What Does It Take to do MD/PhD?

[tbo]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I'm new to the world of MD/PhD and have started to research the area on my boss's encouragement. My question has two parts, really. What does it take to become a good Medical Scientist? Ive talked with a lot of people, both academic and in industry. The resounding feedback is that for someone that wants to tackle biomedical problems, it requires analytic skill and a scientific approach to problems in medicine. Is this an over simplified way to look at it, or this in essence 'what it takes'?

My second and more pointed question is, while I understand MSTP to be much more competitive program to get into, do you think it's even worth it to apply if your grades/scores aren't competitive? I'm becoming more certain that I want to ultimately end up in Clinical Research and a logical path towards that is an MD/PhD. Part of my interest is in Clinical Informatics and Clinical Genomics, but my grades aren't nearly competitive for this type of program (to put it into perspective, they barely hold up for regular med school admissions). Do you think it's even worth it to try? Certainly having the medical knowledge, one could still apply analytical skill to biomedical problems, but it just seems much more logical to do an MD/PhD program. Are MD/PhD programs more grade prohibitive than MD only programs? For more background, I'm doing a Master's in Biomedical Informatics now (which I'll be doing research in) and am working in the pharma industry in Clinical Research, so numbers aside, my interests and experiences certainly tend towards a scientific approach. I'd appreciate any of your guys' feedback on either question. Thanks!

tbo

 

[Neuronix]

So I'm new to the world of MD/PhD and have started to research the area on my boss's encouragement. My question has two parts, really. What does it take to become a good Medical Scientist? Ive talked with a lot of people, both academic and in industry. The resounding feedback is that for someone that wants to tackle biomedical problems, it requires analytic skill and a scientific approach to problems in medicine. Is this an over simplified way to look at it, or this in essence 'what it takes'?

I'd say that's a simplistic view of what it takes. There's some other things. A long, long (did I mention long?) period of training and then when you're done all that you need to be good at competing for jobs and money. Part of this is the two things you mentioned earlier, but another part is the ability to write grants, make connections, and submit publications. This should be part of good training. Another factor is luck, and that could work either in your favor or against you.

My second and more pointed question is, while I understand MSTP to be much more competitive program to get into, do you think it's even worth it to apply if your grades/scores aren't competitive? Part of my interest is in Clinical Informatics and Clinical Genomics, but my grades aren't nearly competitive for this type of program (to put it into perspective, they barely hold up for regular med school admissions). Do you think it's even worth it to try? Certainly having the medical knowledge, one could still apply analytical skill to biomedical problems, but it just seems much more logical to do an MD/PhD program. Are MD/PhD programs more grade prohibitive than MD only programs? For more background, I'm doing a Master's in Biomedical Informatics now (which I'll be doing research in) and am working in the pharma industry in Clinical Research, so numbers aside, my interests and experiences certainly tend towards a scientific approach. I'd appreciate any of your guys' feedback on either question. Thanks!

I don't want to comment on your grades and MCAT without having them in front of me. What you think is competitive may not be or what you think is uncompetitive may be. You did say they are barely competitive for medical school, so I would say that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to get into a fully-funded MSTP. But still, what are they? Have you taken the MCAT yet?

I'm becoming more certain that I want to ultimately end up in Clinical Research and a logical path towards that is an MD/PhD.

This is what troubles me the most. There are very few MD/PhD programs that have the desire to produce clinical researchers. The MSTP is geared to produce basic science researchers, not clinical ones. I think most people would say to seek out MD and residency programs that have additional training for clinical research. You can do this through various year out programs, or mandatory research programs such as at the Clevland Clinic 5 year program or at Duke's required year out. If you are serious about spending all that extra time to get a PhD, perhaps we can enlighten you more, but be prepared to write off most of the existing MD/PhD programs.

If you have not done so I would highly encourage you to visit the following sites to obtain more basic information about MD/PhD programs:
http://intransit.us/
and
http://www.aamc.org/research/dbr/mdphd/

 

[tbo]

Neuronix,
First, thanks for the reply. I do appreciate what you say. To start, my UG GPA (Biology) is a 2.98. My current master's GPA (Biomedical Informatics) is a 3.9, and I don't forsee much change. I plan to take the MCAT in August. In this regard, I see my application being very weak, but not lost.

Beyond this, I find myself in what I think is a unique position. I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry for 4 years. Good work experience, outstanding scientific company, and good experience from an informatics perspective, which is ultimately what has led me to this path. It's the informatics (basic science) perspective of medicine that I want to develop and be able to apply within Clinical Research. I feel comfortable using informatics solutions to solve medical problems--it's the medical problem that I need training in. What I don't yet know is whether or not medical school can foster an analytical approach to medicine--most of the doctor's I've talked to think not. I'd imagine there's much variance in even regular MD programs in this regard. Coupling this with my scores above, I feel as though finding a school that can encourage my skills and still be a quality training program may be hokey at best. This is really the question I was trying to ask before.

