<p>I'm a junior who wants to go to grad school in neuroscience and eventually enter academia to do basic neuroscience research. This has been my dream for a while, and since freshman year, I've been working towards entering a PhD program after graduation.</p>
<p>Everything was going smoothly until I started getting conflicting advice on which path I should take to become a neuroscientist. On the one hand, the grad students and postdocs in the lab where I currently work have told me to apply to MSTP programs because there are more funding opportunities and faculty positions available for researchers with both degrees. On the other hand, most of my professors (who are PhDs) tell me that having both degrees does not give one an advantage over someone with "just" a PhD.</p>
<p>I'm frankly not interested in practicing medicine or performing clinically related research, though this aversion could just stem from my severe allergy to premeds. Since I don't have any clinical experience, I should probably spend some time volunteering at hospitals and see if I like it, but I don't want to take time away from research (my main extracurricular). </p>
<p>What do you guys think? Should I follow my gut feeling and go for the PhD, or would an MD be a good "back-up" degree to have in addition to the PhD?</p>
<p>Hey, this is a really important question to reflect on. I was set on applying MSTP this year (I'm a junior as well), but now I'm going to apply PhD only. Here's why:</p>
<p>-I want to STUDY disease, not DIAGNOSE disease.
-I can't see myself working with patients...at all...especially for 2 whole years (the final 2 years of medical school).
-It is an extra 4 years of schooling that you could be used towards postdoc training in your area of interest.
-A lot can happen in science in 2 years, and you may feel a bit behind jumping back into the lab after your final 2 years of med school once you get your PhD (keep in mind most MSTP programs go MED1, MED2, GRAD1-GRAD4, MED3, MED4).
-I don't personally think you'll be any worse off for faculty positions without the MD, but it may depend on your area of research. It sounds like you aren't too interested in clinical studies, so I say just go for grad school.</p>
<p>I am in Rheumatology which is a clinical (as opposed to a basic) science. In Rheumatology a MD/PHD would be very advantageous. However, in neuroscience (not neurology) a PhD isn't going to confer special advantages the way it would in a clinical science. I believe this is due to the fact that there are no "Rheumatology" graduate programs but every residency has a Rheumatology component. I would doubt that an advantage exists in say Immunology which is the basic science equivalent.</p>
<p>I also strongly considered the MSTP path. You should only take this path, if you want a career that encompases both basic research and seeing patients. You sound like you have no interest in this second part so just go for the PhD. You can always get the MD later if you decide. If you do not like pre-meds, you will probably be unhappy in med school since these pre-meds eventually become med students. If you think you want to do patient care, then MSTP is a good route. If you have not already you should try working with patients in a clinical setting and you should shadow some physicians.</p>
<p>If you just want the medical background so you can do translational work, there are grad programs that give you some of this (HHMI med to grad programs). Again only do medical school if you want to work as a physician.</p>
<p>The MSTP route is a very rigorous way to go, but my observation is that the clinical insight you gain from it is invaluable to good experimental design in the research realm. I know quite a few of these students as well as graduates from this program, and they all say that seeing pathology in patients as a whole body instead of just a bunch of molecules bumping around has changed their entire outlook on the way disease research works.</p>
<p>it is the rare clinical researcher that excels or even successfully combines both medical practice and research. Most MD, PhDs end up primarily as clinicians with very modest research (though as with everything there are some sensational exceptions). The dual degree route is recommended if one truly wishes to practice AND do research on the therapies and pathophysiology of one's disease speciality.</p>
<p>If one simply wishes to gain a practical understanding of human physiology and human disease pathophysiology, there are several fairly new med into grad PhD programs in which grad students do participate in some of the basic elements of MD curriculum.</p>
<p>disagree with bekah -- patient experience does not necessarily provide a researcher with advice about experimental design. obviously, this is dependent on the field of practice and study and in this case, a theoretical neuroscientist might not have anything to gain from clinical neuroscience. in fact, it's often the scientific knowledge, training, and experience that facilitates good clinical practice. in sum, i think MD's with PhD's are better doctors (if combined correctly) than MD's only but PhD's with MD's are not necessarily better scientists.</p>
<p>i say, if you like research then go for the PhD. more often than not, MD/PhD's go into clinical practice and shy away from research. maybe that's what 9 years of school after undergrad does to you, who knows. plus, premeds are tools.</p>
<p>If you have no intentions of clinical practice, then don't do a Md/PhD. </p>
<p>However, MD/PhD's do not generally spend an overwhelming amount of time in clinical practice. Most of them end up in academia where the research/teaching/clinical split is usually 70/30 or 80/20 in favor of research and teaching. </p>
