Non-traditional student here

ACanOfCortisol · Sep 15, 2005

Hello,

I am a non-traditional student, seeking to enter the area of Medical Research. I have a Ph.D in Art History and have worked in the area as an instructor / presenter for the past 8 years. I am in my early 30-s and have suddenly become interested in Medicine and Medical Research. My questions are:

(1) I have NIL research experience in the medical field. My idea is to go back to school for a Bachelor's in Biological Sciences with a concentration in Systems Physiology and to do some undergraduate research before applying to an MSTP. Would this increase my chances of passing atleast the first round?

(2) I have a newborn at home. I won't be applying to the MSTP for the next 3 or 4 years (mid-30s) at which time my child will be in preschool. I would like to hear from other students with young children at home. How did you balance the demands of child-bearing/child-raising with academia?

I really need to come to a decision soon. I am serious about changing fields from Art & Art History to Medicine and could do with all the advice / feedback / suggestions that I can get. What could I do to 'up' my chances of making it to a program of my choice?

Thanks.

dr.z · Sep 16, 2005

It seems like a long path, but I think you have the right plan.

tr · Sep 16, 2005

May I ask what your eventual career plans are, and why you are so set on the MSTP?

The MSTP is useful in that it gives one an extremely broad base and a lot of options, but it doesn't lead to any specific career path that can't also be achieved with either degree alone. It is mainly useful for people who are set on academia. The major disadvantage of the MSTP is the timesuck factor, and I think the importance of this factor only increases with time. (If you are 30 now and you do a second bachelor's, you'll be entering at 35 the earliest, so graduating around 42-43. Then you'll have residency and/or postdoc to do, so if all goes perfectly smoothly you'll be applying for your first faculty slot around age 46-50.)

If you are planning to go back for a second bachelor's, it doesn't sound as if you are terribly concerned about a loss of income, in which case it might make more sense for you to do a postbacc and volunteer in a research lab, then go straight to med school. It will save you doing the second bachelor's degree, so you'll speed up your path considerably, and you can put the money you were going to use for the second undergrad toward med school. There are plenty of opportunities for research in med school for those who are interested.

Also, it isn't clear from your post exactly what your interests are. If you have absolutely no background in biomedical research, then most likely your research interests are not very well defined. The MD is a slightly better bet in this case than the PhD, because the PhD is very narrowly focused and locks you in to a smaller subset of career trajectories. PhDs (at least in biosciences, or perhaps you agree given your art history background?) are best for people who know exactly what they want to do with them.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

ACanOfCortisol said:
I am a non-traditional student, seeking to enter the area of Medical Research.

Hello!

I'm 39 and currently applying MD/PhD this year. I'm a woman with a family as well. I'm assuming that like most nontrads with families, you've done all the preliminary thinking about what your're embarking on so I won't waste any of this post with that.

1) Ignore ANYONE who tries to get you to look at this path from the perspective of age. There's a 50 something surgical resident on SDN and many others who are older than you and doing just fine. Check out www.oldpremeds.com and/or www.mommd.com for more supportive stories.

2) I actually think it's a great idea to get a second bachelor's degree because you'll probably qualify for financial aide which can also inlcude money for childcare. And you may be able to get scholarship money. It's also a LOT easier to get those prime "premed" jobs as a degree seeking student rather than a non degree seeking post bacc. Most importantly as a person (male or female?) with a family you'll want a solid "fall-back" position in case you're not admitted and want to try again the following year.

3) I personally have nothing negative to say about pursuing this path with a family and when I orignally began this road, I was a divorcee with one child. What HAS changed is that I'm a hellva lot more focused and watch less TV. Financially, things were lean in those first few years after I quit my gig in big pharma for the NIH to beef up my apps, but I believe that a sacrifice like this is worth it in the long run. I also think it helps to target schols where the cost of living is reasonable.

Last week I was asked to talk about my path to applying MD/PhD at a meeting where I presented my research and although I'll be in my late 40's when I finish school, I honestly NEVER think about it unless someone else brings it up. I'm not obsessed with money, or youth and feel that I have a choice to either be 48 without the MD/PhD or with it. I'm choosing to be 48 with it. Good Luck!!!

dl2dp2 · Sep 16, 2005

while i'm completely sympathetic to your story, i must say i have to voice a negative opinion.

the poster above is not in a mdphd program yet. in reality, the attrition rate for mdphd programs is astoundly high. people are often confused and exasperated in mdphd programs, even when they are in their early 20s.

