<p>What is it? I am really outdated. Sorry if this question sounds dumb..</p>
<p>MD: is for doctors. It's basically referring to the completion of 4 years of medical school. </p>
<p>MD/PhD: is for people who want to be doctors and/or do research in a biological science. Some but not all medical schools have this 7+ years program. At the end of this, you will receive both a MD and a PhD.</p>
<p>The applicants who want to be in an MD/PhD program needs to first get into the medical school. This is extremely selective because most schools give you a full ride plus a stipend for the MD/PhD program. </p>
<p>However, there are a limited number of PhD programs that would be complimentary to the MD. It's not a program that lets you get a MD and a PhD in ANYTHING. </p>
<p>For example, Harvard has this MD/PhD program. You first have to get into Harvard Med School (HMS). And then, you have to apply for the MD/PhD program. I think they do this jointly with MIT. So you study for your MD at HMS and go to MIT to study for a biological science PhD.</p>
<p>Thank you!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you study for your MD at HMS and go to MIT to study for a biological science PhD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the HST program. Harvard also has an MSTP program (Medical Scientist Training Program) -- they are both part of HMS, and you can apply to either one or both. Most MSTP programs will cover the costs of both the MD and PhD (so you can graduate with no debt), while getting a straight MD will be quite expensive. On the other hand, what are the opportunity costs of not working for four more years?</p>
<p>Bottom line -- get the MD/PhD if you want to be a scientist. Get the MD if you just want to be a doctor (in which case you probably don't want to go to Caltech).</p>
<p>Just get the Ph.D. if you want to be a scientist! MD/PhD programs are INSANE. Add up undergrad, med school, grad school, residency, and postdoc, you do not get your first real job (an assistant professorship, not even tenured) until you're about 35 or 37. This is INSANE. Did I use that word before? Good. Because it is INSANE!!!</p>
<p>All the good little MD/PhD kiddies say it's because they want to do clinically oriented research, and to work with human subjects you need the MD. But this is INSANE!!! Only very few MD/PhD's will end up doing big controlled field trials (just count the number of such trials there are to see this) and so most of them are training to be allowed to do something that they'll never have the chance to do. (And even if they do end up needing to do it, it's not the worst thing in the world to coauthor with a clinician who will do the largely mundane work of dealing with patients.)</p>
<p>The real reason I think most people who do an MD/PhD do it is that it's the thing with the cherry on top. Up until that moment, they've gone after the best grades, the best activities, the best undergrad school, and 'best' has often meant 'taking most effort'. Since an MD/PhD takes a lot of effort and commitment, this seems like the appropriate continuation of the trajectory. Even if it makes no sense.</p>
<p>Anyway, right. This is totally an outsider's point of view, but MD/Ph.D. seems INSANE. If the fact that you'll have grandchildren before you're independent intellectually isn't enough, then also consider that the opportunity cost -- the money you lose by doing this -- is about 4 million dollars, probably more, not to mention untold research output and renown.</p>
<p>(WHAT? you don't make that much money in your first few years, you say. Correct! But think for three seconds. The years of your career that you actually lose are the ones at the end, where you are raking in piles of cash AND publishing tons of papers with your students in your big lab. Those are the productive years you lose wasting time at this silly medical school place memorizing anatomy that you'll never need.)</p>
<p>So, yes, outsider's point of view... but seriously, for those considering this degree, think hard about your rationale (beyond the usual half-baked reasons) and discuss it with people in the field who have your best interests at heart. I think if more people did this, we'd see a lot fewer MD/Ph.D.'s.</p>
<p></p>
<p>wow, very true. good lookin out ben</p>
<p>Does anyone know whether the MD/PhD program is insane or not?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not a program that lets you get a MD and a PhD in ANYTHING. </p>
<p>For example, Harvard has this MD/PhD program. You first have to get into Harvard Med School (HMS). And then, you have to apply for the MD/PhD program. I think they do this jointly with MIT. So you study for your MD at HMS and go to MIT to study for a biological science PhD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is true that your PhD can't be in anything you want it to be, but it also doesn't have to be in a biological science. For example, Harvard allows you to get the MD/PhD, where the PhD is from a social science, such as economics or government (which is Harvard's version of political science).</p>
<p>You're also free to pursue this PhD in a social science at MIT while getting your MD at Harvard. For example, Mark McClellan (former head of the FDA and current head of Medicare/Medicaid) got his MD at Harvard and his PhD in Economics at MIT. </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McClellan%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McClellan</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Just get the Ph.D. if you want to be a scientist! MD/PhD programs are INSANE. Add up undergrad, med school, grad school, residency, and postdoc, you do not get your first real job (an assistant professorship, not even tenured) until you're about 35 or 37. This is INSANE. Did I use that word before? Good. Because it is INSANE!!!</p>
<p>All the good little MD/PhD kiddies say it's because they want to do clinically oriented research, and to work with human subjects you need the MD. But this is INSANE!!! Only very few MD/PhD's will end up doing big controlled field trials (just count the number of such trials there are to see this) and so most of them are training to be allowed to do something that they'll never have the chance to do. (And even if they do end up needing to do it, it's not the worst thing in the world to coauthor with a clinician who will do the largely mundane work of dealing with patients.)</p>
<p>The real reason I think most people who do an MD/PhD do it is that it's the thing with the cherry on top. Up until that moment, they've gone after the best grades, the best activities, the best undergrad school, and 'best' has often meant 'taking most effort'. Since an MD/PhD takes a lot of effort and commitment, this seems like the appropriate continuation of the trajectory. Even if it makes no sense.</p>