<p>And, MSTP programs are highly competitive. Most schools do not release separate stats for regular MD vs. the MSTP students but I was able to find the stats for my med school on a 2005 financial report: the average stats at my med school in 2005 for a regular MD student was 3.7 college GPA and 34 MCAT and 3.8/37 for MSTP students. So, expect top MSTP programs to have averages of around 3.9/38 today.</p>
<p>Happydad works in neuroscience drug discovery for a biotech. No M.D.s in the whole place, just a bunch of Ph.D. biochemists and one or two M.S. behavioral psychologists (they're working with mice). In his old lab at the NIH there weren't any M.D.s either. You don't need an M.D. if what you want is basic science. You just need to be willing to live in the lab for the next umpteen years.</p>
<p>really, norcalguy? i have family members who are md/phd's and they all went into clinical practice and have the opinion that most of them go into clinical practice. they say a lot of them can't stand the environment of academia and the low pay. i guess it varies on a case to case basis.</p>
<p>The NIH has done studies on the outcomes of the MSTP program and found that 80% of MSTP students end up in academia (vs. around 70% for non-MSTP Md/PhD's vs. even lower % for just MD's obviously). If you end up in academia, you'll still be doing some clinical practice but you will probably spend a greater percentage of the time researching.</p>
<p>There's no reason to do a MSTP program if you plan to exclusively do clinical practice. You'll be forfeiting 3-4 years worth of a physician's salary and have to do research during those years (which is torture if you have no interest in research). There are also a bunch of talks and seminars that MSTP students have to participate in even during their MD years of med school. A person interested in research would find them interesting. Someone who has no interest in research would probably find them quite onerous. </p>
<p>I don't think a PhD makes a physician a better clinician nor do I think the MD makes the physician a better scientist. MSTP's are for physicians who want to do both.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your replies. I guess the consensus here is that I should only do an MSTP if I enjoy the clinical aspect as much as I like the research. I'll try to gain some clinical experience since I don't have any yet to make a fair decision. ::drags feet::</p>
<p>I have a follow-up question:</p>
<p>Let's say I do end up liking medicine and wanting to apply to MSTP programs. I'll definitely have to take a year or two off, because while my academic profile may be fine for PhD programs, it sure isn't for MSTP (decent but not stellar GPA, research is my only serious extracurricular, etc.). What should I do during my time off to improve my chances of admission?</p>
<p>MSTP admissions is much more straight forward than regular MD admissions. You'll still need some volunteering, clinical experience, interesting hobbies, work experience and everything else that a regular MD applicant would need but the primary focus will be on your research experience. Most MD applicants will rarely be asked about research experience during an interview but MSTP applicants will undergo a series of interviews focused specifically on their research.</p>
<p>The other two major factors are your stats: MCAT and GPA. The published stats reflect the overall med school. You can probably add 0.1 GPA and 2-3 points on the MCAT to whatever is published to get the MSTP averages.</p>
<p>If you are planning on taking some years off post-undergrad I would think seriously about the need for the mstp. Doing the mstp means 8-9-10 years for the joint degree + if you actually want to practice medicine you still need a residency/fellowship, and if you want to continue in academia you need a post-doc. While some of the residency/fellowship and post-doc can be combined, it is still A LOT of years of school. Also if you are mostly interested in research, trying to consolidate your phd into 4 years can decrease the quality of your work, and depending on the type of research that you are interested in, can be impossible.</p>
<p>MSTP programs are stats happy, so make sure you will have a competitive app. If you are worried about GPA, I do not think taking time off will help. I would look at the MCAT also. You probably need to be in the mid-30 to be competitive. You should take this as early as possible. As others said, volunteering and the like are not as important as for md-only applicants. You definately need the clinical background. I would try to get some shadowing now, since it may help you decide quickly. You can get hands on exposure while you apply.</p>
<p>I disagree with others about taking time off. I do not think taking a year off will hurt you much in the grand scheme of things. If you are doing research during that time, it may help make your PhD go a little faster. I took time off and I am glad I did. I originally planned to apply MSTP. I worked in a lab fulltime and I worked in the clinic part-time (exactly what you would be doing as an MD/PhD), and this experience helped me realize that I was more interested in being in the lab than the clinic. You do not even get the experience of doing both simultaneously in most MD/PhD programs. Very few grads from these programs will ever do both medicine and science. It is wise for applicants to figure out if they love both medicine and science enough that they cant see themself ever doing only one or the other. These two years of my time saved me four years of medical school! </p>