MD vs M.B., B.S/BMBS

[Friendly]

Originally posted by davidw11
I'm talking about US schools. Obviously other countries do things different. I don't care if med school over there is called "high school". I'm saying that in the US, a MD is not an undergraduate degree. Find me proof otherwise. How can you have a combined MD/Ph.D program then if technically you can't be in a Ph.D program without a previous graduate degree(masters)

There are of course exceptions to what you've just said. For example, some North American (albeit Canadian) schools consider a medical or a law degree an "undergraduate degree". To prove this point, here is verbatim from McMaster University's medical school website:

"The intention of the McMaster Undergraduate [M.D.] Medical Programme is to prepare students to become physicians who have the capacity and flexibility to select any area in the broad field of medicine."

Also, you don't need a Masters degree to be admitted to a Ph.D. or M.D./Ph.D. program. In fact, most applicants (i.e 99 % of them) don't.

Regards

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[driedcaribou]

Originally posted by davidw11
I'm saying that in the US, a MD is not an undergraduate degree. Find me proof otherwise.

Friendly is right.

You do not need a Master's degree to get a Ph.D.

Also, you don't need a Bachelor's degree to get a MD.

Why don't you call a local school and ask them?

I am pretty confident that all schools in the US are undergraduate programs. They just have a different name.

A MD is a professional degree not a doctorate.

Think about it. Why would there be a MD/Ph.D programme then if it was a true doctorate? You don't get 2 Ph.Ds.

 

[driedcaribou]

Originally posted by davidw11
This upsets me, unless maybe I'm reading your quote wrong. Are you saying that an MD degree is nothing "special", and is equal to an undergraduate degree? I think I read before from a previous quote of yours is that it's not a graduate degree.

That's funny that you find it upsetting.

Yes. It is nothing "special". It is a degree like any other. You can't practice just because you have your degree. There are other steps you might take. Take a look at the Bachelor of Education. Many people take it as a 2nd degree. Also, teaching is a profession. However, just because you have your B.Ed doesn't mean you can teach.
Professions mean they are regulated by a board.
A 'professional' degree only means that it can lead toward a specific job.

First, according to the American Hertiage Dictionary(and just about every other one), undergraduate student means :

"A college or university student who has not yet received a bachelor's or similar degree. "

Yes but you've interpreted it wrong. It does not mean that they have never received a bachelor's or similar degree at all BUT it means they haven't received that degree in their current program.

By your definition, no one can get a 2nd Bachelor's degree because it violates the dictionary definition.

So, an undergraduate degree is someone who has received a bachelor's or similar degree. Obviously there is no way you can call a MD degree equal to a bachelors. It's a million times better. First, the United States ranks a MD Doctor the highest in terms of "status". They are higher ranked than Ph.D holders. Professors are ranked higher then Ph.D holders also, since every professor has a Ph.D, while not all Ph.D holders are professors.

Yes, professors are ranked higher. I didn't say they weren't. That point is irrelevant.
I take it you subscribe to the view that MDs are the penultimate career. Is this why you are choosing this career path?
MDs are not ranked higher than Ph.D holders in the academic world. They are taught by Ph.Ds for the basic science components of their schooling.
I wouldn't say the MD is a million times better but I would say that it opens a million more doors than your average undergraduate degree.

Also, what makes you think it's not a graduate degree? Do you know how long it takes to get a graduate degree in say Biology? 2yrs. Yes, 2yrs!!! So after getting a BA or BS in something, you go on for 2 more years to get your Masters degree.

Yet to become a doctor, it requires going on 4 yrs after getting a BA or BS, and then AT LEAST 4 more years until you can even begin to practice privately. So to get a MD degree, it takes 8 years(4yrs of very intensive med school). To get a Masters(graduate degree), it takes 6yrs (of nowhere near as intensive studies).


So I see a flaw in your logic.

The flaw is actually in your logic. Time does not equate to quality nor how advanced a degree is.
You actually validate my point. Let's say you take 4 years to get a Bachelor's degree. Add 2 years to that for a Master's.
That's similar to going to Med School for 4 years then 2 years for a Family Practice residency (I am quoting numbers from Canadian schools).

The MD is such because it was recommended that people get a 4 years undergrad before undertaking it. You don't need to finish your undergrad degree to even get a MD.

And why is it that I can't have a BA in English and do a M.Sc in Biochemistry BUT I can have a BA in English and do a MD?
Because everything you learn in Med school is self-contained.
Hence, it is an undergrad degree. Sure you have to do courses to get to the MD but do you realize that the physiotherapy program used to be a Bachelor's degree as well?

You'd have to take pre-reqs and apply for Physio.
Pharmacy is an undergrad degree as well.

You're letting the MD title fool you.

