<p>Okay. I know nothing about medical school and graduate school. I want to go into research. Why would someone pick medical school over graduate school (vise versa)?
Or get an MD instead of a PhD and then do research?
What are the differences between the two?</p>
<p>Several schools (at least), such as Duke and HMS, offer combined M.D./PhD programs. They generally last about seven years or so. These are usually for students interested in academia and research. Dukes is the only program that I've really looked at. They give you free tuition, fees, and a 20k a year stipend. Not too bad for becoming a med scientist. However, getting accepted is pretty difficult even by med school standards. As far as I know, you must apply to both programs, PhD which is generally handled by the Arts/Sciences Dept, and the MD. Only about 10% or so at Duke are MD/PhD students, so getting in isn't that easy. I'd imagine that high MCATS, gpa and much research is needed.</p>
<p>There are very few people who get just an MD and then go into research... not that it can't be done, but it's quite rare.</p>
<p>MD/PhDs tend to be revered in labs, although often they don't end up doing anything different in a postdoc than a PhD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They give you free tuition, fees, and a 20k a year stipend. Not too bad for becoming a med scientist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but I wouldn't choose the MD/PhD route just to get the free tuition and the stipend. After all, you have to put the money you're saving next to having to spend another 3 years in school. That's 3 years in which you could be making good money as a regular MD. Hence, from a purely financial standpoint, the MD/PhD route rarely makes sense. You should go down that road because you are really interested in a career in academic medicine, not just because you want to get the free tuition and stipend.</p>
<p>But don't in those 3 years of being an MD, you don't get paid what fully experienced MD's do? I thought the first few years you only get like 30k a year or something really low (compared to doctors). Even if you made 100k a year, you would still be stuck with the 50k a year or so med school debts (per year). So after threes years of being an MD, you would have only made 300k but have a debt of 200k(not including undergraduate school debt), barely enough to survive when you spread that over 7 years, but at the MD/PhD program you would have made 140k. Even if you went to public school, you would have only made 200k over the 7 year period after paying off debts. (math subject to change)</p>
<p>BTW, when has anyone on CC advocated doing something solely for the money, not to mention going to 7+ years of graduate school in addition to the 4 years or so of undergrad? I surely wasn't. It was just a note about the program. Why not jump down my throat about mentioning HMS? Am I not a prestige whore for suggesting that?</p>
<p>You're looking at it the wrong way. </p>
<p>So let's say the MD/PhD guy wants to become a full practicing physician (and not just an academic). So that means that the MD/PhD guy also has to go through those years of initial residency, making 30k a year. The PhD doesn't allow him to skip those years. So both the MD guy and the MD/PhD guy have to go through the stage of making peanuts. The difference is, the MD guy gets to it 3-4 years before the MD/PhD guy does. Furthermore, the MD/PhD guy will always be 3-4 years behind the MD guy in terms of behind an experienced practicing physician. Again, the PhD doesn't allow him to skip ahead when it comes to practicing. Hence, the MD guy hits peak earning potential 3-4 years before the MD/PhD guy does. The point is if both guys practice, the MD guy will have 3-4 years MORE of peak earning years than will the MD/PhD guy. Hence, it is the peak earning years that you have to worry about, not the residency years of making peanuts (because both guys have to go through the residency years of making peanuts). </p>
<p>What's peak earning for a doctor? I'll be conservative and say 175k (remember, this is PEAK earnings). I think that it should be higher than this, but anyway, I'll use 175k. 175k * 3 = 525. That clearly dwarfs the debt and the stipend. </p>
<p>Essentially what that means is that the MD/PhD guy is "stunting" the development of his MD practice by 3-4 years (and hence reducing his overall practicing income) by using that time to get his PhD. The guy is basically taking time off in his MD career to get his PhD, but that means that he will never have the kind of practicing experience than if he had just completed his MD and started practicing straight away. His medical practice will always be several years behind.</p>
<p>On the other hand, most MD/PhD's go into academia. Academic medicine pays substantially less than does an MD practice (although granted it is a less stressful lifestyle). </p>
<p>I am not saying that anybody is advocating doing it for the money. But I know that people are going to read about the stipend and simply conclude that they should enter such a program just for the money, and I am telling them that this is foolish. I see nothing wrong with your mentioning HMS, because on the whole, you want to get into the best medical school you can, because doing so will give you a (slight) advantage when it comes to residency matching and give you an advantage when it comes to securing clientele for your medical practice. However it is quite dangerous for people to enter a MD/PhD program solely for the money. I never said that you were advocating such a step, however, it still bears mentioning that such a move is foolish.</p>
<p>Wow, that was way too much to write just to say I was wrong. I wrote that really early in the morning (that's why I may have been a little beligerrent), plus I don't know everything about being/becoming a physician/medical scientist. Are you very knowledgable about it (specifically MD/PhD)? Because you said that the MD/PHD student still has to do residency training. It just seems like only a practicing physician would have to do that.<br>
But with the money issue, what chances does a practicing physician have at finding a cure for cancer/aids/etc? I'd put my money on a medical scientist becoming a multibillionaire first anyday (however unlikely though). I don't think there are many on this site who are solely in desire of money, and if they are, they won't even get into med school anyway.</p>
