Re-evaluating my status as an applicant

[rodman7383]

WARNING: this will probably be unnecessarily long

I'm an undergraduate with ambitious goals of getting into an MSTP in CA and I have one more year left before my planned application.
And I would like some opinions as to what I should do- is more schooling in order? am I even eligible? will I survive the dreaded screening?

So it has been two years since the absolute bottom of my academic career took place and since then I've done a number of things to correct my transgressions.

To make a long story short, I took a long detour from being undeclared to switching to bioengineering major to being a premed and finally deciding that I want to become an MD/PhD.
And along the way, I have unfortunately accumulated some horrible grades in GE and math classes.
After two years worth of classes, I had a GPA of 3.1, bad grades mostly coming from math and non-science classes.

Then I took a year off from school, did 6 months of some hands-on volunteering, including some surgery scrub-in's, got a second- and a third-author publication, both pending, in public health studies, and got some basic science research done in a stem cell core facility for a summer.

Next I returned to school, got started in some real, serious research under an MD/PhD PI (planned publication during this summer), gave a few talks at undergraduate research presentations, achieved 4.0 GPA, along with 5 A+'s in cell biology, physiology "2", calculus "3", vector calculus and last class of lower level calc based physics series, TA'd in ochem, and so on.
Note that my school uses quarter system so that's not as great as 5 A+'s from semester system.
Also note that among those A+'s, two were from retaking math classes I did horribly in, which was all part of my plan to prove to both adcom's and myself that I was capable of doing well in math- it was just that I was a misguided soul back then.

Despite all of this somewhat of a turnaround and my optimistic projection of two more summer sessions and two more quarters during next year with no A-'s (4.0 GPA), because of my terrible grades from the past, my overall GPA (somehow) will still be a bottom-dwelling 3.45- probably laughable by MD school standards and certainly by MSTP standards, I'm sure.

My only saving graces will be (some of them not realized yet) the following:
1. Strong rec letters from my PI, supervisor from my other two publications, another MD/PhD I will TA for next year, math professor who gave me two A+'s "explaining" that my past sins were merely from immaturity rather than lack of talent
2. Three publications, one of which will be a basic science, "real" research type (the other two are related to public health studies)
3. Two years of 4.0
4. Cell bio major GPA of 3.79 (again, showing that most of my terrible grades are indeed from math and GE... perhaps that's not such a good thing either)
4. Hopefully at least a 37 on the MCAT.

And now the questions:

1. Having read all of this (and I thank you if you really have read it), do you think I have any shot at an MSTP acceptance, preferably in one of the UC's and more realistically anywhere?
Will I be screened in most places or will adcoms genuinely take a look at my application despite my low overall GPA?
2. Am I just better served applying to PhD programs? (my goal is obviously MD/PhD but obviously if it's the 1 acceptance to some MSTP in a random state vs. acceptances to multiple, more favorable PhD programs... then things change)
3. Should I just go to school for yet another year (I just turned 24 so I'm not quite sure this is a good idea) to boost my GPA further?
4. Do you think it's a good idea to take all classes pass/no pass in spring quarter so I can use the whole quarter (10 weeks + 2 weeks after qtr ends) to study for the MCAT? Obviously I will really need the time to concentrate on just the MCAT to achieve a high score like 37+.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rodman7383]

Oh and alternatively, if I don't get a 37+, and instead get something like a 34, should I just give up completely on the whole MD PhD thing?
I realize that 34 is a perfectly suitable score but with an overall of 3.45, I'm thinking that it will not be anywhere close to being enough to get me into an MSTP... hopefully I'm wrong about that.

Also I go to UCSD... so my GPA isn't from Harvard, but it also isn't from a community college either, if that is even a valid concern.

 

[rodman7383]

Please feel free to be realistic and shut the door on my hopes if that's what the reality entails.
I tend to be pessimistic with all things except when it comes to my own ability and sometimes can't see things clearly as a result.

 

[Maebea]

A 38 is really not that much different from a 34 (99th percentile versus 94th percentile). You do have a chance if your research is very strong. If you feel that your research is not strong enough, then you could spend another year doing research. (More class work would probably not be helpful.) As with all MD-PhD applications, the letters of recommendation will be key. You should make sure the recommender does not use the word immature; that is like kryptonite to admissions committees. S/he can say that your were a late bloomer finding your true passion or learning how to focus your natural abilities, etc.

You will, however, need to consider schools outside of California. There are no guarantees in MD-PhD admissions, so the old advice of applying broadly applies to everyone, even those 42Sm 4.0 Ivy Leaguers. Last year, UC schools' entering class numbers were (the numbers in parentheses are those who went to CA institutions for undergrad):

Davis, 5 (4)
Irvine, 9 (8)
Los Angeles, 12 (9)
San Diego, 8 (5)
San Francisco 12 (8)

A total of 84 individuals who did undergrad in CA entered MD-PhD programs last year; 34 of them were able to stay in CA. More to your point, 11 UCSD undergrads joined MD-PHD programs last year; here is how they distributed:

UCSF, 1
UCLA, 1
UCSD, 1
UCDavis, 2
U Illinois, 2
U Colorado, 1
U Arkansas, 1
Pitt, 1
Penn, 1

The CA placement for UCSD was comparable to that of Berkeley, where 8 of 17 went to CA MD-PhD programs. (UCLA undergrad had 2 of 6 stay in CA.)

Good luck with your application

 

[SpeakLittleB]

i think with the amount that you've done the past year, adcoms would be able to see your abilities esp since for mstp the most important thing is research. the hard thing about california is that many of them have separate admissions to the medical school which you would need to get into as well. your mcat does need to be high, but i agree with maebea that the deciding factor is not 34 vs 37.

impressive research experiences would offset low gpa more than anything else.. i feel like 2 years of research at time of application may be on the low side.. unless the letters from your PI and other science profs are absolutely stellar, but that is up to your discretion. perhaps some others on this forum will chime in on their experiences with this amount of research.

otherwise though, ability and passion is worth more than anything else. it shows in what you've posted, and it should mean adcoms will see it too. good luck!

 

[QofQuimica]

When do you plan to take the MCAT? I don't like this business of people banking on scores before they've even taken the test; you don't know what you'll score before you take it. For many people, consistently scoring in a certain range on practice tests will give you an idea of what score you can expect, but even then, a substantial minority of people regularly scores higher or lower than their practice test average. So that would be my first suggestion: study your butt off for the MCAT (including taking several practice tests under timed conditions) and try to get an excellent score (somewhere in the 30s). Just keep in mind that SDN is NOT a representative sample of test-takers. The vast majority of people will NOT manage to score a 37+ on the MCAT; it's a curved test, and the AAMC won't allow more than a small percentage of people to earn those scores. You may be one of the lucky few who does, and I hope you are, but again, don't count on this being a given.

Second, if you want to be an MD/PhD, applying to graduate school is the wrong way to go about getting a backdoor MD/PhD. If you take the MCAT and find that you are not able to gain admission to an MD/PhD program, then you should apply to MD programs. It is MUCH easier to add on a PhD as an MD student than it is to go the other way around. Unless you've decided not to pursue the MD at all, do NOT apply PhD-only.

Third, I agree that you will need to apply much more broadly than you're currently thinking of doing. There are a lot of good programs and schools out there, and there *is* life outside of CA. My recommendation is that you consider looking at some of the MD/PhD programs in the South and the Midwest. There are programs in these areas that are just as good as anything they have on either coast, but that often don't get anywhere near as many apps, which I assume is because of location. I'm not saying that you ought to go somewhere that you absolutely detest, but the fact is that we can't ALL go to school in San Franscisco, Boston, and NYC.

Best of luck to you.

 

[rodman7383]

I guess there may be hope for me from what you guys are saying.
I've also talked to the MSTP adviser at UCSD today and she seemed overly optimistic about my chances.
So it seems that I shouldn't give up just yet.

Really CA schools would be preferable but I think I can be happy anywhere as long as I can work under a PI doing great exciting research and hopefully at a location with some racial diversity (i.e. no Alabama or somewhere in bible belt I hope?)

As far as the MCAT, I do realize that 37 is extremely ambitious and I might fall well short of my goal, but as I realized these past two quarters, going for A+'s in every class may not result in all A+'s (great it does) but it sure as hell will result in no A-'s.
So as always I will be on the ambitious side and "bank" on a 38 and perhaps live with the not-so-devastating disappointment of "only" getting a 34 or whatever.
I want to be cautious not to come off sounding arrogant when I say this, but it's just a way of motivating myself and setting myself up for the best possible results I can achieve.

