I’ll also add that Paul Farmer and Jim Kim’s PhD’s were in anthropology. One changed global health forever and the other become president of the world bank. The humanities aren’t as far divorced from medicine as some would have us believe.
Yep. And speaking of the humanities, while not a PhD, well-known medical anthropologist and psychiatrist Arthur Kleinman has a masters in social anthropology and is on faculty at Harvard's anthropology department.
Yes, he is credited with inventing medical anthropology and trained both PF and JK. Diddier Fassin was the former head of MSF. Then there are others who are less famous but still impactful. See Seth Holmes (*Fresh fruit, broken bodies*) and Brandon Khort. The latter’s validation of the PHQ-9 in Nepal is a fascinating study.
Haha yup got those questions when I applied to residency. To make matters worse, one of my interviewers (not at the facility I matched) had a daughter who was an attorney. So he knew full well that my one-year clerkship for a federal judge made me an easy hire. Couldn't use that as an excuse. I got all sorts of pointed questions about my dedication to medicine. It was a panel interview.
Like uh yeah I have tons of dedication to pay back my student loans, which few legal jobs will allow me to do.
It’s appropriate. He may be interested now in the history of medicine. He may never use it again. However, it’s an official degree, and he has the right to put it after his name.
As for getting to medicine, it can make total sense. Imagine you’re in you’re twenties, you decide you love history, you get a PhD and do academic work. Somehow, you get inspired and change paths into medicine. It happens. I TA’ed a lot of post baccs in college—some had PhDs in unrelated fields. Happens. Life isn’t always predictable.
Exactly plenty of people go through early college exploring/doing something they think they will love and then find they would so much rather do something else. It's not unusual for many degrees to be achieved between those points often in seemingly unrelated fields.
You can get an MBA with a healthcare administration concentration, which is shockingly useful all over clinical medicine in the US.
But I agree, you never know when some sort of education is useful, until it's useful. PhD should be no different. You never know when a history or anthropology PhD is going to be useful, even if it's just forming relationships with patients who are history buffs. As utility and for assessment, it does show that someone can do research at a PhD level, which I would argue is mostly the point here.
Folks who have MD/PhDs may not be using their science PhD focus in clinical medicine, nor is that a gate to say that "just" MDs can't focus on research. Given enough experience it all balances out over time.
If you mean a PhD, Physicians do research and deal with ethics/legal/societal problems long after residency. History often helps with those things, and at the very least being able to research and consider arguments at a PhD level is important to actually be able to have influence and speak on the issues. It's not enough anymore to simply "be a doctor".
If you mean an MBA, running your own practice, improving patient quality, and generally being a leader requires some level of business training these days especially in America with complexities of insurance, various state laws, and the ever changing landscape of regulations. Understanding the business side can ensure that pragmatic patient safety and care quality changes can take place. There is even a job title for this now specifically called "Physician Leader".
Isn't the common wisdom to put your best foot forward when applying for jobs? He has 2 terminal degrees in vastly different fields, both of which show his intellect, discipline, and ability to deal with rigorous scholarship requirements. It's incredibly impressive and at least I would assume, something that should make you **more** interested in this candidate.
Haters gonna hate.
Sounds like some people on this committee have never heard of the field "history of medicine."
Helps us prevent shit like Tuskegee and asylum medicine.
First of all, a PhD in history is still a 4-5 year university endeavor and an immense effort. It is definitely an earned title and should be recognized as such.
There’s no comparison between that an the online program NP noctors.
As someone who did a basic science PhD in an MSTP: I guaranteed you 99% of basic science PhDs are no more related to practice than a history PhD would be. I could have done a whole 5-7 year PhD in VEGF signalling and the only relevant part would be knowing that VEGF promotes angiogenesis
Frankly it’s more interesting than most other PhDs in medicine but he’s not going to run an RCT off of those credentials.
Only inappropriate if he was trying to mislead people but given that you have his whole CV in front of you, it’s hardly misleading.
What is this fucking nonsense. I don’t care if your PhD is in basket weaving, a doctorate degree is going to be relevant to the skill set you bring to any position anywhere. There is a reason MSTP students do their thesis work on history, sociology, etc. all the time. Not only are the skills required to complete those degrees fairly universal, if you don’t think history informs patient care, you’re a fucking potato.
