School List - please help

[Doniram]

I made a list of 17 schools to apply to for MD/PhD, and I grouped them based on what I think my chances of getting into each are. Do you think my evaluations are accurate? I just graduated and I'm entering a gap year where I'm doing full time research and volunteer work, and I'm applying now for next year. Here's my numbers:

GPA: 3.60 (upward trend, 3.8 in the last 3 semesters)
MCAT: 39P
Research: One summer + two semesters, and I'm starting a year of full-time research.
Activities/volunteer: 5 years working and volunteering as a tutor for inner-city elementary school kids, 2 years competing in ballroom dancing and serving as the club's treasurer, shadowed a few physicians, did some volunteering in the ER.


I mostly used their med school GPA and MCAT 10th to 90th percentiles (according to the MSAR) to rank them. I listed the numbers next to each school, although the numbers are overall, rather than specifically for MD/PhD, so my evaulations are based on guesswork on how much higher it would be for MD/PhD. What do you guys think?

Thanks in advance.


Reach:
Duke: 31-40 MCAT, 3.54-3.99 GPA
Colombia: 32-40, 3.5-3.98
University of Pittsburgh: 31-40, 3.49-3.98
Emory: 31-38, 3.48-3.97
University of California, San Francisco: 30-40, 3.49-3.98

Decent chance:
University of California, Los Angeles: 27-39, 3.35-3.98
Tufts: 29-39, 3.36-3.96
UCONN: 29-37, 3.51-3.97
University of California, San Diego: 30-39, 3.47-3.98


Good Chance:
University of Maryland: 29-37, 3.47-3.96
University of California, Irvine: 29-37, 3.47-3.96
University of Miami: 29-37, 3.49-3.98
University of Southern California: 29-38, 3.34-3.94

Safety:
Thomas Jefferson University: 29-36, 3.42-3.95
University of California, Davis: 27-37, 3.28-3.93
University of South Carolina: 24-36, 3.31-3.97
Drexel: 28-35, 3.33-3.93

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Silverfalcon]

Lots of california... are you CA resident? I would imagine you can substitute one or two CA schools with non-CA schools to improve your chance. Your stats are good, but application process is unpredictable.

 

[Choculitis]

Lots of california... are you CA resident? I would imagine you can substitute one or two CA schools with non-CA schools to improve your chance. Your stats are good, but application process is unpredictable.

Why does it matter if he's a CA resident? We were talking about this on another thread, but it shouldn't matter for MSTP (at least, that's what the schools say).

 

[Doniram]

Thanks for the replies. I'm not a CA resident, but I want to live in CA. Are those schools significantly harder to get into than their stats would indicate?

Do my categories look appropriate for my chances? Did I choose a proper distribution of schools in terms of their difficulty to get into?

 

[Choculitis]

Are those schools significantly harder to get into than their stats would indicate?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this...don't you base a school's difficulty on stats like admission rates, MCAT, GPA, etc? I think that what people mean when they say that UC schools are especially competitive is that people tend to want to live in CA, so these schools are more competitive than similarly ranked/prestigious schools in less desirable locations.

Other than that I think that list looks okay. You can get a good idea of how you might stack up from the guide that Neuronix posted.

It's cool to see those MCAT/GPA ranges. I had no idea that was available.

 

[guavas]

I dont think the grade and MCAT ranges are all that useful. There's so little difference between "top" and "mid" tier schools for MD/PhD. Your stats are good so you have a shot at getting in to some great schools as long as you know how to talk about your research.

Find out which research institutions are good through US News rankings, and apply broadly. With those stats, I'd forgo a couple lower ranked schools for some more 15-25s. But that's just my opinion. I also weighed location heavily when I applied, and that's up to you.

Another thing, apply immediately. Finish your apps quickly and get them in.

 

[Silverfalcon]

Why does it matter if he's a CA resident? We were talking about this on another thread, but it shouldn't matter for MSTP (at least, that's what the schools say).

CA schools receive a lot of applicants. It wasn't so much about difficulty with stats, but just the fact that these schools receive a lot more love from students because...it's California. MD/PhD apps are super competitive, so unless there was a really strong reason to seek CA schools, it may improve probability by applying to some less "popular" (i.e. # of ppl applying) MSTP. That's all.

