Questions from an Undergrad

[DNAandNeuron]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello,

I am a second year student at UC Berkeley who has some questions regarding the MD/PhD track and would love to speak to MD/PhD students and those who graduated from such a track.

1. I heard that many MD/PhDs end up doing around 80/20 of Research to Medicine. What does this actually mean in terms of their job though? Does it mean that out of 5 days, one would stay in a lab for 4 days and spend 1 day in the hospital?

2. So far when I have researched about the MSTP track, I read more disadvantages compared to advantages of doing a combined degree. I think some most common disadvantages were that (1) doing a combined degree doesn't give much of an edge when applying to jobs such as a faculty position (research-focused) compared to someone with just a PhD or just an MD and (2) the one could take off 4-5 years just doing one degree and earn money. What are some reasons that people chose a dual degree program over just an MD or just a PhD?

Thank you!

 

[kfre2435]

I have similar questions and hope this gets answered as well. Would anyone currently in the process or who has gone through the training be willing to share their expeirences? Would you choose this route again?

This thread was very helpful in lending some insight into what to expect. Though, I cannot say it was encouraging.

I am at a crossroads as well. I like research, but do I love it enough to sacrifice for it? Will I feel the same in 8 years? How do I make such a huge decision at this point in my life?

 

[soundnin]

Hello,

I am a second year student at UC Berkeley who has some questions regarding the MD/PhD track and would love to speak to MD/PhD students and those who graduated from such a track.

1. I heard that many MD/PhDs end up doing around 80/20 of Research to Medicine. What does this actually mean in terms of their job though? Does it mean that out of 5 days, one would stay in a lab for 4 days and spend 1 day in the hospital?

2. So far when I have researched about the MSTP track, I read more disadvantages compared to advantages of doing a combined degree. I think some most common disadvantages were that (1) doing a combined degree doesn't give much of an edge when applying to jobs such as a faculty position (research-focused) compared to someone with just a PhD or just an MD and (2) the one could take off 4-5 years just doing one degree and earn money. What are some reasons that people chose a dual degree program over just an MD or just a PhD?

Thank you!

1. you can't really think of it like that (a 5 day work week). it's not so much as a ratio of time spent doing one versus the other, but more a measure of effort (80% effort versus 20%). quantifying research hours is vague to begin with - when i am commuting somewhere and reading papers, do i count that time? also, the percent could be from a greater value than a traditional 100%, meaning it could be 80%/20% from 140%. and regarding what this actually means for the day to day? it varies greatly, even amongst people who classify themselves as 80/20, depending on your specialty and/or research. i know an oncologist who does have a schedule similar to what you say, 2 half days seeing patients a week and the rest research time. i also know a pathologist who has a half week block of days per month doing clinical duties, and the rest of the time in the lab.

2. this is all my opinion as a starting md/phd student, so take that into account. i would agree that when applying for an academic research job, your degree doesn't matter. what matters is how qualified you are. in that sense, i think pursuing a dual degree does help. you need to have established yourself in a field before anyone will give you lab space and/or money. the only way to do that is with protected research time. as a pure md, one would still need to carve out the time (3-4 years) for rigorous training (time off between M2 and M3 and/or a postdoc) to be competitive. this is the best case scenario too, and time-wise, it's the same as a formal dual degree program (and traditional phd training is already on the order of 6 years). also (this might just be an illusion that programs sell you when interviewing) it seems to me that dual degree programs keep you more focused on the goal of being a physician scientist - often in addition to the traditional medical and graduate school courses, there are seminar series and courses exclusive to md/phd students. anyway, regarding the point about missing out on money earned, a md doing a research fellowship or postdoc isn't making "a doctor's salary" at that point, plus they have all that debt the md/phd graduates won't have.

 

[Neuronix]

1. I heard that many MD/PhDs end up doing around 80/20 of Research to Medicine. What does this actually mean in terms of their job though? Does it mean that out of 5 days, one would stay in a lab for 4 days and spend 1 day in the hospital?

It basically means 60 hours of research and 20 hours of clinical. If you're lucky enough to find that good a deal.

(1) doing a combined degree doesn't give much of an edge when applying to jobs such as a faculty position (research-focused) compared to someone with just a PhD or just an MD

Just an MD needs a lot of research experience to compete for a research job. They might as well have a PhD with the amount of research they'd need to get that job. As for PhDs, they have little chance in a clinical department.

(2) the one could take off 4-5 years just doing one degree and earn money.

Plenty more money in the MD to private practice route. If money is your concern, don't do MD/PhD.

 

[DNAandNeuron]

Thank you all for your wonderful responses!

I have another question: Is there a trend that there are less or more people applying for MSTP programs?

Also, I saw that around 1800 people applied to MSTP programs in the US last year (please correct me if I am wrong). While I think this is a lot compared to the available spots, but a very very small percentage of the total MD applicants.

Is the MSTP program that selective?? I'm sort of afraid because a lot of premeds I see are very competitive and ambitious people, and it's a bit scary to think that these people would voluntarily choose not to apply (of course, many may not be interested in research, but so far, I've seen a lot of premed doing a lot of research).

Thank you!

 

[Neuronix]

Is the MSTP program that selective??

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=539268

Don't worry about everyone else, just worry about that.

 

[Ombret]

The thread that kfre2435 pointed to is a great one. It doesn't resolve anything but it highlights the existential angst that runs throughout the MD/PhD enterprise (and biomedical research in general). As an MD/PhD graduate getting toward the end of fellowship, it really does bother me to have to worry every day about even the basic shape my career will take. I would say that having to forge your own path and face these uncertainties far into the future are some of the major unspoken shortcomings of the MD/PhD pathway. At the same time, I personally like what I do and despite all this angst, my life is objectively pretty good. The uncertainty could be seen as an advantage because you have the possibility of being creative in shaping your career. "The possibility," I say.

The OP ask why people decide to go into MD/PhD. There are all sorts of reasons but in my case, it was basically (a) inability to choose and (b) people said I was too smart not to go into research. It turned out that (a) was just a chronic problem and the people in (b) didn't know what they were talking about. So if I could send a message to the me of 13 years ago I would probably, by a slim margin, say to not do it. Oh well.