In addition, you have never done any research, which makes admissions difficult. The trouble is to build that research background so you'll know what kind of research you'd want to do. It's unclear to me if you'd actually like doing laboratory research, and commit your life to it, once you worked in a real lab. Frankly most of it is extremely boring, and it's nothing like the reading/writing format in art history. On the other hand, clinical medicine is fairly exciting to the lay population and in many ways similar to the art historical narrative, with a science/research bent, which is what i think you want.

I also suggest the postbac/med school route. There's nothing you can't do with an MD that you can with a MDPhD. In addition, there are now lots of non-trad people going through that pathway. You can do research fourth year of med school. You have a a much better finacial cushion at the end of it. It's in fact a much better route for people who want to save some time. By the time you graduate med school, if you are still interested in research, just do a postdoc. In addition, it seems money is not the problem here for you, so that's one less incentive.

In summary: i'm not convinced that in your case an MDPHD wouldn't be pure a waste of time.

Ecthgar · Sep 16, 2005

sluox said:
while i'm completely sympathetic to your story, i must say i have to voice a negative opinion.

the poster above is not in a mdphd program yet. in reality, the attrition rate for mdphd programs is astoundly high. people are often confused and exasperated in mdphd programs, even when they are in their early 20s.

In addition, you have never done any research, which makes admissions difficult. The trouble is to build that research background so you'll know what kind of research you'd want to do. It's unclear to me if you'd actually like doing laboratory research, and commit your life to it, once you worked in a real lab. Frankly most of it is extremely boring, and it's nothing like the reading/writing format in art history. On the other hand, clinical medicine is fairly exciting to the lay population and in many ways similar to the art historical narrative, with a science/research bent, which is what i think you want.

I also suggest the postbac/med school route. There's nothing you can't do with an MD that you can with a MDPhD. In addition, there are now lots of non-trad people going through that pathway. You can do research fourth year of med school. You have a a much better finacial cushion at the end of it. It's in fact a much better route for people who want to save some time. By the time you graduate med school, if you are still interested in research, just do a postdoc. In addition, it seems money is not the problem here for you, so that's one less incentive.

In summary: i'm not convinced that in your case an MDPHD wouldn't be pure a waste of time.

I usually don't take the time to chime in on alot of stuff here, but I think that this response is SPOT ON. As always, be careful who you take advice from and read everything with a grain of salt.....however, I think the best advice in this regard comes from actual MD/PhD students. Not necessarily from overly-hyped up applicants (no offense). Trust me, when you are in the middle of the training road (so to speak) you really begin to get tired and question why the hell you're doing this. I'm currently a 4th year combined degree student and I'm 27.......if I were any older I don't think I would be doing this. I think its because after you get into a lab and REALLY see the lay of the land, you realize you really DON'T need the PhD to be a good scientist (but it does help). And like Sluox said, the MD is INFINITELY better than the PhD alone......its no contest as to which I would choose if I had to pick one or the other. Why?? Because I see too many PhD's strugling in the currently horrible climate of the NIH and you don't really need a PhD to do good work. There will always be a job for an MD.....I can't really say the same thing for a PhD. Also consider your family.....the MD/PhD road is long and hard....what effect will it have on them? Finally, get into a lab and do some work before you make the final decision.....this goes without saying.

Bottom line: Age is VERY important when it comes to decisions like these. I want to retire before I'm 80.......know what I mean? Just think about some of these things carefully, becasue I promise when you apply and interview they will come up......even for a standard non-traditional MD only applicant. Good luck.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

sluox said:
the poster above is not in a mdphd program yet.

