that I saw those two classes as parts of 1 whole which is probably why at almost 40 years old, I refuse to choose between the getting the MD or PhD.