You are also assuming that a Master's degree isn't as intensive than a MD. A Master's degree might not put you up all night doing rounds but you still have to worry about your experiments. Oh whoa is the Chem student who drops his sample that he's been trying to isolate for 4 years.


I don't see what makes you think it is a graduate degree.
I state again- you're not writing a thesis. It's not a graduate degree.


I'm sorry that you can't wrap your head around the concept that the world doesn't revolve around MDs.

Seriously think about the Bachelor's degree in Physio and Pharmacy I mentioned.

The whole reason why Physio programs are changing to a Master's degree is because people get so didactic about titles.

People love to classify this and that.

A prime example to disprove your 'hardworking' and 'toughness' theory would be certain Nursing programs.

I know for a fact that many B.Sc.N programs are quite gruelling compared to some other Bachelor's degrees you can obtain.

 

[davidw11]

For example, some North American (albeit Canadian) schools consider a medical or a law degree an "undergraduate degree". To prove this point, here is verbatim from McMaster University's medical school website:

I think you answered my point....not a US school.

I take it you subscribe to the view that MDs are the penultimate career. Is this why you are choosing this career path?

No, it's not why I'm thinking about it in particular. But is there a reason why that would be wrong? Is it wrong for someone to want to be president of the US? You can say they only want that because it's the ultimate career...which is probably true.

Plus, are you sure you don't need a Master's to get into a Ph.D program? I find fault in your 99% don't have masters logic. Everybody that has a Ph.D I can think of have their masters degree. Would you like me to give you college professor links which give information about the professors? While reading their profiles...there is a trend of every single one having a Masters degree before a Ph.D. Doesn't sound like that would fit with the 99% logic.

Oh wait...you want proof??


The Doctor of Philosophy


The Ph.D. degree is primarily intended to prepare students for careers as college and university faculty members and for high level research and analysis positions in government and non-governmental organizations. The path to the Ph.D. is one that begins with a good deal of structure -- reflected in our seminar requirements. With time, however, each student's program of study becomes more individualized as they assume greater responsibility for their own education. Successful completion of the Ph.D. reflects the ability to undertake significant research projects independently, to design and teach a variety of college courses, and to communicate ideas to a wide range of audiences.

Ph.D. Requirements in Brief:

Complete all requirements for M.A. degree.
Plus 30 additional credit hours, including:
- fifth course in primary subfield
- third course in secondary subfield
- three courses in third subfield (may be outside political science)
Written qualifying examinations
Oral comprehensive examination
Doctoral dissertation


Sounds like you need a Master's to me. Of course, technically you may say "still don't need a Master's". But come on....you have to complete all requirements of a M.A. degree to get your Ph.D!!! That's like saying, you don't need 12 years of education to get into a BA program for Political Science, you just have to complete all requirements for 12yrs worth of K-12 courses.

 

[pitman]

Originally posted by davidw11

Plus, are you sure you don't need a Master's to get into a Ph.D program?

While most PhD programs in the US award a master's degree to those without it on the way to getting the PhD, it is not a requirement to have a master's in order to get into most PhD programs.

In the bio sciences, it is far more common to start a PhD program in the US following a BS or BA than after getting an independent master's degree. The program will typically be 5-7 years in length, with a master's awarded after the first 2 years or so (often when the sciences requirement of the degree has been completed).

I'm not sure why all the debating over undergraduate vs. graduate -- it's a silly semantics argument. In the US, if you have a bachelor's degree, then further studying is usually called post-graduate. Traditional British-based 6-year med programmes are gotten straight out of high school, thus the programme is usually called under-graduate. Who the hell cares if when you get out you can call yourself a post-grad graduate or an under-grad graduate? Neither says anything in particular about the qualification, in part b.c. the term 'graduate' does not have a single definition -- it's functionally defined and can refer to graduation from college, from a post-college program(me), or from anything else for that matter.

-pitman

 

[davidw11]

The program will typically be 5-7 years in length, with a master's awarded after the first 2 years or so (often when the sciences requirement of the degree has been completed).

...just admit you're getting your master's first There is no way to look at it without my theory being right. Unless you go straight from BA and do some research and dissertation and get your Ph.D, you're getting your masters first.

I'm not sure why all the debating over undergraduate vs. graduate -- it's a silly semantics argument.

Fine, I officially retire I see my debates got nowhere.

 

[pitman]

Originally posted by davidw11
...just admit you're getting your master's first There is no way to look at it without my theory being right. Unless you go straight from BA and do some research and dissertation and get your Ph.D, you're getting your masters first.

I was trying to make a minor correction (or maybe just a clarification). You had said:

Plus, are you sure you don't need a Master's to get into a Ph.D program?

