Hello, I am currently examining DO schools and considering maybe doing a dual degree. The idea of getting a PhD interest me, and I was wondering what are the benefits or possibly downsides to doing the dual degree. The PhD choices seem to be limited to biomedical sciences. How difficult is to get accepted into one of these programs? Right now my focus is on Ohio Heritage and Edwards COM for this program.
What are the benefits of doing a DO/PhD?
- Thread starter wiggit
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2011
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 731
What do you hope to accomplish with a PhD?
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,226
It really comes down to if you want to do translational research. If not, then the cons outweigh the pros.
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 9,083
- Reaction score
- 8,552
In both MD/PhD and DO/PhD, a substantial experience in research in required. This means being able to describe your work (which needs to go much further than using the autoclave) within the lab, describe the hypothesis, the methods, the data, and most importantly (IMO) being able to describe the current standing of the field your are conducting research in through primary literature. Moreover, you will need strong academics (good GPA and good MCAT) in either (more so in NIH funded MSTP programs) to be considered competitive for these programs.
At the end of the day, having the PhD will provide you with a strong skill set to pursue academics by having your research interests honed in and building your skill set in grant writing (need money to fund the lab).
Have you considered MSUCOM's DO/PhD program?
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2014
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 146
You need to understand you can still do research as "just" an MD/DO, but the PhD allows you more versatility. Personally, I don't think it's worth it unless you're wanting to make a career being an academic who can also treat patients and not the other way around. Do you want to be in academia? If the answer is not "yes" (i.e. I want a tenure-track professorship), then you don't need the PhD.
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 9,083
- Reaction score
- 8,552
Concur. Want to note also that the PhD provides you the time to establish the collaborations with investigators and mentors in academia that can help support and/or even launch your own academic career.
So far, I've only met a handful MD/PhD at my home undergrad inst. that has the 80/20 research/clinical split track that so many clinician investigators seek. These types of positions are very competitive and from the looks of it, extremely stressful. The rest of the MD/PhD's are either 100% research (industry or academic) or 100% clinical.
OP, I would suggest heading over to the Physician Scientist forum to gain more insight.
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 352
Unless you are from Ohio, your chances of an acceptance to OU-HCOM are severely limited. Also, they have the pesky contract requiring OOS students to spend 5 years in Ohio as a physician post-graduation. I'm not sure how this all plays out with the dual degree program, but I know it exists with regular DO admission.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 16,447
- Reaction score
- 8,642
As the saying goes, if you have to ask then it's probably not for you.
It's all about research.
It's all about research.
For MD/PhD programs the students get their medical school and graduate school tuition waived and receive a stipend every year they are in the program! I know since I did my master's at the Penn State College of Medicine and took a course with MD/PhD students. Of course it's a 7-8 year process but well worth it if you can get it (which is very hard to do). It's probably the same for a DO/PhD program.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 277
Not completely true. A PhD with strong research will allow you to get into competative academic residencies. Of course you should only go this route if you really want to make research a major part of your career amd not just for the discounted tuition or better residence options.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 508
So I was in this dilemma about a year ago and I will tell you what I have learned and why I have applied to DO/PhD programs. I am still in the process and I will let you know if I actually get into one in a couple of weeks. I applied to MSUCOM DO/PhD and I think this is the strongest and most estanblished program currently. I suggest you look into this. To be competitive I would say sGPA 3.5+ and MCAT 30+ with solid research experience (2 years+). You do not need publications. MD/PhD programs are typically 3.8+ and 35+. I just did not have those credentials and DO school genuinely attract me with their focus and philosophy.
1. You need a PhD to do good scientific research. "Most" (not all) people with only MD or DO do basic research, most of which is clinical. This is not the research that I want to focus on in my career. I wanted to do molecular/genetic research
2. MD and DO do not get scientific training. The training they receive is typically in summers between school, sometimes they take a year off in between school, or in a resisdency fellowship program. These short research adventures do not provide adequate training for grant writing and paper publications if your desire is a large lab. These two are difficult processes that are often met with failures and graduate school is where you learn about them and improve. Again this is not true for everyone. Some MD/DO are just excellent scientists based on their dedication, time, and work ethic.
3. A dual degree puts you at the crossroads of translational research. The reality is you are doing research 80% of the time. It is not realistic to think you can do a 50-50 split because you cannot maintain a strong lab and get good funding without spending more time on it. You spend maybe 1-2 days in the clinic seeing patients, typically a subpopulation. For example, lets say you are interested in Alzheimer's and your lab is doing that research. Then you would be seeing these patients to correspond with your expertise. At least this is how I envision my practice/lab will be.
4. A dual degree program is more difficult to get into than standard MD/DO programs. You have to have above average stats for GPA and MCAT and have some research experience prior to applications
5. The negatives I can think of are extended time of study and salary. You have to spend 7-8 years compared to 4 years of education. Those 3-4 years you spend doing research can potentially be earning years down the road where you make 150k+ per year. Typically you will not earn as much as physicians because you are going to be paid from the grants you bring in and you are doing less clinical hours. But if this is something you love then money does not matter. You will earn enough to live comfortably.
