*** 2018-2019 MD/PhD cycle - Questions, Comments, and other things ***

[Fencer]

One more week in the process.... Brief update as of admission actions by Saturday 02/02/19 (overnight sync to today - 02/03/19) for the 2019 AMCAS MD/PhD cycle (Changes since 1/27 actions).

Total MD/PhD Applicants ----------- 1773 (no change)
Withdrawn BEFORE AC --------------------- 14 (no change)
Rejected --------------------------------- 1044 (-5)
Actively seeking (not RJ) ----------------- 715 (+5)
At least 1 MD/PhD AC ---------------- 457 (+28)
Withdrawn AFTER AC ------------------------ 7 (+1)
Currently MD/PhD Accepted -------------- 450 (+27)
Still looking for a MD/PhD position - 258 (-23)

Some observations...
- The non-rejected pool of applicants remains at a level (715) significantly below of the number of people who traditionally get at least one acceptance (range: 749-791 - 6 year average 774 - see post #225). This past week 5 applicants who appeared rejected were moved into the active pool of applicants. I expect ~ 60 more people who were interviewed and currently appear in the system as rejected might be eventually accepted (note that some of these applicants haven't been notified of their status). Please note that there is very little difference in the average academic benchmarks between the people who have not given at least one MD/PhD AC and those in the rejected pool.
------------------------------------------------------- UG cGPA mean ----- MCAT mean
Total MD/PhD Applicants ---------------- 1773 --------- 3.66 ------------ 510.9
Withdrawn BEFORE AC --------------------- 14 --------- 3.79 ------------ 510.9
Rejected ---------------------------------- 1044 --------- 3.60 ----------- 508.5
Actively seeking (not RJ) ----------------- 715 --------- 3.75 ------------ 514.3
At least 1 MD/PhD AC --------------------- 457 --------- 3.82 ------------ 516.7
Withdrawn AFTER AC ------------------------ 7 --------- 3.69 ------------ 512.1
Currently MD/PhD Accepted -------------- 450 --------- 3.82 ------------ 516.8
Still looking for a MD/PhD position ------- 258 --------- 3.62 ----------- 509.9
Programs have offered to ~60% of applicants of the eventual pool that will get at least one MD/PhD AC. The other ~40% of those who will get a MD/PhD AC have adequate benchmarks but are rich on other qualities. What the numbers show is that programs examine other factors to select interviewees and eventual matriculants. Those factors include extent and quality of research experiences, strength of the LORs, interview performance, resilience, fit with program strengths, and other factors.

- The overall pool of applicants this year at the present point is about 2.5 - 6 % smaller than prior recent years (2016 - 1903 applicants, 2017 - 1824 applicants, 6-year average - 1860).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kepler16b]

One more week in the process.... Brief update as of admission actions by Saturday 02/02/19 (overnight sync to today - 02/03/19) for the 2019 AMCAS MD/PhD cycle (Changes since 1/27 actions).

Total MD/PhD Applicants ----------- 1773 (no change)
Withdrawn BEFORE AC --------------------- 14 (no change)
Rejected --------------------------------- 1044 (-5)
Actively seeking (not RJ) ----------------- 715 (+5)
At least 1 MD/PhD AC ---------------- 457 (+28)
Withdrawn AFTER AC ------------------------ 7 (+1)
Currently MD/PhD Accepted -------------- 450 (+27)
Still looking for a MD/PhD position - 258 (-23)

Some observations...
- The non-rejected pool of applicants remains at a level (715) significantly below of the number of people who traditionally get at least one acceptance (range: 749-791 - 6 year average 774 - see post #225). This past week 5 applicants who appeared rejected were moved into the active pool of applicants. I expect ~ 60 more people who were interviewed and currently appear in the system as rejected might be eventually accepted (note that some of these applicants haven't been notified of their status). Please note that there is very little difference in the average academic benchmarks between the people who have not given at least one MD/PhD AC and those in the rejected pool.
------------------------------------------------------- UG cGPA mean ----- MCAT mean
Total MD/PhD Applicants ---------------- 1773 --------- 3.66 ------------ 510.9
Withdrawn BEFORE AC --------------------- 14 --------- 3.79 ------------ 510.9
Rejected ---------------------------------- 1044 --------- 3.60 ----------- 508.5
Actively seeking (not RJ) ----------------- 715 --------- 3.75 ------------ 514.3
At least 1 MD/PhD AC --------------------- 457 --------- 3.82 ------------ 516.7
Withdrawn AFTER AC ------------------------ 7 --------- 3.69 ------------ 512.1
Currently MD/PhD Accepted -------------- 450 --------- 3.82 ------------ 516.8
Still looking for a MD/PhD position ------- 258 --------- 3.62 ----------- 509.9
Programs have offered to ~60% of applicants of the eventual pool that will get at least one MD/PhD AC. The other ~40% of those who will get a MD/PhD AC have adequate benchmarks but are rich on other qualities. What the numbers show is that programs examine other factors to select interviewees and eventual matriculants. Those factors include extent and quality of research experiences, strength of the LORs, interview performance, resilience, fit with program strengths, and other factors.

