MD student dual degree – JD or MPP? Forum

[MDguy]

Hi guys, keeping this short as possible. I'm a third-year at an HYS med school, doing a dual degree next year. Still unsure which one. I applied JD and MPP thinking the acceptances would make up my mind for me, but first world problems hit and I have an offer at every single program I applied to. I didn't believe the med advising office when they said I'd have my pick anywhere, but they were right.

JD offers: HYS Chi N MVPB
MPP offers: H Chi N MVB D WWS (Pton)

Family is poor so expecting good FA from HYS, not much scholly anywhere else yet. Not URM. But debt is no prob, I'll make it all back as a doc.

I've no interest in practicing law. I want to be a physician who has policymaker/agency official skills and clinical chops to back it up to solve health care problems. I don't ever want to hear "you're just an MD, you don't know [blank]" at a meeting. My ideal would be state-level agency work or maybe national HHS/CMS if lucky. I don't think I'm interested in legis but do want open options. I have 2 yrs WE in non-profit and I never want to beg for grants again. So def gov't public service future

My questions:
1. Which one in your view is best for me? Knowing my goals are evolving
2. Is it true non-HYS can't get many policy-oriented classes? I don't want to take like complex lit or some shit
3. I want quant training (modeling, adv micro). Is this enough reason to ditch the JD?
4. I also want training to analyze leg/reg, learn LRW. Is this enough to buy the JD?
5. Is there a situation in policy/agency where being MD/MPP will hold me back if I'm not MD/JD?

I understand this is not the best crowd to ask these highly specific questions but any input appreciated. My personal advisors have been helpful but not decisive. The JDs have basically told me to get a JD; MPPs have told me MPP.

Super thanks to you all!

Edit: This site is so much more supportive than SDN (the premed counterpart to this site). Y'all rock

[Deputy Downer]

Post removed.

[MDguy]

When did you hear from any of these MPP programs? Curious because I (and several friends) applied to many of the same ones and not heard from them yet, and based on past cycles, I wasn't expecting to until late February/early March.

Especially since many of the MPP deadlines are only two weeks past, and HKS hasn't even hit the financial aid application deadline.

My med school has linkage programs with all listed MPP schools because we have many students doing MD/MPP. I also didn't have to take the GRE (MCAT + med school grades were sufficient) so there was no way I could've applied the regular route. We find out around a month earlier than everyone else because the schools need my decision by spring break in order to start coordinating the dual program structure.

If you want to do policy stuff, get an MPP. I know of several MD/MPPs who do work similar to what you're describing (state level, mostly - but they do things like Chief Medical Officer for a state or whatever).

If you want to run for office, just be a doctor, wait a few years, save some money and call up you HYS friends in a few years to donate to your campaign.

If you want to be a lawyer, get a JD. If you don't want to be a lawyer, it's not really worth it (in my opinion).

Additionally... Everyone assumes doctors are smart anyway; no one is going to tell you "you're just an MD, you don't know [blank]." It's part of why people are always surprised when doctors are total idiots (see: Ben Carson, and most of the doctors in Congress).

Haha not looking to run for office, just wanna do policy implementation/maybe work on a committee pushing leg. Or maybe something else, I don't really know all the options too well. Many many doctors who have tried to do policy stuff at my school have told me they are often looked down upon because they are only a doc, hence the point about "just an MD." Also hence the determination to get a dual degree with the right skills

[pterodactyls]

I think cost will be a big factor here. I'm assuming the MPP will be two years and the JD will be three? The MPP may be a better bang for the buck, especially if you have no interest in practicing law.

Edit: the MPP will also likely be more analytical, which would be helpful for your case. For example, you'll learn how to do advanced cost-benefit analyses and financial forecasting. I've talked to a few people that have done both public policy/admin and JD, and they said the public policy/admin was more about analyzing policies to figure out how things should be improved, whereas the JD you're learning in detail how everything stands now (but not necessarily how to improve upon it).