..but a master's is not needed to GET INTO the PhD program, and while a master's is usually awarded on the way to a PhD, I don't think it's necessarily so. For example, a school may not award a Masters in Economics, but only a PhD, in which case a student would not officially hold a Master's when he gets his PhD. I *could* be wrong on this reasoning, but I'm pretty sure that's what my alma did with its post-baccalaureate Math degrees.

-pitman

 

[1996]

Originally posted by pitman
..but a master's is not needed to GET INTO the PhD program, and while a master's is usually awarded on the way to a PhD, I don't think it's necessarily so. For example, a school may not award a Masters in Economics, but only a PhD, in which case a student would not officially hold a Master's when he gets his PhD. I *could* be wrong on this reasoning, but I'm pretty sure that's what my alma did with its post-baccalaureate Math degrees.

-pitman

You are absolutely correct. Most people who do PhDs in the US go straight from college (BA or BS) into the PhD program. While some programs might award a Master's degree in after 2-3 years into the program or after completing certain courses, most actually don't. Most who graduate from a PhD program will only get the PhD. (Therefore, most PhDs I've seen actually don't hold a Master's. Those that do usually either did them separately for whatever reasons at different institutions. Why would you need a Master's anyway if you have a PhD?) Many PhD students who decide to withdraw from a PhD program after 1-2 years will be awarded a Master's degree from the University, kind of like a consolation for the work they've done.

 

[Friendly]

Originally posted by davidw11
I think you answered my point....not a US school.



No, it's not why I'm thinking about it in particular. But is there a reason why that would be wrong? Is it wrong for someone to want to be president of the US? You can say they only want that because it's the ultimate career...which is probably true.

Plus, are you sure you don't need a Master's to get into a Ph.D program? I find fault in your 99% don't have masters logic. Everybody that has a Ph.D I can think of have their masters degree. Would you like me to give you college professor links which give information about the professors? While reading their profiles...there is a trend of every single one having a Masters degree before a Ph.D. Doesn't sound like that would fit with the 99% logic.

Oh wait...you want proof??


The Doctor of Philosophy


The Ph.D. degree is primarily intended to prepare students for careers as college and university faculty members and for high level research and analysis positions in government and non-governmental organizations. The path to the Ph.D. is one that begins with a good deal of structure -- reflected in our seminar requirements. With time, however, each student's program of study becomes more individualized as they assume greater responsibility for their own education. Successful completion of the Ph.D. reflects the ability to undertake significant research projects independently, to design and teach a variety of college courses, and to communicate ideas to a wide range of audiences.

Ph.D. Requirements in Brief:

Complete all requirements for M.A. degree.
Plus 30 additional credit hours, including:
- fifth course in primary subfield
- third course in secondary subfield
- three courses in third subfield (may be outside political science)
Written qualifying examinations
Oral comprehensive examination
Doctoral dissertation


Sounds like you need a Master's to me. Of course, technically you may say "still don't need a Master's". But come on....you have to complete all requirements of a M.A. degree to get your Ph.D!!! That's like saying, you don't need 12 years of education to get into a BA program for Political Science, you just have to complete all requirements for 12yrs worth of K-12 courses.

Yes, since I have a Ph.D. and was awarded it after my bachelors degree (no masters), I'm quite certain that a masters is NOT needed. Some programs offer a comensatory masters if you don't finish the Ph.D.

Sonny, you're acting like an ***** and your lunacy and ignorance is astounding.

 

[davidw11]

but a master's is not needed to GET INTO the PhD program, and while a master's is usually awarded on the way to a PhD, I don't think it's necessarily so

Yeah, maybe not to get into it, but it's still down the line. There are only a few exceptions to not having your master's but still having your Ph.D.

I think most people go for their Master's out of undergraduate school. Then they move into a Ph.D program. How the heck could you go straight from getting a BA to getting a Ph.D is only a few years? Now if the Ph.D is 6-7 years long, then that would make more sense. But at least from Penn State University(that's where that previous quote in red came from), you must take all the Master's credits. So either way you're getting a Master's, even if they wouldn't technically hand out a "masters" diploma. But I personally know someone that went to Penn State that got both a Masters and Ph.D.

 

[davidw11]

Yes, since I have a Ph.D. and was awarded it after my bachelors degree

Hmm...that explains the arrogance of your posts Why is it that Ph.D holders are so quick to argue on anything?

What I was saying is not the fact that you can't get a Ph.D after a BA degree, I'm simply saying for most Ph.D programs, you're still technically "doing" a masters program. The red quote says you must meet all credits for a masters degree. Even if you don't technically get a little "masters degree" slip to post on your wall, you still got it. You hadn't finished your Ph.D program, you would have had all the credits for a Master's degree, thus they probably would have simply handed it to you.

 

[redshifteffect]

Originally posted by davidw11
Hmm...that explains the arrogance of your posts Why is it that Ph.D holders are so quick to argue on anything?