- The overall pool of applicants this year at the present point is about 2.5 - 6 % smaller than prior recent years (2016 - 1903 applicants, 2017 - 1824 applicants, 6-year average - 1860).

Thanks for the update, Fencer. Can you make any conjectures about why the applicant pool is significantly smaller this year? I was wondering if it could be explained by job market trends, as crazy as that sounds.

Strong job market => immediate satisfaction with a career outside of medicine or better chances for a good job with an MD only.

 

[Fencer]

Your guess (just like in research) is as good or better than mine. Although we still have a ~$50 billion ($36 M from NIH, plus VA, DoD, Pharma) of biomedical research enterprise per year, applicants hear that the sky is falling and that this is too hard. Clinician-scientists drive most of the biomedical research enterprise in the US. Getting into a MD/PhD program allows you to get into a career that prepares you to succeed. We must cut the time to graduation, have reasonable PSTP residencies (cutting time to first position), improve support to first grant, and then cut time to first R01. It is easier said than done...

 

[Fencer]

One more week in the process.... Brief update as of admission actions by Friday 02/08/19 (overnight sync to today - 02/09/19) for the 2019 AMCAS MD/PhD cycle (Changes since 02/02 actions).

This is the BEST result for each individual applicant (WA or AC is better than Active/Looking, which is better than Rejected - PW, PR, RJ)

Total MD/PhD Applicants ----------- 1769 (- 4 ???)
Withdrawn BEFORE AC --------------------- 11 (- 3 ???)
Rejected --------------------------------- 1073 (+29)
Actively seeking (not RJ) ----------------- 685 (-30)
At least 1 MD/PhD AC ---------------- 490 (+33) PAST 6-year average 774
Withdrawn AFTER AC ------------------------ 5 (-2 ???)
Currently MD/PhD Accepted -------------- 485 (+35)
Still looking for a MD/PhD position - 195 (-63)

Some observations...
- The non-rejected pool of applicants remains at a level (685) significantly below of the number of people who traditionally get at least one acceptance (range: 749-791 - 6 year average 774 - see post #225). I expect ~ 60-80 more people who were interviewed and currently appear in the system as rejected to be eventually accepted (note - some of these applicants might NOT be aware/notified of their status).
- The size of the application pool is now smaller by 4 applications. I don't know how these applicants were reclassified or withdrawn from the entire cycle.
- As indicated in my prior post #359, there is very little difference in the average academic benchmarks between the people who have are "still looking for a MD/PhD position" and those in the rejected pool.
- I will posting something tomorrow about the upcoming traffic rules deadlines and their potential effect. I hope that the system works well, after all, we are all together interested in making it work... My comments will be intended to "oil" the system.

 

[APMicro]

@Fencer I really appreciate the frequent updates you provide for us. It definitely makes this process a bit easier to deal with. I'm currently an applicant. I've had 3 interviews, going on my 4th this week. With two waitlists so far. I fall in the group of 195 students (still looking) right? How reasonable of a shot do I have of getting in? I've already sent a letter of intent and updates to my top choice that I'm waitlisted at. Is there anything else that I can do at this point?

Thank you again for all your help

 

[Fencer]

Yes... the system would classify you as one of the 195 still seeking a position. Each interview is an independent process with a probability of 0.3-0.5. Having said that each program sees the same person/app, thus, they are not totally independent events. With 4 interviews, two waitlists, and no rejections yet, your likelihood of getting accepted is high (>80%). Unfortunately, given the current uncertainty of the effects of our traffic rules, programs would be conservative in extending their offers. it is likely that your acceptance comes after mid-April and could be as late as mid-May.