With that said, I plan to take the MCAT next spring with ample amount of time (two pass/no pass classes in spring quarter + a few more weeks in summer to study perhaps) and I have studied for the MCAT before so I do realize what kind of work it entails.
Last summer when I studied for it (with Kaplan) I was getting 35s on the last batch of practice tests but really I have now taken the necessary classes (finishing physics, general chem, TA'ing for ochem, physiology courses, cell bio, genetics, etc) to feel like I can do much better on them... so hopefully I can pull 37+ on practices which may or may not mean 37 on the actual MCAT, but hopefully at least a 34.

One thing I'm confident in is that I know I can show my love and passion for science.
Hopefully I can work on developing a deeper passion for clinical work as well, although I am not sure how I can go about doing that.

Thanks for the great insight, though really.

The points about my research experience not being long enough, the difficulty I may have in applying to MSTP as a PhD and so on... these are all things I was not very aware of.

Thanks and good luck to all you guys.

 

[QofQuimica]

Really CA schools would be preferable but I think I can be happy anywhere as long as I can work under a PI doing great exciting research and hopefully at a location with some racial diversity (i.e. no Alabama or somewhere in bible belt I hope?)

Oh, boy, as a U of AL alum who has lived most of my life in the South (home state is FL), I have to object to this. UAB has an excellent medical school with an MSTP, and Birmingham is a very nice city with a strong secular humanist community and a UU church. There's a UAB MSTP student who posts here; hopefully he can tell you more about his program and life in B'ham if you're interested. All I can say is, don't be too quick to rule them out based on your own biases and without even learning about what they have to offer. There is no state in this union that has perfectly clean hands when it comes to how they treated their minority citizens and immigrants. Including CA.

 

[rodman7383]

Oh, boy, as a U of AL alum who has lived most of my life in the South (home state is FL), I have to object to this. UAB has an excellent medical school with an MSTP, and Birmingham is a very nice city with a strong secular humanist community and a UU church. There's a UAB MSTP student who posts here; hopefully he can tell you more about his program and life in B'ham if you're interested. All I can say is, don't be too quick to rule them out based on your own biases and without even learning about what they have to offer. There is no state in this union that has perfectly clean hands when it comes to how they treated their minority citizens and immigrants. Including CA.

Oh wow. What are the odds?
I've actually only been outside of west coast area, meaning California, Nevada, Colorado, Washington and Arizona, once when I went to Boston.
So I guess I should just apply diversely and if I get an interview, check out the town, rather than form preconceived notions about any school.
I'm sure I don't want to go to Utah though, if there is an MSTP there.

 

[mtlove]

I'm sure I don't want to go to Utah though, if there is an MSTP there.

Utah has an MD/PhD program not an MSTP. I lived in Utah for four years, and I am not LDS. Salt Lake City is approximately 50% mormon. The church definately negatively impacts diversity in the state to some extent, but you definately can find a more liberal/diverse group of people to associate with. If you love the outdoors it is great. They have some of the best skiing in the world 30 minutes away.

The University of Utah is an excellent school that excels in some areas of research such as genetics and development. There are tons of big named people at the school. The labs tend to be very collaborative and the people are very nice. Their PhD graduates tend to find excellent faculty and post doc positions. I run into them regularly at NIH at least. The med school is not as great

I would definately not throw them out as others have said, especially if you are interested in some of their research strengths and you like the outdoors. I have met numerous non-mormans that really love the place.

mtlove

P.S. I am really hoping to avoid moving back to Utah

 

[rodman7383]

Utah has an MD/PhD program not an MSTP. I lived in Utah for four years, and I am not LDS. Salt Lake City is approximately 50% mormon. The church definately negatively impacts diversity in the state to some extent, but you definately can find a more liberal/diverse group of people to associate with. If you love the outdoors it is great. They have some of the best skiing in the world 30 minutes away.

The University of Utah is an excellent school that excels in some areas of research such as genetics and development. There are tons of big named people at the school. The labs tend to be very collaborative and the people are very nice. Their PhD graduates tend to find excellent faculty and post doc positions. I run into them regularly at NIH at least. The med school is not as great

I would definately not throw them out as others have said, especially if you are interested in some of their research strengths and you like the outdoors. I have met numerous non-mormans that really love the place.

mtlove

P.S. I am really hoping to avoid moving back to Utah

Interesting.
It seems like there are a lot more MSTPs than I thought. how many are there nationally?

 

[Neuronix]

Interesting.
It seems like there are a lot more MSTPs than I thought. how many are there nationally?

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/Mechanisms/NRSA/InstPredoc/PredocInst-MSTP.htm

Personally I only want to live in a big, walkable, city for the next part of training. If you say that nobody can argue with you, even though it rules out 99% of the USA (and most of its states)

 

[QofQuimica]

Oh wow. What are the odds?
I've actually only been outside of west coast area, meaning California, Nevada, Colorado, Washington and Arizona, once when I went to Boston.
So I guess I should just apply diversely and if I get an interview, check out the town, rather than form preconceived notions about any school.
I'm sure I don't want to go to Utah though, if there is an MSTP there.

You're new; you'll get to know all of the regulars soon. And all joking aside, I do understand how you feel. When I was a kid in FL, we'd make fun of AL; I never thought I'd be living there myself. When I got to AL (I lived there for four years), they made fun of MS. I think it's just one of those one-upmanship things. But seriously, UAB is incredible. You're not talking about some second-rate boondock institution here. I visited the campus again a couple of years ago when I was interviewing, and I barely recognized the place. They've made all kinds of additions to the hospital, opened up new research buildings. Even the new gym they built right across the street from the med school has a freaking RIVER in it. I kid you not.

I've never lived out west, though I've visited a few times, and I'm planning another trip to CA soon. But I've lived in five different states now, and they all have their problems. I can tell you that Southerners do not have any monopoly on bigotry, ignorance, or close-mindedness; unfortunately, you find those people everywhere you go. But if you're wanting to be with more liberal-minded folks, you'll find more of them in the college towns and the cities, which fortuitously tend to be the places where medical schools are located. So, yeah, I think the way to go is to apply broadly and be open-minded. It's tough to know what choice to make when you've not seen all the options out there. Best of luck to you.

 

[SeventhSon]

You will, however, need to consider schools outside of California. There are no guarantees in MD-PhD admissions, so the old advice of applying broadly applies to everyone, even those 42Sm 4.0 Ivy Leaguers. Last year, UC schools' entering class numbers were (the numbers in parentheses are those who went to CA institutions for undergrad):

Davis, 5 (4)
Irvine, 9 (8)
Los Angeles, 12 (9)
San Diego, 8 (5)
San Francisco 12 (8)

A total of 84 individuals who did undergrad in CA entered MD-PhD programs last year; 34 of them were able to stay in CA. More to your point, 11 UCSD undergrads joined MD-PHD programs last year; here is how they distributed:

UCSF, 1
UCLA, 1
UCSD, 1
UCDavis, 2
U Illinois, 2
U Colorado, 1
U Arkansas, 1
Pitt, 1
Penn, 1

I've never seen myself in a statistic, cool

 

[rodman7383]

A 38 is really not that much different from a 34 (99th percentile versus 94th percentile). You do have a chance if your research is very strong. If you feel that your research is not strong enough, then you could spend another year doing research. (More class work would probably not be helpful.) As with all MD-PhD applications, the letters of recommendation will be key. You should make sure the recommender does not use the word immature; that is like kryptonite to admissions committees. S/he can say that your were a late bloomer finding your true passion or learning how to focus your natural abilities, etc.

You will, however, need to consider schools outside of California. There are no guarantees in MD-PhD admissions, so the old advice of applying broadly applies to everyone, even those 42Sm 4.0 Ivy Leaguers. Last year, UC schools' entering class numbers were (the numbers in parentheses are those who went to CA institutions for undergrad):

Davis, 5 (4)
Irvine, 9 (8)
Los Angeles, 12 (9)
San Diego, 8 (5)
San Francisco 12 (8)

A total of 84 individuals who did undergrad in CA entered MD-PhD programs last year; 34 of them were able to stay in CA. More to your point, 11 UCSD undergrads joined MD-PHD programs last year; here is how they distributed:

UCSF, 1
UCLA, 1
UCSD, 1
UCDavis, 2
U Illinois, 2
U Colorado, 1
U Arkansas, 1
Pitt, 1
Penn, 1

The CA placement for UCSD was comparable to that of Berkeley, where 8 of 17 went to CA MD-PhD programs. (UCLA undergrad had 2 of 6 stay in CA.)

Good luck with your application

By the way, may I ask you where you found these numbers?
Do you have similar stats for all MD/PhD programs?

Also why is it so bad if someone says that I used to be an immature student but since then, have aged well, so to speak?

 

[JustAdocInBox]

.. i feel like 2 years of research at time of application may be on the low side..

