Why is an MD more prestigious than a Ph.D?

[omare61]

I pulled this from another thread, I thought it would be good to include in sdn:

I always wondered why so many more people want to be an MD than get a PhD. Even in society physicians are one of the most respected professions, much more so than uni profs etc...
I only discovered a few months ago that an MD degree is "only" considered an undergraduate degree in canada (ie. on par with a bachelors; btw in most of the world you are granted a bachelors of medicine degree. Apparently, the only reason you are called doctor is because you are able to diagnose medical conditions). Furthermore, in MD training, unless you are a complete idiot, you will eventually get your degree no matter what due to the fact that schools give a fair amount of leeway with grades (ie. you don't flunk out of med school if your flunk an exam, you always get a 2nd chance) and in a clinical setting you will always have someone above you watching your back (to varying extents, depending on your level of training) and making sure you don't kill someone (ie. you are constantly supervised).
Whereas with a PhD you are working a lot more independantly, and in my opinion doing a lot more critical thinking (as opposed to constantly following a memorized protocal from memorized S&S's etc...) and the timeline of training is basically the same as a primary care physician.
Also, there is no guarantee that all the work you put in will = a PhD (unlike med school where hard work will always pay off). My bio prof has more than one story of grad colleagues who put in between 3-5 years of research only to see their experiments fail and wind up with nothing (with PhD, unlike a Masters, no results = no degree).
Moreover, i think the learning material is at least equal in difficulty between the two streams (my chem prof showed us what he was required to memorize in his PhD program regarding michaelis-menten enzyme kinetics before he could begin his research, and it was totally disgusting).
I think maybe that is the reason sometimes why profs seem a little turned off at students asking for LOR for med school etc...
I just think very few people appreciate the work that goes into a PhD and how it is easily on par with an MD but they make a lot less money and get less respect, less prestige.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

You answered your own question within the first 2 lines of the quote. MD's 'fix' people (usually), PhD's teach people (usually). One is more important than the other.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

It definitely isn't. If an engineering PhD came to my office with some awesome new medical device I would totally be bowing at his/her feet.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

You answered your own question within the first 2 lines of the quote. MD's 'fix' people (usually), PhD's teach people (usually). One is more important than the other.

Except that PhDs primarily do research. Teaching is just a required side-gig that most professors try to get out of as quickly as possible. In the lab I worked in in undergrad, for example, none of the PhDs there had taught classes for at least a decade, except one who occasionally gave guest lectures to med students and once to an undergrad seminar.

The role of PhDs as researchers first and teachers second is also established by universities themselves. When a tenure-track professor is hired their contracts often contain a clause that they have to support some or sometimes even all of their salary through grant money. To be considered for promotion to tenure, it's also common for universities to require life science researchers to have obtained 1-2 R01s and to have published a sizable amount of research since they were hired. Failure to do any of this will not only result in not getting tenure, but getting fired at your promotion hearing. This is why new professors are so hardcore about getting research done; they're not just trying to get tenure, they're trying to keep their jobs.

Like you said, MDs fix people. But they can only fix one person at a time. PhDs fix problems, and can potentially save the whole damn world with one swoop (ex: Jonas Salk).

The reason MDs are more prestigious is because A) they make a lot more money and B) everyone interacts with them and the fruits of a physician's labor are easy to see, whereas very few people outside of other scientists have interacted with scientists and obviously a scientist's work is much harder to appreciate if you're a layperson.

 

[idontcaureuknow]

You answered your own question within the first 2 lines of the quote. MD's 'fix' people (usually), PhD's teach people (usually). One is more important than the other.

Perception

It definitely isn't. If an engineering PhD came to my office with some awesome new medical device I would totally be bowing at his/her feet.

Reality. Truth is Ph.D's and researchers have resulted in many advancements for society.

While I respect Ph.D's as much as I respect physicians, the general perception is shown by Adrian's post.

 

[Fivo]

Oh lord. Misunderstood the question. In for results.

 

[VisionaryTics]

Who cares (aside from buttfrustrated PhDs looking for more respect for some reason)?