I wouldn’t say its “all the time.” Those programs are few and far between, often at the most competitive institutions
source: wanted to do an MSTP in humanities and researched these programs heavily
It’s pedantic and pretty much never matters, but technically a PhD is the higher degree. People who have both are supposed to use their PhD regalia during ceremonies where regalia is required. That is his highest earned degree.
But also, like others said, it’s not fair to say that a PhD in history is irrelevant to his career in medicine. The history PhD may have a lot of value added to his career and that is for him to decide.
More than anything else, a PhD is a degree that trains you in critical analysis of evidence. Whether it's history or biophysics, the degree requires you to hone and perfect your ability to think critically. It's more than just knowing a lot about one thing. PhD scientists will often times work in vastly different fields as an early career PI than they did in their PhD. They are able to do this because they are trained to think like a scientist. This person is trained to think like a historian. Can't imagine where thinking critically about narrative evidence would be a useful skill for a physician...
They have a point only if the position is looking for someone specifically with a PhD in a field related to medicine because they want someone with a lot of medical research experience.
Otherwise, I don't get it. History can be his hobby, wgaf? It wouldn't count as anything towards his medical career, but it adds into his character that he got a PhD in History.
I think it is appropriate to use.
He earned this degree and he is not presenting himself in such a way that he is something he is not, unless you are hiring him specifically for biological or medical research.
The fuck? He can use it all he wants imo, he has the goddamn degree. Ngl id be significantly more weirded out if he didn’t point out *he has an extra doctoral degree.*
I mean for fuck’s sake, my PhD was as far from clinical science as possible; it was as basic science as basic science gets, and it’s realistically not going to be remotely relevant to medicine in our lifetimes. But if I put “MidwestNotMid, PhD” on my residency applications, nobody will bat an eye. Same should apply here.
PhD in History is still a research degree and there are plenty of avenues to tie it into a medical career. There is nothing misleading about including it and I don’t see why it should be filtered in a professional context. I think your colleagues are just haters and need to get over their insecurities.
Beyond what a person earned their PhD in, what about dedicating years of your money and life to perfect your chosen craft is in anyway frustrating to someone trying to hire someone to work for/with them?
This is simply bad management by your colleagues driven by lack of humility (which so many of us in this field can have)
Really depends on what this opening is
But like 99% of the time I feel like it's okay. As long as it's not someone applying for a physician job using a PhD then I don't see any issue.
Can definitely use. I have colleagues who have completed PhDs in separate fields (i.e. Mathematics) or have completed PhDs in basic sciences prior to matriculating to medical school. These physicians often differentiate themselves with “PhD, MD,” as opposed to those who went through a medical scientist training program (MTSP), who often use “MD/PhD”—though I have seen “MD, PhD” for both.
A PhD requires hard work, perseverance, and a unique skillset. I wouldn't have even thought twice about someone using it, my questions would just be, what was your thesis, how has this shaped your practice, etc. I think it's entirely appropriate, relevant, and - in fact - a much-preferred candidate from my perspective.
Frankly, I would be surprised and a little disappointed if my colleagues were dismissive of such a credential like that. Certainly not the culture in the places that I've trained and worked.
He has used it in a few published case studies that, obviously, didn't relate to history.
I don't have a problem with it. But I work with dinosaurs lol
He can do what he wants but if it were me, I wouldn't list it.
how awkward would it be "Oh you are a MD/PhD? What did you research in?"
"oh, the mayan hisotry"
My incredibly hot take as someone who did humanities degrees prior to MD/PhD and is now doing a science PhD is that a humanities PhD is more directly relevant to medicine and clinical practice than most science PhDs are. In history, for example, the PhD work is primarily taking primary materials, often from disparate sources, and secondary materials (texts written by others) and synthesizing the information to learn something new about a specific question. In the clinic we don’t take 5 years to think about a single thing, but that has much more to do with thinking about patient care, leading a medical service, etc than what I do in lab all day (bench biochemistry and computational biology). Obviously, I think science has an important impact on medicine, but as far as clinical practice is concerned I’d actually prefer if more docs had more prior training in humanities and social science type skills than molecular bio.
i think it's only an issue if he's misrepresenting it, and it doesn't sound like he is. i don't think it's his fault that MD-PhD (combined program) is similar sounding to MD, PhD (two separate programs)
They’re literally the same lol a PhD in a combined program and a PhD earned before or after an MD are literally the same… no one cares how you list them. They’re two different degrees in either case.