What I was saying is not the fact that you can't get a Ph.D after a BA degree, I'm simply saying for most Ph.D programs, you're still technically "doing" a masters program. The red quote says you must meet all credits for a masters degree. Even if you don't technically get a little "masters degree" slip to post on your wall, you still got it. You hadn't finished your Ph.D program, you would have had all the credits for a Master's degree, thus they probably would have simply handed it to you.

Since there are exceptions to every degree in the US how can you assume all MDs are more than post graduate degrees? I think that if you have to constantly defend yourself because of the all exeptions that arise it makes it very difficult to define exactly what the MD degree is...and easier to define what its not: a post graduate degree.

 

[1996]

Originally posted by davidw11
Yeah, maybe not to get into it, but it's still down the line. There are only a few exceptions to not having your master's but still having your Ph.D.

I think most people go for their Master's out of undergraduate school. Then they move into a Ph.D program. How the heck could you go straight from getting a BA to getting a Ph.D is only a few years?

Actually, getting a Master's before moving onto a PhD program is the exception. Going straight from a bachelor's degree to a PhD is the norm. Courseworks are not necessarily the same either. Many schools give out Master's for simply doing a year of independent research and presenting a thesis (esp. the MD/MA programs) without taking any classes. Many PhD programs don't require the full array of Master's level classes. They do, however, require passing their qualifying exam, which is regarded as the minimal knowledge base required for the PhD degree.

And, to answer your question, most PhD programs are designed to be about 5 years long after getting the bachelor's degree. If you have completed a Master's degree before enrolling in the PhD program, that might be able to be shortened. But the length really depends on your thesis, and many who has a Master's before enrolling in the PhD program probably transferred from one institution to another. Therefore, they would very likely have to start over with their thesis, thus, still taking close to the same amount of time.

 

[davidw11]

Actually, getting a Master's before moving onto a PhD program is the exception.

Really? Why is then when I go to college websites and look at professor profiles, almost all of them(maybe 1 doesn't) have master degrees listed? Would it just happen that every one at every college is the exception? There must be a lot of exceptions out there then. Just look at any falculty profile for a college and it will prove my theory. Or heck, here's a link I'm on right now:

http://www.goshen.edu/psych/faculty.html

I didn't go looking for it, I just happened to be on it. I can find the link for every departments page if you like so you can see for yourself.

 

[Friendly]

Originally posted by davidw11
Really? Why is then when I go to college websites and look at professor profiles, almost all of them(maybe 1 doesn't) have master degrees listed? Would it just happen that every one at every college is the exception? There must be a lot of exceptions out there then. Just look at any falculty profile for a college and it will prove my theory. Or heck, here's a link I'm on right now:

http://www.goshen.edu/psych/faculty.html

I didn't go looking for it, I just happened to be on it. I can find the link for every departments page if you like so you can see for yourself.

....and it's quite possible to obtain a Ph.D. after 3-4 years of post Bac. study. Please refrain from misleading people by saying it takes 6-7 years at least. If you haven't gone through the program, perhaps you're not the best person to be mouthing off, davidw11 ......numpty.

 

[1996]

Originally posted by davidw11
Really? Why is then when I go to college websites and look at professor profiles, almost all of them(maybe 1 doesn't) have master degrees listed? Would it just happen that every one at every college is the exception? There must be a lot of exceptions out there then. Just look at any falculty profile for a college and it will prove my theory. Or heck, here's a link I'm on right now:

http://www.goshen.edu/psych/faculty.html

I didn't go looking for it, I just happened to be on it. I can find the link for every departments page if you like so you can see for yourself.

I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you about this. But, anyway, since you want "prove" of what the "norm" is, check out this page that I happened to be browsing through prior to reading your post:

http://mgcb.bsd.uchicago.edu/index3.html?content=faculty/mgcb.html

Only 2 out of 11 the faculty in this department had any sort of Master's degree prior to their PhD. And for 1 of the 2 with Master's, his Master's and his PhD are not only from 2 different institutions, but they are in different fields! Anyway, as for the example page that you gave, I wonder if you noticed that for the ones who had Masters, most of them got their PhD and MA at different institutions (3, well since the sample size is so small), and one of them got her PhD 17 years after her Master's! These are likely people who had no intention of getting a PhD initially, but many years out decided to go back and get their PhD. For the ones that switched institution, they are also likely to have not planned on a PhD initially, but chose to pursue it after the Master's, and thus reapplied after the Master's program. This is because there is absolutely no reason nowadays to get a Master's before a PhD, if you intend on getting a PhD all along. In fact, some schools don't even offer the Master's program anymore, and only give it out erither (1) as a consolation for those who drop out of the PhD program or those finish a year of independent research with thesis, or (2) as part of a combined program in BA/MA or MD/MA.

