MPH vs Research Year

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

napoleonian

New Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone - first off, let me thank you for contributing to this forum. I'm a first year student strongly considering oncology, and it's been really informative reading thru these pages.

My situation: My medical school allows us a third year off from academics (so much for anonymity) in order to pursue a dual degree, basic science research, or clinical research. Though I am a first year student, the groundwork for these plans needs to be laid soon. I have a moderate though not definite interest in pursuing academics. I put in several years of hard work with basic science research during undergrad but ended up with a negative and ultimately unproductive outcome. In contrast, I have a strong interest in clinical research now and am seriously considering devoting the ten months off to this. However, I also have an interest in public health, and before learning of the necessity of strong research for RadOnc, it was always my intention to pursue the MPH degree.

So - what would you choose? I am examining the choice from the perspectives of 1) utility in a future career in RadOnc, and 2) assistance in the match process.

I know that the MPH offers training in statistics, epidemiology, and clinical research methods. Also, I would likely be able to complete a clinical research project working part time along the way, but the research outcome would likely not be as strong. In addition, based on data from NRMP Charting Outcomes in the Match, additional graduate degrees other than PhD's actually had a negative association with match success in 2007 (though a small sample size). So what do you all "in the know" think with respect to these two considerations?

Thanks!

Members don't see this ad.
 
Regardless of whether you want to go academic or private in your career, I would say 10 months of solid research will pay off better just from the angle of matching at all. An MPH would certainly be something not a lot of the other applicants had, but in my opinion would still not be as strong as a dedicated research year (which certainly the majority of applicants likewise don't have). And to answer your other question, if you want a career in academics it would certainly benefit you to match at a place that has a strong academic reputation, and increasing your research experience in med school will increase your chances of that too.
 
My suggestion would be to do the MPH, especially if you want to do clinical research. I think you're at a place where the rad onc department has lots of data and the people there are exceptional. They have a lot of data. I would suggest you start contacting some of the attendings now, esp. the chair fo the department, to get your hands on the data.
A 10 month MPH will be absurdly fast. Lots of classwork. For your final project, roll in the data you have. That way you can become proficient in statistical analysis with some help from biostats people. Plan on submitting that project for ASTRO or another meeting.
This would be my suggestion. Especially if you're serious about rad onc and clinical research. Several of the various respected attendings have MPHs including one at Anderson.

If you want to go the basic science route, that could be fun too. In that case, I would suggest you do either Howard Hughes or Doris Duke. these afford you a greater degree of prestige than just "taking a year off for research" and also now you're funded. You might want to work with someone you or a mentor knows at an institution that you might want to match at (if it's not your home institution). There are some really amazing clinician scientists around, including several at Harvard, UCSF, Stanford, and a couple at Sloan Kettering. Anderson is much stronger for clinical research. I would suggest a combo of physics research and basic science or physics and clinical. the physics research, especially at a place like Beaumont, is really amazing.

I think you shouldn't look too much into the match data re. other degree people. If you are productive during your time off and are able to have at least an abstract (and ideally a paper) from that time, you will be quite golden. The other thing is, if you have a genuine interest in public health research, do the MPH. If you have a genuine interest in basic science but just feel disappointed because your results were null first time around, don't give up yet. choose several smaller projects and a long shot and work with a rad onc person. Ideally team up with some clinical reserach too during lab time.

sounds like you want to try the MPH but are fearful due to the "numbers" from match data. disregard that and just be productive. in the long run, most of the strides in rad onc are in clinical research (though the ideal is the great clinician running several trials and also having a lab and developing the next best thing since synergy or cyberknife). good luck.
 
Thank you both for your thoughtful responses. I met with representatives from the MPH program and Rad Onc research labs last night, and it was great to have heard your advice going in.

I'm still torn, but may end up applying for fellowships and doing a clinical research year. As you pointed out, Koolaid, doing the MPH in 12 months doesn't leave much time for everything else: a research project, 5 clinic hours a week, studying for and taking the boards, and beginning away rotations and applications in the late summer. And Bunny, I suspect you are right that career-wise a successful research year might be more helpful right now. As much as I'd love to do the MPH now, from a scheduling standpoint, things might get a bit cramped. I know that many residencies offer a research year - I wonder if it would be feasible to do work for an MPH during a RadOnc residency later on?

Thanks again.
 
Top