I would reach out to all four programs.

 

[APMicro]

Thank you. I really appreciate the advice!

 

[immunoHERstochemistry]

- I will posting something tomorrow about the upcoming traffic rules deadlines and their potential effect. I hope that the system works well, after all, we are all together interested in making it work... My comments will be intended to "oil" the system.

Thank you for keeping us regularly updated, @Fencer. Do you have any theories on how the new “Choose Your Medical School” AMCAS tool might affect waitlist movement this year? I was also wondering if you think there will be considerably more people getting their first MD/PhD acceptance as late as, say, May, compared to prior years, as a result of the new trafficking rules.

 

[LSStressed]

I've been to 7 MD/PhD interviews, waitlisted at one, rejected at one, and waiting to hear back from the other 5. Would I be considered in the actively seeking or in the rejected group?

 

[TheJooce]

I've been to 7 MD/PhD interviews, waitlisted at one, rejected at one, and waiting to hear back from the other 5. Would I be considered in the actively seeking or in the rejected group?

Actively seeking.

 

[ClinicianScientist]

Hey, I saw from one of your older posts that you were applying to Mayo's MSTP. I thought they didn't accept non-Canadian internationals (as stated on their website). Have they changed their policy? Just asking because I'm a non-Canadian int'l as well and will apply next year. You can PM me if you prefer.

You are correct, unfortunately (unless things change next year) you must be a Candian or US citizen/PR to be eligible for Mayo’s MSTP.

 

[Fencer]

One more week in the process.... Brief update as of admission actions by Friday 02/15/19 (overnight sync to today - 02/0/19) for the 2019 AMCAS MD/PhD cycle (Changes since 02/02 actions).

This is the BEST result for each individual applicant (WA or AC is better than Active/Looking, which is better than Rejected - PW, PR, RJ)

Total MD/PhD Applicants ----------- 1764 (- 5 ???) *comment #2
Withdrawn BEFORE AC --------------------- 10 (- 1 ?)
Rejected --------------------------------- 1089 (+16)
Actively seeking (not RJ) ----------------- 665 (-20) *comment #1
At least 1 MD/PhD AC ---------------- 523 (+33) PAST 6-year average 774
Withdrawn AFTER AC ------------------------ 8 (+3)
Defer to a future class ----------------------- 1 (+1)
Currently MD/PhD Accepted -------------- 514 (+29)
Still looking for a MD/PhD position - 142 (-53)

Some observations...
#1 - The non-rejected pool of applicants remains at a level (665) significantly below of the number of people who traditionally get at least one acceptance (range: 749-791 - 6 year average 774 - see post #225). I expect ~ 100 more people who were interviewed and currently appear in the system as rejected to be eventually accepted (note - some of these applicants might NOT be aware/notified of their status).
#2 - The size of the application pool shrunk last week by 4 applicants and this week by 5 more. I don't know how these applicants were reclassified or withdrawn from the entire cycle. In two consecutive weeks to -9. This diminishes my confidence in the precision of our system.
#3 - As indicated in my prior post #359, there is very little difference in the average academic benchmarks between the people who have are "still looking for a MD/PhD position" and those in the rejected pool.

- We will see next weekend if the CYMS webtool makes a difference in admission offers...

 

[bruce powell]

Hey guys, is it standard to sign a contract with a given program before actually accepting their offer?

Two of the schools that offered me positions in their MD/PhD class sent me documents to sign. One sent the full contract b/w student and the university, the other sent a document which you sign stating you "accept their offer for admission" into their class. They both gave two week turnaround times. I love both schools and am grateful for the offers, and was really hoping to use the second look to help decide b/w them as I have no idea what I'd do now.

so are these considered binding? Or are they just formalities? If I sign it, then decide to go with the other school, will they be upset? Not trying to do anything wrong, just thought I had more time to figure things out, not to mention still waiting to hear from a number of programs.

 

[Fencer]

Dear BP,
As per AMCAS traffic rules, schools should allow you to make decisions without due influence.

AAMC Traffic Rules - version for Applicants & version for Programs

Rule #5 (for Admission Officers): On or before April 30, permit ALL applicants (except for EDP applicants):

1. A minimum of two weeks to respond to their acceptance offer.
2. To hold acceptance offers or a waitlist position from any other schools or programs without penalty (i.e. scholarships).

You can sign documents but they should be non-binding, allowing refund of any deposit if you communicate your decision of withdrawal in writing (email ok) on or before April 30.