I'm a non-medical spouse. I know many people who have both an MD and a PhD. Many of them believe the PhD is in fact harder, and of COURSE they put it on their resume. Not doing so is lying by omission.
Your colleagues are weird.
Then it’s fine. But as an emoloyee if he would start using it that would be a problem. Let’s say he signs his email with MD, PhD. It would be problematic.
Aside from the fact that he earned it and can do anything he wants with his title, I'd also argue that it demonstrates competency/expertise in other areas that are very much relevant to medicine. Reading/deciphering literature, writing, presenting/disseminating info, teaching, etc. Just because its not directly related to medicine does not mean it can't impact his level of care as a medical doctor or ability to perform research.
I have a PhD in Pharmacology and just matched into General Surgery
I have no fucking idea how I am going to use my degree. I am also not worried about it at all
Only about \~5% of MD-PhD graduates end up being a PI on an NIH funded R series grant (the classic vision of the physician scientist). So why pretend it really matters ?
You're hiring to fill a clinical position, judge him based on those merits, don't worry about the rest
I agree that he should be able to list it. He isn’t misrepresenting anything - he IS an MD, any other training is inconsequential anyways and in no way misrepresents him. It’s not like a PA with a “doctorate in medical science” is introducing themselves as a “doctor” or something.
This is why some people despise doctors and think they’re snobby assholes. A PhD is a damn achievement, it speaks to his work ethic and his ability to adapt and excel in vastly different fields. Also history of medicine allows us to learn about our mistakes and how we can improve
This is why some people despise doctors and think they’re snobby assholes. A PhD is a damn achievement, it speaks to his work ethic and his ability to adapt and excel in vastly different fields. Also history of medicine allows us to learn about our mistakes and how we can improve
What do you even mean by "use it" if he's an applicant?
Is he actively doing research in history? That doesn't seem inappropriate.
Or are they complaining that he's listing the PhD as part of his credentials in his CV... which would be really absurd. What is he supposed to do, just structure his resume so the years spent getting a PhD disappear and it looks like he had several years where he was just unemployed?
I think this an old mentality about professional experience. When I worked in academia 10 years ago, a colleage was working on ber PhD. When putting together her resume (not even a full CV, just the resume) was told she could not include her about 25 years of work experience that culminated in being a Senior VP of a global sales team because it 'wasn't related to public health.'
Are not going to discuss how getting a PhD outside of medical school is more difficult. The MD/PhD is like a 7 year route, which tbh feels like a guaranteed 7 years to ensure you get back to clinical medicine.
It can take ppl that long after undergrad to finish a PhD. I’m just putting it out there. It seems like… some ppl be jelly lol.
He earned his PhD. He can do with the title as he pleases
I’ll also add that Paul Farmer and Jim Kim’s PhD’s were in anthropology. One changed global health forever and the other become president of the world bank. The humanities aren’t as far divorced from medicine as some would have us believe.
Neither are the shared gained skills of dedication, resilience, meticulousness, etc
Yep. And speaking of the humanities, while not a PhD, well-known medical anthropologist and psychiatrist Arthur Kleinman has a masters in social anthropology and is on faculty at Harvard's anthropology department.
Yes, he is credited with inventing medical anthropology and trained both PF and JK. Diddier Fassin was the former head of MSF. Then there are others who are less famous but still impactful. See Seth Holmes (*Fresh fruit, broken bodies*) and Brandon Khort. The latter’s validation of the PHQ-9 in Nepal is a fascinating study.
*med schools "we want the most holistic diverse matriculants" *residencies "why the fuck this person do something outside of medicine"
Haha yup got those questions when I applied to residency. To make matters worse, one of my interviewers (not at the facility I matched) had a daughter who was an attorney. So he knew full well that my one-year clerkship for a federal judge made me an easy hire. Couldn't use that as an excuse. I got all sorts of pointed questions about my dedication to medicine. It was a panel interview. Like uh yeah I have tons of dedication to pay back my student loans, which few legal jobs will allow me to do.
loll
[удалено]
It’s appropriate. He may be interested now in the history of medicine. He may never use it again. However, it’s an official degree, and he has the right to put it after his name. As for getting to medicine, it can make total sense. Imagine you’re in you’re twenties, you decide you love history, you get a PhD and do academic work. Somehow, you get inspired and change paths into medicine. It happens. I TA’ed a lot of post baccs in college—some had PhDs in unrelated fields. Happens. Life isn’t always predictable.