 

[45408]

Furthermore, in MD training, unless you are a complete idiot, you will eventually get your degree no matter what due to the fact that schools give a fair amount of leeway with grades (ie. you don't flunk out of med school if your flunk an exam, you always get a 2nd chance) and in a clinical setting you will always have someone above you watching your back (to varying extents, depending on your level of training) and making sure you don't kill someone (ie. you are constantly supervised).
Whereas with a PhD you are working a lot more independantly, and in my opinion doing a lot more critical thinking (as opposed to constantly following a memorized protocal from memorized S&S's etc...) and the timeline of training is basically the same as a primary care physician.

Med school does most of its selection before admissions, so there's not much reason to kick people out once they're in. Secondly, you're overstating the leeway that you'll be given. No one flunks out of any school for failing a single exam. Why would you? I failed an o-chem 2 exam but rallied for an A- in the class. I failed a neuroscience exam in med school too, and got a high pass in the class because I did well the rest of the time.

Secondly, it would be pretty stupid not to have someone supervising a med student in a clinical setting.


An MD probably has more lay prestige because the lay public has more exposure to physicians than scientists.

 

[45408]

Like you said, MDs fix people. But they can only fix one person at a time. PhDs fix problems, and can potentially save the whole damn world with one swoop (ex: Jonas Salk).

Great comparison. Except Jonas Salk was an MD, not a PhD.

 

[Verum]

PHDs are more detached from society's views than doctors. You don't know the people who made the medicine you will be taking, built the machines than diagnose you etc but you do know and have been in close contact to the person administering the medicine or working the machine right in front of you. You tend to give that person more gratification than the behind the stage people.

 

[487806]

Some PhD's, such as English, Sociology and Humanities (not necessarily including Philosophy), tend to be abstract and isolated from society. Other PhD's, in the sciences, engineering and business (somewhat science), while abstract, are very useful to the society. Science PhD's teach theory, while MD's teach practice.

So, science PhDs = MDs (also engineers, businesspeople, technicians etc.) > non-science PhDs. When I think of a non-science PhD, I think of completing my course requirement more than the subject as my career.

Note that this relationship isn't strict. I don't find environmental science to be particularly useful (although enviro engineering is a really useful major).

 

[FattySlug]

Said who? Who cares which one is more prestigious? There is some overlapping but generally they are different career tracks.

 

[Geebeejay]

Because an MD is easier to wrap your mind around....most people don't really know what it really takes to get your Ph.D. To most people, both degrees are very prestigious and hard to achieve, but MDs are "wicked smaht" doctors with a straight-forward, direct relationship with society while a Ph.D does behind-the-scenes work (research, design, etc.) that might never be fully appreciated by the community

 

[darkjedi]

Because there are no TV shows or movies about how sexy PhD's can be

 

[Duped]

I pulled this from another thread, I thought it would be good to include in sdn:

I always wondered why so many more people want to be an MD than get a PhD. Even in society physicians are one of the most respected professions, much more so than uni profs etc...
I only discovered a few months ago that an MD degree is "only" considered an undergraduate degree in canada (ie. on par with a bachelors; btw in most of the world you are granted a bachelors of medicine degree. Apparently, the only reason you are called doctor is because you are able to diagnose medical conditions). Furthermore, in MD training, unless you are a complete idiot, you will eventually get your degree no matter what due to the fact that schools give a fair amount of leeway with grades (ie. you don't flunk out of med school if your flunk an exam, you always get a 2nd chance) and in a clinical setting you will always have someone above you watching your back (to varying extents, depending on your level of training) and making sure you don't kill someone (ie. you are constantly supervised).
Whereas with a PhD you are working a lot more independantly, and in my opinion doing a lot more critical thinking (as opposed to constantly following a memorized protocal from memorized S&S's etc...) and the timeline of training is basically the same as a primary care physician.
Also, there is no guarantee that all the work you put in will = a PhD (unlike med school where hard work will always pay off). My bio prof has more than one story of grad colleagues who put in between 3-5 years of research only to see their experiments fail and wind up with nothing (with PhD, unlike a Masters, no results = no degree).
Moreover, i think the learning material is at least equal in difficulty between the two streams (my chem prof showed us what he was required to memorize in his PhD program regarding michaelis-menten enzyme kinetics before he could begin his research, and it was totally disgusting).
I think maybe that is the reason sometimes why profs seem a little turned off at students asking for LOR for med school etc...
I just think very few people appreciate the work that goes into a PhD and how it is easily on par with an MD but they make a lot less money and get less respect, less prestige.