 

[bruce powell]

Dear BP,
As per AMCAS traffic rules, schools should allow you to make decisions without due influence.

AAMC Traffic Rules - version for Applicants & version for Programs

Rule #5 (for Admission Officers): On or before April 30, permit ALL applicants (except for EDP applicants):

1. A minimum of two weeks to respond to their acceptance offer.
2. To hold acceptance offers or a waitlist position from any other schools or programs without penalty (i.e. scholarships).

You can sign documents but they should be non-binding, allowing refund of any deposit if you communicate your decision of withdrawal in writing (email ok) on or before April 30.

thanks fencer, you're seriously a god send in this process. You help keep us sane

 

[immunoHERstochemistry]

How informative is the CYMS tool for admissions committees? Can they see who of their accepted applicants have not selected “plan to enroll” anywhere? For example, say you have 10 accepted applicants, and you can see 3 have selected your program as where they plan to enroll. How do you know the other 7 acceptees perhaps have chosen to not use the tool as opposed to selected another program? Is it just assumed most applicants are indeed using the tool (and hopefully they are!), or that even if they aren’t, that probably means they don’t intend to attend your program anyway?

 

[Fencer]

It was disappointed with the tool. There is aggregate data for how many of our accepted applicants have other acceptances, but I don't know if they are MD or MD/PhD, and I don't know who or what schools. We know that >80% of our accepted applicants have multiple acceptances (but that includes MD). Furthermore, they partition the data into in-state and out-of-state. If you have less than 5 accepted applicants for one of these categories, you are not able to know how many applicants selected Plan-to-Enroll to our program, other school, or no decision. In my case, I can see the out-of-state category but not in-state... We also are able to see that our 2/3 of the alternate pool have received an acceptance, but I don't know where. We will know if people have still more than 3 acceptances after April 15, but not who is holding more. One of my applicants had more than 6 acceptances as of now. After April 30, we know who is holding what...

My bet is that we are going to delay admissions to waitlisted applicants until April 15 - May 15. As people reduce to 3 acceptances (right now 1/4 of my applicants hold more than 3 acceptances), some movement will occur.

 

[immunoHERstochemistry]

It was disappointed with the tool. There is aggregate data for how many of our accepted applicants have other acceptances, but I don't know if they are MD or MD/PhD, and I don't know who or what schools. We know that >80% of our accepted applicants have multiple acceptances (but that includes MD). Furthermore, they partition the data into in-state and out-of-state. If you have less than 5 accepted applicants for one of these categories, you are not able to know how many applicants selected Plan-to-Enroll to our program, other school, or no decision. In my case, I can see the out-of-state category but not in-state... We also are able to see that our 2/3 of the alternate pool have received an acceptance, but I don't know where. We will know if people have still more than 3 acceptances after April 15, but not who is holding more. One of my applicants had more than 6 acceptances as of now. After April 30, we know who is holding what...

My bet is that we are going to delay admissions to waitlisted applicants until April 15 - May 15. As people reduce to 3 acceptances (right now 1/4 of my applicants hold more than 3 acceptances), some movement will occur.

I am sorry to hear this. This sounds unfortunate for both admissions committees and applicants. I can imagine so especially for applicants like myself that had a limited number of interviews, but currently waitlisted at their top choice/best fit...

 

[Lucca]

I am sorry to hear this. This sounds unfortunate for both admissions committees and applicants. I can imagine so especially for applicants like myself that had a limited number of interviews, but currently waitlisted at their top choice/best fit...

Hopefully things speed up for everyone once the non rolling schools release in March and everyone has all the info they are going to have for the cycle

 

[immunoHERstochemistry]

Hopefully things speed up for everyone once the non rolling schools release in March and everyone has all the info they are going to have for the cycle

Excellent point- I hope so too

On a somewhat related note, last year there were a little over 500 people (correct me if I’m wrong) who successfully matriculated into an MSTP by the end of the cycle. At the end of the day, each matriculant is the same in that they can only fill one seat by the end of the cycle and have accomplished a commendable goal. I think each and every applicant of those 500 or so deserve the same chance to know what lies in their future for the next 7-8 years of their life and career in a reasonable timeframe, to go on second look, etc. If that’s not happening this cycle, or hasn’t been happening in past cycles, then hopefully positive change for the system moving forward is in the works

 

