Chances for MSTP

[realmadridstorm]

Hi Guys,

I want to pursue the MSTP for the next application cycle and I just want to know whether do I stand a chance to be accepted into one. I have a 3.7 GPA and 3.6 for sciences, just got my MCAT score back and it is a 39 (13P, 11V, 15B). Currently working at a lab at UTSW, but don't have my own project. Some research clinical, and volunteer exp, nothing spectacular. Also went to a private religious college.

Thanks for the responses

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Towelie]

You probably have a better chance at lower level MSTPs, rather than the elite ones, because of your lack of "spectacular" research experience. However, with your numbers you could probably get into almost any MD-only program that you want, so you might want to consider doing that and then entering the MSTP after the first two years.

 

[heeseop]

I agree with post above..
I think it's necessary to have very extensive research with some publications to be competitive for MSTP (maybe not, im MD-only applicant)

btw, great mcat score!!

 

[DrBowtie]

Moving to MSTP Forum...

 

[gbwillner]

Are you people on crack?

A 39 MCAT ensures that just about any school will look at your application. You don't need publications for even the very best MSTP programs, that's just silly.

Yeah, your GPA is on the lower side, but your MCAT is stellar, and if you just have good research experience, don't be surprised if you get more than one acceptance from a "good" MSTP program.

 

[Neuronix]

Some research

That's the real question that will determine your success. How much research have you done? What type (basic science?)?

 

[realmadridstorm]

I worked for my p-chem teacher for a semester, did not do too much since he was a new faculty and needed help to start his lab.
Then I graduated early from school because the school offered so little opportunity for research and now I work for a lab that does cellular singaling at UT Southwestern fulltime, but I don't have my own project. So I should have about a full year worth of research experience when I apply next cycle.

Thanks for the responses

 

[gbwillner]

Then I graduated early from school because the school offered so little opportunity for research and now I work for a lab that does cellular singaling at UT Southwestern fulltime, but I don't have my own project. So I should have about a full year worth of research experience when I apply next cycle.

This is more than adequate. Save the "own project" stuff for grad school. Hell, most MSTPs I know only did a semester or summer research- you have them all beat.

 

[Neuronix]

Hell, most MSTPs I know only did a semester or summer research- you have them all beat.

Huh? Where? At the top programs, you're looking at 2+ years of research. I'm not saying the op doesn't have any chances, I'm sure he will, but he's probably going to be excluded from the top-10.

 

[gbwillner]

Huh? Where? At the top programs, you're looking at 2+ years of research. I'm not saying the op doesn't have any chances, I'm sure he will, but he's probably going to be excluded from the top-10.

2+ years of research does not mean 2 years research fulltime. It means they did a little research here and there over the course of undergrad. 1 year fulltime research >>>> 4 years summer research.

Are you telling me that everyone at your program took 2 years off after undergrad and did research before the MSTP????? No one came right out of college into your program?

 

[dr.z]

Hi Guys,

I want to pursue the MSTP for the next application cycle and I just want to know whether do I stand a chance to be accepted into one. I have a 3.7 GPA and 3.6 for sciences, just got my MCAT score back and it is a 39 (13P, 11V, 15B). Currently working at a lab at UTSW, but don't have my own project. Some research clinical, and volunteer exp, nothing spectacular. Also went to a private religious college.

Thanks for the responses

I don't even know why you are worried.

 

[realmadridstorm]

I am more worried about my chances with some "elite" programs because I want to apply for some but can't decide on how many should I apply since the application cycle is kind of expensive and if my chances aren't good, then I want to save some money by applying to a fewer number of elite programs

 

[Jorje286]

I'm not an expert here, but I think even if you don't have your own independent project (very, very few undergrad would anyway) or even if you don't have any publications, you can still show talent for research, which is really what the committee is looking for. They want to see that you have tried research, you like it and you're good at it. So make sure you impress your PI, and always try to propose new ideas concerning the hypothesis, the experimental design..etc. A very good letter of recommendation can trump the lack of publications and extended research years, especially if it's from a renowned researcher.

 

[RxnMan]

I am more worried about my chances with some "elite" programs because I want to apply for some but can't decide on how many should I apply since the application cycle is kind of expensive and if my chances aren't good, then I want to save some money by applying to a fewer number of elite programs

From what you've written, I'd say you're going along fine. When you apply, you'll have a year under your belt. Who knows - by then you may have your own project. If not, that's ok too, because your MCAT'll insure you'll get some interviews and you'll be able to use the interview to prove to the ADCOM that you are motivated to be a researcher and so on.

Consider using this year to get that project, just something of your own that you develop. It doesn't have to be big, but if you can show that you can come up with your own independent thought process, and approach the problem (and your results) critcally, then that'll go miles towards proving to the ADCOMs you're capable of independent research, which is what the PhD portion is all about.

 

[achillesheel]

From what I understand, good recommendations from research mentors are pretty key, on the same level as having a publication, although the two are related because they both demonstrate aptitude for research. If your year working has been productive and you have a good relationship with your mentors past and present, I think you would have a chance at the top 10.