Do you truly worship at the altar of some Jones to keep up with? Isn't the meaningless of prestige obvious? No, I guess for many it is not. You can imagine a "prestige" but it is a flawed concept and unrewarding pursuit. If you pursue prestige it will always remain outside your grasp. If you are born into it, it's insignificance renders those who pretend to it appear as buffoons. Aspire to be worthy and that which comes from within is the true value of a person no matter what title or letters after their name. To embark on any journey solely for pats on the back, flattery, and feigned "respect" is silly, shameful, and a life truly unexamined.

 

[olecranon4]

Great comparison. Except Jonas Salk was an MD, not a PhD.

Well done, sir.

 

[UrshumMurshum]

MD's have more prestige because they're generally saving peoples lives, which is heralded.

 

[impact2d]

The colloquialism "I'm no rocket scientist" kind of shows that certain PhD's are prestigious. I met an engineer who designed power systems on NASA rovers-it was like meeting Santa in real life.
I also have a former roomate who just finished his PhD at a very non prestigious school, and as the saying goes-he was no rocket scientist.
For MD the bottleneck is prior to med school, for PhD there are still weak subject areas at weak schools-even for profits where you can virtually buy a PhD. It's kind of like lawyers, it's where they work and what they work on that earns prestige. I also think where they earned their PhD matters a great deal.
Sent from my ADR6400L using SDN Mobile

 

[ComradeDoktor]

Some PhD's, such as English, Sociology and Humanities (not necessarily including Philosophy), tend to be abstract and isolated from society. Other PhD's, in the sciences, engineering and business (somewhat science), while abstract, are very useful to the society. Science PhD's teach theory, while MD's teach practice.

So, science PhDs = MDs (also engineers, businesspeople, technicians etc.) > non-science PhDs. When I think of a non-science PhD, I think of completing my course requirement more than the subject as my career.

Note that this relationship isn't strict. I don't find environmental science to be particularly useful (although enviro engineering is a really useful major).

THIS. An MD is an MD. Just about everyone with that degree does similar work that involves diagnosing and/or treating patients. People can get PhDs in no-one-gives-a-crap studies, which kind of dilutes things. I think PhDs in particular fields like biochem and physics still hold a lot of prestige.

 

[blizzah]

money money money

Also generally, an MD can do what a phd does. No chance a PhD can do what an MD does.

 

[tn4596]

Do you truly worship at the altar of some Jones to keep up with? Isn't the meaningless of prestige obvious? No, I guess for many it is not. You can imagine a "prestige" but it is a flawed concept and unrewarding pursuit. If you pursue prestige it will always remain outside your grasp. If you are born into it, it's insignificance renders those who pretend to it appear as buffoons. Aspire to be worthy and that which comes from within is the true value of a person no matter what title or letters after their name. To embark on any journey solely for pats on the back, flattery, and feigned "respect" is silly, shameful, and a life truly unexamined.

That is a wise man right there!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[unleash500]

I did a phd first and now doing md...

Phd imo is so much easier to me. I am given so much time and all i have to worry about is results and understanding concepts. Md on the other hand i am always time crunched.

MD is at another league imo. It is more than academics.

 

[circulus vitios]

I always wondered why so many more people want to be an MD than get a PhD.

I don't want to be 35 years old, still moving across the country every 2 years for a new post-doc while I try to land a coveted and highly-competitive $40k/year adjunct professorship at an obscure, bottom-third college in the midwest

 

[idontcaureuknow]

money money money

Also generally, an MD can do what a phd does. No chance a PhD can do what an MD does.

Generally, I have to disagree. I don't think many Md's can do rocket science (heck, most pre-meds bail-out of math courses after calc I.). I doubt many Md's could do materials chemistry. ect.

Ph.D's are highly specialized in certain fields, just as Md's are highly specialized for medicine. I think the only people who can claim to be able to do both are Md-Ph.D's. Otherwise, chances of one (Md or Ph.D) doing the other's job is quite low.

EDIT: To tag onto Circulus's comment, I'm not a fan of spending my life doing mainstream research. If one doesn't like research, being a Ph.D. holds little appeal.

 

[qwerty2012]

apples and oranges.