[vaticrunner]

Excellent point- I hope so too

On a somewhat related note, last year there were a little over 500 people (correct me if I’m wrong) who successfully matriculated into an MSTP by the end of the cycle. At the end of the day, each matriculant is the same in that they can only fill one seat by the end of the cycle and have accomplished a commendable goal. I think each and every applicant of those 500 or so deserve the same chance to know what lies in their future for the next 7-8 years of their life and career in a reasonable timeframe, to go on second look, etc. If that’s not happening this cycle, or hasn’t been happening in past cycles, then hopefully positive change for the system moving forward is in the works

The number might be off, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. I actually had this discussion with some applicants on the interview trail where we had some down time. I was originally concerned that two of my top choices had second look on the same day; however, I realized it is in the applicants favor because that forces those with multiple acceptances to whittle things down and only attend events at schools they know they will attend. I wish things could be faster, but if second look occurred after most waitlist movement, it would be more difficult to narrow things down if you had multiple acceptances. At the end of the day, it looks like some people will have an excruciatingly long wait, but from what I have seen on these forums, most people are respectful and quickly withdraw and drop acceptances when they have made up their mind, which I think bodes well for the future.

 

[tilapiaexpress]

It was disappointed with the tool. There is aggregate data for how many of our accepted applicants have other acceptances, but I don't know if they are MD or MD/PhD, and I don't know who or what schools. We know that >80% of our accepted applicants have multiple acceptances (but that includes MD). Furthermore, they partition the data into in-state and out-of-state. If you have less than 5 accepted applicants for one of these categories, you are not able to know how many applicants selected Plan-to-Enroll to our program, other school, or no decision. In my case, I can see the out-of-state category but not in-state... We also are able to see that our 2/3 of the alternate pool have received an acceptance, but I don't know where. We will know if people have still more than 3 acceptances after April 15, but not who is holding more. One of my applicants had more than 6 acceptances as of now. After April 30, we know who is holding what...

My bet is that we are going to delay admissions to waitlisted applicants until April 15 - May 15. As people reduce to 3 acceptances (right now 1/4 of my applicants hold more than 3 acceptances), some movement will occur.

For applicants in this position, is it clear when they are withdrawing from those acceptances? I transiently held five acceptances this week when I received news from two schools in a rapid fashion. Subsequently I withdrew from two others I held, but am curious to know what this looks like from the other side.

While I envision the new system might be frustrating for admissions committees, taking the power from programs to see where we are accepted is ultimately in the best interest of applicants. A school should not be making decisions based on where I hold acceptances. I have not stayed on any wait list or held my application for decision at any institution I would not consider over another I hold on to. It is my view that what schools I am deciding on should be between myself and my family rather than the institutions that are evaluating my application.

I can understand how this would lead to schools having to make more acceptances and do more last minute work, but by the same token schools have had many months to make decisions on our applications and in numerous instances they've not been forthcoming with decisions and information to applicants. If institutions want to make this easier on themselves, then there should be a better system in place to ensure there isn't a mad scramble to fill spots in April/May (and June...). Let me be clear, I am not singling out any particular school but the system as it exists today. Until changes occur, programs and applicants alike will suffer and be forced to make decisions that will influence who will train where for the next decade in a matter of a few days.

 

[Fencer]

For the top 50% of applicants who eventually matriculate, this is a system that allows them a better ability for finding their better school. I will contend that for the other 50% who eventually matriculate, this is actually much worse. Rather than pushing schools to "having to make more acceptances", it will lead to be more conservative admission decisions affecting particularly the bottom 50% of matriculants with later acceptances. I can't afford to enroll 11-15 matriculants one cycle, and 2-4 the following cycle, when my capacity is around 7 slots. See what happened to UT Southwestern, based on table B-8, last cycle they matriculated 17 first-year students. Guess why they were taking their time on this cycle...

Better system... I have proposed a MD/PhD match several times. That could be done earlier, around April 1 with ability to move up for applicants, move down for schools, and opt out to MD programs. The obstacles includes that a match requires an anti-trust exemption from Congress (just like the residency match). Given that NIH supports significantly the training programs (MSTP, F30, F31D, and even PhD training of MD/PhD students by the grants of mentors), and that the MD/PhD pipeline is critical for the biomedical research enterprise, it is possible that we find bipartisan support for that system. However, it first require consensus among programs that a match is a better alternative...