Really? Does this mean that most MSTP applicants start research in their freshman year or take a year off after undergrad to conduct research? I started research the summer after my freshman year and applying the summer after my junior year and I thought my research experience was sufficient.

 

[SpeakLittleB]

i am not too sure. i hope someone else can give some more supported evidence of a reasonable "amount" of research before applying. and what a low vs high side is. i'm sure there is no quota, but with the OP's concerns, a really solid research background would be helpful.

i think it all depends on how those 2 years went. if you feel that it is sufficient, then it most probably is! i did a continuous 2 years of research in one laboratory, and felt like i got very involved in my project, but reflecting back on it, i think if that were my only experience, i would not have been able to understand the scientific process and what research entails as well as i do without my other experiences in different labs and fields. at any rate, i am pretty sure with only that experience, i would have been happy in the application process, but likely less successful than i have been.

i would say about 50% of applicants i met on interviews have taken a year or more off to conduct research. i'm not sure about when people started research if they didn't take time off, but i would say that a good number start as freshmen.

um, i hope i am not deterring anyone from applying. there are many md/phd or mstp spots around, all very qualified and very good, but obviously the stronger the application the better an applicant will fare in the process. there is no minimum or necessary amount and everything is considered along with the rest of your application.

 

[j-weezy]

Really? Does this mean that most MSTP applicants start research in their freshman year or take a year off after undergrad to conduct research? I started research the summer after my freshman year and applying the summer after my junior year and I thought my research experience was sufficient.

I think it is - especially if it's with consecutive summers as well. Besides, by matriculation - assuming you stay in the lab until then - you'll have 3 years. But as SpeakLittleB says, it does depend on the caliber of your lab experience. 3 years making stock solutions and running gels is not as worthwhile as 1 year of your own self-directed project.

 

[rodman7383]

I think it is - especially if it's with consecutive summers as well. Besides, by matriculation - assuming you stay in the lab until then - you'll have 3 years. But as SpeakLittleB says, it does depend on the caliber of your lab experience. 3 years making stock solutions and running gels is not as worthwhile as 1 year of your own self-directed project.

How about this- do you think this suffices?

This is my (I'm the OP by the way) research experience

1. Public health studies- participated in the making of educational tool, analysis data entering, analysis of data and writing of a publication on efficacy of video in ASL for cancer education of the Deaf. Second authorship. Adviser is a director of public outreach program at the Moores cancer center at UCSD and has the title of professor of surgery at UCSD SOM (not an MD and doesn't have teaching duties). Journals are not very high profile.

2. Public health study 2- participated in literature search, outlining, writing and editing for a paper on assessing the efficacy of snowball sampling technique for sampling hard-to-reach populations (such as prostitutes, drug users, HIV patients, the Deaf and so on). Same adviser as above. Third authorship. Journals are not very high profile.

3. 6 months of somewhat of dirty work (which included dishwashing and so on but not limited to) at organic chemistry lab. Worked on synthetic chemistry of gunidinylated surfen. Did a lot of search on literature for various ways to get the desired molecule, set up a bunch of reactions, ran them, purified them and so on... it was essentially "my" project in that the grad student was doing his thing as the molecule I was trying to synthesize was not going to make or break his PhD thesis. However the bad thing is that I didn't get the molecule desired (that damn nitrogen on para position of a ring was too unreactive), and I wasn't exactly very productive. This research took place while I was taking the year off, still searching for my goals in life, and so on. After this, I was sure that I wanted to do biological research, not organic chemistry.

4. 3 months (summer) at the UCSD stem cell core facility. Basically my first experience in biological lab work. Learned how tissue culture techniques work. I worked on human embryonic stem cells, first learning how to do things, then expanding my stock, and then eventually went on to do some cool experiments on embryonic body (EB) culture with neuronal growth factors, as well as cell culture with WNT3A. I experimented with various culture conditions, the standard growth on top of feeder cells- mouse embryonic fibroblasts, culture in suspension in non-adherent plastic for EBs, cell culture on collagen, etc. With the WNT3A culture, I basically forgot to have a control (yes, very dumb) so it didn't elucidate anything except when I stained the culture for endothelial proteins, there seemed to be evidence of endothelial structure with linkings between cells projections and so on. I thought I was pretty productive for it being just 3 months and this is where I developed my true interests in research and started wondering if MSTP should be my goal. The caveat is that although I had what I'd describe not so elegantly as "cool" experience, it wasn't exactly great science... just seeing what this does, and that does and so on... no real quantifiable data came out of my experiments.

5. What will end up being somewhere around 1.5 ~ 2.0 years of research by the time I interview under an MD/PhD PI who went to MSTP at UCSD. I'm working on cancer immunology. Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, I don't do much of dirty work in terms of solution prep, optimizing protocols and so on. However I do mostly experiments after I consult with PI on what experiment I should do next. There is also a lot of freedom as I sometimes conduct experiments based on interesting phenomena I observe. A lot of time commitment... a lot of night time work as well during the quarter AND no vacationing either as I really love being in the lab. Without going into too much detail so as not to reveal the lab's publication material (haha), my work involves tissue culture experiments, along with FACS, real time qPCR, transfection, (in the future) ELISA for secreted proteins, analyzing primary sequences, analyzing obviously data gathered from all of the above and so on. We are planning to publish during the summer and hopefully more to come. I will most likely be a third author on the summer publication. I also have given several presentations during lab meetings and the work at this lab has excited me about research so much that I've made up my mind that MSTP is what I should try for, no matter how bleak the chances. I also love the fact that PI is a young MD/PhD just establishing his own lab, which means he has fewer workers, more projects I can take on, and I'm working under him only, not under a postdoc or grad student. I will be working here until I apply and then I will most likely be employed as a lab technician during that 1 year bubble until I go off to MSTP. I have confidence in my work in this lab. I know that I'm doing real science, real experiments that are reproducible and publishable. In fact, I'm going to go in the lab right now at 1am (was supposed to go in sooner but fell asleep).

So... what do you guys think?
Will this be enough?
I guess more ideally, I could apply at the end of 1 yr as a full-time lab technician/researcher, but obviously that'd mean 2 yrs as a lab technician and I'm not sure if I'd like that, given my age and everything... (how old will I be by the time I finish my postdoc? 45???)

 

[rodman7383]

By the way, this is somewhat random but if my goal in life is to be a successful researcher, possibly even a member of the NIH, national academy of sciences and a Nobel laureate (one can dream), would MD/PhD be a waste of time vs. a PhD?

 

[j-weezy]

By the way, this is somewhat random but if my goal in life is to be a successful researcher, possibly even a member of the NIH, national academy of sciences and a Nobel laureate (one can dream), would MD/PhD be a waste of time vs. a PhD?

Do you want to treat patients etc? If yes, then the MD will NOT be a waste of time.

I think you have plenty of really interesting experiences/projects - albeit slightly scattered. As long as you can intelligently speak on each of those experiences - and communicate a sincere reason/desire to pursue an MD/PhD, you should be fine. By the time you apply it also looks like you'll have at least a year in one lab allowing you to better understand the background etc. with your project and more interaction with your PI.

Is there anyway you could start studying for the MCAT now and take it this summer (or through to September)? I think what helped me the most in studying for the MCAT was not having any classes whatsoever - just the MCAT material and lab. In my mind, P/F classes is still more work/stress/distractions than no classes.

 

[rodman7383]

Do you want to treat patients etc? If yes, then the MD will NOT be a waste of time.

I think you have plenty of really interesting experiences/projects - albeit slightly scattered. As long as you can intelligently speak on each of those experiences - and communicate a sincere reason/desire to pursue an MD/PhD, you should be fine. By the time you apply it also looks like you'll have at least a year in one lab allowing you to better understand the background etc. with your project and more interaction with your PI.

Is there anyway you could start studying for the MCAT now and take it this summer (or through to September)? I think what helped me the most in studying for the MCAT was not having any classes whatsoever - just the MCAT material and lab. In my mind, P/F classes is still more work/stress/distractions than no classes.

Taking no classes isn't an option because I need the financial aid and in order to receive financial aid, I need to be enrolled.

But the conversation I had today with my friend is really making me wonder if I need the MD component... I really don't want to switch my goals AGAIN though.

One thing that sort of bothers me is how old I will be by the time I will have my own lab (if I even get to that stage).
-2 years until I start medical school if all goes well.
-2 first years + 4 years for PhD + 2 years for second part
-4 years of residency/internship
-2 years of postdoctoral fellowship

So if everything goes well, it will take 16 years until I can become an assistant professor, which means I will be 40 years old!!!

