Top 5 PhD vs top 20 MSTP: Career Impact

[deleted826437]

Hi All,

It seems like PhD programs have a lot more variation in the types of students that they accept (GPA, GRE) as long as the research experiences are solid, whereas MSTP programs still value GPA and MCAT above all else. I think my application will be more competitive for straight PhD based on LOR's from research mentors and my only decent (3.8ish) GPA. Here is my question:

Is a top a PhD program in genetics/synthetic bio/whatever (Harvard, MIT, Etc.) going to have greater potential to positively impact one's career than a MSTP from a 10-20 ranked MSTP? If the goal is to make an impact through research (Ideally through translational research but maybe not), does one of these paths offer a significantly better shot at doing that?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lucca]

I’m too junior to comment on the two paths but I’ll take issue with the statement that MSTPs value GPA/MCAT above all else. Your numbers have to be there, but your experience counts for a lot, as do your LORs from research mentors. A 3.8 is a good GPA. With a good McAT, you’ll be plenty competitive.

More important is the question of whether or not you want to go to medical school. If you don’t and would rather go all-in on research from the start, then that’s totally fine but the job security granted by the MD is difficult to match

 

[dl2dp2]

I wouldn't bother applying to any straight PhD program. They are not particularly good for anything really, even basic research...and especially not translational research. The outcomes of a PhD from Harvard in genetics are really quite terrible, if you look at the stats, and this led to these programs being increasingly non-competitive.

 

[deleted826437]

I wouldn't bother applying to any straight PhD program. They are not particularly good for anything really, even basic research...and especially not translational research. The outcomes of a PhD from Harvard in genetics are really quite terrible, if you look at the stats, and this led to these programs being increasingly non-competitive.

Interesting! How can I find the stats you're referring to?

 

[dl2dp2]

You should really scrutinize the alumni placement lists from these schools' PhD programs, which are typically publicly released--and if not, you can call their dept admin to request it. You can also look at the AAMC surveys. Roughly, about 10-20% of PhD graduates from the top 10 programs eventually secure a TT job. The rest end up in other career options that are typically less desirable than a specialty trained MD (from any medical school). Out of the 20%, perhaps another half (i.e. 10%) end up in TT jobs at second tier or below schools, which pay paltry salary (i.e. <100k) and do not have resources to sustain careers at times of funding gap, etc, making research careers tho possible, very very difficult with a high mid-career attrition. The only types of career from a PhD that are comparably superior are 1) top tier TT jobs with a very broad latitude of options in pursuing independent research 2) top level executive jobs at pharma/other industry. These two types of jobs all recruit from top 10% of the top 10-20 PhD programs. Candidates of this caliber though have tended to shift to MD/PhD of late, since there are other attractive options in medicine that are perhaps even superior (i.e. orthopedic surgery? dermatology?)

Beyond these departments, your chance of getting a prestigious job with a biomedicine PhD only drops exponentially (perhaps into the single digits). The leftover options, though still solidly middle class, compare on average substantially worse to even an average clinical MD job, with average lifetime earning differing in the mid to high 7 figures, possibly even higher. This is all purely based on the job $, work hours, prestige, etc. averaged together with indifference to the actual content of the job. If you hate being a doctor and can't see yourself being anything but a full time scientist, then obviously none of this matters. But i'm talking if your job content considerations are indifferent.

 

[gbwillner]

Hi All,

It seems like PhD programs have a lot more variation in the types of students that they accept (GPA, GRE) as long as the research experiences are solid, whereas MSTP programs still value GPA and MCAT above all else. I think my application will be more competitive for straight PhD based on LOR's from research mentors and my only decent (3.8ish) GPA. Here is my question:

Is a top a PhD program in genetics/synthetic bio/whatever (Harvard, MIT, Etc.) going to have greater potential to positively impact one's career than a MSTP from a 10-20 ranked MSTP? If the goal is to make an impact through research (Ideally through translational research but maybe not), does one of these paths offer a significantly better shot at doing that?

Thanks!