[lymenheimer]

0L but I work in state government (with a BA), so not completely useless advice. I'd go MPP if you are looking more at policy. You don't need a JD to understand laws. Working in the field should be enough to get understanding and the MPP will get you the credentials you want. You could also likely take a few courses at the law school even as an MPP student, so you could (possibly) get your LRW and other policy courses you wanted, without taking Crim, Ks, Torts, and all the other courses you aren't looking to practice in.

[MDguy]

I think cost will be a big factor here. I'm assuming the MPP will be two years and the JD will be three? The MPP may be a better bang for the buck, especially if you have no interest in practicing law.

MPP would be 1, JD would be 2. The last year will be half MD, half JD or MPP while I apply for residency so I save a year on both. I already have 3 electives that would count towards either degree from my preclinical years.

[Deputy Downer]

My med school has linkage programs with all listed MPP schools because we have many students doing MD/MPP. I also didn't have to take the GRE (MCAT + med school grades were sufficient) so there was no way I could've applied the regular route. We find out around a month earlier than everyone else because the schools need my decision by spring break in order to start coordinating the dual program structure.

Well, in that case, congrats. That's a pretty nice problem to have.

I'll just say this; there are lots of lawyers working in government and policy. But that's not necessarily because getting a JD gives you the tools to be a policy expert, or because they're working on policy itself. Getting a law degree at a top school gives you the opportunity to obtain a great legal education and a strong network of people who are likely to be successful, politically and otherwise. Law school can provide access more than anything else (as far as government/politics is concerned).

Getting a MPP would be different. MPPs get hired by Congressmen, administrations, etc., but they're expected to be a policy experts. People who will do math to tell you how much money will be added to the federal deficit using this style of health care reform vs. this style, for example. I don't think this is the expectation for most lawyers working in government. They usually end up bureaucrats/consultants/staffers with specific portfolios and responsibilities pertaining to their area of expertise.

So, if you want to work on issues and be an expert on them (like, a real expert - not someone who presents information after other people put together talking points and gets credit for their work, but instead in the person whose work will be on behalf of a politician/organization/administration), get the MPP. Law School won't necessarily teach you how to do that.

[MDguy]

Edit: the MPP will also likely be more analytical, which would be helpful for your case. For example, you'll learn how to do advanced cost-benefit analyses and financial forecasting. I've talked to a few people that have done both public policy/admin and JD, and they said the public policy/admin was more about analyzing policies to figure out how things should be improved, whereas the JD you're learning in detail how everything stands now (but not necessarily how to improve upon it).

I have also heard this. Any idea if the HYS JD is any different? I've heard that those law schools do more policy-style classes where you are challenged to think about improvements, though not anything close to the analytical level of the MPP programs.

Well, in that case, congrats. That's a pretty nice problem to have.

I'll just say this; there are lots of lawyers working in government and policy. But that's not necessarily because getting a JD gives you the tools to be a policy expert, or because they're working on policy itself. Getting a law degree at a top school gives you the opportunity to obtain a great legal education and a strong network of people who are likely to be successful, politically and otherwise. Law school can provide access more than anything else (as far as government/politics is concerned).

Getting a MPP would be different. MPPs get hired by Congressmen, administrations, etc., but they're expected to be a policy experts. People who will do math to tell you how much money will be added to the federal deficit using this style of health care reform vs. this style, for example. I don't think this is the expectation for most lawyers working in government. They usually end up bureaucrats/consultants/staffers with specific portfolios and responsibilities pertaining to their area of expertise.

So, if you want to work on issues and be an expert on them (like, a real expert - not someone who presents information after other people put together talking points and gets credit for their work, but instead in the person whose work will be on behalf of a politician/organization/administration), get the MPP. Law School won't necessarily teach you how to do that.

Thanks! Yes, this thread is the encapsulation of a first world problem. DO you know what gov't lawyers typically do then? What do you mean by "specific portfolios and responsibilities" as opposed to issue-specific expertise that the MPPs have?

