To PhD, or not to PhD . . .

[Tinman's lackey]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

. . . that is the question, at least for me right now.
I got into the research game relatively late in college. The summer before senior year I took part in a 3 month research fellowship, mostly because my advisor told me it would add variety to my application. I really enjoyed it though, and wound up getting 2nd author on a paper that resulted from the work I did. I decided to take a little bit of time off after college, work in a research lab full time, and look into the program more thoroughly to see if I wanted to pursue an MD/PhD degree. Recently I've come to the conclusion that I would like to, but I'm not sure that’s justification enough.
Cardiovascular disease ranks high on my research interests, and what my lab focuses on. My youthful, time means nothing, sleep is for wimps spirit has me shooting for a cardiothoracic surgical residency. A residency arguably more easily obtained with the intense interest and stamina a PhD represents, but a career where the PhD can fall by the wayside. This tells me to just get the MD, work my butt off, and hope for the best.
But then, if I don’t get a general surgical spot, or simply lose interest the closer to reality 110 hour weeks get, and match into Endocrinology, or OB/GYN-->REI (my other strong, though un-nurtured interest), or even cardiology, I'd really regret not having the PhD training. So then I should apply MD/PhD, and let the future unfold from there, right?
I’ve kind of lived in this loop for the past few months, and now know what Louis Black was talking about when he says this is the cause of strokes. (If it weren’t for my horse, If it weren’t for my horse, . . . how’d she get into college with a horse.)
Applications and getting in are a whole other beast. I have a 3.87BCPM, and 3.75 overall in biology (w/classics minor) and 33 MCAT. I have that second author paper from the undergrad research fellowship, and am sure that PI would recommend me very highly. I’m not sure what kind of a letter I would get from the new PI though. He’s away often, isn’t too in touch with what happens in the lab, and I’m not sure he knows what kind of hours I put in or exactly what I’m doing. I’d almost feel strange asking him for a letter of recommendation (he’d probably have a grad student write if for him, or ask me to stay on another year and then he’ll write one). His lab is a lot more accomplished, though, and I’ve had the chance to learn a large variety of techniques. (They have the money so aren’t too afraid if I completely screw up. I haven’t so far. 👍 )
Still, I’m the lowly research tech, and don’t think my research responsibilities have the independence adcoms look for. I work on 4-5 projects of other people, and then have my ‘own’ project that the PI set me up with. How much autonomy do the adcoms expect you to have? I manage the time line of the projects on my own, collect and condense the data and then talk it over with the grad student/postdoc/PI, but the design is still mostly theirs.
I’m at the point right now where I’m confident I can get into a pretty competitive medical school, but not sure I would get into an MSTP at all. Sure taking another year off is an option, just not my favorite. I’d have to retake the MCAT’s (but then again I wasn’t completely thrilled with my score to begin with). Plus, I want to get started, get on my way.
I’m not sure if I’m looking for advice, an outlet to think through my thoughts, or just trying to get out of the loop so I don’t wake up dead of a stroke tomorrow, but if you’ve read this far, I’d trust your opinion.

 

[dave613]

. . . that is the question, at least for me right now.
I got into the research game relatively late in college. The summer before senior year I took part in a 3 month research fellowship, mostly because my advisor told me it would add variety to my application. I really enjoyed it though, and wound up getting 2nd author on a paper that resulted from the work I did. I decided to take a little bit of time off after college, work in a research lab full time, and look into the program more thoroughly to see if I wanted to pursue an MD/PhD degree. Recently I've come to the conclusion that I would like to, but I'm not sure that’s justification enough.
Cardiovascular disease ranks high on my research interests, and what my lab focuses on. My youthful, time means nothing, sleep is for wimps spirit has me shooting for a cardiothoracic surgical residency. A residency arguably more easily obtained with the intense interest and stamina a PhD represents, but a career where the PhD can fall by the wayside. This tells me to just get the MD, work my butt off, and hope for the best.
But then, if I don’t get a general surgical spot, or simply lose interest the closer to reality 110 hour weeks get, and match into Endocrinology, or OB/GYN-->REI (my other strong, though un-nurtured interest), or even cardiology, I'd really regret not having the PhD training. So then I should apply MD/PhD, and let the future unfold from there, right?
I’ve kind of lived in this loop for the past few months, and now know what Louis Black was talking about when he says this is the cause of strokes. (If it weren’t for my horse, If it weren’t for my horse, . . . how’d she get into college with a horse.)
Applications and getting in are a whole other beast. I have a 3.87BCPM, and 3.75 overall in biology (w/classics minor) and 33 MCAT. I have that second author paper from the undergrad research fellowship, and am sure that PI would recommend me very highly. I’m not sure what kind of a letter I would get from the new PI though. He’s away often, isn’t too in touch with what happens in the lab, and I’m not sure he knows what kind of hours I put in or exactly what I’m doing. I’d almost feel strange asking him for a letter of recommendation (he’d probably have a grad student write if for him, or ask me to stay on another year and then he’ll write one). His lab is a lot more accomplished, though, and I’ve had the chance to learn a large variety of techniques. (They have the money so aren’t too afraid if I completely screw up. I haven’t so far. 👍 )
Still, I’m the lowly research tech, and don’t think my research responsibilities have the independence adcoms look for. I work on 4-5 projects of other people, and then have my ‘own’ project that the PI set me up with. How much autonomy do the adcoms expect you to have? I manage the time line of the projects on my own, collect and condense the data and then talk it over with the grad student/postdoc/PI, but the design is still mostly theirs.
I’m at the point right now where I’m confident I can get into a pretty competitive medical school, but not sure I would get into an MSTP at all. Sure taking another year off is an option, just not my favorite. I’d have to retake the MCAT’s (but then again I wasn’t completely thrilled with my score to begin with). Plus, I want to get started, get on my way.
I’m not sure if I’m looking for advice, an outlet to think through my thoughts, or just trying to get out of the loop so I don’t wake up dead of a stroke tomorrow, but if you’ve read this far, I’d trust your opinion.