Interesting question that begs what your motivation in life is. My take here:

"If the goal is to make an impact through research (Ideally through translational research but maybe not), does one of these paths offer a significantly better shot at doing that?"

A: no. If all you want is to do research, then I would argue that the straight PhD path is better. You get a structured learning environment, great shot at top talent for mentors, who can set you on the path to success, and you don't waste time doing useless things like learning about how to care for patients. If you want to do "translational research" and that means bench to bedside, then definitely understanding patient care is of importance, and I would argue going MD/PhD will be more important that whatever PhD advisor you can get.

If any of your objectives include clinical or diagnostic medicine, then there really is not debate.

 

[ganglia777]

A: no. If all you want is to do research, then I would argue that the straight PhD path is better. You get a structured learning environment, great shot at top talent for mentors, who can set you on the path to success, and you don't waste time doing useless things like learning about how to care for patients. If you want to do "translational research" and that means bench to bedside, then definitely understanding patient care is of importance, and I would argue going MD/PhD will be more important that whatever PhD advisor you can get.

In an ideal world, this is correct. However, the (maybe unfair) reality that nobody wants to acknowledge is that having an MD gives off the vibe that you're "better" even if you're not that good at research. Especially if someone wants to do "research" in industry/pharma, or wants a non-technical career in industry.

 

[gbwillner]

In an ideal world, this is correct. However, the (maybe unfair) reality that nobody wants to acknowledge is that having an MD gives off the vibe that you're "better" even if you're not that good at research. Especially if someone wants to do "research" in industry/pharma, or wants a non-technical career in industry.

Hmm. Not sure about this at all. If you are working in "industry/Pharma", then it may be implied they are looking for people with a practical knowledge of the subject, like treatments or diagnostic tests. In that case, being an MD gives you years of practical experience in those subjects. They are not assuming that you are a "better" scientist- they are not usually recruiting such people for administrative roles like CMOs or Directors.

 

[Neuronix]

In my opinion, you need to decide what sort of training and career you want, and apply in that pathway.

 

[dl2dp2]

In my opinion, you need to decide what sort of training and career you want, and apply in that pathway.

I'm not sure about this anymore.
Two issues: 1) what if I can't decide? which should I apply now? I say if you are not sure, default to MD/PhD.
2) I used to evaluate a pathway by their intended destination, but now I care way more about just numerical outcome. Does the pathway proposed actually YIELD the career you want?

e.g. Harvard biology PhD --> what are the odds you will eventually get an R01 (in ANY field) vs.
Wisconsin MD/PhD --> what are the odds here?

Now obviously my survey of this hasn't been comprehensive, but my overall impression is that the second pathway gets you there with a higher overall probability.

 

[vaticrunner]

I'm not sure about this anymore.
Two issues: 1) what if I can't decide? which should I apply now? I say if you are not sure, default to MD/PhD.
2) I used to evaluate a pathway by their intended destination, but now I care way more about just numerical outcome. Does the pathway proposed actually YIELD the career you want?

e.g. Harvard biology PhD --> what are the odds you will eventually get an R01 (in ANY field) vs.
Wisconsin MD/PhD --> what are the odds here?

Now obviously my survey of this hasn't been comprehensive, but my overall impression is that the second pathway gets you there with a higher overall probability.

How much of these outcomes do you attribute to the environment vs personal desires? For example, most of the PhD students that I have talked to are not looking to pursue a career in academia. They are mostly just getting the experience necessary to move to industry. On the other hand, most MSTP people I know would love to stay in academia. This difference in attitudes probably accounts for a large difference in the "average" type of career that graduates have. In talking with my PI about the outcome survey for MD/PhD grads from 2018, he told me pretty much everyone in his class ended up pursuing what they wanted (albeit he graduated like 10-15 years ago). However, when I look at the data in those reports and see only 30% in the prototypical 80/20 job, I wonder if the program is setting everyone up for success in academia and they just don't follow through or that there are significant institutional barriers hampering their progress.