[MDguy]

More broadly, what are people's thoughts on cost? Leaving aside the opportunity cost of an extra year of full physician salary (if I calculated that I would not want to do any other degrees), at what cost could I bargain for that would make a JD not hurt as much? Same for the MPP?

[MDguy]

0L but I work in state government (with a BA), so not completely useless advice. I'd go MPP if you are looking more at policy. You don't need a JD to understand laws. Working in the field should be enough to get understanding and the MPP will get you the credentials you want. You could also likely take a few courses at the law school even as an MPP student, so you could (possibly) get your LRW and other policy courses you wanted, without taking Crim, Ks, Torts, and all the other courses you aren't looking to practice in.

Good point. I have no interest in most of the 1L courseload, but more than a few schools have said I could tweak that if I petitioned hard enough. But would people really care that as an MPP I did some law courses here and there? My observation is that when you go to policy school, you're branded as that in the early stages of your career. Also is "Ks" con law?

[lymenheimer]

government lawyers are often masters of the statutes: staff attorneys, research staff, bill drafters, etc.
As opposed to policy individuals who work with leadership/members on certain ideas, work with outside sources, essentially direct the discussion.

Good point. I have no interest in most of the 1L courseload, but more than a few schools have said I could tweak that if I petitioned hard enough. But would people really care that as an MPP I did some law courses here and there? My observation is that when you go to policy school, you're branded as that in the early stages of your career. Also is "Ks" con law?

Ks is Contracts. I wasn't trying to say that you can flaunt your LRW course grade as an MPP. I was more saying that you can get your MPP and still have the research and writing knowledge that would assist your policy-work.

[Pneumonia]

I have also heard this. Any idea if the HYS JD is any different? I've heard that those law schools do more policy-style classes where you are challenged to think about improvements, though not anything close to the analytical level of the MPP programs.

I'm a second-year student at HYS, and, no, HYS is not any different (at least not for your purposes). A few things come to mind on this point.

First, it is probably true that all three of these school are a bit more "theoretical" than other law schools. Theoretical doesn't mean practical—it means the opposite. So instead of talking about what the current state of contract law actually is, we talk about the theoretical justifications for the existence of contract law based on differing visions of philosophic personhood and dignity etc. But even these diversions occupy a relatively small percentage of class time.

Second, if you only have to take two years (rather than the normal three), those two years would be the "first two" rather than the
"last two." The schools might be a little flexible on this, but if you want a JD you're going to spend close to a full year doing traditional law coursework like property, torts, civil procedure, contracts, criminal law, constitutional law etc. Most of these courses are taught as much for the skill they teach as for their content. That skill—interpreting judicial decisions in the common law system—sounds like it would be of little use to you. So then you'd only have about a year to take the kinds of classes you wanted.

Third, to the extent that we do discuss "policy" alternatives, that discussion is very general and high-level. The answers we generate would probably occur to you intuitively. Or, what's more likely, you probably wouldn't agree with them. You can't get a bit more rigor in courses like "law and economics," but those courses would likely diverge from your policy goals.

I don't know much about the MPP, but my experience indicates that a JD is not the degree you want based on your goals. The network would be cool, but you could get that from cross-listing.

[Deputy Downer]

Thanks! Yes, this thread is the encapsulation of a first world problem. DO you know what gov't lawyers typically do then? What do you mean by "specific portfolios and responsibilities" as opposed to issue-specific expertise that the MPPs have?

Typically, a member of Congress would hire a lawyer to either (1) serve as counsel/an advisor; (2) work as a legal researcher; (3) help draft language of bills. A lawyer working for the a member on the Transportation Committee wouldn't necessarily be expected to understand everything about transportation policy, but would have to be able to know how to write a legal document pertaining to that policy area.

A MPP/policy analyst working on that same job would be expected to figure out how to write the law in the way that accomplishes a certain policy outcome. So, a member of a congressional policy team would have to (1) identify what policy the member/committee wants to implement; (2) describe how to implement it; (3) be able to explain what effect implementing the policy would have, usually in quantifiable terms (cost/impact of x variable on y variable/etc.).