One thing I would suggest to OP is, aside from location and etc, I would see the research programs that you are interested in, and what the school offers. One of my friends got into MD/PhD program last cycle, and a part of big plus in her app/interview (this is just my opinion but I think it's valid) was that what she did for her research during undergrad was very similar to the one that a faculty in the program at medical school was doing. So, obviously, since she knew where she wanted to go (at least during that interview cycle), that's much better than someone who has little to no idea about the research projects being done at school. It's like...why buy a car without knowing more about it?

 

[Choculitis]

CA schools receive a lot of applicants. It wasn't so much about difficulty with stats, but just the fact that these schools receive a lot more love from students because...it's California. MD/PhD apps are super competitive, so unless there was a really strong reason to seek CA schools, it may improve probability by applying to some less "popular" (i.e. # of ppl applying) MSTP. That's all.

Fair enough. I'm pretty much doing the same thing...4 schools in Cali and 4 in Manhattan. I figure if I'm not going to a top 5 school it better be a nice place, given that Ill be there fore 7+ years.

 

[nheit]

This is all my opinion, take it or leave it:

Personally, I think your "reaches" are extreme long shots. Honestly, some of the schools you put as "decent" and "good chances" are far reaches. The problem is that you are applying right now. First of all, it is sort of late to apply for MD/PhD programs. Secondly and more important, you are going to do full time research, which is great, but to have that in your future isn't as strong as having done it in the past. You have 1 year of research experience including the summer of research, which is pretty low for MD/PhD programs. Listing the ranges of GPA and MCAT of these programs isn't very helpful when choosing a program because they look for research experience in applicants that have proven academic ability (in GPA and MCAT.) In other words you need both high GPA and MCAT and a ton of research experience. You rocked your MCAT, but your GPA is still low for MD/PhD. I just don't think that your combined GPA and MCAT along with the research experience you have will make you a strong MD/PhD application right now. However, applying next year is a different story. I hate to be a downer, but I honestly think you might be wasting you money on applying to these top programs. With a 39 MCAT, you might have a chance at some of the mid to lower tier programs, but if it's your intention of getting into a top program, I think it's not worth it. This is only based on what you revealed about your application, if you have very strong experiences, LORs, activities, etc. then the outlook might be fairer.

 

[Raziela]

This is all my opinion, take it or leave it:

Personally, I think your "reaches" are extreme long shots. Honestly, some of the schools you put as "decent" and "good chances" are far reaches. The problem is that you are applying right now. First of all, it is sort of late to apply for MD/PhD programs. Secondly and more important, you are going to do full time research, which is great, but to have that in your future isn't as strong as having done it in the past. You have 1 year of research experience including the summer of research, which is pretty low for MD/PhD programs. Listing the ranges of GPA and MCAT of these programs isn't very helpful when choosing a program because they look for research experience in applicants that have proven academic ability (in GPA and MCAT.) In other words you need both high GPA and MCAT and a ton of research experience. You rocked your MCAT, but your GPA is still low for MD/PhD. I just don't think that your combined GPA and MCAT along with the research experience you have will make you a strong MD/PhD application right now. However, applying next year is a different story. I hate to be a downer, but I honestly think you might be wasting you money on applying to these top programs. With a 39 MCAT, you might have a chance at some of the mid to lower tier programs, but if it's your intention of getting into a top program, I think it's not worth it. This is only based on what you revealed about your application, if you have very strong experiences, LORs, activities, etc. then the outlook might be fairer.

I strongly disagree. While the 3.6 will hurt at top schools, a 39P could make them look twice. Furthermore, I applied later than this and got into a top school. MSTP apps start later than MD-only, and many schools I know of don't have their first interviews until late sept or even late october. Some schools haven't sent out their secondaries yet, as far as I can tell.

If I were the OP, I would update my application as the season continued, perhaps with updates on my current research and a recommendation from my new PI. Sure, 2 semesters (1 year) + a full summer isn't great, but the current gap year will give the OP something to talk about during the interviews.

Yes, the reach schools are reaches, but I don't think they are out of this world. I would cut out UCSF and maybe Columbia, and add some mid-western reaches that are less competitive due to their location (Case, Michigan, and Mayo spring to mind).

 

[Doniram]

Wow lots of good input, thanks all, especially nheit and Raziela. I certainly do need to apply immediately, I hope to get my apps in by this weekend. I think I will cut out two of my reaches, probably UCSF and Columbia as Raziela suggested, and apply to another 'decent chance' and 'safety' school, I'm thinking Temple University and Medical College of Georgia, respectively. Location is very important for me since I'll be spending ~7 years wherever I go, so I'd rather not apply to any mid-western colleges. I'm applying only to schools in cities (except UCONN) of states along the coast (and PA/NY).