 

[Lucca]

How much of these outcomes do you attribute to the environment vs personal desires? For example, most of the PhD students that I have talked to are not looking to pursue a career in academia. They are mostly just getting the experience necessary to move to industry. On the other hand, most MSTP people I know would love to stay in academia. This difference in attitudes probably accounts for a large difference in the "average" type of career that graduates have. In talking with my PI about the outcome survey for MD/PhD grads from 2018, he told me pretty much everyone in his class ended up pursuing what they wanted (albeit he graduated like 10-15 years ago). However, when I look at the data in those reports and see only 30% in the prototypical 80/20 job, I wonder if the program is setting everyone up for success in academia and they just don't follow through or that there are significant institutional barriers hampering their progress.

My sense is that people in the scientific workforce (and entering it) react to the opportunities available. The vast majority of my (4 yrs) of research experience has been around chemists and the vast majority have a mainline interest in industry, but there's also fairly good demand there when compared to academia. Simple answers are resisted. Just my 2c as a student.

 

[ganglia777]

I'm not sure about this anymore.

e.g. Harvard biology PhD --> what are the odds you will eventually get an R01 (in ANY field) vs.
Wisconsin MD/PhD --> what are the odds here?

Heres an example of an MD/PhD from Wisconsin that would probably never get his job if he didn't have an MD. Jeremy Weiss | Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College

No PhD gets faculty at a top institution with <10 publications straight out of grad school without doing a post-doc, especially coming from a PhD program that although is good, is considered much less prestigious than Carnegie Mellon...it's quite likely his MD played a role.

 

[puahate]

MD > PhD

so MD/PhD wins automatically

 

[tilapiaexpress]

You came to a thread trafficked pretty exclusively by MD/PhDs and MDs and asked whether having an MD is going to get you a better outcome on your career. I'm not sure what answer you would expect to get out of that.

If running a basic science lab is what you want then where you do your post-doc is going to be most deterministic of your success. Get your CNS paper working in George Church's lab in your post-doc and no one will care whether or not you are an MD/PhD or a PhD and whether you went to Harvard or a random school. The questions now are (1) what do you really want to do? if the answer doesn't involve medicine dont do it. Stanford has a program where PhDs go through the first year of med school to get that perspective and training. You can go to grand rounds and genetics rounds, and collaborate with great MDs doing the clinical side of your work(2) is there someone at your current MD/PhD prospect who can help you get good enough training/papers to get a post-doc with these superstar PIs, and (3) If medicine and research are things you want in your career, does the extra training time make the opportunities available in a career in medicine make this path worthwhile

If you don't want to do medicine, you don't want to delay your time to professorship 4-8 years, or you don't find people in your field at this top 20 school that will help you get there then go to HMS BBS for your PhD and get started early working with Steve Elledge. You'll just be happier and that will make the biggest difference. in any case your chances of becoming a PI are small. And ultimately if medicine isn't a back-up career that will make you happy then making 90K a year working 40 hours a week at Norvartis is a great alternative.

It is hard to parse what the success of graduates at PhD programs is when most of these students don't want to become PIs. Many are interested in research but recognize the commitment and sacrifices of that path is not in line with their own goals. MD/PhDs are self-selecting as people who are choosing to make these sacrifices already. Most MD/PhDs want to a career in academia.

Good luck! Had lunch with a PI this week and has reached the top of their field. I asked them how they choose their labs and their institutions and they said purely on gut instinct and without much thought. Not saying it is a great way to operate but I'm not sure you can really know how good your decisions are until hindsight.

 

[MSTP18]

R01 success rates are higher for MD/PhDs than PhDs. /thread

It is hard to parse what the success of graduates at PhD programs is when most of these students don't want to become PIs.

Maybe things have changed in the last few years, but back when I was applying/starting out, every single PhD student wanted to be a PI when they came in. It's only after enduring the PhD and/or realizing the data shows that 85% of them won't be one that they pursue other paths.

 

[Neuronix]

R01 success rates are higher for MD/PhDs than PhDs. /thread

Show me the data.

 

[MSTP18]

Show me the data.

It looks like your right that since I started it has changed. The R01 rate is no longer significantly better but the overall NIH research grant rate still is.