The notion of an integrated training program as an MD and an informatics graduate program is ideal. It makes sense to me--since it's somewhat untraditional (for an MD/PhD program) does anyone think it's realistic?

 

[the citizen]

Medicine and informatics is the wave of the future, so that part is quite reasonable. A 2.98 GPA is going to pose a problem. Can you explain it (e.g. bad freshman year)? In any case you will need a high MCAT (say >33) to prove you can perform in med school. You will also need some strong letters.

 

[SaltySqueegee]

In short,

Sheer bone-headed determination. Combine that with a high level of compulsivity and a dash of insanity... wallah... MD/PhD ala mode. 🙄 😀

 

[tbo]

Medicine and informatics is the wave of the future, so that part is quite reasonable. A 2.98 GPA is going to pose a problem. Can you explain it (e.g. bad freshman year)? In any case you will need a high MCAT (say >33) to prove you can perform in med school. You will also need some strong letters.

Citizen: So my grades are pretty poor for the first 3 semesters. Adjusting to an entirely new environment and lack of maturity (I started college a year earlier than most) are the most honest responses to my poor grades . My senior yr GPA was around a 3.7, so there is an improvement. I do also agree that I need to nail home the MCAT. As far as letters go, I have some professors at Columbia P&S that are faculty in both the med school and in informatics that are supporting my decision. At work, I have two M.D. directors/supervisors who actually recommended I look into an MD/PhD--I feel pretty confident that these letters will be strong.

I'm somewhat curious if there is any consideration on how a potential MD/PhD candidate would approach particular problems--I think while the grades/MCATs are somewhat reflective of this, do ADCOMs take these things into account, perhaps more so than regular MD programs?

 

[the citizen]

Your letters sound good--especially if they are from senior faculty. The way you think about problems and about your research is important, but that will come out in your interviews. Your problem is that you may not be granted interviews.

I am curious, if you had to choose MD or PhD, which would you choose? Whatever the case, you should apply and see how it goes.

 

[vixey1230]

unfortunately, i have to agree with citizen...

the first cut in this long and ugly application process is getting an interview. and as much as it sucks, many schools do have a threshold number (for both mcat and gpa)... if you don't make the cut, you don't even get the interview.

i experienced a little of that myself during the past year. my numbers aren't fantastic, but they aren't all that bad either (mcat 33, cum gpa 3.85, science 4.0). i had 5+ years in research, 3 of them full-time post-bacc, 1 first author paper, and a few other pubs & presentations. my letters were great... and in the end, i got accepted at almost all the schools where i interviewed. but some of the schools cited low mcat score for the reason i was rejected pre-interview.

so study hard for the mcat, throw a wide net come application time, try some non-mstp programs (they tend to be a little less competitive) as well as mstps... and shine at your interviews. good luck.

 

[Neuronix]

but some of the schools cited low mcat score for the reason i was rejected pre-interview.

I believe you; but I'm acually surprised by this. Could you elaborate on which schools these were for future applicants?

Thanks!

 

[tbo]

I am curious, if you had to choose MD or PhD, which would you choose? Whatever the case, you should apply and see how it goes.

That is exactly my concern - being able to get to an interview. If I had to choose between MD or PhD, I'd choose MD hands down. My only hesitation is that there will be much less opportunities to foster an analytic mindset within medicine. Needless to say, I feel like I really need to understand the medical problem, which is one of the biggest gaps for me right now. A lot of the pioneers in Medical Informatics are MDs by training, Informaticians by poking around on a computer - it can be done

I will certainly cast a wide net--the same rules apply for regular MD programs as well as joint programs. It's essentially an argument that in an optimal world, an MD/PhD program would be obvious. I'm just not sure if it's practical (with regard to me getting my foot in the door for interviews).

 

[the citizen]

If you are not accepted into an MD/PhD program, one other option is to start an MD program and then apply for MD/PhD during year 1 or 2. If you plan to go this route I suggest you continue to do meaningful research before you start med school.

Good luck in whatever you end up doing, and remember, one does not need formal training in order to think analytically about medicine.

 

[vixey1230]

I believe you; but I'm acually surprised by this. Could you elaborate on which schools these were for future applicants?

Thanks!

Sure... I would have been better able to give this list during the process rather than trying to recall them now. But I know for sure that Texas Southwestern, Stanford, Wash U, and U. Washington said low MCAT was the reason.

I don't think all of them are all that honest though... this is the person picking up at the admission office (not the admissions committee has a whole) telling me my score was too low. And mind you that I mean pre-interview rejection just for the MSTP program (not the MD). I still did get interview requests for the medschool... just that I decided not to go to any of those after getting in at Tri-I.