And by the way Choculitis, all the MCAT and GPA ranges are available online on the MSAR, but you have to pay $15 for access.

 

[Raziela]

If you are going to take out Columbia/UCSF, you could add reaches/decent chances like Einstein, NYU, and Sinai. Maybe Northwestern/UChicago if you like the area (albeit its in the midwest, but Chicago is such a great city). UWash in Seattle is supposedly a great place to live for 8 years.

 

[Doniram]

Hmm Chicago would be a good city, I think I might apply there.

 

[Choculitis]

UWash in Seattle is supposedly a great place to live for 8 years.

Yeah, other than the rain, Seattle is awesome.

 

[MysticCrusader]

For each applicant, what distinguishes between reach and far reach?

For instance, where would 2.5 years of research fall (assuming good GPA > 3.8 and MCAT 36)? 1 year in a pathology lab (without publishable results), a summer fellowship w/poster, and 1 year and 1 summer in an independent study project without results so far?

It seems that getting good results to publish or present is rather happenstance... especially applying right out of college.

 

[nheit]

It seems that getting good results to publish or present is rather happenstance... especially applying right out of college.

Yeah, I always thought and read on a couple MSTP websites that not publishing isn't a big deal because it's almost always on the PI and not the student. Also, research usually doesn't work in the sense that you get the result needed to publish right away, and if you're not in the lab for a really long time, the chances of getting the desired result are small. On SDN, people always rave about publishing in Science or Nature, and while that's really cool and can strengthen the argument for a meaningful research experience, is that really going to sway an adcom's decision? In my opinion, the higher the profile of the research, the more likely the undergrad doing some the of the benchwork is just following marching orders and not contributing anything to the thought process. I.e., "Our research group discovered a new gene that is involved in oncogenesis and is published in Science. What did I do? I set up PCRs all day using reagents that were handed to me." It's amazing what little one can actually do get a name added on to a journal article. But all pessimism aside, if you have a good, long standing in a lab or two that you can really know what you're talking about when explaining to someone what the research was about and perhaps have a good letter from your PI (or PIs), you'll be looking good.

 

[Hotshy]

Funny thing, I'm doing an undergraduate research fellowship at the UConn Health Center/Medical School currently, and I frequently talk to the MD/PhD student in my lab. He likes the program here and we are both in the lab of a really impressive PI who worked at Harvard and only works here because of his family (geographical reasons). He was tenured upon arrival (no joke.)

But anyway my point is give UConn a good look there are actually a lot of impressive PI's that do research here.

 

[gobroncos123]

These are only my thoughts based upon what I have read or heard from others. The GPA of 3.6 is quite low to indicate your strengths/successes in rigorous science courses. Yes, the MCAT is great, but that is a one-time test involving basic knowledge. It will depend upon the admissions committee and how they perceive the disparity between your GPA and MCAT.

The most important aspect of the MD/PhD application is your ability to conduct basic science research. So, spend a lot of time working on the research descriptions to convince them that your writing/knowledge is mature. The length of your research experiences seems sufficient to me; it really depends on the quality of the experiences, your contributions, and the PI's recommendation letter on your behalf. A lot of people say the summer is too short to "count" for much, which is simply not true. If you put in 60, 70 hours/week...its much better than 15 hrs/week during the semester (if that's even possible with a full science course-load). And when your PI states how hard you worked...you're golden.

Depending on the quality of your research, decide on your schools. Will you get amazing rec letters? Do you have tangible results from your efforts? Note: all NIH funded MD/PhD programs (MSTP) are competitive. It is to your benefit to apply to as many programs as possible.

Lastly, it is concerning how late you are applying. By the time you get your primary in...it could be August. Six weeks later (the wait time now for verification)...its September...and you need letters, transcripts, etc. Then secondaries, which always have extra essays for MD/PhD applicants. The deadline for a lot of MSTP programs is October 15. It will be rushed, but I certainly think this is do-able. Good luck!

 

[nheit]

Note: all NIH funded MD/PhD programs (MSTP) are competitive.

I know this to be true, but any ideas as to why? Almost all non-MSTP MD/PhD programs also cover tuition and give a comparable (sometimes higher depending on the cost of living in the city) yearly stipend. Is it because of some sort of prestige that goes with the MSTP name, that the list of schools that offer MSTPs include all of the most prestigious schools, both, any other reasons?