NIH RePORT - Physician Scientist-Workforce Report 2014 - NIH RPG Award Rates by Degree Type and Experience

Unless we limit ourselves to T32 awardees in which case the MD/PhDs do better with R01 apps: NIH RePORT - Physician Scientist-Workforce Report 2014 - Effects of Early Career NIH Programs on Physician-Scientists with a Medical Degree

 

[Neuronix]

"In 2012, MD/PhDs overall had higher award rates for RPGs (24.6 percent) than MDs (21.7 percent, p<0.01) or PhDs (21.4 percent, p<0.01) (Figures 3.21 to 3.23)."

3% difference

 

[Fencer]

True... but the age to first R01 has also not changed between MDs and MD/PhD. MDs need to learn how to do quality science with a post-doc of some sort at a time that they have more responsibilities. There will always be late entries into the career of physician-scientist, but they face a different challenge. As a former chair of clinical service, the clinical margins are less and less. It is harder for a "clinical" faculty member with 80% or higher clinical assignment to be the PI driver of R01 or similar level of research grants (i.e.: VA Merit).

 

[Lucca]

It looks like your right that since I started it has changed. The R01 rate is no longer significantly better but the overall NIH research grant rate still is.

NIH RePORT - Physician Scientist-Workforce Report 2014 - NIH RPG Award Rates by Degree Type and Experience

Unless we limit ourselves to T32 awardees in which case the MD/PhDs do better with R01 apps: NIH RePORT - Physician Scientist-Workforce Report 2014 - Effects of Early Career NIH Programs on Physician-Scientists with a Medical Degree

Trying to understand the T32 data since that is what shows Md/PhDs having higher award rates. It was my impression that T32 refers to the institutional grant given by the NIH to fund MSTPs. What is an MD or PhD only T32 appointee?

 

[StudentDocLurker]

I wouldn't bother applying to any straight PhD program. They are not particularly good for anything really, even basic research...and especially not translational research. The outcomes of a PhD from Harvard in genetics are really quite terrible, if you look at the stats, and this led to these programs being increasingly non-competitive.

There are tons of PhDs doing meaningful work with massive impacts on both basic and translational research. I would begin to list them, but it wouldn't be right to dignify your comment with a substantive response. It's one thing to maintain a subtle haughtiness in thinking your degree makes you better; for this, I can't blame anyone. However it's another thing to say that "They (PhD) are not particularly good for anything really".

 

[Fencer]

Trying to understand the T32 data since that is what shows Md/PhDs having higher award rates. It was my impression that T32 refers to the institutional grant given by the NIH to fund MSTPs. What is an MD or PhD only T32 appointee?

There are some research-residency slots that are R25 in some institutes, but T32 in other institutes. T32 MDs or MD/PhD could be appointed at residency level for those research training programs. There are also post-doc PhD programs with T32 training grants.

 

[kepler16b]

There are tons of PhDs doing meaningful work with massive impacts on both basic and translational research. I would begin to list them, but it wouldn't be right to dignify your comment with a substantive response. It's one thing to maintain a subtle haughtiness in thinking your degree makes you better; for this, I can't blame anyone. However it's another thing to say that "They (PhD) are not particularly good for anything really".

I think sluox was referring to the PhD degree itself, not the scientists who obtain such degrees. It's no secret that the job market for those with a PhD in the sciences is extremely competitive, and having a PhD does not guarantee you a high paying, secure science job. In contrast, an MD on its own is highly marketable and valuable, more or less guaranteeing a successful career.

To be clear, no one is saying that PhD scientists are worthless and no one is saying that MDs do better translational research. Sluox was making the point that the PhD degree itself is hard to make valuable whereas an MD almost has inherent value.

Also, I want to be clear that when I say value I mean monetary value... Obviously there many intangible benefits of a PhD, including the deep scientific training.

 

[MSTP18]

"In 2012, MD/PhDs overall had higher award rates for RPGs (24.6 percent) than MDs (21.7 percent, p<0.01) or PhDs (21.4 percent, p<0.01) (Figures 3.21 to 3.23)."