I suggest that you talk to the career counselors or grad students at your school and get a better idea of what graduate school is actually like, since you don't seem to believe those of us here who have actually gone through it or are working with these people everyday.

 

[pitman]

Originally posted by Friendly
....and it's quite possible to obtain a Ph.D. after 3-4 years of post Bac. study. Please refrain from misleading people by saying it takes 6-7 years at least. If you haven't gone through the program, perhaps you're not the best person to be mouthing off, davidw11 ......numpty.

It may have been my statement you're referring to, which was that most take 5-7 years (equivalent coursework) to complete -- I maintain that the mean +/- standard deviation is close to that range. Keep in mind when you get an MD/PhD in a biological science, you will be able to overlap considerably (mostly on the sciences), enabling the total to be a few years less than 4 + ~6 = 10 years, for example, 8 years, but the equivalent coursework for the PhD part is reduced only marginally, if at all (this is part of how PhD is defined via accreditation), and cannot meaningfully be said to be 4 years.

-pitman

 

[Friendly]

Originally posted by pitman
It may have been my statement you're referring to, which was that most take 5-7 years (equivalent coursework) to complete -- I maintain that the mean +/- standard deviation is close to that range. Keep in mind when you get an MD/PhD in a biological science, you will be able to overlap considerably (mostly on the sciences), enabling the total to be a few years less than 4 + ~6 = 10 years, for example, 8 years, but the equivalent coursework for the PhD part is reduced only marginally, if at all (this is part of how PhD is defined via accreditation), and cannot meaningfully be said to be 4 years.

-pitman

Interesting point but, really, I was referring to the comments made by davidw11 (he claims 5-6 years). I worked 60-90 hours per week for my Ph.D. in the U.S. and it took 3 1/2 years from start to finish. It all depends on what you're willing to sacrifice. The length of time taken is no reflection whatsoever on scientific reasoning or ability. Any Ph.D. who has gone through the process will tell you that. Classes were only for 1 1/2 years. I'm no genius although I have worked with very talented people who have easily completed the Ph.D. in four - five years. In Ireland, Scotland, England, Australia etc., the Ph.D. degree takes three years. In the U.S., investigators have more money so students have the luxury of having a little more time...hence the 5 1/2 year biological science Ph.D. is the mean duration.

 

[pitman]

Originally posted by Friendly
Interesting point but, really, I was referring to the comments made by davidw11 (he claims 5-6 years). I worked 60-90 hours per week for my Ph.D. in the U.S. and it took 3 1/2 years from start to finish. It all depends on what you're willing to sacrifice. The length of time taken is no reflection whatsoever on scientific reasoning or ability. Any Ph.D. who has gone through the process will tell you that. Classes were only for 1 1/2 years. I'm no genius although I have worked with very talented people who have easily completed the Ph.D. in four - five years. In Ireland, Scotland, England, Australia etc., the Ph.D. degree takes three years. In the U.S., investigators have more money so students have the luxury of having a little more time...hence the 5 1/2 year biological science Ph.D. is the mean duration.

Ok, sorry for the confusion. I agree with you here, except for the first part of your last sentence -- I don't think you can make a prima facie argument for explaining the difference in degree duration. There are so many differences in the US vs. even rest of the West in education it's more complicated than that. But yes, there will always be those who are motivated/intelligent enough to finish their science PhD in 3.5 years .

-pitman

 

[Friendly]

Originally posted by pitman
Ok, sorry for the confusion. I agree with you here, except for the first part of your last sentence -- I don't think you can make a prima facie argument for explaining the difference in degree duration. There are so many differences in the US vs. even rest of the West in education it's more complicated than that. But yes, there will always be those who are motivated/intelligent enough to finish their science PhD in 3.5 years .

-pitman

Wise words, Pitman. You are both a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[davidw11]

Well yeah, obviously you can do a Ph.D program in 3 1/2 years if you're doing 90 hours a week. Do 15 hours a week and tell me how long it takes. 15-20 hours is the standard for a college week, such as when getting a BA.

And wow...you found one page with professors that don't have their masters first. And it's in the biology field. I can easily give you 5 pages for every one page you want to post. Find me, on a professional site, which backs your theory.

The thing is, you're trying to use the "age" thing against me. I wonder, if I had my Ph.D and was 45 years old, would you be so fast to discredit by posts? You just think that every young person is stupid. I'm merely repeating what I've been told and seen. I'm just pulling this stuff up from nowhere.

 

[mic]

Originally posted by davidw11
Well yeah, obviously you can do a Ph.D program in 3 1/2 years if you're doing 90 hours a week. Do 15 hours a week and tell me how long it takes.

