Sorry, this is a long one...
I am currently in my first year at OHSU and have been dealing with the dilemma of whether to switch from Med school to grad school after this year or next. Here we essentially have a full MD + a full PhD, making the process a little longer than at some schools. Our director is a big believer in going into grad school after our first year, and is persuasive to the point of aggressive on the topic. He even goes so far as to call the traditional 2-grad school-2 "stupid". However, it remains the student's choice on whether to switch after year one or year two. Here are his stated arguments for switching after 1 year:
1. keeping 2nd and 3rd years of med school together will ease the transition from the PhD to the clinical years and give a refresher on all of the board-related basic sciences that are learned during year 1.
2. many states require that usmle step 1 and 3 are taken within a 7 year period, which puts pressure on the grad student to finish a (in our case full) PhD as quickly as possible; or accept the possibility of retaking step 1...or face the prospect of being limited in where you are licensed to practice medicine.
3. (what I believe to be the real reason for his staunch defense) the school pays for med school + stipend + 1 year of grad school (after that research grants and/or your PI take over the financial burden) SO if you decide to drop the PhD, the school is only out of 1-2 years of money. Also, you are less-likely to drop the PhD with 3 years of Med school on the horizon than with just 2.
Having done a little research I have found that reason #2 listed above is somewhat misleading. Almost every state (if not all) with the 7 year rule makes an exception for those in an MD/PhD program or those who have been in medicine-related training for the duration of the 7 years. for info, check state-by-state at http://www.fsmb.org
Most (but not all) physicians, PI's, and students that I have talked to recommend the more traditional 2 years + boards, then switch to grad school. However, the only reasons that anyone can actively give why that might be better are 1) "it's a more natural break-point" 2) "who would want to go back to the classroom after a PhD?" and 3) "it just makes sense to get your basic science years and boards out of the way before switching."
My own personal reasons for leaning in that direction right now are that 1) I have a wonderful group of friends to study and hang out with this year and next, 2) I am not quite sure whether I would enter the Neuro or Molecular/Cellular program 3) I would like another year to become familiar with the campus, the researchers, and the projects, and most importantly 4) I would like the perspective of the pathophys year of med school to add perspective to my PhD mentor and project choice (and completion).
SO (finally) the dilemma: are these reasons, which seem good enough now, sufficient to outweigh the disadvantage of jumping into my clinical years straight out of a PhD? Also, am I missing some important facets of the argument that I should consider? Any help, particularly from those who have started their post-PhD clinical years would be appreciated.
Many thanks...
I am currently in my first year at OHSU and have been dealing with the dilemma of whether to switch from Med school to grad school after this year or next. Here we essentially have a full MD + a full PhD, making the process a little longer than at some schools. Our director is a big believer in going into grad school after our first year, and is persuasive to the point of aggressive on the topic. He even goes so far as to call the traditional 2-grad school-2 "stupid". However, it remains the student's choice on whether to switch after year one or year two. Here are his stated arguments for switching after 1 year:
1. keeping 2nd and 3rd years of med school together will ease the transition from the PhD to the clinical years and give a refresher on all of the board-related basic sciences that are learned during year 1.
2. many states require that usmle step 1 and 3 are taken within a 7 year period, which puts pressure on the grad student to finish a (in our case full) PhD as quickly as possible; or accept the possibility of retaking step 1...or face the prospect of being limited in where you are licensed to practice medicine.
3. (what I believe to be the real reason for his staunch defense) the school pays for med school + stipend + 1 year of grad school (after that research grants and/or your PI take over the financial burden) SO if you decide to drop the PhD, the school is only out of 1-2 years of money. Also, you are less-likely to drop the PhD with 3 years of Med school on the horizon than with just 2.
Having done a little research I have found that reason #2 listed above is somewhat misleading. Almost every state (if not all) with the 7 year rule makes an exception for those in an MD/PhD program or those who have been in medicine-related training for the duration of the 7 years. for info, check state-by-state at http://www.fsmb.org
Most (but not all) physicians, PI's, and students that I have talked to recommend the more traditional 2 years + boards, then switch to grad school. However, the only reasons that anyone can actively give why that might be better are 1) "it's a more natural break-point" 2) "who would want to go back to the classroom after a PhD?" and 3) "it just makes sense to get your basic science years and boards out of the way before switching."
My own personal reasons for leaning in that direction right now are that 1) I have a wonderful group of friends to study and hang out with this year and next, 2) I am not quite sure whether I would enter the Neuro or Molecular/Cellular program 3) I would like another year to become familiar with the campus, the researchers, and the projects, and most importantly 4) I would like the perspective of the pathophys year of med school to add perspective to my PhD mentor and project choice (and completion).
SO (finally) the dilemma: are these reasons, which seem good enough now, sufficient to outweigh the disadvantage of jumping into my clinical years straight out of a PhD? Also, am I missing some important facets of the argument that I should consider? Any help, particularly from those who have started their post-PhD clinical years would be appreciated.
Many thanks...
