2 case scenario question...

[anxietypeaker]

---

Members do not see this ad.

which would you choose of the two AND WHY:

1) decent md-phd (MSTP) program: UCI, chicago, tulane, einstein etc

2) strong pure MD program: UCLA, UCSF, etc.



Since MSTP numbers (GPA/MCAT) are USUALLY a bit higher than the pure MD programs, how did u decide on which schools and which program (md vs. mdphd to apply to)? And example might be good here: Lets say i only apply MSTP. I get into tulanes'. It IS mstp, so a very good program. But i might have gotten into UCLA pure MD with my numbers if i applied only MD.
NOTE: I know they siphon off mdphd rejects to the pure md pile, but it slows the app down = decreased competitiveness.

 

[mdinatx]

I doubt a true mdphd wannabe would be satisfied with pure MD anywhere. There's an itch that keeps coming back.

So... decent > pure.

Or pure > decent (if you don't like research). Unless you plan on doing a research fellowship or a PhD after MD, I don't see any other ways.

 

[anxietypeaker]

I assume if i did a pure MD, i would do a research fellowship after at least... Anyways, anyone else wanna comment on how they decided AND how they justified the fact taht they might get into an "OK" mstp but coulda gotten prolly into a great pure md? THis is to help me decide

 

[Neuronix]

😕

If you want to be a MD/PhD, apply to MD/PhD programs. If you want to be a MD, apply to MD programs. I don't understand where your question is coming from.

 

[Jorje286]

😕

If you want to be a MD/PhD, apply to MD/PhD programs. If you want to be a MD, apply to MD programs. I don't understand where your question is coming from.

Exactly.

It depends too much on each person's preferences and goals.

 

[anxietypeaker]

But cant either pure md and md-phd do academic medicine (research/teaching/clinical)? Since the end game for both paths are the same, thats why i asked what i did (which route allows for better chance at breaking into academia: decent mdphd vs. great md program)?

Is my question that unique (i honestly ask this, i thought many of you already thought of this)?

 

[Dreemer005]

I think if you are 100% sure you are interested in research, then do the MSTP. Otherwise, I would do the MD. If you are at a strong program and are on the fence, it's relatively easy to get research fellowships for a year to see if you like it, such as Howard Hughes or Doris Dukes. And usually if you want to do a dual degree after you enter a program, it shouldn't be too difficult.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the more competitive residencies and fellowships are requiring several years of research during training. If you decide to do a PhD later, you could merge your clinical training with the PhD after med school (which is what I'm likely going to do with cardiology). The only drawback to this would be that you would have had to pay your way through med school. However, your income from training and/or moonlighting during those years should more than make up for the tuition.

 

[Neuronix]

which route allows for better chance at breaking into academia: decent mdphd vs. great md program?

IMO, MD/PhD at any school demonstrates a greater interest in basic research than does a MD at any school, unless that MD happens to have significant research experience. The debt you will incur from doing a straight MD and doing some research there will keep you away from academic medicine far more than some perceived prestige difference. One could perhaps argue some extremes, but even then I think what I'm saying holds.

After you graduate from medical school and go onto residency, almost nobody will care where you went to medical school. Further, for research oriented, academic residencies the PhD holds a lot of weight. When it comes time to apply to research oriented fellowships, these are again not usually very competitive and entirely based on your residency, research interests, etc.

See also: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=5087052&postcount=28

I consider "breaking into" academia a kind of silly term. Any allopathic medical school is academia. They took allopathic medical school out of the hands of private practice physicians about a hundred years ago. This is why you'll have research opportunities, and probably research oppertunities in big name labs (if this matters to you), at any school you look at. Sure, Harvard has more big names than let's say, U of MN, but in my particular field the U of MN has one of the top labs in the nation.

 

[anxietypeaker]

-The debt you will incur from doing a straight MD and doing some research there will keep you away from academic medicine far more than some perceived prestige difference. One could perhaps argue some extremes, but even then I think what I'm saying holds.-

Thats the kinda explanation i was looking for. Ok. I've been doing lotsa soul searching and i just wanted second opinions (thats why posted here). I will apply MSTP. My hearts set on research (with clinical).

My next question is...whats a score on the MCAT thats too low to justify applying only MSTP (assuming gpa is ~3.75)? I think im having a hard time moving above 32 (i know, that pretty low). I know...im a pain in the butt, but this site is pretty helpful in garnering what people think.