PhD vs. MD/PhD if I intend to go into industry

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Kironide

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is "industry"? The plastics industry? Investment banking? Film industry?

If u genuinely want to go into anything other than academia, you don't need either an MD or a MD/PhD. Work hard in college, get a job, work a few years, get an MBA.

Do not go to medical school if you don't want to be a doctor. It's as simple as that.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Your time would be better spent doing a joint PhD/MBA program. Reason is same as the engineering ppl: in industry, moving up the ranks means more management. If they want new researchers, they will hire newly minted PhDs who have trained with the most recent techniques and are more willing to take lower salaries.

Make sure you do a PhD directly related to translational research to increase your employability.
 
hmmm, but where are they employed? From my understanding, most Phds in biochem are employed at positions that do not reflect the knowledge they've gained. (ie. technician, pharma representative...etc)
take a look:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Real-Science-Crisis-Bleak/29178

👍 👍 👍

Unemployment among PhDs? ~2%

Yes, unemployment is low among PhDs... I'm very lucky to be employed in my fabulous job as a part time adjunct professor, where I earn a luxurious $963 per month (that's before taxes and my bus pass).

My friend takes home less as a first-year post doc than we did with our stipends as grad students.

Very sweet that unemployment is so low for people like us 😀

OP: You'll make more money as a researcher in industry if you do MD/PhD, but you have to decide whether that's worth the extra time. If you do PhD only, make sure you're setting yourself up for industry research, and yeah an MBA wouldn't hurt
 
Underemployed is not the same thing as unemployed.
 
I've heard that MD/PhD's have a leg up over PhD's especially in things such as management consulting. It's the same reasoning as why MD/PhD's have an easier time getting grants than PhD's - even if they don't practice medicine at all, they can approach problems from a more translational perspective than their PhD counterparts.
 
Although here's something else to think about:
What would make you more competitive for the most prestigious positions in industry? PhD from Harvard/Stanford/Yale, or MD/PhD from far less prestigious schools such as Iowa/UAB/UTSW/Case?
 
Although here's something else to think about:
What would make you more competitive for the most prestigious positions in industry? PhD from Harvard/Stanford/Yale, or MD/PhD from far less prestigious schools such as Iowa/UAB/UTSW/Case?

actually, there are people who leave no name state universities with a BS and easily make 50-60k in industry. you just need the connections. maybe while you're in grad school try to get into an industry internship. i'm not saying its going to guarantee a post-graduation industry job, but it increases your chances quite a bit. especially if the company you intern at likes you.

but honestly, that's not to say going PhD and then into academia is a good idea. its a pretty bad idea right now.
 
Although here's something else to think about:
What would make you more competitive for the most prestigious positions in industry? PhD from Harvard/Stanford/Yale, or MD/PhD from far less prestigious schools such as Iowa/UAB/UTSW/Case?

This thread was not really supposed to be about names, but since you bring it up. If you are looking at nonacademic jobs, training at these "elite" institutions does not really make you a better applicant. I mean, who would you hire: the person who was so passionate about MD/PhD that they were willing to do it "anywhere" (by the way the insinuation that these schools are far less prestigious is totally laughable... and I did go to one of the big name schools so this is not just sour grapes), or the douchebag who just could not LIVE with himself without having a Harvard diploma on the wall. Plus, pharma does not give a hoot about prestige. They want people who have proven that they can get stuff done. When you see Genentech hiring people like this for the most prestigious positions in industry, they are being hired because they are badasses, not because they trained at fancy schools. Many of them did train with famous names, but you can't confuse correlation with causation.
 
This thread was not really supposed to be about names, but since you bring it up. If you are looking at nonacademic jobs, training at these "elite" institutions does not really make you a better applicant. I mean, who would you hire: the person who was so passionate about MD/PhD that they were willing to do it "anywhere" (by the way the insinuation that these schools are far less prestigious is totally laughable... and I did go to one of the big name schools so this is not just sour grapes), or the douchebag who just could not LIVE with himself without having a Harvard diploma on the wall. Plus, pharma does not give a hoot about prestige. They want people who have proven that they can get stuff done. When you see Genentech hiring people like this for the most prestigious positions in industry, they are being hired because they are badasses, not because they trained at fancy schools. Many of them did train with famous names, but you can't confuse correlation with causation.

Since you bumped this thread and I just read this, I'm surprised a poster said a school like UTSW with its multiple Nobel prize winning-researchers is "far less prestigious".
 
Since you bumped this thread and I just read this, I'm surprised a poster said a school like UTSW with its multiple Nobel prize winning-researchers is "far less prestigious".

Unless you are in the medical/research field, you don't know that UTSW or UCSF for that matter are top-tier institutes. To the average person, UTSW is less prestigious than Harvard, Yale, or other household names. So you know who you are talking to if they make a statement like that...
 
I've heard that MD/PhD's have a leg up over PhD's especially in things such as management consulting. It's the same reasoning as why MD/PhD's have an easier time getting grants than PhD's - even if they don't practice medicine at all, they can approach problems from a more translational perspective than their PhD counterparts.

Not true at all.
 
Based on the few colleagues that have made it into industry (admittedly, an n of 3), there's a considerable amount of competition for the few spots on research teams. The off-hand rule-of-thumb I heard was that you had to have at least 6-8 mid-to-high impact factor publications to get an interview from the big pharma companies (if you're not in the know, that's a really high output level, and you'll probably need a couple of years of postdoc on top of grad school to get there). In the past, Novartis made applicants write a mock grant as part of your application. If your ambition is to be an industry researcher, you need to realize that there's a very high bar for getting there.

As far as doing MD/PhD, my advice would be follow your passion. If you're simply doing med school for a better shot an industry job, that's probably a bad idea. Neuronix has said it more elegantly before, but an MD/PhD is not a golden ticket into whatever career or residency you want.
 
Top