My Dilemma with Choosing a School and Discipline

[VitaminVater]

...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mTORC]

I was deciding b/w Penn and Yale and chose Penn. Let me know if you are thinking about that choice and I can tell you what I thought when making the decision!

 

[VitaminVater]

I was deciding b/w Penn and Yale and chose Penn. Let me know if you are thinking about that choice and I can tell you what I thought when making the decision!

Penn is certainly up there! That's why I want to figure out which discipline to stick to since bar none Penn would be the best place to do a PhD in pharmacology. What made you choose Penn in the end?

 

[Shifty B]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your choice doesn't matter. The department name on your PhD means little. In fact, at many places you can do similar work with the same advisor in more than one department. You need to choose a supportive advisor with whom you have similar expectations about management style. That is, if you function well in a hands off environment, then don't choose a micromanager. This can be hard to tell sometimes though. Look at the track record of the last couple of students to leave the lab, including publications and the amount of time spent there, and talk to them if needed. Pharmacology or pathology or chemical biology matters less.

Now let's get to this business about a Master's degree before matriculation. What's that about? Aren't we talking about positions that you are starting in summer 2015?

 

[VitaminVater]

@Shifty B

I am but if I get the scholarship for the Masters then I may defer my acceptance for a year to matriculate in 2016.

 

[Fencer]

There is no point on doing/finishing a MS if it takes you an extra year of training making you defer entrance into the MSTP this cycle. The MD/PhD program and the research-track residency are already too long. Email me to discuss further if you need. I still remember your app.

 

[Shifty B]

There is no point on doing/finishing a MS if it takes you an extra year of training making you defer entrance into the MSTP this cycle. The MD/PhD program and the research-track residency are already too long.

This is what I was getting at but I wanted to make sure I correctly understood. No real up side, all down side. Don't do it.

 

[VitaminVater]

This is what I was getting at but I wanted to make sure I correctly understood. No real up side, all down side. Don't do it.

Aside from any career advantages, what if I really want to work on this project with this PI and live in England for a good while?

 

[Shifty B]

If the program has the words Rhodes, Marshall, or Fullbright in front of it, you should do it.

Otherwise, the comment was strictly with regards to the comment that this Masters would somehow cut down on your PhD time, which it might, but not enough to offset the extra year spent. I can't account for how you want to spend your life, and if it's an experience that you think will enrich your life then you should do it.

It would be as if you told me you were in a band and a record label offered you a one year contract to go on tour in England and see if you could make it. Would I think you should do that? Sure, why not. It would be fun and make you a more interesting person, which is great (and important). But you won't finish your MD/PhD program any faster.

 

[VitaminVater]

If the program has the words Rhodes, Marshall, or Fullbright in front of it, you should do it.

Otherwise, the comment was strictly with regards to the comment that this Masters would somehow cut down on your PhD time, which it might, but not enough to offset the extra year spent. I can't account for how you want to spend your life, and if it's an experience that you think will enrich your life then you should do it.

It would be as if you told me you were in a band and a record label offered you a one year contract to go on tour in England and see if you could make it. Would I think you should do that? Sure, why not. It would be fun and make you a more interesting person, which is great (and important). But you won't finish your MD/PhD program any faster.

It's actually Gates-Cambridge.
So it's obvious the consensus is that the extra year doing the MS won't really cut down on PhD time or give any other "boost" to my profile. I can understand that, and I thank both of you for the realistic advice.

Getting back to the point at hand...
So is it wise/smart to choose whichever discipline (and ultimately school) based on which will get me out of the PhD fastest or whichever seems like more "translateable" work. I know there are no absolutes and a chem bio PhD is not guaranteed to be shorter than a Pharm PhD, or a Pharm PhD involving more clinically oriented work than the chem bio PhD. I also know that whichever discipline I choose won't be the exact work I'll be doing during my post-grad research time.
However, in terms of having the best plan for a productive/useful PhD for an aspiring physician-scientist, should I be looking at those factors (length/translateability of work) or just do whichever work interests me the most?

 

[Shifty B]

Again, I don't think your choice of discipline matters. You can't reliably predict which PhD will be faster. Translatable or not probably doesn't matter either.

Whatever work interests you most does make a difference, because you're more likely to be successful and have a good time doing something you enjoy.

However, given the other criteria that you have excluded (city, size, etc) I think the biggest factor is your advisor. I would choose the school that has the best pool of possible advisors based on the description I provided above. I think this is more important than your individual project or degree department.

Another factor I think is very important is having a supportive MD/PhD administration that has a strong track record of producing successful graduates in the field you are interested in.

 

[VitaminVater]

Again, I don't think your choice of discipline matters. You can't reliably predict which PhD will be faster. Translatable or not probably doesn't matter either.

Whatever work interests you most does make a difference, because you're more likely to be successful and have a good time doing something you enjoy.

However, given the other criteria that you have excluded (city, size, etc) I think the biggest factor is your advisor. I would choose the school that has the best pool of possible advisors based on the description I provided above. I think this is more important than your individual project or degree department.