For a job that's not appointed (i.e., Civil Service, for a state or federal government), its basically like applying for any other job. If they feel you're qualified and can meet their expectations of a position, they'll hire you. This, I think, is less applicable to what you're saying you want to do. It seems to me that you want to be in an inner-circle - in on conversations where policy decisions are being made. That's as higher levels, and typically means you work on the Hill for a senator or representative, or work for the executive branch (but at a higher level than would be posted on USAJobs, for example - stuff that gets appointed internally by the White House or the cabinet secretary. The Secretary of HUD, for example, doesn't choose who works for him other than his senior staff, which usually includes policy people approved by the White House - this is the same across cabinets).

So... does all that make sense?

Lawyers get hired to do either really big picture things (Chief of Staff/Deputy position type stuff, basically staff enforcers and advisors) or really specific things (legal research, legal counsel, etc).

If you want to get a MD/JD, do it because you want to practice medicine and law (maybe malpractice stuff). If you want to do policy stuff, a JD doesn't really make sense. It's something that a lot of people involved in politics get, but not for the purposes of becoming policy people (even if they end up becoming policy people).

[MDguy]

I have also heard this. Any idea if the HYS JD is any different? I've heard that those law schools do more policy-style classes where you are challenged to think about improvements, though not anything close to the analytical level of the MPP programs.

I'm a second-year student at HYS, and, no, HYS is not any different (at least not for your purposes). A few things come to mind on this point.

This is gold, thanks so much. This sounds much more realistic and reasonable than the sales pitches I've been getting from the HYS law students who live in my apt complex and keep telling me how much policy they learn in class. Esp the point about 1L classes being a gigantic waste of time; I did a health law class and liked the case method but I would slowly die inside if the discussion were about some legalese diff b/w contracts concepts.

Though since I've gone this far in forcing my untraditional path down other people's throats (i.e., to adcoms heh heh), I'm gonna go the full mile and ask law schools if they could waive some 1L classes and allow me to substitute MPP core classes instead. Esp getting rid of crim, Ks, property, civ pro. I feel like I would find torts interesting and con law would be useful, LRW obviously useful in so many cases. They're probably gonna threaten my acceptances though if I keep trying to beat down the establishment haha

Thanks! Yes, this thread is the encapsulation of a first world problem. DO you know what gov't lawyers typically do then? What do you mean by "specific portfolios and responsibilities" as opposed to issue-specific expertise that the MPPs have?

Typically, a member of Congress would hire a lawyer to either (1) serve as counsel/an advisor; (2) work as a legal researcher; (3) help draft language of bills. A lawyer working for the a member on the Transportation Committee wouldn't necessarily be expected to understand everything about transportation policy, but would have to be able to know how to write a legal document pertaining to that policy area.

A MPP/policy analyst working on that same job would be expected to figure out how to write the law in the way that accomplishes a certain policy outcome. So, a member of a congressional policy team would have to (1) identify what policy the member/committee wants to implement; (2) describe how to implement it; (3) be able to explain what effect implementing the policy would have, usually in quantifiable terms (cost/impact of x variable on y variable/etc.).

For a job that's not appointed (i.e., Civil Service, for a state or federal government), its basically like applying for any other job. If they feel you're qualified and can meet their expectations of a position, they'll hire you. This, I think, is less applicable to what you're saying you want to do. It seems to me that you want to be in an inner-circle - in on conversations where policy decisions are being made. That's as higher levels, and typically means you work on the Hill for a senator or representative, or work for the executive branch (but at a higher level than would be posted on USAJobs, for example - stuff that gets appointed internally by the White House or the cabinet secretary. The Secretary of HUD, for example, doesn't choose who works for him other than his senior staff, which usually includes policy people approved by the White House - this is the same across cabinets).

If you want to get a MD/JD, do it because you want to practice medicine and law (maybe malpractice stuff). If you want to do policy stuff, a JD doesn't really make sense. It's something that a lot of people involved in politics get, but not for the purposes of becoming policy people (even if they end up becoming policy people).