I guess alternatively, if I just go for a PhD, it will take 2 years until I start, 5 years for PhD, 2 years for postdoctoral fellowship and then hopefully tenure, so that makes me a 32 year old assistant professor ideally.

I mean yes I want the MD education, the ability to pose the right relevant question that pertains more closely to human condition, translation and the ability to see patients and help real people with real problems.
This is why I love the idea of being an MD/PhD.
But I also want to be a successful researcher...

If I go for just a PhD, I guess I will have 8 years to build up my career that I would otherwise spend as part of the MD training.
And then there's the fact that because MSTP's are much more competitive than PhD programs, I imagine I might be able to get into a slightly bigger "name" school than I would for MSTP.

What do you guys think about this?

And this is totally a stupid and trivial issue but the last thing I want to have happen to me is be a bald guy before I become a professor.
Currently there is no reason to believe that I will be going bald with the exception that a) my dad's side grandfather was bald and b) my mother's sister's son is bald.
I just think about myself being a bald postdoc and I just gasp at the sheer horror... boy I really need some sleep.

 

[rodman7383]

I definitely do want to see patients but it is not as important to me as becoming a successful researcher.

Ideally I would like to do it, but not if it means I have to sacrifice my potential success as a researcher.

Does this mean that I shouldn't be looking at an MD/PhD program?

Or does the MD training, knowledge and the acronyms make up for the 8 years of lost time in research, publications and so on?

What about the economics of it?
Does MD/PhD vs. PhD salary differ in any meaningful ways?

another random point...
I think I have many good reasons why I want to be an MD/PhD. I just love the idea. Ability to do both research and treat patients. It's just great.
But I have to admit that some stupid reasons I have personally for wanting to go to MD/PhD programs are the following: (Please don't give me the flaming I probably deserve)
1. I don't want to be asked "are you a real doctor?" sort of stupid questions from persons outside of academia... also I want to be able to say I'm Dr. so and so instead of professor so and so. (of course, you COULD say that you're Dr. so and so with a PhD, but that just seems silly to me for some odd reason)
2. I don't want to take the GRE. I know some people who got perfect scores on GRE. I also tutor SAT so that's too much pressure to perform.
3. Most graduate students I've met at UCSD do not impress me like the MD/PhD students and professors.
4. I want to have the option of just going for the money if I suddenly decide during my MD years that yes, money is what I really want in life --> go for derm or surgery residency instead of going for research
5. All my premed friends will think I "gave up" like the pre-dentals and pre-pharms who decided to pursue those routes after limited success in classes. (not saying that all pre-dentals and pre-pharms are that way, just conveying the popular perception among premeds)

 

[mtlove]

One thing that sort of bothers me is how old I will be by the time I will have my own lab (if I even get to that stage).
-2 years until I start medical school if all goes well.
-2 first years + 4 years for PhD + 2 years for second part
-4 years of residency/internship
-2 years of postdoctoral fellowship

So if everything goes well, it will take 16 years until I can become an assistant professor, which means I will be 40 years old!!!

I guess alternatively, if I just go for a PhD, it will take 2 years until I start, 5 years for PhD, 2 years for postdoctoral fellowship and then hopefully tenure, so that makes me a 32 year old assistant professor ideally.

I mean yes I want the MD education, the ability to pose the right relevant question that pertains more closely to human condition, translation and the ability to see patients and help real people with real problems.
This is why I love the idea of being an MD/PhD.
But I also want to be a successful researcher...

Your data is a little wrong for a PhD's education. I have heard that most people do not get their first faculty position until they are at least 37, and that seems to fit with the people I know. The average time to get a PhD is 6-7 years. There are a fair number of schools that will get you out in 5-6 years, but I would not count on anything less than 6. Most people do 2 post docs averaging 3-5 years a piece. An NIH post doc is typically 5 years for example.

I was planning to apply MD/PhD this year, and I have recently decided to apply PhD only for the very reasons you are suggesting. My primary goal in life is to be a successful basic scientist. If you get the MD, you will spend two years in medical school in a clinic. In my case I would spend 3-5 more years away from the lab doing a residency and 1-2 doing the clinical portion of a fellowship.

It is common knowledge that many if not most successful scientists complete their major accomplishments when they were young. Some people have received a Nobel Prize for their work during a post doc. An MD/PhD just seems to be too much of a waste of one's potentially most creative and successful years. While you are in the clinics for years, your peers are doing research and making very big discoveries. As a board certified physician, people will pressure you to spend more time in the clinic and less in the lab.

I am not suggesting that you give up your idea of being a physician scientist. It is definately possible to be a successful researcher and a physician scientist, and the experience will give you a different approach to your research. However, you do need to decide how much of your science career you are willing to potentially give up for physician training. I think I would personally enjoy being in the clinic, but I decided the degree is not worth the potential loss of some of my most creative and successful years as a scientists.

 

[rodman7383]

Your data is a little wrong for a PhD's education. I have heard that most people do not get their first faculty position until they are at least 37, and that seems to fit with the people I know. The average time to get a PhD is 6-7 years. There are a fair number of schools that will get you out in 5-6 years, but I would not count on anything less than 6. Most people do 2 post docs averaging 3-5 years a piece. An NIH post doc is typically 5 years for example.

I was planning to apply MD/PhD this year, and I have recently decided to apply PhD only for the very reasons you are suggesting. My primary goal in life is to be a successful basic scientist. If you get the MD, you will spend two years in medical school in a clinic. In my case I would spend 3-5 more years away from the lab doing a residency and 1-2 doing the clinical portion of a fellowship.

It is common knowledge that many if not most successful scientists complete their major accomplishments when they were young. Some people have received a Nobel Prize for their work during a post doc. An MD/PhD just seems to be too much of a waste of one's potentially most creative and successful years. While you are in the clinics for years, your peers are doing research and making very big discoveries. As a board certified physician, people will pressure you to spend more time in the clinic and less in the lab.

I am not suggesting that you give up your idea of being a physician scientist. It is definately possible to be a successful researcher and a physician scientist, and the experience will give you a different approach to your research. However, you do need to decide how much of your science career you are willing to potentially give up for physician training. I think I would personally enjoy being in the clinic, but I decided the degree is not worth the potential loss of some of my most creative and successful years as a scientists.

Interesting point about the researcher's "prime," if you will.

 

[QofQuimica]

OP, you say you don't want to change your goals again, but it sounds to me like you don't even know what your goals really are. I read your posts and come away with the impression that this kid has no earthly idea what the h*** he wants to do, and he comes across sounding completely self-absorbed to boot. That's not going to serve you well no matter WHAT field you go into. Here are my thoughts:

1) PhD-only: Pros are that if you're sure you want to do bench research, this is a really good path to get there, and it's faster than doing both degrees. The major con is that you won't be getting an MD, so your career choices are more limited if you decide later that you don't want to do bench research any more. Your concerns about taking the GRE are pretty silly; compared to the MCAT, it's a total cakewalk. You don't need a perfect score on it to get into a top grad school. Just get a respectable score and apply to the top programs in your field. Getting into grad school is a relative cinch.

2) MD/PhD: Pros are that you have a TON of flexibility if you have both degrees. Major con is the amount of time it will take you. This is the long haul, dude. Don't go there if you're not 100% committed to it. And geez, don't make the amount of hair on your head the determinant--if you start going bald, just shave the rest off and get on with it. No one cares what scientists look like. You'll be fine as long as you don't have a side gig as a Fabio imitator.

3) MD-only: Pros are that it's relatively fast and you still have nearly as much career flexibility as you'd have with an MD/PhD. Major con is that you will probably have to pay for your education. I actually think that this is the best choice for a guy like you with no clue about what he wants to be when he grows up. It's going to be a lot harder to get into med school than it is to get into grad school though, and you're going to have to make some effort to get the point across that you actually care about other people besides yourself. Rationalizing like this about your potential desires for prestige and money and being a "real" doctor (major at you here) won't impress med school adcoms.

In general, the best advice I can give to you is to stop worrying about what "people you know" are doing, and focus on your own life here. I mean, look at how much time you spend looking at what everyone else is doing instead of watching where YOU are going. You think those other people with the bald heads and the perfect GRE scores are spending all this time thinking about YOU? If you're really wanting to get anywhere in life, you need to start setting some goals and going after them instead of wasting your time and energy pondering about what other folks are doing. Oh, and I think a visit to your school career counselor might be a useful thing for you to do too; it's a lot easier to figure out how to reach a goal if you know what goal you're actually trying to reach. to you.

 

[rodman7383]

Those are some barbed words despite the disguise by use of smileys.
Is it the reference to Alabama that started it?
Surely I thought you knew that I was merely giving an example (I didn't even know that there was an MSTP in Alabama. If I had known, I wouldn't have made the reference... Same for Utah).