<p>I just want to know Grad school is this, most people go here for this, it usually cost this, it takes this many years to complete usually, they look for this in an applicant.</p>
<p>Med school on the other hand is blah, people go here for blah and it cost blah, etc.</p>
<p>Is getting a masters like getting a PhD except you stop at one point where you would usually go on a few mpre yrs to get a PhD or do they differ a lot so that one couldnt do that? Does it vary from school to school?</p>
<p>Who would u suggest get a masters or a PhD?</p>
<p>Im totally clueless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because you said that the MD/PHD student still has to do residency training. It just seems like only a practicing physician would have to do that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Almost everybody who wants to become a practicing, board-certified physician has to complete a residency. There may be some unusual exceptions to this rule which guys like psedrishmd can tell you about, but the general point is that a PhD does not substitute for a residency. So it's not like you can just say "I completed the MD/PhD, so that means I can be a fully-fledged neurosurgeon right now without having to go through a neurosurgical residency". Think about it - just because you have a PhD doesn't mean that you're qualified to take a scalpel to my brain.</p>
<p>On the other hand, many MD/PhD's are not interested in becoming fully-fledged practicing doctors. Instead, they want to become academics and researchers. If they do that, it is true that they probably don't need to complete a residency. On the other hand, that means it is unlikely that they will ever become true practicing physicians then. They will basically be 'academic' physicians in academic positions, making significantly less money on average than a practicing physician (although, as I mentioned before, enjoying a less stressful lifestyle). </p>
<p>Hence, the bottom line is that you shouldn't view the MD/PHD as a way to save money. You may actually end up LOSING money by going down this road, when you factor in the time you will spend completing the PhD. You should go down this road because you truly are interested in academic medical research, not just to avoid debt or get a graduate-student stipend. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But with the money issue, what chances does a practicing physician have at finding a cure for cancer/aids/etc? I'd put my money on a medical scientist becoming a multibillionaire first anyday (however unlikely though).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I will grant you that the guy with the MD/PhD has a greater chance of finding a cure for some disease than a guy with an MD, and therefore of getting truly rich, especially if he joins or founds some biotech startup. However, it is important to keep this in perspective. Plenty of people with only MD's have highly successful careers in academic medicine. Consider Dr. David Ho, the famous AIDS researcher and Time Magazine's Man of the Year of 1996, and who championed many of the current techniques such as protease inhibitors used to combat AIDS currently. Ho does not have a Phd, he only has an MD (from Harvard). If you scan the profiles of the executive management team of various biotech and pharmaceutical companies, you will see that while many people hold PhD's (including MD/PHD's), others hold only MD's. The point is, while holding a PhD is certainly useful if you want to get into a life of medical research, not having one isn't fatal. If it is fatal, apparently, somebody forgot to tell that to David Ho. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Is getting a masters like getting a PhD except you stop at one point where you would usually go on a few mpre yrs to get a PhD or do they differ a lot so that one couldnt do that? Does it vary from school to school?
[quote]
</p>
<p>It varies from school to school. At some schools, a master's degree is basically like a 'mini-PhD', in which you complete a mini-thesis. At other schools, you can get a master's degree simply through coursework. Generally, the first kind of master's degree tends to be more prestigious. </p>
<p>Many programs do not offer terminal master's degree. Rather, master's degrees are basically 'consolation prizes' for people who were admitted into the PhD program but didn't make it all the way to the end. It's clearly better than walking away with nothing, but it's certainly not comparable to finishing the master's. </p>
<p>Other schools offer combined bachelor's/master's programs where basically if you do well in the bachelor's program, you can get automatic admission into such a program, and so after doing some work beyond the bachelor's, you end up with both degrees. I think these are very good deals for those who can get into them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Who would u suggest get a masters or a PhD?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For certain disciplines, most notably engineering and computer science, a master's degree can be highly useful in improving your job prospects. Lots of large technology companies, most notably Intel, strongly prefer to hire people with engineering master's degrees rather than people with engineering bachelor's degrees. </p>
<p>In most other disciplines, most notably in the humanities and social sciences, a master's degree is less useful (although far from worthless). These also tend to be the fields in which most top programs rarely offer terminal master's program (in contrast to engineering/computer science where the top schools like MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. offer extensive terminal master's programs). </p>
<p>Basically, a PhD should only pursued by somebody who is truly interested in researching a particular topic extremely deeply. Period. If you don't want to do research, you're not going to be able to complete the PhD, so you shouldn't waste your time trying. For a master's degree, it's a bit different. A master's degree in engineering or compsci can be reasonably pursued by anybody who just wants to improve job prospects. A master's degree in most humanities or social sciences is rarely something to be pursued, but is usually something you get because you were unable to get the PhD.</p>
<p>Ah, Thanks</p>