 

[immunoHERstochemistry]

I know at least one person who is holding 6 or more acceptances. They haven’t made decisions yet, even though they have second looks that conflict. Instead of using these conflicts as motivation to make binary decisions, they instead are going to the first half of one second look then flying to the second half of another, for example, and will be waiting another month or two to start withdrawing. I am hoping and assuming these are exceptional cases and are not the case for many applicants and that most are behaving more like @tilapiaexpress

 

[vaticrunner]

For the top 50% of applicants who eventually matriculate, this is a system that allows them a better ability for finding their better school. I will contend that for the other 50% who eventually matriculate, this is actually much worse. Rather than pushing schools to "having to make more acceptances", it will lead to be more conservative admission decisions affecting particularly the bottom 50% of matriculants with later acceptances. I can't afford to enroll 11-15 matriculants one cycle, and 2-4 the following cycle, when my capacity is around 7 slots. See what happened to UT Southwestern, based on table B-8, last cycle they matriculated 17 first-year students. Guess why they were taking their time on this cycle...

Better system... I have proposed a MD/PhD match several times. That could be done earlier, around April 1 with ability to move up for applicants, move down for schools, and opt out to MD programs. The obstacles includes that a match requires an anti-trust exemption from Congress (just like the residency match). Given that NIH supports significantly the training programs (MSTP, F30, F31D, and even PhD training of MD/PhD students by the grants of mentors), and that the MD/PhD pipeline is critical for the biomedical research enterprise, it is possible that we find bipartisan support for that system. However, it first require consensus among programs that a match is a better alternative...

Just out of curiosity how do programs compensate for matriculating too many students in one year. Is it like you mentioned 17 this year 3 next year for an average of ten or do they switch to something like 17,8,8,8,8 and over five years they will have recovered.

 

[Fencer]

They have to recover quickly... each additional slot for the year would be an extra $50-100K. Assume a smaller program of 6 slots. Their first year, they overreach with 9, then 4, 5... for an average of 6 slots. With an average of 6, they would be in the red by $150-300 K during that first year, then in the red by $50-100K for their 2nd year, then back to equilibrium as compared to doing 6,6,6. The school would not be happy with running a deficit... it will come from somewhere else.

 

[Lucca]

I know at least one person who is holding 6 or more acceptances. They haven’t made decisions yet, even though they have second looks that conflict. Instead of using these conflicts as motivation to make binary decisions, they instead are going to the first half of one second look then flying to the second half of another, for example, and will be waiting another month or two to start withdrawing. I am hoping and assuming these are exceptional cases and are not the case for many applicants and that most are behaving more like @tilapiaexpress

lol that sounds literally insane and exhausting for no reason.

 

[ClimbsRox]

I know at least one person who is holding 6 or more acceptances. They haven’t made decisions yet, even though they have second looks that conflict. Instead of using these conflicts as motivation to make binary decisions, they instead are going to the first half of one second look then flying to the second half of another, for example, and will be waiting another month or two to start withdrawing. I am hoping and assuming these are exceptional cases and are not the case for many applicants and that most are behaving more like @tilapiaexpress

... and I feel bad holding 3. Besides the disrespect to other applicants, just sitting with that decision sounds terribly stressful.

 

[Thoroughbred_Med]

For the top 50% of applicants who eventually matriculate, this is a system that allows them a better ability for finding their better school. I will contend that for the other 50% who eventually matriculate, this is actually much worse. Rather than pushing schools to "having to make more acceptances", it will lead to be more conservative admission decisions affecting particularly the bottom 50% of matriculants with later acceptances. I can't afford to enroll 11-15 matriculants one cycle, and 2-4 the following cycle, when my capacity is around 7 slots. See what happened to UT Southwestern, based on table B-8, last cycle they matriculated 17 first-year students. Guess why they were taking their time on this cycle...

Better system... I have proposed a MD/PhD match several times. That could be done earlier, around April 1 with ability to move up for applicants, move down for schools, and opt out to MD programs. The obstacles includes that a match requires an anti-trust exemption from Congress (just like the residency match). Given that NIH supports significantly the training programs (MSTP, F30, F31D, and even PhD training of MD/PhD students by the grants of mentors), and that the MD/PhD pipeline is critical for the biomedical research enterprise, it is possible that we find bipartisan support for that system. However, it first require consensus among programs that a match is a better alternative...