And yes, you're correct in your assessment that I have no idea which I want to do- PhD or MD/PhD...
Until very recently, I had only been thinking about MSTP, despite several people I know asking why I was pursuing the MD component if my primary interest is in research.
However, secondary it may as well be, but my interest in clinical work does exist and ideally I'd like to do both.
So it'd be great if I could do MD/PhD, but the # of years and the insecurity of acceptance at a desirable (meaning geographical familiarity) school are clearly the two major deterrents.
That confusion is part of the reason I am here in this forum, actively trying to gather as much information from the wise posters as I can.

And I didn't at all intend to sound self-absorbed, if by self-absorbed, you mean pretentious.
If anything, anything pretentious I may say can be discredited by my humble GPA, which I'm sure is a lot lower than everyone else's here.

About the "real" doctor thing, money and prestige, as I said, they are really trivial motivations that I'm sure many pre-whatevers do take into some consideration whether consciously or subconsciously.
Obviously most people who love science, I would presume, love it for the discoveries, gaining new knowledge, improving human condition and so on. But some of them lacking in the kind of nobility which some posters at SDN may possess, probably also care a little bit about the awards, the prestige, being able to afford certain material goods and such.
If you cannot understand where I'm coming from with those, I guess I'm just not as noble as you are.

I'm not sure about your tirade on how I should stop worrying about what people "I know" are doing though.
If by people "I know," you mean professors with PhD's and MD/PhD's I see on campus, I intend to worry plenty more about what they are doing as they provide role models and examples of the two career paths I am considering.
If you mean other pre-MSTPs, I don't even know a single person who is seriously considering MSTP so I'm even more confused about what your point is.
But really, I would be most hopelessly confused if you meant SDN MSTP bound or MSTP matriculating posters. In that case, I'm not even sure whether that rant was even necessary. I had thought, perhaps wrongly, that the point of these forums was to encourage discussion among those with similar goals, so that we may find out what others are doing, seek help and advice for making decisions and so on.

I hope you don't take offense to what I have written.
I truly value your opinion and hope to learn more from you and others with similar experiences.
However I do hope that if there is something about my post that you find disturbing, you take a somewhat kinder approach, rather than sarcastic remarks and unnecessary rants.

 

[QofQuimica]

Those are some barbed words despite the disguise by use of smileys.
Is it the reference to Alabama that started it?
Surely I thought you knew that I was merely giving an example (I didn't even know that there was an MSTP in Alabama. If I had known, I wouldn't have made the reference... Same for Utah).

No. I've forgiven you for the AL transgression. (This is a joke. ) Joking aside, it isn't always easy to interpret other people's messages on boards like this when you have no body language or tone to go on. So if I came across sounding harsh to the point of being cruel, I apologize. That wasn't my intent, though yes, I suppose I did want to shake you up a little. That being said, I do think though that you've taken my post as being far meaner than it was meant to be.

And I didn't at all intend to sound self-absorbed, if by self-absorbed, you mean pretentious.
If anything, anything pretentious I may say can be discredited by my humble GPA, which I'm sure is a lot lower than everyone else's here.

No, I don't think you sound pretentious. If you were bragging about how easy it would be for you to get into such and such a program, then maybe I'd say you sounded pretentious. As I said, I think you sound self-absorbed, which means that you mainly think about yourself. I don't know you, so I have no idea if you really ARE self-absorbed. I'm just telling you my impression from reading your posts, which I readily admit could be completely wrong.

About the "real" doctor thing, money and prestige, as I said, they are really trivial motivations that I'm sure many pre-whatevers do take into some consideration whether consciously or subconsciously.
If you cannot understand where I'm coming from with those, I guess I'm just not as noble as you are.

I'm trying to tell you that if you ever want to get into medical school, start considering those things more subconsciously, and less consciously. I've gone through this process, and there are just certain things you would be wise not say to people, even if they're true to some extent. I'm not trying to make my claim to the sainthood, or suggest that doing so be your goal either. But if you do apply to straight-MD programs, they'll be looking for some streak of altruism in you.

I'm not sure about your tirade on how I should stop worrying about what people "I know" are doing though.

I'm talking about your bald cousin and the people who got perfect GRE scores, which you said puts too much pressure on you to take the GRE. Hence why I asked if you thought those people were spending this much time thinking about you.

I hope you don't take offense to what I have written.

I don't. In my own not-so-touchy-feely way, I am actually trying to help you. Sometimes that means not blowing sunshine up your derriere.

I truly value your opinion and hope to learn more from you and others with similar experiences.
However I do hope that if there is something about my post that you find disturbing, you take a somewhat kinder approach, rather than sarcastic remarks and unnecessary rants.

Again, my intent was not to hurt your feelings or go on rants. I do want to try to make you think, and to give you my perspective. That's all. I don't bear any ill feelings toward you whatsoever, and I hope you are successful at whatever you do wind up deciding to do. Please consider this as my extending the olive branch to you.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Really CA schools would be preferable but I think I can be happy anywhere as long as I can work under a PI doing great exciting research and hopefully at a location with some racial diversity (i.e. no Alabama or somewhere in bible belt I hope?)

My babe Q's been shepherding you through this thread, but I'm a bit disturbed by your comment that South lacks racial diversity. It's like you're excluding African Americans entirely. Okay, so Alabama's not California, where the UC system is inundated with Asians - but you might want to take a serious look at what racial "diversity" actually means.

 

[rodman7383]

My babe Q's been shepherding you through this thread, but I'm a bit disturbed by your comment that South lacks racial diversity. It's like you're excluding African Americans entirely. Okay, so Alabama's not California, where the UC system is inundated with Asians - but you might want to take a serious look at what racial "diversity" actually means.

Thanks for the nomadic analogy, but I think there is a difference between education and making a sheep out of someone.

Having been a Californian for most of my life (since immigration), I did not know that African Americans amounted to a significant percentage of population in Southern states.
Regardless, CA is indeed more diverse so even if we're talking about semantics, I don't see what is wrong with my claim that states like Alabama are not as diverse (asians/hispanics/african americans/caucasian in CA vs. african americans/caucasians in Souther states, I'm guessing).

 

[rodman7383]

Q, thanks for a kinder reply.
You have definitely opened my eyes on the existence of many great schools and I appreciate it very much.
As far as the PhD vs. MD/PhD, I will talk to different PIs from both parties at my school to hear respective two cents.
And yes, I do realize that I can be a bit self-absorbed at times and it is one of many things I need to improve on, and not just for acceptance to MSTPs.

But about thinking about other people, why you brought it up still eludes me, since whether my cousin and the person with the perfect score worry about me does not mean I should do the same as they.
As I reiterated before, those were more of trivial/random ramblings about my sleep-deprived state of mind more than anything.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Thanks for the nomadic analogy, but I think there is a difference between education and making a sheep out of someone.

Having been a Californian for most of my life (since immigration), I did not know that African Americans amounted to a significant percentage of population in Southern states.
Regardless, CA is indeed more diverse so even if we're talking about semantics, I don't see what is wrong with my claim that states like Alabama are not as diverse (asians/hispanics/african americans/caucasian in CA vs. african americans/caucasians in Souther states, I'm guessing).

I don't know if you already listed your status here, but are you a naturalized citizen or a green card holder? Your status may have an impact on which schools will fund your schooling.

 

[rodman7383]

I don't know if you already listed your status here, but are you a naturalized citizen or a green card holder? Your status may have an impact on which schools will fund your schooling.

I'm a green card holder.
Does that make a difference?
It'd be quite irritating if this further narrows down my selection to more difficult ones to get into.

 

[Jorje286]

Rodman, I think you're very confused, and the best way to go about it is to write your thoughts on a paper and examine them one by one, so you can eliminate some which are nothing but emotional outbursts. Like your reasons for not doing the GRE are quite ridiculous, and you can't build your future considering them. The pressure of other people shouldn't enter your equation. So is the balding thing, which honestly I found very funny.

From what I read so far, I think the best way for you is to to go for an MD/PhD. A Phd will take you 6 years while an MD/PhD will take 8 (approximately). 2 years in addition of medical school can't do you that much harm and can only get you experience that you might use later whatever your path is. After those 8 years, you can then decide to either go for a career as a basic scientist without doing residency, to do residency and try to meld medicine and science or even just to do medicine (you don't say that to the adcoms, but this is ofcourse a realistic option).

 

[Doctor&Geek]

I'm a green card holder.
Does that make a difference?
It'd be quite irritating if this further narrows down my selection to more difficult ones to get into.

There's a thread floating around here somewhere related to this issue, but IIRC, if you're a permanent resident, you can qualify for an NIH MSTP slot that is granted to a particular institution anywhere. The problem comes in if you're here on a temporary visa.