3% difference

Winning is done in the margins.

 

[dl2dp2]

To be clear, no one is saying that PhD scientists are worthless and no one is saying that MDs do better translational research. Sluox was making the point that the PhD degree itself is hard to make valuable whereas an MD almost has inherent value.

Exactly right. PhD scientists are obviously valuable people, but it's not usually because of their PhD. To be clear, the value of PhD depends on the individual. For example, it's very valuable for someone who uses the PhD as a way to get out of their 3rd world country to come here on a student visa, then find an average industry job. It's not valuable for a quality American undergrad who qualifies for a typical MD/PhD spot and who who could have found a similar job in industry at graduation. MD degree is a completely different beast.

Winning is done in the margins.

I disagree with your point, but the data you are citing are not immediately relevant for the (different) argument I'm making. I don't think there's a big difference between PhD vs. MD/PhD at the K-stage or beyond for grand applications, especially at similar institutions, but I do think there is a BIG difference if you go prior to that stage at the graduate stage. There's some longitudinal data on this but obviously it's hard to tell what's the cause and what's the effect. Typically the number that are cited is MD/PhDs have a 50% chance to have a job that has 50%+ of research role in academia (figure 17, https://www.aamc.org/download/489886/data/nationalmd-phdprogramoutcomesstudy.pdf). PhDs generally have about 10-20% chance (possibly less, Wasted potential?: How many F32 postdoctoral fellows become PIs of NIH R-esearch grants?) for a similar role, with a salary that's 30-50% less for such a role (staff scientist). The filtering though is before the K awards/assistant professor level. Once you are beyond that stage then by definition you are doing 75-100% research. So data on the second question is more whether MD/PhD vs. PhD have a lower attrition rate and who has a longer median survival for ongoing grant support. I don't know if such data is available, but suffice it is to say, this number is very highly variable across different institutions: Odds of success: Survival analysis of NIH grant applicants at top institutions

 

[StudentDocLurker]

Exactly right. PhD scientists are obviously valuable people, but it's not usually because of their PhD. To be clear, the value of PhD depends on the individual. For example, it's very valuable for someone who uses the PhD as a way to get out of their 3rd world country to come here on a student visa, then find an average industry job. It's not valuable for a quality American undergrad who qualifies for a typical MD/PhD spot and who who could have found a similar job in industry at graduation. MD degree is a completely different beast.

Even if your just referring just to the degree itself, it's still rude and out of touch to say a PhD "not particularly good for anything really".

Your negative assessment of the degree seems to be oriented towards the societal value that it affords its holder. Having a PhD opens up many opportunities for career paths, leadership positions, and more. In general, the system does seem to take advantage of Post-Docs in search of credibility as they build a CV for a shot at a P.I. position. However, the great majority of PhD holders are not on that path. Across the board at for-profit, non-profit, and academic research institutions, the degree itself creates new avenues for its holder. Within the confines of a hospital, where I gather you have spent the majority of your professional life, it is clear that the M.D. affords it's holder decision-making authority in a tangible way. However if you were to step out into the research world you would see the value of the PhD degree itself. This is further compounded when the PhD is conferred at a "T20".

More importantly, you are grossly overlooking the value of the education itself; the personal and academic development that a student undergoes during this process. The degree need not be conferred in a "T20" for this to hold true. The process of making new claims about natural order, learning new methodological approaches, testing those new claims with those methodologies, and evaluating results under extreme scrutiny is part of what makes the degree potentially transformative (assuming good community and mentorship). There's a reason that many of winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine hold a PhD rather than an MD. For an individual with ambitions to dedicate him/herself to solving biological, chemical, or physical mysteries, a PhD may offer a superior education. Please see James Allison (who's work forged the way for immunotherapies) discuss his work was motivated primarily by raw curiosity- he transformed modern medicine armed by his PhD education. Indeed, many MDs indeed do fantastic work as well (in my field: Vogelstien, Varmus, Lo). However a PhD is a better match for some.