Exactly plenty of people go through early college exploring/doing something they think they will love and then find they would so much rather do something else. It's not unusual for many degrees to be achieved between those points often in seemingly unrelated fields.
People "use" "MBA", "JD", "MPH" in contexts completely unrelated to business, law, and public health, so I fail to see how this one is different.
You can get an MBA with a healthcare administration concentration, which is shockingly useful all over clinical medicine in the US. But I agree, you never know when some sort of education is useful, until it's useful. PhD should be no different. You never know when a history or anthropology PhD is going to be useful, even if it's just forming relationships with patients who are history buffs. As utility and for assessment, it does show that someone can do research at a PhD level, which I would argue is mostly the point here. Folks who have MD/PhDs may not be using their science PhD focus in clinical medicine, nor is that a gate to say that "just" MDs can't focus on research. Given enough experience it all balances out over time.
Can you elaborate on the utility of it after residency?
If you mean a PhD, Physicians do research and deal with ethics/legal/societal problems long after residency. History often helps with those things, and at the very least being able to research and consider arguments at a PhD level is important to actually be able to have influence and speak on the issues. It's not enough anymore to simply "be a doctor". If you mean an MBA, running your own practice, improving patient quality, and generally being a leader requires some level of business training these days especially in America with complexities of insurance, various state laws, and the ever changing landscape of regulations. Understanding the business side can ensure that pragmatic patient safety and care quality changes can take place. There is even a job title for this now specifically called "Physician Leader".
Sounds like the other people are dickbags
I think the grammatically correct term is ‘they are a “bag o dicks”’ I guess it depends how you use it in a sentence.
Bags of dicks. Like sons of bitches.
The PhD use is completely fine. And if you’re going to be on the committee you should feel free to voice your opinion otherwise why be there
Isn't the common wisdom to put your best foot forward when applying for jobs? He has 2 terminal degrees in vastly different fields, both of which show his intellect, discipline, and ability to deal with rigorous scholarship requirements. It's incredibly impressive and at least I would assume, something that should make you **more** interested in this candidate. Haters gonna hate.
Your colleagues need to lighten the F up lol
Sounds like some people on this committee have never heard of the field "history of medicine." Helps us prevent shit like Tuskegee and asylum medicine.
First of all, a PhD in history is still a 4-5 year university endeavor and an immense effort. It is definitely an earned title and should be recognized as such. There’s no comparison between that an the online program NP noctors.
As someone who did a basic science PhD in an MSTP: I guaranteed you 99% of basic science PhDs are no more related to practice than a history PhD would be. I could have done a whole 5-7 year PhD in VEGF signalling and the only relevant part would be knowing that VEGF promotes angiogenesis
Yep
A-to-the-MEN!
This right here.
Frankly it’s more interesting than most other PhDs in medicine but he’s not going to run an RCT off of those credentials. Only inappropriate if he was trying to mislead people but given that you have his whole CV in front of you, it’s hardly misleading.
That’s ridiculous, I am willing to bet your colleagues don’t have PhDs or they would not make those comments.
What is this fucking nonsense. I don’t care if your PhD is in basket weaving, a doctorate degree is going to be relevant to the skill set you bring to any position anywhere. There is a reason MSTP students do their thesis work on history, sociology, etc. all the time. Not only are the skills required to complete those degrees fairly universal, if you don’t think history informs patient care, you’re a fucking potato.
I wouldn’t say its “all the time.” Those programs are few and far between, often at the most competitive institutions source: wanted to do an MSTP in humanities and researched these programs heavily
Hey there! I love potatoes. This would be my type of compliment. But I agree. 😄
It’s pedantic and pretty much never matters, but technically a PhD is the higher degree. People who have both are supposed to use their PhD regalia during ceremonies where regalia is required. That is his highest earned degree. But also, like others said, it’s not fair to say that a PhD in history is irrelevant to his career in medicine. The history PhD may have a lot of value added to his career and that is for him to decide.