 

[rodman7383]

There's a thread floating around here somewhere related to this issue, but IIRC, if you're a permanent resident, you can qualify for an NIH MSTP slot that is granted to a particular institution anywhere. The problem comes in if you're here on a temporary visa.

Gotcha. I'm a perm. resident.

 

[rodman7383]

Rodman, I think you're very confused, and the best way to go about it is to write your thoughts on a paper and examine them one by one, so you can eliminate some which are nothing but emotional outbursts. Like your reasons for not doing the GRE are quite ridiculous, and you can't build your future considering them. The pressure of other people shouldn't enter your equation. So is the balding thing, which honestly I found very funny.

From what I read so far, I think the best way for you is to to go for an MD/PhD. A Phd will take you 6 years while an MD/PhD will take 8 (approximately). 2 years in addition of medical school can't do you that much harm and can only get you experience that you might use later whatever your path is. After those 8 years, you can then decide to either go for a career as a basic scientist without doing residency, to do residency and try to meld medicine and science or even just to do medicine (you don't say that to the adcoms, but this is ofcourse a realistic option).

Thank you very much for your opinion.

Yes I do need somewhat of a more rational thought process in going about this, obviously since my career path depends on it.

Today I've talked to one MD/PhD (my PI), pre-med advisor (who didn't know all that much about MSTP's... are MSTP applicants that rare?) and set up meetings with one very prominent PhD, and hopefully a up-and-coming assistant professor with PhD, and a senior professor at med school.
My PI made me feel as though MD/PhD is definitely the way to go.
Hopefully the PhD tenure professors will confirm what my PI said so I can stop being so darn confused.

Some of the reasons he gave were:
1. A lot of extremely talented PhD's are forced to do a longer postdoc and a smaller percentage are tenured in academia (institutions) vs. those who finish MSTP route. This has a lot to do with how competitive the field has become for bio PhD's. Even a brilliant scientist who did his work at a top notch univ. may suffer the similar fate due to chance. MD/PhD may be a safer route for tenure at a med school somewhere in the future.
2. A few years are shaved off from PhD and postdoc years when you go through MD/PhD. (4 vs. 6 for PhD and 2 (not including clinical residency) vs. 3 or so if lucky)
3. While he has to attend clinical duties which he really likes, tenured biology PhD's have to teach. The end result is that both MD/PhDs and PhDs probably spend about the same amount of time in the lab.

He did acknowledge that if I make it to the tenured position, I would be more advanced in my career (R01 right away in one example he knows) vs. an MD/PhD and may even have an advantage in grants due to more publications. However, once again I may not get tenured and have to go in the industry, which is completely fine but not what I want to do.

What do you guys think?
Does this fall in line with what you have heard from your mentors or know from first-hand experience?

 

[jeniffer lopez]

Dude you are very confused. I support the suggestion of having a thorough self-examination, writing down specific goals for the short and long term. You really need to figure out what YOU truly want before you ask other people about their opinions. You love science, but you need more than that to go for MD/PhD. You need a burning desire to become a physician scientist. During interviews people will try to get to the core of your motivations to see if that desire is there or if you just want a free ride.

I had interviews where people tried to convince me to drop the MD part and just do the PhD for reasons very similar to the ones you are mentioning (getting tenure faster, prime years of productivity, ability to get medical knowledge without going to med school, etc), and they will probably do the same thing to you if you go through the process. But that is their point of view, and at the end of the day you should do what makes you happy.

 

[QofQuimica]

But about thinking about other people, why you brought it up still eludes me, since whether my cousin and the person with the perfect score worry about me does not mean I should do the same as they.
As I reiterated before, those were more of trivial/random ramblings about my sleep-deprived state of mind more than anything.

Ok, maybe I read more into your posts than was warranted then. It's just that you spent an awful lot of time talking about being worried about losing your hair and not scoring perfectly on the GRE. I'm just saying, if those are your biggest problems, you're in excellent shape. Like I said, the GRE is a very easy test compared to the MCAT. You probably don't even need to study for it, or if you do, you only need to study for it minimally compared to what you need to do to prepare for the MCAT. You also don't need to ace the GRE to get into a good grad school, and you don't have to suffer through jumping through as many hoops to get into a top grad school as you do to get into an average med school. So as others have already suggested, it's a silly thing to worry about. Your baldness post really cracked me up. Hasn't anyone ever told you that bald is beautiful? My goodness, I had a decade-long crush on Patrick Stewart (Dr. Xavier from the X men) back from his Captain Picard days on Star Trek TNG. Just don't do the combover thing, and you'll be fine.

Re the issue of diversity in AL: there are two major racial groups there (blacks and whites) and two major ethnicities (Hispanics and non-Hispanics). Hispanics can identify as either black or white; they're apparently not counted as a separate racial group by the AL Dept. of Public Health. There are not many Native Americans or Asians, although Jefferson County (where Birmingham is) unsurprisingly appears to be where much of the diversity is. Here's the website if you want to look through the demographics yourself: http://ph.state.al.us/chs/HealthStatistics/Population/Demo&Pop.htm

On a complete side note, I'm kind of amazed that you didn't realize that all Southern states have a large number of black citizens....are there actually high schools anywhere in the United States that do not teach the students about the Civil War, slavery, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement in their American history classes? I know people say CA is kind of its own country, but that's ridiculous! You're interested in medicine and research-you might like to get your hands on a book called "Bad Blood" by James Jones and read it. It's about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which took place in AL and is one of the most infamous abuses of clinical trial subjects in the history of medical research. Our own government (US Public Health Service) conducted it. If you haven't heard of Tuskegee yet and you go into medical research, you will hear tons about it before you're through. It was the genesis of many of our current safeguards for human research subjects.

Speaking of AL, Doctor&Geek, nice of you to finally show up to this discussion.

 

[rodman7383]

Dude you are very confused. I support the suggestion of having a thorough self-examination, writing down specific goals for the short and long term. You really need to figure out what YOU truly want before you ask other people about their opinions. You love science, but you need more than that to go for MD/PhD. You need a burning desire to become a physician scientist. During interviews people will try to get to the core of your motivations to see if that desire is there or if you just want a free ride.

I had interviews where people tried to convince me to drop the MD part and just do the PhD for reasons very similar to the ones you are mentioning (getting tenure faster, prime years of productivity, ability to get medical knowledge without going to med school, etc), and they will probably do the same thing to you if you go through the process. But that is their point of view, and at the end of the day you should do what makes you happy.

Hello Lopez,

How did you answer those questions yourself?

 

[rodman7383]

Ok, maybe I read more into your posts than was warranted then. It's just that you spent an awful lot of time talking about being worried about losing your hair and not scoring perfectly on the GRE. I'm just saying, if those are your biggest problems, you're in excellent shape. Like I said, the GRE is a very easy test compared to the MCAT. You probably don't even need to study for it, or if you do, you only need to study for it minimally compared to what you need to do to prepare for the MCAT. You also don't need to ace the GRE to get into a good grad school, and you don't have to suffer through jumping through as many hoops to get into a top grad school as you do to get into an average med school. So as others have already suggested, it's a silly thing to worry about. Your baldness post really cracked me up. Hasn't anyone ever told you that bald is beautiful? My goodness, I had a decade-long crush on Patrick Stewart (Dr. Xavier from the X men) back from his Captain Picard days on Star Trek TNG. Just don't do the combover thing, and you'll be fine.

Re the issue of diversity in AL: there are two major racial groups there (blacks and whites) and two major ethnicities (Hispanics and non-Hispanics). Hispanics can identify as either black or white; they're apparently not counted as a separate racial group by the AL Dept. of Public Health. There are not many Native Americans or Asians, although Jefferson County (where Birmingham is) unsurprisingly appears to be where much of the diversity is. Here's the website if you want to look through the demographics yourself: http://ph.state.al.us/chs/HealthStatistics/Population/Demo&Pop.htm

On a complete side note, I'm kind of amazed that you didn't realize that all Southern states have a large number of black citizens....are there actually high schools anywhere in the United States that do not teach the students about the Civil War, slavery, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement in their American history classes? I know people say CA is kind of its own country, but that's ridiculous! You're interested in medicine and research-you might like to get your hands on a book called "Bad Blood" by James Jones and read it. It's about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which took place in AL and is one of the most infamous abuses of clinical trial subjects in the history of medical research. Our own government (US Public Health Service) conducted it. If you haven't heard of Tuskegee yet and you go into medical research, you will hear tons about it before you're through. It was the genesis of many of our current safeguards for human research subjects.

Speaking of AL, Doctor&Geek, nice of you to finally show up to this discussion.