Exactly how much time have you been involved with full time research after you graduated? Adcoms care not only about how well you do research(indicated by your second authorship), but also if whether you can handle all of the years involved in getting the PhD in addition to your MD. So, I would guess that adcoms like to see "extensive" research too. Considering your grades, and if you have done research for over a year after school,besides your summer fellowship, you probably have a decent shot at mid-tier MD/PhD programs, and a good shot at non-MSTPs. I would pose this one to Neuronix or Andy though.

 

[Tinman's lackey]

Exactly how much time have you been involved with full time research after you graduated? Adcoms care not only about how well you do research(indicated by your second authorship), but also if whether you can handle all of the years involved in getting the PhD in addition to your MD.

Good point. I've been at it since September, seven days a week.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I agree with the points dave made. It is great that you scored a 2nd author paper during a summer research fellowship. If you do apply MSTP, the adcoms will be cognizant of the fact that this research experience only lasted for 3 months. However, your success there represents an excellent start and a good stepping stone to your subsequent research experience.

Which brings me to my next point...you said that during your post-bac research experience, your function was more along the lines of being a technician and you were peripherally involved in multiple projects. However, this is only your first year of working in the lab. Furthermore, you stated that you have a pet project of your own. I would continue to be committed as possible with this project as it will take some time to develop. Then you will have more exposure to the PI and as you have more data, you will be able to engage in further scientific discussions with him. This in addition to your 2nd author paper would be the major things you would discuss during your interviews.

Regarding applications, your numbers are quite strong. Don't get down on yourself regarding the MCAT score. If you were to take it again, you would have to improve significantly above 33 for it to be really considered seriously. Let's say you take it again and get a 34 or 35. MCAT scores are not static in that it is predicted that one's score will vary +/- 2 upon retaking it. I think the 33 is fine and is probably not worth your time, energy, and stress going through the whole MCAT experience all over again (unless you are very confident that you can get like a considerably higher score like a 37+). Again, given your numbers as they stand now, you will get past most or all the programs' cutoff criteria.

Regarding your career objectives and their compatibility with doing a whole MD/PhD training, that is a tricky issue. I'm certainly not gonna tell you what you can and cannot do...this ball solely rests on your court. You should seriously consider doing PhD training if you really want to develop into a scientist. If you want to do mainly clinical work such as cardiovascular surgery, a PhD may be superfluous. Plus, when you go through medical school, your interests may change and fluctuate. So the real question becomes...do you want to do PhD training or not? Don't think of it as, "will I need the PhD or not?"

Finally, many applicants tend to come onto these forums or see other candidates with uber-numbers and think, "oh i don't think i'll be a great candidate." How do you know? What I'm trying to say is, don't sell yourself short. If you feel strongly that MD/PhD is for you, go for it!

 

[Gut Shot]

My youthful, time means nothing, sleep is for wimps spirit has me shooting for a cardiothoracic surgical residency. A residency arguably more easily obtained with the intense interest and stamina a PhD represents,

Dude, if you want to be a surgeon then go be a surgeon. If you want to do REI, go do REI. If you want to be a scientist, then consider the MD/PhD. It's really that simple.

A PhD represents a huge investment of time and energy. It's not something to pad your resume. If you want to to pursue a surgery residency, just work your butt off during your M3 clerkship, schmooze with the program director, work your butt off again during an M4 elective or two, and apply. It will beat the hell out of being a lab slave for some indeterminant number of years.

 

[milliardo_L]

I agree with Andy, don't sell yourself short. I have more or less the same profile you do now, and was accepted in some places. I think one thing most people don't consider so much is how good are you at marketing yourself. The "story" you give the adcoms about why you want to do this is at least as important as your actual credentials. I know it is a very hard and personal choice (to do the MD/PhD), but if at the end you feel its the path for you, go for it and apply.

 

[dl2dp2]

Good post: 🙂

To original poster:
It's generally recommended (by our program directors, anyways) against
doing a surgical specialty after MD/PhD. You should not let that out during your interviews. I'm aware that in Neurosurgery people (i.e. residency directors) are starting to want a PhD due to competition level. Even then, I think doing a PhD then a 7 year residency in CT surgery would be INSANITY.

However, doing a cardiology fellowship, particularly non-interventional, after MD/PhD is not uncommon.

Dude, if you want to be a surgeon then go be a surgeon. If you want to do REI, go do REI. If you want to be a scientist, then consider the MD/PhD. It's really that simple.

A PhD represents a huge investment of time and energy. It's not something to pad your resume. If you want to to pursue a surgery residency, just work your butt off during your M3 clerkship, schmooze with the program director, work your butt off again during an M4 elective or two, and apply. It will beat the hell out of being a lab slave for some indeterminant number of years.

 

[JETER]

It's generally recommended (by our program directors, anyways) against doing a surgical specialty after MD/PhD. You should not let that out during your interviews.

I would add that this is not universal. I made it quite clear that my intention during the interview season was to be a surgeon-scientist, and this was actually well received (for the most part; a few academic pathologists did not seem to think orthopaedic surgery=medicine).