 

[kepler16b]

Even if your just referring just to the degree itself, it's still rude and out of touch to say a PhD "not particularly good for anything really".

Your negative assessment of the degree seems to be oriented towards the societal value that it affords its holder. Having a PhD opens up many opportunities for career paths, leadership positions, and more. In general, the system does seem to take advantage of Post-Docs in search of credibility as they build a CV for a shot at a P.I. position. However, the great majority of PhD holders are not on that path. Across the board at for-profit, non-profit, and academic research institutions, the degree itself creates new avenues for its holder. Within the confines of a hospital, where I gather you have spent the majority of your professional life, it is clear that the M.D. affords it's holder decision-making authority in a tangible way. However if you were to step out into the research world you would see the value of the PhD degree itself. This is further compounded when the PhD is conferred at a "T20".

More importantly, you are grossly overlooking the value of the education itself; the personal and academic development that a student undergoes during this process. The degree need not be conferred in a "T20" for this to hold true. The process of making new claims about natural order, learning new methodological approaches, testing those new claims with those methodologies, and evaluating results under extreme scrutiny is part of what makes the degree potentially transformative (assuming good community and mentorship). There's a reason that many of winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine hold a PhD rather than an MD. For an individual with ambitions to dedicate him/herself to solving biological, chemical, or physical mysteries, a PhD may offer a superior education. Please see James Allison (who's work forged the way for immunotherapies) discuss his work was motivated primarily by raw curiosity- he transformed modern medicine armed by his PhD education. Indeed, many MDs indeed do fantastic work as well (in my field: Vogelstien, Varmus, Lo). However a PhD is a better match for some.

Agree with all of this and that sluox was a bit more egregious in his second reply.

 

[dl2dp2]

Even if your just referring just to the degree itself, it's still rude and out of touch to say a PhD "not particularly good for anything really".

This is an anonymous Internet forum, everyone can subjectively opine whether someone is rude or not, and your opinion is just as valid as someone else’s. Take what you think is useful and ignore the rest. A future Allison would never be deterred by me or statistics anyway. I’ll tell you tho if you are a predoctoral student and are very sensitive to rudeness, a career in science is generally a poor match. Facts don’t care about your feelings, and your qual committee will resemble a tribunal more than your mother.

 

[Lucca]

This is an anonymous Internet forum, everyone can subjectively opine whether someone is rude or not, and your opinion is just as valid as someone else’s. Take what you think is useful and ignore the rest. A future Allison would never be deterred by me or statistics anyway. I’ll tell you tho if you are a predoctoral student and are very sensitive to rudeness, a career in science is generally a poor match. Facts don’t care about your feelings, and your qual committee will resemble a tribunal more than your mother.

It is probably a generational thing with the internet, but I suppose the more or less "digital natives" of my generation expect to be treated with an equivalent amount of good faith and respect on the internet from (at the very least) our peers regardless of anonymity. Appeals to sensibility are boorish if not, worse perhaps, boring as are insinuations about the presumed mediocrity of others in the discussion. The discussion on outcomes was good, and I agree generally with your conclusions but you should at least acknowledge that the other poster made good points and, as unfortunate as it may be, professional outcomes and financial/social capital are not representative of educational value without needing to quote Ben Shapiro of all people.

 

[kepler16b]

It is probably a generational thing with the internet, but I suppose the more or less "digital natives" of my generation expect to be treated with an equivalent amount of good faith and respect on the internet from (at the very least) our peers regardless of anonymity. Appeals to sensibility are boorish if not, worse perhaps, boring as are insinuations about the presumed mediocrity of others in the discussion. The discussion on outcomes was good, and I agree generally with your conclusions but you should at least acknowledge that the other poster made good points and, as unfortunate as it may be, professional outcomes and financial/social capital are not representative of educational value without needing to quote Ben Shapiro of all people.