In all seriousness, since you seem so interested in this particular discussion about baldness and GRE, if I did go bald in the next 10 years, I'd be quite distressed about it and my wife would give me quite a bit of crap for it too.
Maybe it is the fact that my grandfather was bald and we didn't have the best of relationships?
Or perhaps I thought my cousin wasn't the most attractive looking fellow when I saw him bald?
I have no idea why I despise the idea of me going bald, but I do.
If you find that ludicrous or whatever, that's too bad?

And yes, the GRE is just like the SAT, so I have heard.
And if I want to do well on it just for personal sake, why is that a bad thing?
I have tutored SAT for a few years now so I'd feel more than just a little bad if I cannot perform extremely well on the GRE.
Why should that disturb anyone to a point where it is brought into discussion repeatedly when I only mentioned it in passing?

As for your bewilderment about my lack of knowledge about the South, I was not the most motivated student in high school (which is where my lazy habits in my first few years in college was cultured and developed).
But seriously, I hope you were just being sarcastic when you questioned whether I had learned about civil war, slavery and so on.
Do I seem like some unruly high school drop-out who is now studying for the high school accreditation?

And what the hell does knowledge of those events that even kindergarteners in 3rd world countries probably learn about have to do with population distribution in the South now?
How all of that racial tension leads to blacks STAYING in the South, to me at least, is a non sequitur.
If I was a black person, I wouldn't be inclined to stay in the South just because of the long history of racism there.

 

[Jorje286]

In all seriousness, since you seem so interested in this particular discussion about baldness and GRE, if I did go bald in the next 10 years, I'd be quite distressed about it and my wife would give me quite a bit of crap for it too.
Maybe it is the fact that my grandfather was bald and we didn't have the best of relationships?
Or perhaps I thought my cousin wasn't the most attractive looking fellow when I saw him bald?
I have no idea why I despise the idea of me going bald, but I do.
If you find that ludicrous or whatever, that's too bad?

And yes, the GRE is just like the SAT, so I have heard.
And if I want to do well on it just for personal sake, why is that a bad thing?
I have tutored SAT for a few years now so I'd feel more than just a little bad if I cannot perform extremely well on the GRE.
Why should that disturb anyone to a point where it is brought into discussion repeatedly when I only mentioned it in passing?

I don't think these issues are trivial, as much as they are trivial in relation to your career goals. If you're gonna get bald, you're gonna get bald, whether you go for a PhD, MD or an MD/PhD and it's going to happen at the same age. Would it make a difference if you got bald when you're a postdoc rather than when you're in your first or second year as a university professor? Probably, but certainly not enough to take it in consideration in what you plan to do! Same thing for the GRE. If doing it will help you attain your career goals and do what you like for the rest of your life, you certainly shouldn't avoid it just because of what people will think of you after your scores come in. Think about that for a minute and see how stupid it sounds. It might be ok to entertain those thoughts, but at the end you should dismiss them because they are emotional outbursts and it doesn't make sense to consider them. That's why write whatever comes to your mind concerning your career on a paper, and just examine them a little more, and you see that a lot of what you think isn't worth considering at all and will only confuse you more. Same thing for the "Dr" prestige thing. It is certainly NOT worth sacrifying x years of your life doing med school and training hard in residency just so people can see you more as a legitimate doctor.

As for the south thing, well honestly I was surprised too, and I'm not even American and have been in the US for 3 years, cause I thought it was sort of common knowledge here. The south is known for its rich African American culture. But anyway you know that now.

 

[rodman7383]

I don't think these issues are trivial, as much as they are trivial in relation to your career goals. If you're gonna get bald, you're gonna get bald, whether you go for a PhD, MD or an MD/PhD and it's going to happen at the same age. Would it make a difference if you got bald when you're a postdoc rather than when you're in your first or second year as a university professor? Probably, but certainly not enough to take it in consideration in what you plan to do! Same thing for the GRE. If doing it will help you attain your career goals and do what you like for the rest of your life, you certainly shouldn't avoid it just because of what people will think of you after your scores come in. Think about that for a minute and see how stupid it sounds. It might be ok to entertain those thoughts, but at the end you should dismiss them because they are emotional outbursts and it doesn't make sense to consider them. That's why write whatever comes to your mind concerning your career on a paper, and just examine them a little more, and you see that a lot of what you think isn't worth considering at all and will only confuse you more. Same thing for the "Dr" prestige thing. It is certainly NOT worth sacrifying x years of your life doing med school and training hard in residency just so people can see you more as a legitimate doctor.

As for the south thing, well honestly I was surprised too, and I'm not even American and have been in the US for 3 years, cause I thought it was sort of common knowledge here. The south is known for its rich African American culture. But anyway you know that now.

Well I guess when I said "please don't give me the flaming I probably deserve" that doesn't still didn't me for jotting down some stupid thoughts I have.

Points well taken.

It seems though that the # of years difference isn't all that great either way until one gets tenured.
The main difference seems to be # of publications when you are tenured.
I guess I will have to wait for those meetings.

Yes, yes, I am a recluse when it comes to politics or a lot of common everyday knowledge.
I have limited talents and time and I use it on my narrow interests.
Hopefully when I'm an established scientist, I can use more of my time on many interesting things that lie outside of my few interests.

 

[Jorje286]

Well I guess when I said "please don't give me the flaming I probably deserve" that doesn't still didn't me for jotting down some stupid thoughts I have.

Points well taken.

It seems though that the # of years difference isn't all that great either way until one gets tenured.
The main difference seems to be # of publications when you are tenured.
I guess I will have to wait for those meetings.

Yes, yes, I am a recluse when it comes to politics or a lot of common everyday knowledge.
I have limited talents and time and I use it on my narrow interests.
Hopefully when I'm an established scientist, I can use more of my time on many interesting things that lie outside of my few interests.

OK sorry if I seem like I'm harping too much on the balding thing(and the other stupid thoughts ), but really I guess it's to your own advantage if you just remove some things completely out of your head because they just use your energy and tear you down psychologically, and it's definitely not worth it. I think I'm in a very similar position to you. You're right about the difference in years, and like I said, after an MD/PhD you can still chose whatever path you want. I think when it comes down to it, if you're very sure that you just want a basic science research career without clinical practise, then for a PhD. Otherwise, MD/PhD would be a better choice.

 

[rodman7383]

OK sorry if I seem like I'm harping too much on the balding thing(and the other stupid thoughts ), but really I guess it's to your own advantage if you just remove some things completely out of your head because they just use your energy and tear you down psychologically, and it's definitely not worth it. I think I'm in a very similar position to you. You're right about the difference in years, and like I said, after an MD/PhD you can still chose whatever path you want. I think when it comes down to it, if you're very sure that you just want a basic science research career without clinical practise, then for a PhD. Otherwise, MD/PhD would be a better choice.

I've heard that although it's true that MD/PhDs do clinical duties 20% of their time which MAY take away from their research time, it's also true that they enjoy doing it (I enjoy volunteering so hopefully I will too) whereas PhDs are somewhat FORCED to have teaching duties that may or may not be as enjoyable (although I'd enjoy that too).
Is this what you heard also?

 

[jeniffer lopez]

Hello Lopez,

How did you answer those questions yourself?

Well rodman, my case was a bit unique in the sense that I a lot of previous experience in medicine, and it was this exposure what led me to believe that I did not see myself treating patients per se but finding out about disease. However, I do like/enjoy people, and I manifested I wanted to have some sort of contact with patients because I wanted that component in my life. PhDs don't get that, and I would miss it too much if I got a PhD and became a basic researcher. However, I know I find the private practice rythm way too tedious.

Therefore, I think you need to back up your answers with your own experience, and stand strong in whatever position you choose. Sometimes I got into heated arguments (I know, the first thing they tell you not to do at an interview!) because I don't like people telling me what to do with my life. If you are going to argue though, try not to come off as arrogant. Sometimes I get a bit of that when reading your posts. That WILL KILL your application, no matter how good you are. I hope I am wrong and it is just a matter of my flawed perception.

 

[QofQuimica]

In all seriousness, since you seem so interested in this particular discussion about baldness and GRE, if I did go bald in the next 10 years, I'd be quite distressed about it and my wife would give me quite a bit of crap for it too.
Maybe it is the fact that my grandfather was bald and we didn't have the best of relationships?
Or perhaps I thought my cousin wasn't the most attractive looking fellow when I saw him bald?
I have no idea why I despise the idea of me going bald, but I do.
If you find that ludicrous or whatever, that's too bad?

Hon, if you can't laugh at yourself, that's one huge, heavy monkey to carry thoughout your life. Your wife would give you s*** for a biological process that you have no control over??? OMG, I'm trying not to laugh, but I can't help it. I'm sorry.