Funny thing is that when I do marticulte into a program, someome whould still have something to say about it. For example, if I matrculate 3rd teir, it will be "don't listen to her because she's not at a top ten school". Or, it will be, "don't listen to here because she had a Master's degree first". Or my all time favorite, "don't listen to her because she didn't go straight through from undergrad to MD/PhD by age 25". Did I miss anything important? :laugh:

To the OP, keep in mind that when it comes to your research, no one gives a rats A$$ how old you are. I presented my research at 2 meetings this year and do you want to know how many times someone asked me my age during the poster session or presentation? Not one dam, time! And I guess lucky for me, age wasn't a deciding factor on wining an award for an outstanding presentation. 🙄 😉

So I guess you have a choice here. You can either listen to a bunch of folks who if given the chance wouldn't give you the time of day because of your age, put limits on a persons drive/motivation and ability without all the facts, and think that "actual" MD/PhD students WITHOUT families can tell you what it's like to have one. Or you can visit oldpremeds.com and be inspired by ACTUAL people over age 35 with families and careers in medicine at ALL levels of training.

Finally, I've seen some of these 20 somethings at meetings and at the NIH and let me tell you. If I looked as old and hard as some of the "young people" do, I''d be concerned about getting older too! :laugh:

ropra · Sep 16, 2005

just a quick post...not that I disagree with what the "old" posters are saying -- go for it. but, at the same time, it may be useful to be realistic about the time and age issue. As many of the other posters have said, getting a phd or an md alone will allow you to do research. doing an md gives added versatility in that you will be able to practice medicine as well. there are many students who do an md, get into some post md research opp and then go on to be amazing researchers.

and i will have to disagree with you in regard to people looking at you age in research -- grants for ex -- age may not play an immediate role, but if NIH or whatever other org you are applying to sees a younger investigator who has the potential to continue for a longer period on a great idea, they are more likely to give the grant to that person. this kinda makes sense.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

ropra said:
but if NIH or whatever other org you are applying to sees a younger investigator who has the potential to continue for a longer period on a great idea, they are more likely to give the grant to that person. this kinda makes sense.

I just finished a 3 year predoctoral fellowship at NIH IN MY LATE 30's, so I really don't think NIH looks at age at all. What Ican tell you they DO look at is talent, determination, and skill. If you have those, it's all good. And since when is being in your 20's a guarentee of anything except the ability to maneuvar a play station 2? :laugh:

I also need to mention that like most people commenting in this thread, I also KNOW what it's like to be accepted MD/PhD. I declined my seat to take care of my father who was fighting cancer and unfortunately lost his fight. I can also tell you that judging from some of the comments in this thread, I would probably be alone in having made that decision. Perhaps it would have been easy for some career driven folks to just put their parents away for an MD/PhD spot. And if this is true, hopefulkly karma will bring it back around full circle, just like it ALWAYS does.

A lot of what I'm saying in telling the OP to "go for it" has to deal with things most of you telling him not to have NEVER dealth with. Trust me, when you're on your death bed, you won't be thinking about how long it took you to finish school or how much money you have in the bank. You WILL be thinking about those dreams you gave up on. My biggest problem with most of the comments in this thread is that if the OP were in his/her 20's, you'd be giving him/her the "green light". To that just let me say that I've met PLENTLY of people that were so busy with school that they forgot to have a "life" and now have some regrets. You could write a book about the late 20 somethings/ early 30 something disgruntled doctors with "no life" outside their professions. Now take a look around oldpremeds.com. I can't think of ONE physician there that regrets having made their decision later in life.

This thread should be about choice, passion, preparation, determination, and preserverance. Not all this negative BS that floating around here.

hardy · Sep 16, 2005

1Path said:
1) Ignore ANYONE who tries to get you to look at this path from the perspective of age. There's a 50 something surgical resident on SDN and many others who are older than you and doing just fine. Check out www.oldpremeds.com and/or www.mommd.com for more supportive stories.

Well, you have to look at it from the perspective of the MD/PhD program (a funded one). They throw a whole lot of money at you during your years in the program and it is just natural that they expect something in return, ie a pysician-scientist who can contribute to society. If you are already 50 by the time you are done, you just don't have as much time to research as has somebody who is younger. For a regular MD it is different. The school receives tuition and as such it is not as much of an investment.

Now, I have no idea whether what I just said plays any role in admissions. But it just seems to me that age probably does plays a greater role in MD/PhD admission than in MD admission.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

ropra said:
there are many students who do an md, get into some post md research opp and then go on to be amazing researchers.