My goodness, if you think the average PhD candidate is only doing 15 hours of work each week, you are deeply misguided. Even for an undergraduate degree, 15-20 hours might be the amount of time spent in classes, certainly not the total amount of time dedicated to earning the degree. I question your seriousness.

 

[crazee8]

Originally posted by davidw11
The thing is, you're trying to use the "age" thing against me. I wonder, if I had my Ph.D and was 45 years old, would you be so fast to discredit by posts? You just think that every young person is stupid. I'm merely repeating what I've been told and seen. I'm just pulling this stuff up from nowhere.

I am around the same age as you and from my opinion nobody is using any "age" thing against you. Its just that your posts reveal a bit of naivete, and sometimes you have difficulty precisely articulating yourself. First you go from arguing about an MD not being an undergraduate degree and then on to how you need a masters in order to obtain a phD. From what I know, an MD is an undergraduate degree, and a graduate degree would be a MD/PhD.

Either way, what good does it do to bicker back and forth by arguing the merits of an MD versus an M.B.B.S.? It is but a title and the difference is rather inconsequential. Furthermore, a physician with an M.B.B.S would use the title of an MD, if he or she were to practice in the U.S. or Canada.

 

[davidw11]

Even for an undergraduate degree, 15-20 hours might be the amount of time spent in classes, certainly not the total amount of time dedicated to earning the degree. I question your seriousness.

I meant time spent in classes. Obviously there is work needed outside of classes, it's called homework. Regular HS is like 35+ hours a week spent in classes, and we still have homework.

And since it just seems you take everything I say the wrong way, I'll just stop going on. It's sort of funny really....I have never been on a more hostile forum, ever! Heck, my whole idea of becoming a doctor is almost changed now since if this is how doctors act, I'm not going for the MD. I'd rather be a fisherman and be around down to earth nice people

Even if I said something completely wrong, like the human body is made up of 99% gold, there is still no need to be rude about it. Just show me the facts so I learn the truth. Just telling me that it's not true is pointless. I got my facts from people telling me stuff, and if they're "wrong", I'm sure not to going to change them from what other people tell me. Maybe they were wrong and the first people were right.

 

[1996]

Originally posted by davidw11
Well yeah, obviously you can do a Ph.D program in 3 1/2 years if you're doing 90 hours a week. Do 15 hours a week and tell me how long it takes. 15-20 hours is the standard for a college week, such as when getting a BA.

And wow...you found one page with professors that don't have their masters first. And it's in the biology field. I can easily give you 5 pages for every one page you want to post. Find me, on a professional site, which backs your theory.

The thing is, you're trying to use the "age" thing against me. I wonder, if I had my Ph.D and was 45 years old, would you be so fast to discredit by posts? You just think that every young person is stupid. I'm merely repeating what I've been told and seen. I'm just pulling this stuff up from nowhere.

(1) Obviously your understanding of graduate studies is very limited. Working 15-20 hours per week? Yeah, you take 15-20 hours of class per week as an undergrad, but the time you spent studying and doing assignments far, far exceed that. My roommate is in his PhD phase of his MD/PhD, and he is in the lab on average 80 hours per week. That is also, by the way, very common among grad students.

(2) So the biology field doesn't count? Sure, give me 5 pages for every one that I want to post. Please remember that you gave an example with a sample number of 4. I gave you an example with a sample number of 11. Talk about statistical significance.

(3) Find a "professional site" to back my "theory"? First of all, I don't even know what you mean by a professional site. Second of all, this is not my theory. I have no theory. It is just mere fact.

(4) I am not trying to use the "age" thing against you. I am, however, using the "experience" thing against you. Look around and see how all those who have gone through this process have disagreed with you on this. These are people who have done graduate studies, or who work with PhDs everyday. My best advice to you, again, is to talk to career counselors, grad students, and professors at your school. You may be able to get a better idea of what graduate studies are like.

BTW, I don't know your profile and you've never indicated, at least from what I saw, how old you are and what education level you're at. But just from reading your posts and your arguments, I KNOW that you definitely have not gone through any sort of graduate studies, given your poor understanding of the system and how grad school works.

 

[pitman]

davidw11 -- I think you'd find the same hostility/machismo on most forums of college-educated students discussing their current or future common profession. And half the posts will be anti-intellectual. And half the posters don't realize they're acting rudely or sanctimoniously or otherwise unprofessionally. Milk the forum for information and use it as an excuse to research pertinent topics, or maybe as a self-test of decorum. But don't let it affect your aspirations, as every field has as many schmucks as dignitaries.

Just my 2c, you stupid fu*kin piece of dripping pus excrement loser.

