In which specialties will having a PhD give you an edge?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

ymmit

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
72
Reaction score
40
All other things equal, does having a PhD from a top 5 institution give you a leg up when it comes time for residency or fellowships? In which fields? Does your PhD research have to be in the field of the specialty? Thanks in advance.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Every single one, honestly.

Your research doesn't need to be in a particular biomedical field but it does need to be vaguely biomedical. An English doctorate is really just a talking point.
 
The bump you'll get in your competitiveness however is about the same as you'll get from being AOA though. It used to be a golden ticket to whatever specialty you wanted in virtually any location. Nowadays it's basically a really cool EC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The bump you'll get in your competitiveness however is about the same as you'll get from being AOA though. It used to be a golden ticket to whatever specialty you wanted in virtually any location. Nowadays it's basically a really cool EC.

I feel like a lot of academic pathologists might disagree with you, they seem to salivate at MD/PhDs
 
I would say a cutting-edge field, such as transplant surgery or heme/onc.
 
Depends. If you're a PhD with minimal academic productivity (ie very few pubs outside of your thesis) -- no bump or slightly hurts your application. If you've been productive ( ie multiple pubs, presentations, research awards) -- yes, pretty significant.

*(academic general surgery residency perspective)
 
The bump you'll get in your competitiveness however is about the same as you'll get from being AOA though. It used to be a golden ticket to whatever specialty you wanted in virtually any location. Nowadays it's basically a really cool EC.
Why is it no longer the golden ticket it used to be?
 
All other things equal, does having a PhD from a top 5 institution give you a leg up when it comes time for residency or fellowships? In which fields? Does your PhD research have to be in the field of the specialty? Thanks in advance.
Certain highly academic derm programs salivate over MD/PhDs. If your thesis is in something in relation to skin -- you can bet PDs will throw their panties at you.
 
Certain highly academic derm programs salivate over MD/PhDs. If your thesis is in something in relation to skin -- you can bet PDs will throw their panties at you.

Yuck.

And the PhD isn't a golden ticket anymore because there are more MD/PhDs than there used to e. Couple that with increasingly competitive residencies and the fact that PDs want solid reliable clinicians. Having a weak clinical background with a PhD don't cancel each other out as much anymore.
 
PhD is now just a credential. Can be a significant one in some specialties (IM, peds, path, neuro, neurosurg, rad/onc), or of lesser importance in other specialties (ortho, psych, rads, etc.).

10-15 years ago PhD was king and golden ticket. No more.
 
Yes, all other things equal a PhD will always help you. I don't think it's as big of a factor as most people believe it is.

And the PhD isn't a golden ticket anymore because there are more MD/PhDs than there used to be.

Agreed. Also, funding has been poor for research for some time. No longer are most departments looking for MD/PhDs to support/do experiments for their research faculty at their institution, since those faculty are becoming fewer and fewer in number. Also, departments are getting burnt out on MD/PhDs who have strong credentials but go off to clinical practices in part due to the poor funding environment. We used to be considered an investment--the successful ones of us might stay on and bring in big grant funding and prestige in the future. But this hope has dwindled significantly as fewer of us have significant research careers.

Couple that with increasingly competitive residencies and the fact that PDs want solid reliable clinicians.

Agreed. I have written two blog entries about this.
http://www.neuronix.org/2011/07/nrmp-puts-out-charting-outcomes-in.html
http://www.neuronix.org/2012/06/effects-of-score-creep-trends-in.html

PDs are generally clinicians who are looking for the easiest residents to train and who will do the most work with the least complaint. They are not looking for potential problems from residents who are trying to get back to lab as much as possible.

Having a weak clinical background with a PhD don't cancel each other out as much anymore.

My experience and the experiences I get talking to other MD/PhDs is that in order the most important things (in order) are:
1. Step 1
2. Clinical grades
3. Research experience

It's not even having a weak clinical background that hurts an MD/PhD. The MD/PhD still needs the same clinical background as their MD competition to stand out. Especially in my specialty (rad onc) where even the MD applicants often have significant research. How much a PhD "matters" varies from program to program, but a productive year out by your competition can essentially negate your PhD for many reviewers, and then their clinical performance beats the PhD who came back to clinics after 4 years of PhD and couldn't hack it the first six months.