This is an incredible BAD idea judging from what I observed at the NIH although there are plenty of MD's doing research there. When you get to a place like NIH, they expect you to "hit the ground running" which is pretty hard to do based on MD training which does NOT teach you to be a SCIENTIST. That's what a PhD is for. Not only that, you're expected to maintain some clinical duties as well in some places. Am I saying that you can't so good science with an MD only? Of course not, but why put yourself at a disadvantaged and in DIRECT competition with MD/PhD's and PhD's, people TRAINED to do research? At the NIH, it's ALL about publications. You know, I don't have enough digits to count all the people I met at NIH with MD's only now doing research who wished they'd have been a more PATIENT and gone for the MD/PhD or a PhD in residency.

The MD/PhD opens too many doors for anyone with an interst in both to pass it up in the interest of time. Time is relative. Is an MD/PhD wasted on a 27 year old graduate who dies in a car accident one year after graduation? No, then it's not "wasted" anyone else either.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

hardy said:
Well, you have to look at it from the perspective of the MD/PhD program (a funded one). If you are already 50 by the time you are done, you just don't have as much time to research as has somebody who is younger. For a regular MD it is different. The school receives tuition and as such it is not as much of an investment.

Are you suggesting that people over 50 can't contribute to society? Do you plan to kill yourself when you get 50 because you feel you can't make a contribution to society? Sound ridiculous? So does the idea that contributuions to society stop at age 49!! 🙄
You're assuning that the person couldn't have done some outstanding work BEFORE MD/PhD matricualtion and while in grad school postion of their MD/PhD program. I realize that I'm from a generation that was far less focused on "stuff" that those born after me, but what exactly constitutes success? EVERY MD/PhD student I know has published some important work from their training and those I know that stayed in research continue to publish. Also, if by being a 50 soemthing resident I inspire other late 30 somethings to go MD/PhD, haven't I made a contribution to society?

My understanding is that Watson and Crick won the noble prize for work done while in their post-docs. That means that by 54, I should be in GREAT shape! 😉

Ecthgar · Sep 16, 2005

Wow.....slow down 1Path.....take it easy. We're just offering REAL advice here. Quick question: Have you interviewed with any programs yet? My guess is that you haven't because I think you would understand where some of us are coming from if you did. Med school will change your life in more ways than one (trust me here). Before giving out advice and ranting and raving over comments taken out of context you should really try being a MD/PhD student first. We're not trying to discourage anyone or put down anyone for being older here. Personally, I don't give a **** what you or anyone else does with their life. Some of us are just trying to give you a somewhat subjective view of what life may be like for you or other non-traditional students in MSTP's. ACTUAL STUDENTS will almost always have better advice than hyped-up applicants.....PERIOD. And I don't care what prior experiences you may have had at NIH or whatever, no one can be fullly prepared for med school when they matriculate.

hardy · Sep 16, 2005

1Path said:
Are you suggesting that people over 50 can't contribute to society? Do you plan to kill yourself when you get 50 because you feel you can't make a contribution to society? Sound ridiculous? So does the idea that contributuions to society stop at age 49!! 🙄

Did I say that? All I said was that a person who is done at 50 has less time to do research than somebody who is done at 30. And more time equates to a greater likelihood for significant research. You should not twist things around like that since I never said you can't contribute, but you have less time and thus are probably going to contribute less.

1Path said:
You're assuning that the person couldn't have done some outstanding work BEFORE MD/PhD matricualtion and while in grad school postion of their MD/PhD program.

What does research before matriculation have to do with your MD/PhD training. The training you receive after you already did that outstanding work is not going to make a difference to it.

1Path said:
EVERY MD/PhD student I know has published some important work from their training and those I know that stayed in research continue to publish. Also, if by being a 50 soemthing resident I inspire other late 30 somethings to go MD/PhD, haven't I made a contribution to society?