 

[lobo.solo]

I don't want to be 35 years old, still moving across the country every 2 years for a new post-doc while I try to land a coveted and highly-competitive $40k/year adjunct professorship at an obscure, bottom-third college in the midwest

+1
PhD have it hard, they should definitely get a higher compensation. Everyone knows what an MD does (sort of) because the majority has seen an MD, but not a lot of people know about PhD (especially non-educated people). MDs get glorified because they are at the front line when saving people's lives.

 

[SpecterGT260]

And nobody is going to touch the MD=BS in Canada thing? Serious troll kibble going on here

 

[TexasPhysician]

Average MD: Help 10 people/day x 5 days/week for 48 weeks/year for 35+ years = 84,000 people helped. Some docs see many more patients than this.

The majority of PhD's will never produce anything of value. One of the professor's I know is well regarded for discovering a new enzyme that we didn't know ever existed in humans. 8 years later and she has barely figured out what it does. That is progress, but will it ever help anyone? Who knows?

I know English PhD's that have published books that probably only sold to his own students. He may never produce anything of value.

Then there are other PhD's that change the world. For every one of these, there are hundreds of PhDs that produce little of value over a lifetime of work. There are also bad doctors that hurt people.

Some PhD's that produce make TONS of money, and they have a guaranteed job for life - tenure. Stanford has some PhD Multi-millionaires.

Don't forget that MD's have done plenty of research and advanced the field helping millions to come - Laennec, Lower, etc.

I've known many med students to fail out. I've also known many PhD graduates that were babied all along the way.

Truth is - MDs and PhDs are both prestigious. Both require a good level of intellect and critical thinking. I greatly respect both fields.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

Great comparison. Except Jonas Salk was an MD, not a PhD.

Well that's what I get for never paying attention in my classes during the history of science segments.

Still, while some MDs may do research, the reality is that the vast majority of biomedical research is conducted by PhDs, and that if you are going to be a researcher with an MD, your career is going to be much more similar to a PhD's than to an MD's.

 

[MedPR]

Surprised nobody has brought up MD/PhDs yet.

Perception



Reality. Truth is Ph.D's and researchers have resulted in many advancements for society.

While I respect Ph.D's as much as I respect physicians, the general perception is shown by Adrian's post.

+1.

Who taught the MDs?

Anyway, they're both important. We need healers, researchers, and teachers. And we need teachers to teach people how to heal, how to research, and how to teach. In the medical training model, we also need healers (attendings) to teach people (pre-meds, med students, residents) how to heal. We're on the same side here guys.

You know what they say; those who can't do, teach.

Jokes aside, neither is better than the other.

 

[MedPR]

+1
PhD have it hard, they should definitely get a higher compensation. Everyone knows what an MD does (sort of) because the majority has seen an MD, but not a lot of people know about PhD (especially non-educated people). MDs get glorified because they are at the front line when saving people's lives.

I disagree here. Majority of MDs will do something significant in their career, while most PhDs will not. In general the two are both highly valuable, but if picked at random you are more likely to find an MD with a significant achievement (e.g saving a life) than a PhD.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

Who taught the MDs?

Anyway, they're both important. We need healers, researchers, and teachers. And we need teachers to teach people how to heal, how to research, and how to teach. In the medical training model, we also need healers (attendings) to teach people (pre-meds, med students, residents) how to heal. We're on the same side here guys.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I'm just stating that it simple is.

 

[idontcaureuknow]

I disagree here. Majority of MDs will do something significant in their career, while most PhDs will not. In general the two are both highly valuable, but if picked at random you are more likely to find an MD with a significant achievement (e.g saving a life) than a PhD.

But keep in mind, you're also much more likely to find an MD who has made a mistake costing someone a life. Also, there are those who are known as assassins

I guess it depends on what you consider a "net significant" achievement. To say say majority of MD's will be significant in a good way and imply the majority of Ph.D's don't, is a wee bit over simplified in my opinion.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Who taught the MDs?

Anyway, they're both important. We need healers, researchers, and teachers. And we need teachers to teach people how to heal, how to research, and how to teach. In the medical training model, we also need healers (attendings) to teach people (pre-meds, med students, residents) how to heal. We're on the same side here guys.

PhDs did.... at least for the things they were ABLE to teach 😉.