<p>Anyway, right. This is totally an outsider's point of view, but MD/Ph.D. seems INSANE. If the fact that you'll have grandchildren before you're independent intellectually isn't enough, then also consider that the opportunity cost -- the money you lose by doing this -- is about 4 million dollars, probably more, not to mention untold research output and renown.</p>
<p>(WHAT? you don't make that much money in your first few years, you say. Correct! But think for three seconds. The years of your career that you actually lose are the ones at the end, where you are raking in piles of cash AND publishing tons of papers with your students in your big lab. Those are the productive years you lose wasting time at this silly medical school place memorizing anatomy that you'll never need.)</p>
<p>So, yes, outsider's point of view... but seriously, for those considering this degree, think hard about your rationale (beyond the usual half-baked reasons) and discuss it with people in the field who have your best interests at heart. I think if more people did this, we'd see a lot fewer MD/Ph.D.'s.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I sympathize with this argument, the fact of the matter is, it could be applied equally well to the standalone PhD as well. Let's face it. From a purely financial standpoint, almost all PhD programs are "insane" in the sense that few PhD programs actually produce a positive return-on-investment that justifies the time that you spent obtaining the PhD. Most newly minted PhDs will never be offered a tenure-track position, never mind actually being granted tenure. Heck, many PhD's, particularly in the humanities, will never get a real research position of any kind (either in academia or in industry). </p>
<p>Like I've always said, if money is your real goal, then don't get a MD/PhD. And don't get a PhD either. Get your MBA from Harvard or Wharton and get a job as an investment banker, or in a related field like hedge funds or private equity. That is probably the highest return investment that most people can make from their education. The quality-of-life you will have as a banker will be garbage, but hey, at least you'll be making a lot of money. So if that's all you really care about, then that's the way to go.</p>
<p>Point taken, sakky, but think about a person with the following preferences:</p>
<p>academic career >> nonacademic career</p>
<p>but pretty indifferent between the exact subfields of your discipline (as most people are). In that case, getting a Ph.D. in science from a top place is enough to put you in line for a nice faculty job (maybe not at a top place) and M.D. doesn't add much value to that at all.</p>
<p>It's not just about money -- I think that basically for all people M.D. adds no value to Ph.D. (money or quality of life) whereas Ph.D. adds a lot of quality of life for some people.</p>
<p>If you want to be a professional student, get your MD/PhD. Otherwise, pick one of the two, and financially the MD will be the better choice. Or you can do both and still be in school at the same time your kids are.</p>
<p>You have a knack for succinctly saying what I meant :-)</p>
<p>And you have a knack for always answering my posts! I'll admit I precipitated it this time by jumping in on a Caltech thread... but I'm pretty much convinced you're omnipresent. Quite an accomplishment! ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
but pretty indifferent between the exact subfields of your discipline (as most people are). In that case, getting a Ph.D. in science from a top place is enough to put you in line for a nice faculty job (maybe not at a top place) and M.D. doesn't add much value to that at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, see, the presumption there is that you are talking about a PhD in science from a top place. But let's face it. There are a LOT of no-name places in which you can get a science PhD. Not everybody can get into a top science PhD program. In fact, very few can. For most people, the only place where they can get admitted to a PhD program is at a no-name school. The fact is, you're probably not going to get a tenure-track faculty position if you get your PhD from a no-name program. </p>
<p>One might say that if you're not good enough to get into a top PhD program, then you're probably not good enough to get into a MD/PhD program, so the point is moot. Well, I'm not sure about that. Most medical schools, even the no-name ones, run MD/PhD programs. For example, Wayne State offers a MD/PhD program. So do places like East Carolina University and the University of South Alabama. While I don't want to be overly harsh, if the best PhD program you can get into is East Carolina or South Alabama, you're probably not going to get a high level academic faculty position. In fact, you may not get a faculty offer at all, in which case, having an MD could be real handy in getting you a job. </p>
<p>Look, my point is, people pursue the PhD because they love the subject, not for the money. Yet the fact is, there are plenty of people who love a subject, but who, quite frankly, aren't superstars in that subject, and so a no-name PhD program is the best they can do. Not everybody can get into a top PhD program. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I would also point out that, for some people, the MD/PhD is the ONLY way that they can get their MD. Seriously. That's because MD/PhD admissions are not really an "add-on" to the MD or the PhD, but are a separate category in their own right. Straight-up MD admissions often times hinges on things like volunteer clinical experience, personal rapport, good interviews, and so forth. However, MD/PhD admissions are run more like PhD admissions, where what matters is your research experience, publication history, and so forth. Hence, that means that, for some people, the only way that they could get admitted to an MD program at all is through an MD/PhD. </p>
<p>In fact, this happened to a guy I know. He got admitted to several MD/PhD programs, but got rejected from every single MD program he applied to, including the no-name ones. I think I know why too. Basically, he's a lab rat with fairly weak social skills and very limited applied medical experience. So it makes sense that the only programs that would take him are the MD/PhD programs. One could say that this is his "backdoor" to the MD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One could say that this is his "backdoor" to the MD.