 

[Hohenheim]

The *religious* is key. Youre out.

But seriously though: Isnt the main thing here the LOR from your research mentor?

 

[j-weezy]

Hi Guys,

I want to pursue the MSTP for the next application cycle and I just want to know whether do I stand a chance to be accepted into one. I have a 3.7 GPA and 3.6 for sciences, just got my MCAT score back and it is a 39 (13P, 11V, 15B). Currently working at a lab at UTSW, but don't have my own project. Some research clinical, and volunteer exp, nothing spectacular. Also went to a private religious college.

Thanks for the responses

you didn't happen to go to the University of Dallas did you? Just wondering because you say you're currently working at UTSW....

 

[realmadridstorm]

No, I went to Baylor

 

[gbwillner]

No, I went to Baylor

Dude,
Do yourself a favor and apply to whatever top 10 programs you want. I bet you'll get interviews at more than half of them. I was in a similar situation as you 7 years ago, when med school was MORE competitive (more # of applicants) and I got interviews at 6/8 top 10 schools I applied to. I did do a little more research, but trust me, working 1 year full time is far more than most of the jokers on this site. You just can't sell it as "it's not my project..." B.S.. You did the work, it is your project. If it gets published, your name is on the paper. So what if you're not first author? How many MSTPs have a first author paper pre-grad school? I bet it's less than 1%, if you don't include BS clinical papers that required no work. Trust me, your interviewers see right through that crap anyway. They will grill you on your actual project, and they won't ask you if you thought of the idea yourself.

Good luck!

 

[tbo]

I bet it's less than 1%, if you don't include BS clinical papers that required no work. Trust me, your interviewers see right through that crap anyway.

gbwillner: It should be noted that I respect your candor and frank insight into the world of MD/PhDs (The thread on lab rotations and what to ask when deciding on a lab is brilliant), but I have to disagree with you on the above comments in clinical. There's no question that there's a lot of crap clinical research papers out there, but clinical research - when rigorously designed and rigorously conducted - can produce meaningful contributions to medicine. It's the "when rigorously designed" caveat that is lost to most. Anyone who has done any kind of meaningful clinical data collection (grunt work in the clinical space) knows that there's a ridiculous amount of work that is done, even for the most simple of studies. (Consider sifting through medical records for an onset and severity of lower limb paraplegia, for example........) However, if you structure your study appropriately, you can answer some pretty controversial topics in the field that challenge how medicine is practiced and how clinical decisions are made.

I'll be the first to say that 4 out of 6 papers that I've participated on to date (all clinical) are of the "show-and-tell" variety (not prospective, not controlled, not gold-standard research). The other 2 I will firmly argue are just as rigorous, well-designed, and meaningful as the basic science papers our basic lab puts out. I would even argue that doing a meaningful clinical study is far harder than a basic science one. You deal with far more uncertainty and limitations in the clinic versus the lab (see patient privacy and ethics issues). Properly controlling for these factors adds interesting logical wrinkles to applying the scientific method.

Back to the OP's question though, I would agree with the sentiment that any research that you can document personal contribution on (eg. authorship of any kind) and speak intelligently not only on its methods and observations but also communicate the scientific context for the study-- clinical or basic, then you will undoubtedly have a leg up on the 99% of applicants that gbwillner speaks of.

 

[gbwillner]

There's no question that there's a lot of crap clinical research papers out there, but clinical research - when rigorously designed and rigorously conducted - can produce meaningful contributions to medicine. It's the "when rigorously designed" caveat that is lost to most. Anyone who has done any kind of meaningful clinical data collection (grunt work in the clinical space) knows that there's a ridiculous amount of work that is done, even for the most simple of studies. (Consider sifting through medical records for an onset and severity of lower limb paraplegia, for example........) However, if you structure your study appropriately, you can answer some pretty controversial topics in the field that challenge how medicine is practiced and how clinical decisions are made.

.

Whoa, hold on there. Let me clarify- I don't mean that Clinical research is in itself crap (although, as you say, much of it is). That's not the point at all. The point is that there are many undergrads out there who show up to their uncle's practice and help write a clinical case report, or a review, or help tabulate clinical data (this can be for an important, useful study). Spending a few weeks crunching clinical numbers and making graphs DOES NOT COMPARE with full-time hypothesis-driven wet-bench work (a year no less). The interviewers know this. They will grill you on your project to see how much you really know about your research, and they are realistic- they know you're just an undergrad.
I'm not "dissing" clinical research here. The point is that many students who come with authorships are authors on these clinical papers, because they can be done with relatively little work (let's face it, you're trying to graduate, and you're doing this work on the side). I'm not saying its easy work, but it usually takes much less time/effort than biochemistry or genetics, where you take weeks just cloning things to make the REAGENTS for your experiments. I am i no way saying that it is less important to medicine or what have you. Just that it is far more appreciated by the basic science researchers who are going to interview you on your MSTP interviews.