As the title says, would you ever attend an MD/PhD program that is not fully funded, over a fully-funded program? Or can we safely assume that a program that is not fully funded = not as good as fully-funded (MSTP and non-MSTP) programs?
Would you ever attend an MD/PhD program that is not fully funded?
- Thread starter B 9
- Start date
I do not believe anyone should attend an MD/PhD programs that is not fully funded. The tuition remission and stipend are there to offset the future earnings you would receive had you not done the PhD, so paying for medical school will lose you quite a bit of money in the long run. In general, I think the funded programs are also better. They have sufficient staff and sufficient record keeping to manage the grants and funding. That means they have enough staff to actually help you with all the pesky administrative stuff you do as you transition from MD->PhD->MD, which can be really complicated sometimes. On the interview trail, I ran into a student married to a guy who went to an unorganized MD/PhD program. The program let the medical school dictate what he needed to do, and for some reason, they demanded that he take USMLE Step 2CK (which covers what you learn in your clerkships) before starting his clerkships to prove he was ready. Yes, that makes no sense at all, but that's what they wanted. As expected, he did terribly. He had a terrible time getting interviews for residency because of that, and I'm sure he will match poorly because of his low score as well. That type of stuff should not happen in a program with sufficient funding to have a director and other staff to support him/her.
Not fully funded, one will end up with a big debt by the time s/he graduates. Then the interest accumulates during residency/fellowship. Being in debt certainly affects that person's decision whether to continue staying in research after residency/fellowship or going full-time clinical.
No. I'd never attend a not-fully funded program over a fully funded program in any circumstances. You're getting paid peanuts for the whole of your 20s and not much more in your 30s in exchange for no debt and a career you hope you love after a decade plus of training. You already have to be crazy to do this path. Add debt to that and it's just absurd.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 863
I've heard some people at Harvard and Hopkins that are made to pay some tuition and expenses for MD/PhD... messed up... especially with billions in endowment.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2013
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 1
No.
Thank you all for your inputs- it seems like an easily unanimous "no," even if the fully-funded program might be a relatively lower-tier one. Is this correct? Additionally, I am not sure if there are any more highly regarded programs that are not fully funded.. am I correct?
@detabeg, do you mind sharing which unorganized MD/PhD he went through?
@detabeg, do you mind sharing which unorganized MD/PhD he went through?
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,270
- Reaction score
- 4,158
The story discussed about the MD/PhD student having to take the CK is extremely unfortunate and is an exhibit for an extremely poor MD/PhD Director. Their role is to advocate, nurture, mentor and protect the students. (Please notice I did not say justify).
In my view, all MD/PhD programs must have:
- a minimum program size to have a community,
- a fully funded MD (endowments) and PhD (grants),
- dedicated leadership and administrative support.
If you look at table 37 of AAMC facts, you can examine MD/PhD program size. A minimum size is around mid-20s, which averages to 3 positions per year. All MSTPs have at least mid-30s when they get funded and grow programs by a couple of positions per year. In addition to the 44 MSTP, there are less than 20 MD/PhD programs with sufficient strengths (and institutional commitment) to be competitive for MSTP funding.
In my view, all MD/PhD programs must have:
- a minimum program size to have a community,
- a fully funded MD (endowments) and PhD (grants),
- dedicated leadership and administrative support.
If you look at table 37 of AAMC facts, you can examine MD/PhD program size. A minimum size is around mid-20s, which averages to 3 positions per year. All MSTPs have at least mid-30s when they get funded and grow programs by a couple of positions per year. In addition to the 44 MSTP, there are less than 20 MD/PhD programs with sufficient strengths (and institutional commitment) to be competitive for MSTP funding.
This is correct. You're in a good tier if you're in an MSTP. There are plenty of opportunities later in training to add some prestige to your resume if you're concerned - ie residency, fellowship, postdoc. Although many people do those training steps at the same institutions, you can easily head somewhere else if you want. There are definitely perks to having a name like Harvard on your resume, but you don't need to be a so-called "Preparation H" (ie never left Harvard) for the impact to be made. You're not 'missing out' if you chose not spend 8+ yrs and put yourself into significant debt for the sake of 'prestige.' There's enough 'high prestige' places with training opportunities and relatively few MSTPs students that I'd argue any MSTP student could find a high prestige spot at some point in their training if they really wanted it.