Seriously though, I have a ton of respect for PhDs. The "who teaches who" argument is ridiculous and you'd know that if you had been through medical education. The teaching from PhDs stops after pre clinical years and there is an upward trend in information and relevance as you progress along the curriculum. Considering that the bulk of the training occurs in residency I would hope we can see why this is a silly argument

 

[MedPR]

But keep in mind, you're also much more likely to find an MD who has made a mistake costing someone a life. Also, there are those who are known as assassins

I guess it depends on what you consider a "net significant" achievement. To say say majority of MD's will be significant in a good way and imply the majority of Ph.D's don't, is a wee bit over simplified in my opinion.

I agree it's very simplified, but in general I think it's a fair assessment.

 

[SpecterGT260]

😕 How is what you wrote different than:

"We need teachers to teach people how to heal."

"In the medical training model, we also need healers (attendings) to teach people (pre-meds, med students, residents) how to heal."

I guess I mistook your meaning. I know several PhD candidates and most of them are cool. There are a couple that constantly pull out the "PhDs teach MDs" card whenever we hang out. I assume these are ex-pre-med students who are butthurt over their own life choices and choose to be tools to compensate.

 

[Doudline]

I disagree here. Majority of MDs will do something significant in their career, while most PhDs will not. In general the two are both highly valuable, but if picked at random you are more likely to find an MD with a significant achievement (e.g saving a life) than a PhD.

Many jobs do significant and essential good on a daily basis (waste collectors, teachers, nurses, all sorts of bureaucrats...), it's not an argument for prestige or worthiness.

 

[Parklife]

MDs are harder to get than PhDs. That's the only reason.

 

[Kaputt]

You answered your own question within the first 2 lines of the quote. MD's 'fix' people (usually), PhD's teach people (usually). One is more important than the other.

MDs wouldn't be able to 'fix' anyone if it wasn't for the medications, anesthetics, imaging technology, vaccinations, etc. that were invented by researchers, not clinicians.

 

[45408]

Well that's what I get for never paying attention in my classes during the history of science segments.

Still, while some MDs may do research, the reality is that the vast majority of biomedical research is conducted by PhDs, and that if you are going to be a researcher with an MD, your career is going to be much more similar to a PhD's than to an MD's.

If you're doing basic science research, I suppose, but there's a great deal of surgical research and advancements that's being conducted by surgeons who do mostly clinical work. We need both, and you can certainly be a physician whose work impacts many patients you will never personally see. Besides, it's only in recent years that physicians haven't been the leading medical researchers for many fields.

MDs wouldn't be able to 'fix' anyone if it wasn't for the medications, anesthetics, imaging technology, vaccinations, etc. that were invented by researchers, not clinicians.

Like I said above, that's only a recent development.

Halsted was one of the surgeons who discovered the uses for cocaine as an anesthetic. Then he got hooked on it.

History of anesthesia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_anesthesia#19th_century OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_Long

I already mentioned that Jonas Salk was an MD, not a PhD. Edward Jenner was also a physician. Louis Pasteur was a professor of chemistry though.

Imaging is more hard physics, so yes, that was primarily developed by scientists.

 

[Pattycake25]

Both degrees are worthy of great respect, but they have their differences, one of which is that PhD studies emphasize critical thinking more than the average M.D. curriculum.

So, why is the MD more respected? Because, tragically, everyday people don't appreciate critical thinking anymore. If they ever did.

=(

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I disagree here. Majority of MDs will do something significant in their career, while most PhDs will not. In general the two are both highly valuable, but if picked at random you are more likely to find an MD with a significant achievement (e.g saving a life) than a PhD.

You really can't say that though. Sure, most PhDs won't make a stunning breakthrough that changes everything, but they do all contribute to the total scientific knowledge which in turn provides a base for further discoveries. There's a reason why physicists in the 18th century weren't working on how to split atoms or create antimatter and it's not because no one was bright enough to figure it out yet.

Furthermore, science is full of examples where a discovery was originally largely ignored because it didn't seem to have any important applications, until much later when someone else came along, revisited the finding, and realized that it actually was very important. For example, Gregor Mendel's pea cross experiments were totally ignored when he published them. Darwin actually died with Mendel's famous publication sitting on his bookshelf, still wondering how traits were passed between generations. It wasn't until the next century that people looked back and realized that Mendel had solved what was at the time the greatest puzzle in biology. So while in his time he was a nobody, today we know him as the father of the entire field of genetics.