Well, yes, but the younger graduate still has more time. I am talking about the economic perspective of the school/government. They want something in return for the money they spend, ie research results. If you are younger, you are more likely to have more significant research results since you have more time to do research. It's as simple as that.
Of course, there are exceptions, and you might win a noble prize for work done as a 50 year old post-doc. But overall it is still more likely that a 30 year old will discover something significant during the next 30 years than that a 50 year old discovers something during the next 15 years.
And yes, schools and the government usually operate in the economically most beneficial way.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

Ecthgar said:
Wow.....slow down 1Path.....take it easy. We're just offering REAL advice here. Quick question: Have you interviewed with any programs yet? My guess is that you haven't because I think you would understand where some of us are coming from if you did. .

Wow, looks like a reading test should be added to the med school interview, I not only interviewed but was accepted years ago.

Ecthgar said:
ACTUAL STUDENTS will almost always have better advice than hyped-up applicants.....PERIOD. And I don't care what prior experiences you may have had at NIH or whatever, no one can be fullly prepared for med school when they matriculate.

Gee such anger and attitude, what happend did NIH reject you? You sound like a raving 2 year-old now get in the corner for a time-out! :laugh:

hardy · Sep 16, 2005

1Path said:
Wow, looks like a reading test should be added to the med school interview, I not only interviewed but was accepted years ago.

To quote your earlier post:

1Path said:
Hello!

I'm 39 and currently applying MD/PhD this year. I'm a woman with a family as well.

So what is this supposed to mean?

Oh, and the reading test is called the verbal part of the MCAT.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

hardy said:
What does research before matriculation have to do with your MD/PhD training. The training you receive after you already did that outstanding work is not going to make a difference to it..

I thought we were talking about contributions to society. 😕 And I'd say that the work I've personally done discovering biomarkers for cancer will not only make a difference but may save a life or two. But then again, I think all the projects I've participated in will make a difference however slight and I'd be willing to bet that this is true for the overwhelming lajority of peopel who do research. EVERYONE's research is "valuable" even if it doesn't result in a Science or JAMA paper. Also, if a person does research in the same area (a la the MD/PhD in 6 years instead of 8) before matriculating then it makes them a better "expert"in that chosen field.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

hardy said:
Oh, and the reading test is called the verbal part of the MCAT.

You too? I meant test questions that are read OUT LOUD for people who are slow on the uptake during the med school interview.

You know a research career is going to be tough for a person who can't make inferences. :laugh:

hardy · Sep 16, 2005

1Path said:
I thought we were talking about contributions to society. 😕

I was talking about contributions to society due to your MD/PhD education. I never said that you could not contribute to society otherwise.

1Path said:
EVERYONE's research is "valuable" even if it doesn't result in a Science or JAMA paper.

If everybody's research was equally valuable, there would be no such thing as a noble prize.

The significance of research (as measured by journal citations etc.) is quite important to an institution's research ranking and funding. Do you understand that funding somebody's MD/PhD education is an investment? And do you understand that - on average - somebody who is working for 30 years has more output than somebody who is working 15 years?
This is all I am talking about. A simple economic equation, which schools might or might not take into consideration (although I think they do to a certain extent).

hardy · Sep 16, 2005

1Path said:
You too? I meant test questions that are read OUT LOUD for people who are slow on the uptake during the med school interview.

You know a research career is going to be tough for a person who can't make inferences.

Why don't you explain what this is supposed to mean, if I am unable to make inferences and understand English 🙄

1Path said:
Hello!

I'm 39 and currently applying MD/PhD this year. I'm a woman with a family as well.

You are currently applying MD/PhD this year? This certainly sounds like you are applying to MD/PhD programs this year.

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

hardy said:
If everybody's research was equally valuable, there would be no such thing as a noble prize..

Oh man, too many issues to comment on here. I just hope your future wife (if you should be so fortunate) gets a real good life insurance policy on you with a suicide clause.

hardy · Sep 16, 2005

1Path said:
Oh man, too many issues to comment on here. I just hope your future wife (if you should be so fortunate) gets a real good life insurance policy on you with a suicide clause.

You know, people can define themselves by other things than their research 🙄

1Path · Sep 16, 2005

ACanOfCortisol said:
(2) I have a newborn at home. I won't be applying to the MSTP for the next 3 or 4 years (mid-30s) at which time my child will be in preschool. I would like to hear from other students with young children at home. How did you balance the demands of child-bearing/child-raising with academia?