Another factor I think is very important is having a supportive MD/PhD administration that has a strong track record of producing successful graduates in the field you are interested in.

Thanks for your response, I was just worried about sticking to chemistry since a lot of the questions I got during interviews was how I'm gonna relate chemistry/chem bio to medicine, etc..

I'm gonna be emailing faculty in both chem bio and pharma as well as their former students to see what kind of mentors they are, how they mentor their MD-PhD students, the projects they're involved in and such.

 

[bd4727]

Check out NIH Oxford/Cambridge PhD program, they have a lot of people who combine their one year of Gates-Cambridge intotheir PhD so basically do both programs and save time from each. More than half of those kids do MD/PhD too. Feel free to PM me but just check out the site and email them they have worked with the Gates-Cambridge program a lot and will know what you are proposing.

 

[Duprass]

I'm going to go against the grain a little.

You have the chance to spend a year at Cambridge before you start medical school. For free, or nearly so. It may -- though likely won't -- benefit your career. At best, you learn some things, gain some skills, etc., and it looks good.

But here's the thing: even if you get NOTHING out of it, it's career-neutral. And what you're getting for that one year of your life is a brief experience in another country at one of the top universities in the history of the world. You'll get to meet people and experience somewhere brand new all without any worries because you've already been accepted to an MD/PhD program.

I don't think you'll ever get an opportunity like this -- where you can just go and study and do your thing for a brief period before you're in the same place for 8 years -- ever again. So unless you are just sick of everything and want to start medical school as soon as possible, I would go for it, no question. Not for my career, but because it's an experience I get to have as part of my life.

There's just so much career-centric advice here, and rightfully so, I feel I need to defend the idea of doing something a little different just because you can. Yes, MD/PhD programs are already long, and yes, that's a year you could be making money. That's the tradeoff.


I did some searching, and Penn is a fully participating institution in the NIH MD/PhD Partnership, which includes the Oxford-Cambridge program (Yale is listed as "partial"). That's another option if you take the Cambridge year and then go to Penn, not that you have to decide now.

 

[VitaminVater]

So how would the NIH Oxford/Cambridge thing work?
Would I do my PhD straight away in Cambridge and then return to med school for the 4 years? Or would I do the 2-4-2 model still?

 

[Duprass]

So how would the NIH Oxford/Cambridge thing work?
Would I do my PhD straight away in Cambridge and then return to med school for the 4 years? Or would I do the 2-4-2 model still?

The latter. See:
http://oxcam.gpp.nih.gov/about/partnership.asp

 

[VitaminVater]

The latter. See:
http://oxcam.gpp.nih.gov/about/partnership.asp

Hmm well IF I were to get the Gates-Cambridge, I'll contact the people in charge of NIH Ox-Cam and see whether I can turn my MPhil to a PhD for 2 years from now.

If not I think I'll still go for the MPhil and just do my PhD at the school I'll be in

 

[Shifty B]

Like I said above, I think you SHOULD have experiences like this because you expect them to be fun and interesting. I just didn't want you to have some misconception that it would cut down on your PhD time.

I'm not a big fan of recommending that people try to blaze a trail that is rarely followed. For instance, it's no good to be the first person at your institution to try some new degree pathway. It MAY work out for you, but it also could significantly prolong your PhD and lead to considerable dissatisfaction about 6 years from now.

 

[VitaminVater]

Like I said above, I think you SHOULD have experiences like this because you expect them to be fun and interesting. I just didn't want you to have some misconception that it would cut down on your PhD time.

I'm not a big fan of recommending that people try to blaze a trail that is rarely followed. For instance, it's no good to be the first person at your institution to try some new degree pathway. It MAY work out for you, but it also could significantly prolong your PhD and lead to considerable dissatisfaction about 6 years from now.

I'm not set on that plan if it were to become an option, but it's good to have multiple hands to play.

 

[VitaminVater]

As an update, I did end up getting offered the scholarship for the 1 year masters and I will be accepting it and deferring for a year.

 

[Fencer]

VitaminVater congrats... but keep in mind that it is an extra year of training. You have ~35 years of professional life expectancy (after MD/PhD and residency/postdoc), thus, one year is not a big deal. Congratulations on the many acceptances that you got!

 

[bd4727]

Like I said above, I think you SHOULD have experiences like this because you expect them to be fun and interesting. I just didn't want you to have some misconception that it would cut down on your PhD time.

I'm not a big fan of recommending that people try to blaze a trail that is rarely followed. For instance, it's no good to be the first person at your institution to try some new degree pathway. It MAY work out for you, but it also could significantly prolong your PhD and lead to considerable dissatisfaction about 6 years from now.

Point taken, but this is super conservative loss aversion advice without considering the great upside of trying to do something unique (but I get it, this is the basic mentality of 99% of people who choose med school in the first place).

By creating your own path instead of following the 'well trod,' you risk not actually getting to do what you want, which is supposed to be what smart/motivated people do right?