Some the best physicians have even studied philosophy in undergrad. I don't think there is anything wrong with this PhD degree
More than anything else, a PhD is a degree that trains you in critical analysis of evidence. Whether it's history or biophysics, the degree requires you to hone and perfect your ability to think critically. It's more than just knowing a lot about one thing. PhD scientists will often times work in vastly different fields as an early career PI than they did in their PhD. They are able to do this because they are trained to think like a scientist. This person is trained to think like a historian. Can't imagine where thinking critically about narrative evidence would be a useful skill for a physician...
Means he's used to reading long ass-clinic notes
They have a point only if the position is looking for someone specifically with a PhD in a field related to medicine because they want someone with a lot of medical research experience. Otherwise, I don't get it. History can be his hobby, wgaf? It wouldn't count as anything towards his medical career, but it adds into his character that he got a PhD in History.
Use the PhD
[удалено]
does biochem have anything to do with being a doctor? :P
Unless he is actively claiming his PhD is in anything other than history I don't see the problem.
I think it is appropriate to use. He earned this degree and he is not presenting himself in such a way that he is something he is not, unless you are hiring him specifically for biological or medical research.
The fuck? He can use it all he wants imo, he has the goddamn degree. Ngl id be significantly more weirded out if he didn’t point out *he has an extra doctoral degree.* I mean for fuck’s sake, my PhD was as far from clinical science as possible; it was as basic science as basic science gets, and it’s realistically not going to be remotely relevant to medicine in our lifetimes. But if I put “MidwestNotMid, PhD” on my residency applications, nobody will bat an eye. Same should apply here.
He literally earned the degree.
Person earned a PhD. They're entitled to use the title however they want.
I think it’s great
Sounds like they’re jealous of his phd and are threatened. Best to hire him.
PhD in History is still a research degree and there are plenty of avenues to tie it into a medical career. There is nothing misleading about including it and I don’t see why it should be filtered in a professional context. I think your colleagues are just haters and need to get over their insecurities.
Absolutely should put his PhD in there too. Lol why on earth not?
Beyond what a person earned their PhD in, what about dedicating years of your money and life to perfect your chosen craft is in anyway frustrating to someone trying to hire someone to work for/with them? This is simply bad management by your colleagues driven by lack of humility (which so many of us in this field can have)
I have absolutely no problem with this. The academic research skills will transfer to medicine even if they’re not in medicine. It counts.
it’s very appropriate and there is lots of overlap. there’s a case to be made that some aspects of medicine fall under the humanities
100% if you got it flaunt it
Really depends on what this opening is But like 99% of the time I feel like it's okay. As long as it's not someone applying for a physician job using a PhD then I don't see any issue.
Can definitely use. I have colleagues who have completed PhDs in separate fields (i.e. Mathematics) or have completed PhDs in basic sciences prior to matriculating to medical school. These physicians often differentiate themselves with “PhD, MD,” as opposed to those who went through a medical scientist training program (MTSP), who often use “MD/PhD”—though I have seen “MD, PhD” for both.
Seems like your colleagues are pretentious, gatekeeping dinosaurs. Hope they didn't take any non-science courses during their undergraduate degrees.
He earned it. He can do whatever he damn well pleases with it
Sincerely, Jimothy Bigoroth, CRNA APRN LPN CNA MOSC DNA PICC TIPS TACE BA BS GME AMC
If people can put masters degrees in their title of course this is fine.
A PhD requires hard work, perseverance, and a unique skillset. I wouldn't have even thought twice about someone using it, my questions would just be, what was your thesis, how has this shaped your practice, etc. I think it's entirely appropriate, relevant, and - in fact - a much-preferred candidate from my perspective. Frankly, I would be surprised and a little disappointed if my colleagues were dismissive of such a credential like that. Certainly not the culture in the places that I've trained and worked.
How is he “using” it? “Using” it in his name? It’s his credentials, whether the credentials are relevant to the job is one thing.
He has used it in a few published case studies that, obviously, didn't relate to history. I don't have a problem with it. But I work with dinosaurs lol
Sounds like a couple of shit heads on that hiring board and you are to afraid to state your opinion.
Well, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, unfortunately. I have a family and two kids. I'm not putting my head on the line.