-pitman

 

[davidw11]

Well, how can I be stupid when what I know has been learned from people at other forums and websites. I'm just repeating what I've been told. It is possible that my whole understanding of graduate studies has been false. If so, just proof to me otherwise. On the other forums I've been at, I didn't ask for proof. I just thought that since they were all agreeing on it, they must know. And look where that's got me. I come here to find out everything I know is not true.

By professional, I mean from an official source. If you can find a page from a reputable college talking about graduate studies, then link it so I can read it. I'm not going to fall under the same mistake and just believe it since everyone says it's fact. Otherwise, I'll end up doing that and go to another forum just to find out everything I learned here was false.

It's like a ball that keeps getting thrown around. Unfortunately it's knowledge, and is really confusing me.

 

[pitman]

Originally posted by davidw11
Well, how can I be stupid when what I know has been learned from people at other forums and websites.

My comment was humor, not trolling slander.

Be above the anti-intellectualism -- it's found in every field. Ignore the name-calling and baiting, be skeptical of hearsay, and demand evidence for what you don't directly perceive.

Just my 2c, you bent-over lapdog sheep boy.

-pitman

 

[davidw11]

Just my 2c, you bent-over lapdog sheep boy.

Don't you mean sheep man??

 

[1996]

Originally posted by davidw11
Well, how can I be stupid when what I know has been learned from people at other forums and websites. I'm just repeating what I've been told. It is possible that my whole understanding of graduate studies has been false. If so, just proof to me otherwise. On the other forums I've been at, I didn't ask for proof. I just thought that since they were all agreeing on it, they must know. And look where that's got me. I come here to find out everything I know is not true.

By professional, I mean from an official source. If you can find a page from a reputable college talking about graduate studies, then link it so I can read it. I'm not going to fall under the same mistake and just believe it since everyone says it's fact. Otherwise, I'll end up doing that and go to another forum just to find out everything I learned here was false.

It's like a ball that keeps getting thrown around. Unfortunately it's knowledge, and is really confusing me.

Here is a link to the grad school admission homepage of a rather "reputable" university:

http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/admissions/index.html

To quote some of the highlights in the page:
"Regular Degree Programs
Degrees offered in the Graduate School include the PhD, AM, ME, SM, and MFS. Most degree candidates are enrolled for full-time study; enrollment begins in the fall term. Although some departments may award the master's degree in the course of doctoral study, most admit only candidates who intend to proceed to the PhD. Note that there are some exceptions; certain programs award AM degrees. " (from the Categories of Admission page)

"Applicants who wish to pursue a degree at the Graduate School must hold the equivalent of a US bachelor's degree (BA or BS) from an institution of recognized standing. " (from the Academic Requirements page)

And if you look at the page on Program Details, you will notice that the vast majority of their programs do not have Master's programs. They only accept people straight from college into their PhD programs. They said that SOME departments MAY award a Master's INCIDENTALLY to the PhD.

Hope this is enough proof for you and clarify your confusion. Again, if you need more info on grad studies, there are many pages on the internet with very detailed description about pursuing grad school.

 

[davidw11]

That kind of responce was what I was looking for. In fact, that was the best post I've seen so far I was simply saying that from my knowledge, I was correct. Things are only correct until we prove them otherwise.

Imagine in 2000 years in the future as people look back at our "healing" techniques, such as surgerys. They'd think we were absolute barbarians with all the cutting and stuff. Lasers are already beginning to replace operations. What is the point of me saying this? Nothing really....just felt like saying it Something to ponder.

 

[1996]

Originally posted by davidw11
Imagine in 2000 years in the future as people look back at our "healing" techniques, such as surgerys. They'd think we were absolute barbarians with all the cutting and stuff. Lasers are already beginning to replace operations. What is the point of me saying this? Nothing really....just felt like saying it Something to ponder.

Ortho = Glorified Carpentry?

 

[redshifteffect]

Originally posted by 1996
Ortho = Glorified Carpentry?

Yeah a friend of mine went into Ortho and absolutely hated it...he said it was just a bunch of sawing and hacking....

no offense to orthos

 

[pitman]

Originally posted by davidw11
Don't you mean sheep man??

Or after looking at your locale, maybe should be inbred rotting-toothed Amish mushroom farmer-man (I went to a Quaker prep school down the road from you).

 

[davidw11]

Down the rode from me? Stalker....you found out where I live.

 

[driedcaribou]

Originally posted by davidw11
I was simply saying that from my knowledge, I was correct. Things are only correct until we prove them otherwise.

Can't admit you were wrong eh?

Next time you should talk to people who have done their Ph.Ds instead of basing your knowledge on hearsay.

I would not make your career choice until you actually talk to doctors and Ph.Ds in real life.

 

[davidw11]

Um....all the information I got was from "Ph.D and MD" holders on forums. Unless of course they were lying and weren't really knowledgable or got those degrees(with is extremely likely).