Ok great so I knew that's what policy analysts do (having worked with many) but was always told that JDs would just be paid more to do the same work in gov't...looks like that's not what the status quo is. Man those lawyer responsibilities sound so boring. I definitely want to be somewhere where the policy decisions are being made, whether that's inner circle appointed or not. Or responsible for implementation actually, I think that's where doctors are really needed in health care at admin agencies.

Malpractice is gross...if I were to actually practice law it would be like in-house counsel for hospitals/similar institutions, but that's basically corp law and I actually know what they do so fuck no

[Deputy Downer]

Ok great so I knew that's what policy analysts do (having worked with many) but was always told that JDs would just be paid more to do the same work in gov't...looks like that's not what the status quo is. Man those lawyer responsibilities sound so boring. I definitely want to be somewhere where the policy decisions are being made, whether that's inner circle appointed or not. Or responsible for implementation actually, I think that's where doctors are really needed in health care at admin agencies.

Yeah- I'd say that pre-1970s, that was probably true (lawyers doing most of the policy work), I don't think that's really the case anymore, especially not with the big public policy schools being really well established at this point. Why pay a JD more to do the work that someone with less debt, more recent math classes, and more interest in policy work is willing to do?

In any case, if you want to work your way into where policy decisions are being made, best way to go is to find work on Capitol Hill/in the White House or in a state capitol (whether you choose JD or MPP).

[Aeon]

I've no interest in practicing law. I want to be a physician who has policymaker/agency official skills and clinical chops to back it up to solve health care problems. I don't ever want to hear "you're just an MD, you don't know [blank]" at a meeting. My ideal would be state-level agency work or maybe national HHS/CMS if lucky. I don't think I'm interested in legis but do want open options. I have 2 yrs WE in non-profit and I never want to beg for grants again. So def gov't public service future

My questions:
1. Which one in your view is best for me? Knowing my goals are evolving
2. Is it true non-HYS can't get many policy-oriented classes? I don't want to take like complex lit or some shit
3. I want quant training (modeling, adv micro). Is this enough reason to ditch the JD?
4. I also want training to analyze leg/reg, learn LRW. Is this enough to buy the JD?
5. Is there a situation in policy/agency where being MD/MPP will hold me back if I'm not MD/JD?

1. It sounds like an MPP would be the way to go for you. You're more interested in the policymaking side and have no interest in practicing law. The primary reason to get a law degree is if you want to practice law. I do maintain that a law degree has value beyond that, if you find learning the law interesting. But if you don't plan to practice law, the costs (both actual and opportunity) of getting the degree probably far outweigh any benefits.

2. As mentioned by others in this thread, even at the top law schools, most of what you do is learning the black letter law. Policy is generally secondary and presupposes familiarity with the underlying legal issues. I don't think you'll be able to waive any of the required first-year courses.

3. You won't get quantitative training in law school, except maybe at an elementary level in a law & economics seminar.

4. If your interest in law school is pretty much confined to this, I don't think it's sufficient to justify doing the entire degree. You might explore cross-registering in one or two law school classes instead.

5. Not having a law degree will probably only foreclose working in the agency's general counsel's office or in some legal position. If you don't have much interest in practicing law, then I don't see many situations where having a J.D. would yield a significant advantage. Plus, people trust doctors more than they do lawyers.

[MDguy]

Alright thank you TLS for putting me in place. I feel like I knew MPP was the choice last year when I was preparing to apply to programs, but the exhilaration at getting these awesome admissions results got my mind wandering a bit, especially since the HYS JD has such a hallowed reputation on my campus haha

WRT to cross-registering, I'm thinking that taking leg/reg (like what HLS has), con law, admin, LRW would help me a lot for what I want to do (HHS-type agency position, not legislative). Any input on this? Is LRW worth the time if I won't need to write briefs or memos in law practice? I have experience with WestLaw/LN but not as good at it as I'd like to be. Also if I'm not at Harvard, what do I take at other schools to get what their famous leg/reg class teaches?

