Tired and old question...

[cmz]

I'm basically looking for some sound advice regarding taking my career to the next level. I'm currently a 3rd year med student who is mid-way through a funded research year. I wanted to see if a year of dedicated research could sway me either towards getting a PhD or just finish up the MD and worry about the rest later. I don't think I have arrived at any conclusions since my mind seems to be real clouded right now (see next paragraph). I believe I could secure funding right now if I ask for it, but I'm still not entirely convinced if getting a PhD is "right" for me. I believe there are OTHER options down the road (besides MSTP) once you complete residency (i.e. a post-doctoral fellowship for 3-4 yrs) if you wish to actively pursue academic medicine. I really think I could see myself doing basic science research.

And as for my "problems" -- I think one of my main hang ups right now has to be my parents. They just want me to finish my damn degree and pursue bigger and better things. After all, "I thought this was a 'one year' thing".. as they so eloquently put it with regard to my year off doing research. The other big factor is time. I don't want to spend a decade trying to earn a PhD. Also, I don't want to get cheated out of the PhD-experience. Essentially, I would be more than willing to work on a project with guarunteed results -- No ****ing around for me.

I am going to talk with some more with my mentor and graduate school deans, etc to see what my options are, but I would really appreciate any thoughts/comments from you guys.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hockebob]

this has nothing to do with your post unfortunately but:

one of Jay-Z's old nicknames is HOVA.

so H to the (izz)-O, V to the (izz)-A... is just spelling his name.

(didn't know whether the statement in your signature was rhetorical or not, but figured i'd help out in any way that i could)

 

[tofurious]

It's important to recognize the major differences between one dedicated year of research vs a PhD training: one year of research has a TIME limit, and the determination of how much you have accmoplished is not really scrutinized as you have already gone the extra mile to do research in addition to completing a standard MD. If you go the PhD route, there is no definite time limit, and there's no guarantee that spending 3+ more years will get you a PhD. Also, you will be evaluated as a regular PhD student while you may be the ONLY one that remembers that you still have 2 years of med school left to finish. You will need to make a significant contribution to the understanding of science, and no one will think of you as doing anything more than what you're required to do.

Academic medicine does not necessarily mean PhD level basic research, but PhD level research definitely is on a different level from genetic association or disease prevalence studies. If you want to compete with other basic researchers by doing 3-4 years of post-doc, a PhD gives you a different set of skills and is "politically" beneficial for your advancement.

 

[Habari]

cmz,
is there a possiblity of continuing your research from your hhmi year in the same lab if you pursue a phd? if so, it may be best to take the funding and continue working there under a formal phd track. but i agree, the answer isn't obvious at all.

the only reason i would advocate getting the phd at this point is because most md-turned-researchers often spend an extended time doing a post-doc after/in lieu/during their residency. many mentioned that though they could have done the phd, recieved some sort of institutional recognition for their efforts in the form of a degree and a short post-doc in a similar time frame.

on the other hand, there are numerous nih sponsored pay-back programs for clinical scholars - md's who pursue research [35k/year in loan repayment - i'll have to dig up the source]. the point is that there are other ways to recieve funding/loan repayment if that is an issue.

though your parents may express dicontent at your time-frame if you pursue a phd, it is a 'front-loaded' approach to the time you may end up spending anyway. the phd, career-wise, is also protected in a way that research in your post-med schools years may not be. at the very least having earned a phd may give you confidence - knowing that you are capable of successfully writing and defending a thesis, whatever that is worth.

since i haven't even begun my thesis years - i can't begin to compare the two paths with greater insight - perhaps someone else can. good luck though.

 

[cmz]

Originally posted by Habari
cmz,
is there a possiblity of continuing your research from your hhmi year in the same lab if you pursue a phd? if so, it may be best to take the funding and continue working there under a formal phd track. but i agree, the answer isn't obvious at all.

The option exists for me to continue research here after my hhmi year is over, however, I think my mind is open for other options (other labs in the same dept or even another dept all together). I really love my project though -- however, I don't know where it's going as the whole lab is going to soon change focus. Things do look promising as a whole, though.

the only reason i would advocate getting the phd at this point is because most md-turned-researchers often spend an extended time doing a post-doc after/in lieu/during their residency. many mentioned that though they could have done the phd, recieved some sort of institutional recognition for their efforts in the form of a degree and a short post-doc in a similar time frame.

on the other hand, there are numerous nih sponsored pay-back programs for clinical scholars - md's who pursue research [35k/year in loan repayment - i'll have to dig up the source]. the point is that there are other ways to recieve funding/loan repayment if that is an issue.

I'm only 50k in debt at this point. The loan-repayment isn't a big issue for me at this point. I know about the "up to 35k/yr stuff" NIH sent me, and this seems like a rather appealing option, too.

though your parents may express dicontent at your time-frame if you pursue a phd, it is a 'front-loaded' approach to the time you may end up spending anyway. the phd, career-wise, is also protected in a way that research in your post-med schools years may not be. at the very least having earned a phd may give you confidence - knowing that you are capable of successfully writing and defending a thesis, whatever that is worth.

since i haven't even begun my thesis years - i can't begin to compare the two paths with greater insight - perhaps someone else can. good luck though.