Obviously this really is an important issue to you, so I actually do feel a little bad for teasing you about it. I guess all I can say is that if and when the time comes where you start going bald, go to your doctor and see about whether you'd be a candidate for Rogaine. Or maybe you can get hair plugs inserted.

And yes, the GRE is just like the SAT, so I have heard.
And if I want to do well on it just for personal sake, why is that a bad thing?
I have tutored SAT for a few years now so I'd feel more than just a little bad if I cannot perform extremely well on the GRE.
Why should that disturb anyone to a point where it is brought into discussion repeatedly when I only mentioned it in passing?

Who said anything about not doing well on the GRE? I said it wasn't necessary to *ace* the GRE. It's not. You get a decent score, you'll be fine as far as getting into grad school is concerned. If you are looking at the GRE as an end in and of itself (i.e., your goal is to earn a perfect score, not necessarily to go to grad school), well, then, I question the sensibility of your goal. I don't see standardized test scores as ends in and of themselves; they're only means to get you into school, and nothing more.

As for your bewilderment about my lack of knowledge about the South, I was not the most motivated student in high school (which is where my lazy habits in my first few years in college was cultured and developed).
But seriously, I hope you were just being sarcastic when you questioned whether I had learned about civil war, slavery and so on.
Do I seem like some unruly high school drop-out who is now studying for the high school accreditation?

Easy there, Don Quixote. I'm no windmill, so don't tilt at me. I was mocking the schools that apparently don't teach anything about American history, not YOU. Presumably, since you're looking to go to med or grad school, you have at least completed a BS/BA (or are in the process of it). So no, I'm pretty sure that you already have a high school diploma of some sort.

And what the hell does knowledge of those events that even kindergarteners in 3rd world countries probably learn about have to do with population distribution in the South now?
How all of that racial tension leads to blacks STAYING in the South, to me at least, is a non sequitur.
If I was a black person, I wouldn't be inclined to stay in the South just because of the long history of racism there

Snort. Where do you suppose all of the descendents of freed slaves were going to go? You're talking about people with no education, no money, and nowhere else to go where they'd be welcome. Some did move up north, but do you think the good folks up north really wanted them? Heck no. The lives of many blacks up north aren't considerably better than those of the family they left behind in the South. Ever hear about inner city ghettoes and riots in many large northern cities? Some of the worse living conditions I've ever seen anywhere in this country are in some of the northern inner cities.

Ah, so perhaps you think CA has a better history of race relations. Really? Would Rodney King agree with you, I wonder? Maybe you're too young to remember him. His beating, which took place within all of our lifetimes (early 1990s; I was in high school at the time), occurred in the enlightened city of Los Angeles, CA. It only even came to the light of day because a witness filmed the officers beating him. That's also where a jury with no blacks on it acquitted the white police officers of beating the black King, followed by four days of rioting in LA that required the National Guard to be called in to restore order.

CA didn't treat its other nonwhite citizens any better historically. Native Americans? Murdered in organized campaigns by whites. Are you an Asian immigrant, by chance? Any idea how CA treated its Chinese immigrants in the 1800s? It wasn't very pretty. Japanese? They spent much of WWII in internment camps, and our government had to pay them and their descendents reparations several decades later.

There is a saying that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, my friend. *That* is why it's important for all Americans (and permanent residents!) to know about American history. You would not go into the lab to conduct an experiment without first looking in the literature to see what work other people had done in your field before, right? You would not have married your wife without first learning about her family and personal values, right? Why then would you think that the history of your country would be any less relevant to your life outside of the lab and your home?

 

[rodman7383]

Q, I feel that your occasionally subtle, but for most parts, grossly over-stated sarcasm is neither necessary nor helpful.
I came here seeking advices regarding careers in science, not an outlook on life in general.

I mean is it really OBVIOUS that the baldness issue is very important to me? Really?
Thanks for telling me what even I didn't know about myself, but I'm pretty sure I know more about yourself better than you do, "hon."
The baldness issue was never an important one until you, for some odd reason, chose to bring up repeatedly (and yet again in your last post with intended jokes with Rogaine...)
But since you seem so fond of revival of the same dead horses for the sake of continual corporal punishments, here's yet another repetition to go along with your theme: IT WAS A PASSING THOUGHT.

Regarding the history lesson, again, thanks for retelling stories of events that are probably painfully familiar to anyone who has had high school education and has not been hiding in a cave for the last two decades.
The cliches are, to be sure, appreciated as well.
History repeats itself? What an original idea!
And while a few racist cops like those who beat Rodney King or those who fire on any slight disobedience are probably present even in More's utopia, CA was not part of the 11 states resisting emancipation proclamation, one of which, as I'm sure you know as a history scholar, was Alabama... that's what I mean when I say that Southern states have more history of prejudice.

Again as a scientist, you should know, hopefully better than I, that these assertions are purely conjectural in nature and neither of us can say with authority what is the true reason the African Americans stayed in the South, or whether CA is less racist than the South or not.
I have given my opinion and since you disagree, I will just choose to ignore it since the topic bores the hell out of me.
Oh, and the analogy of the lab/marriage vs. US history was truly remarkable as well- surely there is a multitude of similarities between them (?)

Perhaps another PhD (in history) is in order for you since you seem to be so intrigued in conducting officious education on the matter?
Making assumptions and leaps of faith, along with a healthy dose of repetitions and regurgitations of cliches should suit you very well in history, I imagine.
I'm sorry I don't share a love for it as you seem to profess.

 

[Jorje286]

I've heard that although it's true that MD/PhDs do clinical duties 20% of their time which MAY take away from their research time, it's also true that they enjoy doing it (I enjoy volunteering so hopefully I will too) whereas PhDs are somewhat FORCED to have teaching duties that may or may not be as enjoyable (although I'd enjoy that too).
Is this what you heard also?

Not really sure about this. I know that my PI didn't teach for his first two years in the university and was just conducting research. I would guess it depends from a situation to another and how you negotiate your contract. I know though that in the center where I work there are probably way too many PIs for them to all teach. Or I guess they would alternate a lot.

 

[QofQuimica]

Q, I feel that your occasionally subtle, but for most parts, grossly over-stated sarcasm is neither necessary nor helpful.
I came here seeking advices regarding careers in science, not an outlook on life in general.

I mean is it really OBVIOUS that the baldness issue is very important to me? Really?
Thanks for telling me what even I didn't know about myself, but I'm pretty sure I know more about yourself better than you do, "hon."
The baldness issue was never an important one until you, for some odd reason, chose to bring up repeatedly (and yet again in your last post with intended jokes with Rogaine...)
But since you seem so fond of revival of the same dead horses for the sake of continual corporal punishments, here's yet another repetition to go along with your theme: IT WAS A PASSING THOUGHT.

Regarding the history lesson, again, thanks for retelling stories of events that are probably painfully familiar to anyone who has had high school education and has not been hiding in a cave for the last two decades.
The cliches are, to be sure, appreciated as well.
History repeats itself? What an original idea!
And while a few racist cops like those who beat Rodney King or those who fire on any slight disobedience are probably present even in More's utopia, CA was not part of the 11 states resisting emancipation proclamation, one of which, as I'm sure you know as a history scholar, was Alabama... that's what I mean when I say that Southern states have more history of prejudice.

Again as a scientist, you should know, hopefully better than I, that these assertions are purely conjectural in nature and neither of us can say with authority what is the true reason the African Americans stayed in the South, or whether CA is less racist than the South or not.
I have given my opinion and since you disagree, I will just choose to ignore it since the topic bores the hell out of me.
Oh, and the analogy of the lab/marriage vs. US history was truly remarkable as well- surely there is a multitude of similarities between them (?)

Perhaps another PhD (in history) is in order for you since you seem to be so intrigued in conducting officious education on the matter?
Making assumptions and leaps of faith, along with a healthy dose of repetitions and regurgitations of cliches should suit you very well in history, I imagine.
I'm sorry I don't share a love for it as you seem to profess.

I'm sorry that my posts have upset you so much, rodman. I unfortunately seem to be bringing out the worst in you. I won't burden you with any more of my thoughts then, but I did want to tell you the following:

1) I wasn't being sarcastic or joking about the Rogaine. It's a medication that can help prevent hair loss in some people. If your hair does start thinning, you might be able to take Rogaine to avoid going bald. You'd have to ask your doctor whether you'd be a candidate to take it.

2) I do love history, both learning about it and talking about it, and I guess I don't understand how some people can find it to be so uninteresting or unimportant. Again, my apology for boring you, and I'll spare you any further historical discussions from now on.

3) No hard feelings from my side, and best of luck to you with your studies.