I think you meant to say PhD snowflake gets DESTROYED by LOGIC and FACTS

/s

 

[JoaoMoutinho]

I think you meant to say PhD snowflake gets DESTROYED by LOGIC and FACTS

/s

BEGONE

 

[Neuronix]

Ok we're way off track. Let's bring it back to the op's question or let the thread go. Thanks

 

[dl2dp2]

It is probably a generational thing with the internet, but I suppose the more or less "digital natives" of my generation expect to be treated with an equivalent amount of good faith and respect on the internet from (at the very least) our peers regardless of anonymity. Appeals to sensibility are boorish if not, worse perhaps, boring as are insinuations about the presumed mediocrity of others in the discussion. The discussion on outcomes was good, and I agree generally with your conclusions but you should at least acknowledge that the other poster made good points and, as unfortunate as it may be, professional outcomes and financial/social capital are not representative of educational value without needing to quote Ben Shapiro of all people.

Here's the problem. There's a false equivalence between "being rude" (which is subjective) and not being in good faith in a discussion. I would argue that I have always been in good faith, but whether my comments are perceived as rude or not are variable depending on the receiver. More importantly, more pertinent to the present discussion, there is a systemic and leadership failure of the academic training track primarily relating to the way PhDs are generated that are affected by these kinds of discussions are in anonymous settings and with stakeholders behind back doors. This has rendered PhDs much less [monetarily, perhaps] valuable compared to other degree programs, and an individual who's able to leverage value in MD/PhD should in my opinion choose that pathway every time. There are big policy fights about these issues, as well as related issues, such as how to fund junior investigators, how to limit the power of exploitation of institutions and senior investigators. People disagree, and sometimes vocally (you should read more on the brouhaha of the attempt to limit total # of R01s. May you should come with me to a panel where a certain director of an IC said, word by word, "we don't care about how much PhDs get paid--we see our job as making the most science done with the least amount of government expenditure.") That's fine. People can disagree when all the facts are on the table and "in good faith" as you said. Nevertheless, at a policy level, the fact that some people insist on certain false premises certainly prevented leadership from making some difficult and structural reforms. I don't believe that I have the power to advocate for these changes on my own, at least at the present time, but at least I can come here and warn people to not make mistakes, some of which I have made myself.

In some ways this parallels these wars in media, and perhaps point that out is unnecessarily inflammatory, for which I would apologize. However, in many ways, the reason for such parallel is that the dispute about the role of PhD, the way the federal government manages scientific training and research dispensation, and the way large non-profit organizations are set up, reflects a broader problem with our current culture, where matters of facts are obscured by propaganda. It's the SAME question of whether doing a liberal arts undergrad degree is valuable. Is it? I don't know. I don't think so personally myself (if you are only doing it without acquiring other transferrable skills). I'm just giving you information and my opinion. If you think it's "rude" and I should shut up, that's fine you can say your piece. The problem I have is that behind all that there is a A LOT of propaganda promulgated by institutions writ large and clearly seen in some of the more junior poster's writing that are a mistake if you take them at face value and believing in them makes you vulnerable to exploitation. Such exploitation is especially pernicious with certain groups (women, immigrants, etc). I can give you examples, and Shapiro or not I have a gut reaction against a presumptuous postures that people should "not care about money" because of amorphous X Y Z. People should care about whatever they want, and you need to give them the actual numbers to provide them with a context to make a decision. People go into degree programs all the time without fully informed consent, and that's what I'm trying to prevent. You should NOT believe in everything you read on the internet, and you should talk to people IRL and make your own decision. I also agree with @Neuronix. I've said my piece. It's time to let this thread go.

 

[gbwillner]

Heres an example of an MD/PhD from Wisconsin that would probably never get his job if he didn't have an MD. Jeremy Weiss | Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College

No PhD gets faculty at a top institution with <10 publications straight out of grad school without doing a post-doc, especially coming from a PhD program that although is good, is considered much less prestigious than Carnegie Mellon...it's quite likely his MD played a role.

This is at best anecdotal evidence. I also know people who were PhD only and got academic appointments without a post-doc (or an absurdly short post-doc of like 3 months). I also know PhDs who got good industry positions without a post-doc.