He was tenured upon arrival (no joke.)

This happens more often than you think.

 

[Choculitis]

that the list of schools that offer MSTPs include all of the most prestigious schools, both, any other reasons?

I think that's pretty much what it is. Check the US N&WR research rankings...I'm pretty sure that just about all 45 MSTP schools are in the top 50. I'd be interested to compare the few non-MSTP schools with MSTPs with comparable ranking though (for example, as I recall, USC and UC Irvine/Riverside are pretty similarly ranked but USC isn't MSTP)

 

[gobroncos123]

I know this to be true, but any ideas as to why? Almost all non-MSTP MD/PhD programs also cover tuition and give a comparable (sometimes higher depending on the cost of living in the city) yearly stipend. Is it because of some sort of prestige that goes with the MSTP name, that the list of schools that offer MSTPs include all of the most prestigious schools, both, any other reasons?

NIH funded MSTP programs undergo a length review process by the NIGMS before they are awarded funding. Even still, schools are not provided equal funding. The amount of funding is correlated to the number of students NIGMS thinks that school can effectively train, which is related to quality of labs, lab space, etc. Nonetheless, to be awarded MSTP status means that school has a well developed biomedical research program that is well-suited for MD/PhD training and that the right leadership is in place. Thus, there is a prestige factor that makes it competitive, and also consider that most of the "big name" schools have MSTP programs. Oh, and funding at MSTP programs is guaranteed for 8 years minimum.

Certainly, there are many non-MSTP programs that are excellent. UMiami, Ohio State come to mind. You will just have to make sure that funding is guaranteed all 7/8 years.

 

[Raziela]

These are only my thoughts based upon what I have read or heard from others. The GPA of 3.6 is quite low to indicate your strengths/successes in rigorous science courses. Yes, the MCAT is great, but that is a one-time test involving basic knowledge. It will depend upon the admissions committee and how they perceive the disparity between your GPA and MCAT.

3.6 is not that low. Anything under that might be more concerning, but in reality, its an A- average (3.66) vs. A (4). I think this is SDN paranoia/anxiety speaking, a 3.6 will not be detrimental to the OPs application. Sure, higher is always better, but its not this huge disparity you're talking about.

 

[gobroncos123]

3.6 is not that low. Anything under that might be more concerning, but in reality, its an A- average (3.66) vs. A (4). I think this is SDN paranoia/anxiety speaking, a 3.6 will not be detrimental to the OPs application. Sure, higher is always better, but its not this huge disparity you're talking about.

The average for matriculating students to MSTP programs hovers around a 3.8/36. That is all the information I based my statements on. BCPM GPA is also important to consider.

I agree that it will not eliminate an applicant from contention. Depends on the competitiveness of the school.

 

[SBR249]

funding at MSTP programs is guaranteed for 8 years minimum.

That's not exactly true. If you are referring to MSTP funding for individual students, then most programs guarantee funding for 5 years (all of med school + 1 year of PhD). The rest of that will be picked up by the graduate department or your PI. What is true is that many programs will not allow students to enter labs where PI funding is iffy for at least the length of time that a student will be there.

On the other hand, if you were talking about institutional NIGMS MSTP training grants from the NIH to MD/PhD programs, they come up for renew every 3 to 5 years. The NIH MSTP grant policy is to provide funding for a maximum of 6 years of training per trainee slot. I'm guessing the number of years between renewals is determined by the track record of the program. Large, established programs like Penn that has had continuous funding for a few decades will come up every 5 years whereas newer ones like Maryland may come up every 3 years and, if they maintain it for a few cycles, gradually lengthen.

Source: http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/InstPredoc/PredocOverview-MSTP.htm

 

[guavas]

3.6 is not that low. Anything under that might be more concerning, but in reality, its an A- average (3.66) vs. A (4). I think this is SDN paranoia/anxiety speaking, a 3.6 will not be detrimental to the OPs application. Sure, higher is always better, but its not this huge disparity you're talking about.

This is correct. Your stats are fine, I'd worry about stuff you can control now, which is talking and writing about your research.
I got in to a good program with the same GPA and a significantly lower MCAT (though I had more research experience). I actually applied around this time too. I did have significantly fewer interviews than most people (and the interviews I got were from the first few schools I sent secondaries to).

Most importantly, get your primary in and do not let your secondaries sit around for too long. Also prioritize them based on which are easiest to get out quickly, and where you'd most like to go.