I think the most improtant thing you can do is both in undergrad and in yopur MD/PhD program is work for someone who also has kids. Invaribly, things WILL come up at home and you want to make sure your PI can not only relate but have some compassion as well. I've had tremendous success working in academia (at NIH, in grad school and as a technician) for PI's that were parents and have had nightmareish experiences working for PI's that weren't. Irronically, the one PI that was the absolute worst when I was on bed rest during my pregnany, was a woman (who it turned out had been trying for years and been unsuccessful having kids).

Overall, I think nontrads with families have a lot more to think about beyond funding and succesful lab issues.

Scottish Chap · Sep 17, 2005

ACanOfCortisol said:
Hello,

I am a non-traditional student, seeking to enter the area of Medical Research. I have a Ph.D in Art History and have worked in the area as an instructor / presenter for the past 8 years. I am in my early 30-s and have suddenly become interested in Medicine and Medical Research. My questions are:

(1) I have NIL research experience in the medical field. My idea is to go back to school for a Bachelor's in Biological Sciences with a concentration in Systems Physiology and to do some undergraduate research before applying to an MSTP. Would this increase my chances of passing atleast the first round?

(2) I have a newborn at home. I won't be applying to the MSTP for the next 3 or 4 years (mid-30s) at which time my child will be in preschool. I would like to hear from other students with young children at home. How did you balance the demands of child-bearing/child-raising with academia?

I really need to come to a decision soon. I am serious about changing fields from Art & Art History to Medicine and could do with all the advice / feedback / suggestions that I can get. What could I do to 'up' my chances of making it to a program of my choice?

Thanks.

I'll try to offer some advice. I did a PhD and a postdoc before applying to medical school (I'm an MS I). You have a very unique background but, honestly, getting into an MD/PhD program is going to be a stretch as you stand today...with little background in the sciences and that's not even mentioning the SEVERAL years it would take to make yourself acceptable to the adcom. There is something in the rigorous, focused graduate education thats difficult to replicate elsewhere, but its true that you dont NEED a Ph.D. to be a medical researcher.

However, getting into an MD is quite doable if you are committed. Take the basic premed classes and if you like what you are doing, study hard for the MCAT and apply. You'll only need one year of chemistry, biology, organic chemistry, and physics (one year of each plus lab). This should take you two years in total...no need to do a second B.S. degree. I worked with a resident at Hopkins who was an interior designer in her previous life. Many medical schools like nontraditional applicants who, like yourself, are very bright but did not think about medicine until later on. My year has a couple of Ph.D.'s, an ex-army chaplain, an ex-CEO and the age range is 20-50. My friend at GW had an anthropology Ph.D. in his class so it does happen. The M.D. wont give you the solid scientific training that a Ph.D. would supplement, but it will provide you with all the understanding you'll need to appreciate human pathophysiology and youll be able to practice medicine too. After that, it's just a case of getting lab experience. M.D. alone will be a much faster route for you too.

tr · Sep 17, 2005

I just wanted to ditto and underline these passages from sluox and Scottish Chap. 1Path has a useful perspective in that she actually is an older nontrad, but I think the points below are really valid. (Btw I am starting my sixth year in the program...)

Scottish Chap said:
You have a very unique background but, honestly, getting into an MD/PhD program is going to be a stretch as you stand today...with little background in the sciences and that's not even mentioning the SEVERAL years it would take to make yourself acceptable to the adcom. There is something in the rigorous, focused graduate education thats difficult to replicate elsewhere, but its true that you dont NEED a Ph.D. to be a medical researcher.

However, getting into an MD is quite doable if you are committed.

sluox said:
In addition, you have never done any research, which makes admissions difficult. The trouble is to build that research background so you'll know what kind of research you'd want to do. It's unclear to me if you'd actually like doing laboratory research, and commit your life to it, once you worked in a real lab.

Non-traditional student here

New Member

Full Member

inert protoplasm

Membership Revoked

Full Member

Evil Genius

Membership Revoked

Member

Membership Revoked

Full Member

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Evil Genius

Full Member

Membership Revoked

Full Member

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Full Member

Full Member

Membership Revoked

Full Member

Membership Revoked

Full Member

inert protoplasm

Similar threads