That said, be honest with the program directors. Let the unfunded offer program know that you'd really like to attend their program. However, you can't justify it financially without a funded spot and you're holding a fully funded offer elsewhere. It'll move you into the category of "will definitely attend if funded" versus "will definitely attend without funds" versus "we made an offer no idea where they stand." If they're making waitlist choices to move people into funded spots, they know you'll be a sure thing and that counts for something. There's a lot of juggling once official acceptances and rescinding of all other offers begin since so many of us hold quite a few spots early on.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,926
- Reaction score
- 8,918
The "prestige" of your MD/PhD program means very little when applying to residency. Much more important is your class rank and step 1 scores.
Years ago Hopkins, Harvard, and Penn had unfunded MD/PhD positions. I know Penn stopped doing that. I don't know about Hopkins and Harvard. At just about any program you can apply as an MS1/2 to the MD/PhD program and get only 2-3 of 4 years of medical school funded. You could conceivably be rejected for the program and still elect to do an unfunded PhD anyway.
- Joined
- May 10, 2011
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 56
We had a student from my med school class who did just that. Applied but only got accepted by the MD program, then reapplied first year and again wasn't accepted. Elected to do a PhD anyway (actually is still in grad school as far as I know).
Not what I'd do, but we're all free to make our own poor decisions.
Thank you all for the detailed explanations. The specific unfunded program I was thinking about is Georgetown. It seems like there isn't much information available for the program, as it's been through a lot of financial instability (thus small program size like Fencer has mentioned); they only fund 50% of medical school tuition (no stipend) + full stipend during PhD. Calculating their annual tuition as around $40,000, and assuming another fully-funded program gives $25k yearly stipend, this sums up to about $20,000 x 4 years - (-$25,000 x 4 years) = roughly $180k net difference.
Even if Georgetown might have the "prestige" name (like Watson104 has mentioned), I am aware that Georgetown gets a lot of its name from non-medical schools (this is a completely separate discussion). However, I believe Georgetown PhD students can do rotations and possible thesis in the NIH, which I thought has an acceptable prestige to it. It is absolutely true that their lack of financial support and alumni database (MD/PhD student residency placements, current positions, etc) disappoints me, but in terms of the quality of the program itself, I did feel like it is worth a second look despite the non-full funding. I guess, in this case it might come down to, what specific school am I comparing Georgetown with? As Watson104 mentioned, is it safe to assume that any MSTP program would be a better choice than Georgetown?
Even if Georgetown might have the "prestige" name (like Watson104 has mentioned), I am aware that Georgetown gets a lot of its name from non-medical schools (this is a completely separate discussion). However, I believe Georgetown PhD students can do rotations and possible thesis in the NIH, which I thought has an acceptable prestige to it. It is absolutely true that their lack of financial support and alumni database (MD/PhD student residency placements, current positions, etc) disappoints me, but in terms of the quality of the program itself, I did feel like it is worth a second look despite the non-full funding. I guess, in this case it might come down to, what specific school am I comparing Georgetown with? As Watson104 mentioned, is it safe to assume that any MSTP program would be a better choice than Georgetown?
I will only add that the story I heard about the guy doing poorly on Step 2CK because of poor MD/PhD advocacy did his PhD at the NIH and his MD elsewhere (not Georgetown though). Be careful with doing your PhD elsewhere.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,926
- Reaction score
- 8,918
Just because a University is a big name in general doesn't mean that it's a big name within the medical community. This is a common fallacy among the pre-allopathic crowd. I would not consider them to be more prestigious than any MSTP.
Also, just because a medical school is a big name, doesn't mean that its residency is a big name within the specialty community. This is another common fallacy even among the allopathic crowd.
Unfunded MD/PhD programs don't really care what you do. They're unfunded! If you want to do your PhD at a completely different PhD program, why should they care? You can take a leave of absence from just about any medical school to do a PhD. It's still a bad idea because of lack of money and lack of integration. The best way to get out in 8 years or even try for 7 years total is to have a well oiled and integrated program. A PhD at a separate institution is a recipe for a long combined degree program.
Besides, this was already addressed here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=984396
Due to the funding issues already addressed, absolutely.