 

[nimbus]

Heres an example of an MD/PhD from Wisconsin that would probably never get his job if he didn't have an MD. Jeremy Weiss | Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College

No PhD gets faculty at a top institution with <10 publications straight out of grad school without doing a post-doc, especially coming from a PhD program that although is good, is considered much less prestigious than Carnegie Mellon...it's quite likely his MD played a role.

You picked a unicorn, a bad example, and came to a bad conclusion.


He is a computer science PhD with expertise in machine learning/AI, not in biomedical sciences typical of most MD/PhD’s. Exceptional computer science PhD’s do get academic appointments without the endless postdoctoral fellowships required in the biological sciences. For someone like him, the PhD is much more valuable than the MD. Health informatics at CMU is the tippy tip of the spear where your body of work and skills matter more than your degree or pedigree. His role is that of a PhD computer scientist. 99.9999% of MD’s and MD/PhD’s would not qualify for that appointment. I would venture to guess that medical school served more as an orientation to healthcare issues and topics than anything else. His next stop is more likely to be Google or Apple than a medical residency.

FWIW, I haven’t been exposed to a single other example of a new grad MD/PhD getting an assistant professor appointment.

 

[vaticrunner]

You picked a unicorn, a bad example, and came to a bad conclusion.


He is a computer science PhD with expertise in machine learning/AI, not in biomedical sciences typical of most MD/PhD’s. Exceptional computer science PhD’s do get academic appointments without the endless postdoctoral fellowships required in the biological sciences. For someone like him, the PhD is much more valuable than the MD. Health informatics at CMU is the tippy tip of the spear where your body of work and skills matter more than your degree or pedigree. His role is that of a PhD computer scientist. 99.9999% of MD’s and MD/PhD’s would not qualify for that appointment. I would venture to guess that medical school served more as an orientation to healthcare issues and topics than anything else. His next stop is more likely to be Google or Apple than a medical residency.

FWIW, I haven’t been exposed to a single other example of a new grad MD/PhD getting an assistant professor appointment.

I completely agree with your points. In case you were interested in another example, Jay Shendure got a faculty position right after completing his md. However, these are cherry picked examples and most comparisons should be made relative to the normal.

 

[Lucca]

You picked a unicorn, a bad example, and came to a bad conclusion.


He is a computer science PhD with expertise in machine learning/AI, not in biomedical sciences typical of most MD/PhD’s. Exceptional computer science PhD’s do get academic appointments without the endless postdoctoral fellowships required in the biological sciences. For someone like him, the PhD is much more valuable than the MD. Health informatics at CMU is the tippy tip of the spear where your body of work and skills matter more than your degree or pedigree. His role is that of a PhD computer scientist. 99.9999% of MD’s and MD/PhD’s would not qualify for that appointment. I would venture to guess that medical school served more as an orientation to healthcare issues and topics than anything else. His next stop is more likely to be Google or Apple than a medical residency.

FWIW, I haven’t been exposed to a single other example of a new grad MD/PhD getting an assistant professor appointment.

A few new investigator awards were given to fresh MD/PhDs in 2017 at Stanford. One went to Yale, another to NWern, a third to uCSF as Asst. Prof IIRC.

MSTP Alumni (2015-Present)

med.stanford.edu

Few other examples of grads going straight to faculty but obviously extremely rare and not something anyone can bank on.

 

[nimbus]

I completely agree with your points. In case you were interested in another example, Jay Shendure got a faculty position right after completing his md. However, these are cherry picked examples and most comparisons should be made relative to the normal.

A few new investigator awards were given to fresh MD/PhDs in 2017 at Stanford. One went to Yale, another to NWern, a third to uCSF as Asst. Prof IIRC.

MSTP Alumni (2015-Present)

med.stanford.edu

Few other examples of grads going straight to faculty but obviously extremely rare and not something anyone can bank on.

Thanks. Both of your replies confirm my point that it is work done in the lab that led to these faculty appointments, not the fact that they attended medical school. I’m sure nobody cares how Jay Shendure did on his steps or if he honored his IM clerkship or that he even has an MD.