Certain highly academic derm programs salivate over MD/PhDs. If your thesis is in something in relation to skin -- you can bet PDs will throw their panties at you.

This is another thing that's important. Most MD/PhDs are given the advice not to pick their research based on whatever residency they think they might want. Also, you go to research after MS2 and don't pick a specialty until MS3. So most MD/PhDs don't do their PhDs in their specialty of interest. This is a handicap. Many specialties don't care about a PhD that's not in their area. So I think DermViser is right--the PhD will be a significant asset for academic derm programs if it's in dermatology. It's the same for rad onc. But most PhDs are in something fairly basic that often is not directly clinically relatable, and those PhDs are again not particularly valuable to residencies.

I feel like a lot of academic pathologists might disagree with you, they seem to salivate at MD/PhDs

Pathology is an exception. Benchtop research, which most MD/PhDs have, is often directly applicable to pathology. Additionally, specialties that are not that competitive clinically to begin with will especially jump at PhDs. It's easier to meet what might be considered an acceptable step 1 score for the specialty (i.e. 220 for path vs a 240 for rad onc), and clinical grades don't matter as much when few people have AOA in the specialty to begin with. Similar things can be said for specialties like pediatrics or PM&R, which are not so competitive clinically to begin with. Your PhD may really begin to stand out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is another thing that's important. Most MD/PhDs are given the advice not to pick their research based on whatever residency they think they might want. Also, you go to research after MS2 and don't pick a specialty until MS3. So most MD/PhDs don't do their PhDs in their specialty of interest. This is a handicap. Many specialties don't care about a PhD that's not in their area. So I think DermViser is right--the PhD will be a significant asset for academic derm programs if it's in dermatology. It's the same for rad onc. But most PhDs are in something fairly basic that often is not directly clinically relatable, and those PhDs are again not particularly valuable to residencies.
Hence why I think MD/PhD candidates should pick areas that directly tie into Dermatology (as well as Rad Onc) and other fields -- Immunology, Cell and Molecular Biology, Molecular Genetics/Genomics etc. These fields are of wide research in Derm as well as all of medicine.

It's when MD/PhDs do their thesis in an area that doesn't allow you to cast the net as huge when it comes to specialties, which is where there is a lot of disappointment.
 
Hence why I think MD/PhD candidates should pick areas that directly tie into Dermatology (as well as Rad Onc) and other fields -- Immunology, Cell and Molecular Biology, Molecular Genetics/Genomics etc. These fields are of wide research in Derm as well as all of medicine.

I think it's hard to generalize here because there are a range of possibilities. But, in my experience I think that most biomedical PhDs are sufficiently abstract as to be potentially related to many things, but directly related to one thing or no things. Those PhDs don't particularly excite program directors in my experience. Though your point is well taken. If you do a PhD in radiology and then apply in dermatology, you might have some issues. But then again, if the PhD was in near infrared spectroscopy you still might be able to make a case for it, though it's probably not going to be that exciting to programs.

I always give the following advice to MD/PhD students:

1. Focus on clinical metrics (step 1, clinical grades, LORs, etc). Those are most important.

2. Do research in a specialty of interest. This helps not only to excite programs, but helps you to build connections and letters of recommendation from people within your field. If multiple specialties interest you (let's say med onc and rad onc), pick the most competitive one to do research (i.e. rad onc) because you'll probably be able to get a spot in the less competitive specialty (i.e. IM->med onc) regardless.

3. If you have no idea what specialty you want, which is reasonable because you're doing a PhD after MS2, do something general and figure this all out later. Again, clinical metrics are most important. You may need to give yourself some time later to do some clinical research in your specific area. Like if you decide to go into rad onc, your application will be much more impressive if after your PhD you spend a month or two on clinical research in radiation getting a radiation specific publication and radiation research letter of recommendation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top