So, it's your word against theirs. That's why I said, provide links to prove what you say.

I would not make your career choice until you actually talk to doctors and Ph.Ds in real life.

What are they going to tell me about careers?

 

[Friendly]

Originally posted by davidw11
Um....all the information I got was from "Ph.D and MD" holders on forums. Unless of course they were lying and weren't really knowledgable or got those degrees(with is extremely likely).

So, it's your word against theirs. That's why I said, provide links to prove what you say.
What are they going to tell me about careers?

I certainly told you the truth and I have a Ph.D. Perhaps sensible, honest talk instead of nonsense it just too much for you?

 

[davidw11]

Perhaps sensible, honest talk instead of nonsense it just too much for you?

If you're telling the truth, I appreciate the assistance. Ahh...time for a story. I remember hearing about a girl that took Spanish in high school, but unfortunately had a horrible teacher. If the teacher didn't know the answer, she would make it up. So, the girl memorized all the facts and information. She then majored in Spanish for college, and when she got in class, she was made fun of completely. She was giving completely foolish answers, and all the knowledge she had gained was useless and hurting her.


It seems like the story is playing out here. If you do have a Ph.D, why not that amazing knowledge go to use and help me out here. If you can pause that research-critically thinking section of your brain developed from getting your Ph.D. I heard that it's harder for someone to get a regular job with a Ph.D then with a master's since they no longer think in the same way. That's why they always have research or teaching jobs.

 

[mic]

Originally posted by davidw11
That's why [people who have PhDs] always have research or teaching jobs.

They have those jobs because they like research. If you're not interested in research, why do a PhD?

 

[davidw11]

They have those jobs because they like research. If you're not interested in research, why do a PhD?

I hate research...but could see myself as a college professor. So that's a good reason to get it.

 

[mic]

Originally posted by davidw11
I hate research...but could see myself as a college professor. So that's a good reason to get it.

Do you think professors just teach and do nothing else? Research is a core component of academic life. You need to like research if you want to follow that career path.

 

[pitman]

Plenty of PhD college profs "just" teach -- just not in the RESEARCH schools.

But by defn., if you don't want to jump through that research hoop on the way to getting that PhD-level prof job, then don't do it.

-pitman

 

[driedcaribou]

Originally posted by davidw11

What are they going to tell me about careers?

Oh man, this is too rich.



I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds humour in that statement.

Well good luck in your career decisions and path in life.



Ah... to be young again.

 

[davidw11]

Do you think professors just teach and do nothing else? Research is a core component of academic life. You need to like research if you want to follow that career path.

Well, I guess it depends on what I majored in. Research in Biology would definately be a bore. But research in crime or something might be interesting. I guess they teach you research skills?

 

[Friendly]

/

I heard that it's harder for someone to get a regular job with a Ph.D then with a master's since they no longer think in the same way. That's why they always have research or teaching jobs.

A Ph.D. is a qualification that demonstrates that you can persevere; 98 % of your experiments don't work and if you're insecure about that, it's the wrong track for you. However, by its very nature, the Ph.D. process allows you to develop critical thinking skills that may be applied to many jobs. It is a magical degree and, unlike the M.D., it can be gained in any country and is transferable to another country without having to re-train. By no means is it "harder" to get a job with a Ph.D. That's ludicrous and so are your posts.

 

[Friendly]

Originally posted by davidw11
I hate research...but could see myself as a college professor. So that's a good reason to get it.

It's quite possible to do this and work only in a small four-year undergrad. college. It's a perfectly respectable job but you don't need a Ph.D. to do it. If you "hate" research, you'll be very crap at it and will either quit the program or get booted out.

 

[Friendly]

Originally posted by davidw11
Well, I guess it depends on what I majored in. Research in Biology would definately be a bore. But research in crime or something might be interesting. I guess they teach you research skills?

Too bad for you?.most research money goes to the biological sciences. In any case, anyone involved in research will tell you that ?research is research?. The boundary between disciplines is very fine these days. You can be trained as an analytical chemist but end up working as a pharmacologist, or you could be trained as a physiologist but end up working as a biochemist. Knowledge is knowledge and good scientists are open-minded about learning from both the life and the physical sciences.

 

[davidw11]

By no means is it "harder" to get a job with a Ph.D. That's ludicrous and so are your posts.

Good...let me find a link.

Here's a link on the Ph.D degree from a real college:

LINK!!!

 

[Friendly]

Originally posted by davidw11
Good...let me find a link.

Here's a link on the Ph.D degree from a real college:

LINK!!!

Man, have you no imagination? Do you REALLY believe everything you read?!? The article has some pertinent points but I can tell you that it most likely was not written by someone with a Ph.D. I can't believe you've sucked me into this discussion......