[rnoodles]

Alright thank you TLS for putting me in place. I feel like I knew MPP was the choice last year when I was preparing to apply to programs, but the exhilaration at getting these awesome admissions results got my mind wandering a bit, especially since the HYS JD has such a hallowed reputation on my campus haha

WRT to cross-registering, I'm thinking that taking leg/reg (like what HLS has), con law, admin, LRW would help me a lot for what I want to do (HHS-type agency position, not legislative). Any input on this? Is LRW worth the time if I won't need to write briefs or memos in law practice? I have experience with WestLaw/LN but not as good at it as I'd like to be. Also if I'm not at Harvard, what do I take at other schools to get what their famous leg/reg class teaches?

LRW IS NEVER WORTH THE TIME.

[MDguy]

Alright thank you TLS for putting me in place. I feel like I knew MPP was the choice last year when I was preparing to apply to programs, but the exhilaration at getting these awesome admissions results got my mind wandering a bit, especially since the HYS JD has such a hallowed reputation on my campus haha

WRT to cross-registering, I'm thinking that taking leg/reg (like what HLS has), con law, admin, LRW would help me a lot for what I want to do (HHS-type agency position, not legislative). Any input on this? Is LRW worth the time if I won't need to write briefs or memos in law practice? I have experience with WestLaw/LN but not as good at it as I'd like to be. Also if I'm not at Harvard, what do I take at other schools to get what their famous leg/reg class teaches?

LRW IS NEVER WORTH THE TIME.

lololololol ok could you elaborate? Is it just boring ass LR-type footnote checking, TOA rearranging BS?

[rnoodles]

Alright thank you TLS for putting me in place. I feel like I knew MPP was the choice last year when I was preparing to apply to programs, but the exhilaration at getting these awesome admissions results got my mind wandering a bit, especially since the HYS JD has such a hallowed reputation on my campus haha

WRT to cross-registering, I'm thinking that taking leg/reg (like what HLS has), con law, admin, LRW would help me a lot for what I want to do (HHS-type agency position, not legislative). Any input on this? Is LRW worth the time if I won't need to write briefs or memos in law practice? I have experience with WestLaw/LN but not as good at it as I'd like to be. Also if I'm not at Harvard, what do I take at other schools to get what their famous leg/reg class teaches?

LRW IS NEVER WORTH THE TIME.

lololololol ok could you elaborate? Is it just boring ass LR-type footnote checking, TOA rearranging BS?

Haha I was kidding, but I'll respond seriously to help.

It's arguably the most important class you'll take your first year because it's pretty much what you'll be doing every day (drafting memos, briefs, researching, etc.). So, in that respect, there's a lot of value in it. Not sure how much it'd help with HHS-type work, but even with that being said I think the skills you'll learn will be pretty helpful.

As for the cons, I'm not sure how it's like at H or other T10 schools. Some of the courses can come with a lot of busy work and just won't be worth it if you're definitely going into HHS-type work. If it's P/F, which I'm sure most T10 schools are, then this isn't a big deal. But if it's graded, and you care about how you do grade-wise, it could be unnecessarily stressful. I'm only a 1L, but I assume you won't need to know brief writing in HHS and you can probably get exposure to writing and research geared toward that in an upper-level seminar of some kind. Other upperclassmen at the schools you're considering should definitely chime in if I'm wrong about this.

Hth, OP. Congratulations on some great results!

Edit: I've done literally zero LR footnote checking and TOA rearranging in my courses. Might be different at other schools, though.

[MDguy]

Just wanted to come back and say thanks to those who offered valuable advice here! After much deliberation and harassment over money, I committed to Chicago's Harris MPP last month. It was tough as a prestige whore to turn down the hallowed T6 JDs, but you guys were right – it's really not for me. Chicago Law was very accommodating of my cross-register/research ideas and Harris came through with the money. Add on the small class size, freshwater econ exposure, and new area of the country, I was sold!

Thanks again to those who came through and beat me back down to reality. I'll buy y'all virtual drinks with the 40k and year of my life I saved