[/quote]
But what a horrible backdoor that is! It boggles my mind to think anyone considers an MD to be worth all of that... doing the work for a PhD in addition to the MD when you only wanted the MD to begin with!</p>
<p>If I may... now THAT is INSANE.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But what a horrible backdoor that is! It boggles my mind to think anyone considers an MD to be worth all of that... doing the work for a PhD in addition to the MD when you only wanted the MD to begin with!</p>
<p>If I may... now THAT is INSANE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about that. I believe that some MD/PhD programs have provisions in which you can choose to drop out of one of the degrees along the way, in return for perhaps having to pay back any of the MSTP stipends and tuition-reimbursement you may have received. Of course, if you do it early in the process, then that payback will be minimal. Hence, one could said that this could be part of a "brilliant" strategy - get admitted to med-school via the MD/PhD path, then once you've matriculated, elect to drop out of the PhD. </p>
<p>Moreover, I wouldn't really characterize the process as one in which somebody deliberately manipulates the process to get in via a backdoor (although, like I said, it COULD be part of a 'brilliant' strategy). I think it's more likely that somebody really wants a PhD because he really likes the subject and dreams of becoming an academic, but can only get into a no-name PhD program such that he knows his chances of ever becoming a tenured academic are slim. Hence, he sees the MD as something that will provide him a "backup career" if he ever discovers that he really can't get a tenure-track position with his PhD. </p>
<p>After all, think about what this guy would do if he just gets only a PhD at a no-name school. Once he finishes it, what if he finds out that he can't get a faculty position? What is he going to do now? Ok, he might now decide to go to medical school. The problem is that he's not in a MD/PhD combined program, which means that he now has to pay for all of med-school on his own dime, and with no stipend. However, if he had been getting the MD/PhD from day one, then he would have everything paid for, with stipend.</p>
<p>In other words, I can definitely see how the MD/PhD would be attractive for somebody who is extremely risk averse such that while he wants to take a shot at becoming a professor, in case he doesn't get it, still wants a solid backup career.</p>
<p>Okay. This I buy. That guy you speak of is not insane.</p>
<p>How about the people at the MIT/Harvard MD/Ph.D. program? Let's not kid around. If you graduate from MIT with a Ph.D. in biology or biochemistry, you are extremely likely to get either a decent faculty position or (for sure) a well-paying job in industry research -- pharma or something along those lines. The "backup" excuse doesn't apply. Also, anyone who can get into MIT bio for grad school can surely make into a tier 1.5 med school (and if this person put their mind to doing the right things, a top-flight med school).</p>
<p>So the "backdoor" reason and the "insurance" reason are gone. Why would a top student pursue an MD/Ph.D. program? Those people are clearly INSANE.</p>
<p>I'm not certain it's the case that anyone who can get into MIT bio for grad school can make it into a good med school; I was under the impression that due to the large number of high quality applicants, medical schools had some weird things they liked to see in their applicants, such as a large amount of time volunteering at a hospital. I doubt a good bio major would have had much time for that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, anyone who can get into MIT bio for grad school can surely make into a tier 1.5 med school (and if this person put their mind to doing the right things, a top-flight med school).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I still don't necessarily buy this. First off, like omgninja said, just because somebody can get into MIT bio doesn't mean that that person can get into a good med-school. After all, I believe even mollibatmit, who got into a slew of top bio programs, has admitted that she would have had great difficulty in getting into any good MD programs, simply because she never went about "playing the grade game" in cherry-picking her way through easy classes to rack up lots of A's, which is what you need to do to maximize your chances of getting into a top med-school. </p>
<p>But secondly and more importantly, even if such a person could get into a good med-school, it wouldn't be Harvard Medical School. Hence, one could say that this way is a method for some people to backdoor their way into Harvard Med School. </p>
<p>The point is that admissions to an MD program and to an MD/PhD program are quite different, and on certain dimensions, quite orthogonal to each other. Some people would be far more likely to get into a MD/PhD program than into a straight MD program. </p>
<p>Furthermore, you mentioned previously that few MD/PhD's are going to be able to run those large human clinical trials and run serious academic medical studies. I agree, particularly because most MD/PhD's are coming from no-name schools. However, I would say that if there is anybody who has a good chance to be running one of these projects, it's going to be one of the Harvard-MIT MD/PhD guys.</p>
<p>I didn't mean that someone like mollie could get into med school TODAY if she wanted, but if she had set that as her goal freshman year, you bet she could have gotten into Harvard Med. So I still don't by the "backdoor" excuse for the top kids.</p>