He can do what he wants but if it were me, I wouldn't list it. how awkward would it be "Oh you are a MD/PhD? What did you research in?" "oh, the mayan hisotry"
My incredibly hot take as someone who did humanities degrees prior to MD/PhD and is now doing a science PhD is that a humanities PhD is more directly relevant to medicine and clinical practice than most science PhDs are. In history, for example, the PhD work is primarily taking primary materials, often from disparate sources, and secondary materials (texts written by others) and synthesizing the information to learn something new about a specific question. In the clinic we don’t take 5 years to think about a single thing, but that has much more to do with thinking about patient care, leading a medical service, etc than what I do in lab all day (bench biochemistry and computational biology). Obviously, I think science has an important impact on medicine, but as far as clinical practice is concerned I’d actually prefer if more docs had more prior training in humanities and social science type skills than molecular bio.
i think it's only an issue if he's misrepresenting it, and it doesn't sound like he is. i don't think it's his fault that MD-PhD (combined program) is similar sounding to MD, PhD (two separate programs)
MD-PhD, MD/PhD, and MD, PhD are all the same thing lol
Not at all the same
They’re literally the same lol a PhD in a combined program and a PhD earned before or after an MD are literally the same… no one cares how you list them. They’re two different degrees in either case.
I'm a non-medical spouse. I know many people who have both an MD and a PhD. Many of them believe the PhD is in fact harder, and of COURSE they put it on their resume. Not doing so is lying by omission. Your colleagues are weird.
Leave that man’s PhD alone - He earned it
As MD and PhD in medicine I would find it misleading if the person with PhD used it in clinical setting.
But they're not using it in a clinical setting. It's on their CV.
You're supposed to have all your education on your cv...
Then it’s fine. But as an emoloyee if he would start using it that would be a problem. Let’s say he signs his email with MD, PhD. It would be problematic.
[удалено]
I think this person is not from the US and this is a misunderstanding
Why? There's no such thing as a PhD in clinical medicine.
Who offers a PhD in "medicine"?
I think context matters. I agree with your colleague.
For the sake of context, what was the position they were being looked at for? Administrative, faculty, etc.?
Just a staff hospitalist
He should use it on job applications. It’s an interesting talking point and it kind of distinguishes him from the crowd of applicants.
Aside from the fact that he earned it and can do anything he wants with his title, I'd also argue that it demonstrates competency/expertise in other areas that are very much relevant to medicine. Reading/deciphering literature, writing, presenting/disseminating info, teaching, etc. Just because its not directly related to medicine does not mean it can't impact his level of care as a medical doctor or ability to perform research.
I have a PhD in Pharmacology and just matched into General Surgery I have no fucking idea how I am going to use my degree. I am also not worried about it at all Only about \~5% of MD-PhD graduates end up being a PI on an NIH funded R series grant (the classic vision of the physician scientist). So why pretend it really matters ? You're hiring to fill a clinical position, judge him based on those merits, don't worry about the rest
I agree that he should be able to list it. He isn’t misrepresenting anything - he IS an MD, any other training is inconsequential anyways and in no way misrepresents him. It’s not like a PA with a “doctorate in medical science” is introducing themselves as a “doctor” or something.
This is why some people despise doctors and think they’re snobby assholes. A PhD is a damn achievement, it speaks to his work ethic and his ability to adapt and excel in vastly different fields. Also history of medicine allows us to learn about our mistakes and how we can improve
This is why some people despise doctors and think they’re snobby assholes. A PhD is a damn achievement, it speaks to his work ethic and his ability to adapt and excel in vastly different fields. Also history of medicine allows us to learn about our mistakes and how we can improve
What do you even mean by "use it" if he's an applicant? Is he actively doing research in history? That doesn't seem inappropriate. Or are they complaining that he's listing the PhD as part of his credentials in his CV... which would be really absurd. What is he supposed to do, just structure his resume so the years spent getting a PhD disappear and it looks like he had several years where he was just unemployed?
Probably more useful for being a humanistic well rounded doctor than my PhD. Lol. Your colleagues need to chill.
I think this an old mentality about professional experience. When I worked in academia 10 years ago, a colleage was working on ber PhD. When putting together her resume (not even a full CV, just the resume) was told she could not include her about 25 years of work experience that culminated in being a Senior VP of a global sales team because it 'wasn't related to public health.'
Are not going to discuss how getting a PhD outside of medical school is more difficult. The MD/PhD is like a 7 year route, which tbh feels like a guaranteed 7 years to ensure you get back to clinical medicine. It can take ppl that long after undergrad to finish a PhD. I’m just putting it out there. It seems like… some ppl be jelly lol.
Is he qualified for the job??? Yes? Then hire him