6. Advantages of the program for someone who is interested in being at the center of translational research are no debt and more opportunities. Not all DO/PhD programs have these financial benefits but MSUCOM gives you a stipend and half instate tuition scholarship. You can essentially come out of the program debt-free even though some may argue you can make 450k+ during those 3 years you put into PhD training. You should read other threads on debt in medical school because it lingers with you for 10-15 years depending on your interest payment plan. Also, you will have more opportunities after you complete the program. You will have substantial research and publications that may aid in finding stronger residency spots (not because you are dual degree but beacuse you have significant research experience). You may want to work in industry, academia, or private medical centers and all these doors are open to you.
If you have any questions about MSUCOM application and why I applied there then pm me and I would be more than glad to talk to you.
1. You need a PhD to do good scientific research. "Most" (not all) people with only MD or DO do basic research, most of which is clinical. This is not the research that I want to focus on in my career. I wanted to do molecular/genetic research
2. MD and DO do not get scientific training. The training they receive is typically in summers between school, sometimes they take a year off in between school, or in a resisdency fellowship program. These short research adventures do not provide adequate training for grant writing and paper publications if your desire is a large lab. These two are difficult processes that are often met with failures and graduate school is where you learn about them and improve. Again this is not true for everyone. Some MD/DO are just excellent scientists based on their dedication, time, and work ethic.
3. A dual degree puts you at the crossroads of translational research. The reality is you are doing research 80% of the time. It is not realistic to think you can do a 50-50 split because you cannot maintain a strong lab and get good funding without spending more time on it. You spend maybe 1-2 days in the clinic seeing patients, typically a subpopulation. For example, lets say you are interested in Alzheimer's and your lab is doing that research. Then you would be seeing these patients to correspond with your expertise. At least this is how I envision my practice/lab will be.
4. A dual degree program is more difficult to get into than standard MD/DO programs. You have to have above average stats for GPA and MCAT and have some research experience prior to applications
5. The negatives I can think of are extended time of study and salary. You have to spend 7-8 years compared to 4 years of education. Those 3-4 years you spend doing research can potentially be earning years down the road where you make 150k+ per year. Typically you will not earn as much as physicians because you are going to be paid from the grants you bring in and you are doing less clinical hours. But if this is something you love then money does not matter. You will earn enough to live comfortably.
6. Advantages of the program for someone who is interested in being at the center of translational research are no debt and more opportunities. Not all DO/PhD programs have these financial benefits but MSUCOM gives you a stipend and half instate tuition scholarship. You can essentially come out of the program debt-free even though some may argue you can make 450k+ during those 3 years you put into PhD training. You should read other threads on debt in medical school because it lingers with you for 10-15 years depending on your interest payment plan. Also, you will have more opportunities after you complete the program. You will have substantial research and publications that may aid in finding stronger residency spots (not because you are dual degree but beacuse you have significant research experience). You may want to work in industry, academia, or private medical centers and all these doors are open to you.
If you have any questions about MSUCOM application and why I applied there then pm me and I would be more than glad to talk to you.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2015
- Messages
- 3,378
- Reaction score
- 4,619
@PlaqueBuster, you do not think a bunch of publications are necessary for DO/PhD?
I have a solid amount of experience in research, but only 1 publication. The majority of my research has been in the industry setting or clinical research in a major hospital, neither of which has really been conducive to getting my name on papers. That pretty much precludes me from any MD/PhD programs, but I really would like a career in translational research and academics (as well as patient treatment).
Edit: To quantify "pretty solid" - I worked in a academic lab for 1 year of undergrad which resulted in a publication and a conference presentation; I worked in a group at a pharm company for 1 year running in vivo and in vitro experiments on a drug candidate for lupus, and I will have worked in clinical research for 3-4 years by time I apply. I will also be working on my masters thesis when I apply, though it will only be in the early stages when I submit my app.
Would that be considered "good enough" for research experience?
I have a solid amount of experience in research, but only 1 publication. The majority of my research has been in the industry setting or clinical research in a major hospital, neither of which has really been conducive to getting my name on papers. That pretty much precludes me from any MD/PhD programs, but I really would like a career in translational research and academics (as well as patient treatment).
Edit: To quantify "pretty solid" - I worked in a academic lab for 1 year of undergrad which resulted in a publication and a conference presentation; I worked in a group at a pharm company for 1 year running in vivo and in vitro experiments on a drug candidate for lupus, and I will have worked in clinical research for 3-4 years by time I apply. I will also be working on my masters thesis when I apply, though it will only be in the early stages when I submit my app.
Would that be considered "good enough" for research experience?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 2,760
- Reaction score
- 1,481
Yes. I've known people who have done less than you and got into MD/PhD programs. I'm in a similar boat with you.
I did research to find mechanisms of action on a drug that was recently released by pharmaceutical in phase IV trials for osteoporosis.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 164
I doubt clinical research will help you with MD(DO)/PhD application as much as basic science, because you will need to do bench work for your PhD (unless you are in biostat or epidemiology PhD program). If you would like to conduct clinical research, maybe look into biostat/epi? General rule is your past experience should match your future PhD goal. Clinical research and basic science are different entities and should not be mixed.