 

[MedPR]

Many jobs do significant and essential good on a daily basis (waste collectors, teachers, nurses, all sorts of bureaucrats...), it's not an argument for prestige or worthiness.

I didn't know we were equating saving lives with collecting trash. Nothing against waste collectors, but for the sake of this thread lets be a little more realistic.

You really can't say that though. Sure, most PhDs won't make a stunning breakthrough that changes everything, but they do all contribute to the total scientific knowledge which in turn provides a base for further discoveries. There's a reason why physicists in the 18th century weren't working on how to split atoms or create antimatter and it's not because no one was bright enough to figure it out yet.

Furthermore, science is full of examples where a discovery was originally largely ignored because it didn't seem to have any important applications, until much later when someone else came along, revisited the finding, and realized that it actually was very important. For example, Gregor Mendel's pea cross experiments were totally ignored when he published them. Darwin actually died with Mendel's famous publication sitting on his bookshelf, still wondering how traits were passed between generations. It wasn't until the next century that people looked back and realized that Mendel had solved what was at the time the greatest puzzle in biology. So while in his time he was a nobody, today we know him as the father of the entire field of genetics.

There were PhD's teaching at my high school and not doing any research. Not all PhD's teach at higher level education institutions that give them research funding.

Not all PhD's are even in the sciences.

 

[Doudline]

I didn't know we were equating saving lives with collecting trash. Nothing against waste collectors, but for the sake of this thread lets be a little more realistic.

Sure. What do you think would happen, then, if all garbage men stopped to collect wastes? I ain't no genie, but I'm pretty sure it would become a living hell a few weeks/months into it. And let's not even get into education and basic services.

 

[Fivo]

Sure. What do you think would happen, then, if all garbage men stopped to collect wastes? I ain't no genie, but I'm pretty sure it would become a living hell a few weeks/months into it. And let's not even get into education and basic services.

Comparing a no-experience necessary job (waste collection) to a job that requires years of education. Please keep going...

 

[noworkhistory]

Do you truly worship at the altar of some Jones to keep up with? Isn't the meaningless of prestige obvious? No, I guess for many it is not. You can imagine a "prestige" but it is a flawed concept and unrewarding pursuit. If you pursue prestige it will always remain outside your grasp. If you are born into it, it's insignificance renders those who pretend to it appear as buffoons. Aspire to be worthy and that which comes from within is the true value of a person no matter what title or letters after their name. To embark on any journey solely for pats on the back, flattery, and feigned "respect" is silly, shameful, and a life truly unexamined.

Isn't the etymology of the word "prestige" something like "illusion" or "trick"? lol

 

[Kaputt]

Like I said above, that's only a recent development.

Halsted was one of the surgeons who discovered the uses for cocaine as an anesthetic. Then he got hooked on it.

History of anesthesia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_anesthesia#19th_century OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_Long

I already mentioned that Jonas Salk was an MD, not a PhD. Edward Jenner was also a physician. Louis Pasteur was a professor of chemistry though.

Imaging is more hard physics, so yes, that was primarily developed by scientists.

True, it's a recent development, but so is the PhD degree. US universities only started issuing them in the 1860s. Science was practiced by broadly trained people back then.

Once modern science was kicked off, PhDs have done a great deal of the legwork for most basic science. Any MD that has made major advances probably has been functioning as a PhD anyway. Granted, surgery is one of those fields that relies heavily on advances made by MDs for obvious reasons.

At the end of the day, it's the behind the scenes people (be they PhDs or MDs) who dedicate their lives to research that make the rest of us look good. Without them, we'd have no evidence to base our medicine on. People who only interact with the clinicians aren't likely to appreciate this.

 

[noworkhistory]

money money money

Also generally, an MD can do what a phd does. No chance a PhD can do what an MD does.[/QUOTE]

Completely false....

 

[kpcrew]

Completely false....

Well thanks for that astute and detailed refutation of his statement, I totally agree with you.

 

[noworkhistory]

Well thanks for that astute and detailed refutation of his statement, I totally agree with you.

hahahahaha! Well, I thought it was just obvious!....PhD encounters and works with much more information than an MD does....

As far as being able to actually DO the work on the job, well, that would vary from person to person, not professional degree to professional degree. If we're talking amount of information studied, which is what I assumed he meant for some reason, then PhD studies way more information that an MD does.