I sort of made the same arguement with my parents over the weekend by saying, "well, I am pretty sure I want to at least be involved in research with whatever path I choose... so that's why I'm considering getting a PhD..." I made the argument for "front-loading" my efforts now rather than later. My parents just want to see the "MD" degree after my name and I guess I'm free to do whatever I want at that point. I whole-heartedly agree with your points about what a PhD means compared to other such training. I've always heard the arguement, "when it comes right down to it.. as long as you have a nice publication track record, nothing else matters."

 

[cmz]

Originally posted by hockebob
this has nothing to do with your post unfortunately but:

one of Jay-Z's old nicknames is HOVA.

so H to the (izz)-O, V to the (izz)-A... is just spelling his name.

(didn't know whether the statement in your signature was rhetorical or not, but figured i'd help out in any way that i could)

Uh... *cmz cautiously thanks you*

 

[Gradient Echo]

cmz,

as you stated yourself, a PhD is not a MUST for academic medicine or a research career. I wouldnt do the PhD unless you are absolutely sure its necessary for what you want to do.

I want to be a pioneer in medical imaging, and thats not going to happen with just an MD, because the basic science/physics behind it is way beyond the scope of what an MD knows or could learn in a postdoc. Perhaps your field is different.

I wouldnt pay your parents much heed. Its your career and if you pursue the PhD its not like you are going to derail your career permanently or something.

To me, you sound unconvinced regarding a PhD, so you should probably just get your MD and if you still want to do research, then do a postdoc.

My advice is dont pursue the PhD unless you're absolutely sure its necessary.

 

[dl2dp2]

My impression is the same with that of Gradient Echo. I'd say you go finish the MD--at this point doing a PhD is just going to stretch this process indefinitely. I don't think there is a specific "PhD" experience that you'll miss out on.

If you do a search I posted before some of my private calculations regarding the merits and virtues of either MD/PhD or MD+post-doc. The latter option is often quicker. Also, I bet there are MD only researchers at your medical school. Go talk to them and see what they say about this.

 

[cmz]

I am definately interested in academic medicine and it seems to be really competative, one probably needs a PhD -- although this is very disputable.

Essentially, I could take the road I'm on now and finish things out --> complete, residency, complete a fellowship, and then go on to finish off a post-doc fellowship (some say in the range of 3-5 years). Conversely, I could take some time off and complete a PhD now. I would have the "classical" training and a nice certificate that says I did such and such training at such and such institution.

I've already talked with the MSTP program directory today and I am going to pursue more actively a few other avenues per your suggestions (re: MD researchers and my program advisor). Thanks everyone!

 

[Andrew_Doan]

CMZ,

I know your background.

First, you don't need a PhD to do research.

Second, you need to come to a place like Iowa for ophthalmology where you can get exposed to researchers like Dr. Ed Stone.

Third, you can do a fellowship combined with a 2-3 years research post-doc. If you want, you can take the graduate courses during your post-doc to get a PhD. We have a medical retina fellow who is doing a post-doc/PhD combo for the next 4 years. If you don't want the formal PhD degree, then a 2-3 year research fellowship will be adequate to do basic science research.

This said, if getting a PhD is a passion for you, then the only option is to complete the degree.

However, I would consider doing research as a MD rather than going back to complete the PhD.

Good luck CMZ!

 

[cmz]

Originally posted by Andrew_Doan
CMZ,

I know your background.

First, you don't need a PhD to do research.

I know that you don't need a PhD to do research. The thing I am realizing is that I can see myself in an academic enviornment and I certainly don't want to spend ALL of my time seeing patients or ALL of my time dealing with the lab. I do think that a PhD at at institution like BCM would provide me with some great skills that I could use in my future practice/lab.

Second, you need to come to a place like Iowa for ophthalmology where you can get exposed to researchers like Dr. Ed Stone.

If it was up to me, I would definately love to work with Dr. Stone and do ophtho at Iowa. Although, the lab I'm working in now does a lot of human genetics and we have an endless list of projects that haven't been touched that I could work on other than the stuff I am doing now.

Third, you can do a fellowship combined with a 2-3 years research post-doc. If you want, you can take the graduate courses during your post-doc to get a PhD. We have a medical retina fellow who is doing a post-doc/PhD combo for the next 4 years. If you don't want the formal PhD degree, then a 2-3 year research fellowship will be adequate to do basic science research.

That's not a bad idea, but if I did this I could potentially walk away from an outstanding genetics dept.

[
This said, if getting a PhD is a passion for you, then the only option is to complete the degree.

However, I would consider doing research as a MD rather than going back to complete the PhD.

Good luck CMZ!

I'll soon know what my future holds for me. It's a difficult decision to make, but I think I just need to evaluate what I see myself doing in the future career-wise. Thanks, Andrew

 

[Joe N]

CMZ,

A PhD within an MD is several protected years to develop your skills. Before medical school I had several publications and questioned the utility of it all. Now I realize that a PhD trains you to solve ALL of your own problems, develop large scale investigations, write your own papers and grants, run a lab, and avoid failure. If you want to do basic science research at a high level you should reconsider. If you want to do simple experiments for most of your career (add drugs and see what happens) or do clinically oriented research, you will get by on your smarts. There is no substitute for experience. That said, it sounds like you have a good deal being offered. Do what you can to negotiate! Design your own criteria. Chances are you will be more strict with yourself than an adviser. As a final statement, if you go into a high paying specialty without the research background, the financial opportunities will keep you content and away from a career in research. Few choose fellowships over professional positions that pay 2-3 times as much (sometimes 5-6 times as much). At that point it's the logical choice.

Joe