Can confirm. As an MD/PhD applicant holding 1 MD only acceptance, 0 MD/PhD acceptances, but sitting on the waitlist/awaiting a decision from 6 other MD/PhD programs I've interviewed at, it is exhausting to realize that I will most likely be waiting until mid-May until I know if I will be able to matriculate into a MD/PhD program - just a weeks before summer rotations begin. I am extremely thankful for my 1 MD only acceptance, but the different start times, August for the MD but June if I get into a MD/PhD program, is substantial and will add considerably more stress for my wife and family.
I understand the reason for CYMS and the new traffic rules, but it really adds a considerable amount of strain for PDs and applicants..

 

[Maebea]

Here is some data from the 2018 cycle for my program. On March 26, close to two weeks after all programs had made offers (and more than enough time after those who got into their dream school to withdraw from my school), these were the number of MD-PhD offers being held by applicants who were holding an open offer from my program:

1 offer (i.e., our school) 14%
2 offers 16%
3 offers 14%
4 offers 14%
5 offers 20%
6 offers 6%
7 offers 12%
8 offers 4%

We had some declines by this date, but they only amounted to 6% of those who had been offered a position. And most of the individuals with 3 or fewer offers had already declined other programs. I do not mind those that were holding 3 or even 4 offers; it's those that have 5 or more offers that throw sand in the gears. Last year, we could see the schools these individuals were holding at, and make a guess as to the likelihood that they would enroll here. This would allow us to decide whether to make additional offers in March, or wait until later. We cannot do that this year, so everything will take longer. The accepted knowledge among MD-PhD directors is that programs will make fewer initial offers this year (for the reason Fencer cited). We have decided not to do that, and are rolling the dice that applicants will ultimately sort into programs as they have in the past. Fencer & I will share a bottle of wine at this summer's MD-PhD meeting, and discuss which approach was better.

It's up to you, the applicant, to make this work. As we get to then end of the interview cycle, the power is shifting from the programs to the applicants. If you end up holding 5 or 6 acceptances a month from now, you are likely contributing to one or more fellow applicants' misery. Help out your peers and dump those programs that are low on your priority list. (To the decisive applicants who have already said "No way" to my program's offer of admission, your fellow applicants and I thank you.)

 

[Fencer]

Another issue --on programs' side--, is posting admission actions efficiently into the AMCAS software. MD/PhD admission officers (i.e.: Program Director, Administrative Director/Coordinator) might not always be the direct link to the AMCAS software (AP Tools). Quite often on May 1, I see about 20-30% of accepted applicants holding multiple acceptances in the system despite already having sent a withdrawal from other schools but the system hasn't been updated. In most cases, they forward to me an email that they had sent to the program leadership a week prior to the deadline, but the applicant still shows them holding that other acceptance in the system. Many schools use third-party applications that sync periodically (for example, twice a week or daily), once AP Tools (AMCAS) receives that admission action, AP tools will synch overnight with other school servers, thus taking about 3-5 days for an update. If the MD/PhD program leadership isn't the superuser making these admission actions, an additional step would be communicating between MD/PhD program leadership and the SOM Admissions, for posting the admission action in their software, adding a couple additional days to the process. In my program, I am the superuser making the changes directly into AP tools, such as a withdrawal after or before acceptance (WA or WB), which ends up resulting in changes in AP tools within hours from the applicant's email (still needs overnight synch).

I remember that you did enjoyed my red wine selection last year's dinner.

 

[Fencer]

One more week in the process.... Brief update as of admission actions by Friday 02/22/19 (overnight sync to today) for the 2019 AMCAS MD/PhD cycle (Changes since 02/15 actions).

This is the BEST result for each individual applicant (WA or AC is better than Active/Looking, which is better than Rejected - PW, PR, RJ).

Total MD/PhD Applicants ----------- 1765 (+ 1)
Withdrawn BEFORE AC ---------------------- 8 (- 2 ?)
Rejected --------------------------------- 1074 (-15 !!)
Actively seeking (not RJ) ----------------- 683 (+18)
At least 1 MD/PhD AC ---------------- 570 (+47 !!) PAST 6-year average 774
Withdrawn AFTER AC ------------------------ 6 (- 2 ?)
Defer to a future class ----------------------- 1 (0)
Currently MD/PhD Accepted -------------- 563 (+49)
Still looking for a MD/PhD position - 113 (-29)

This past week was very active for programs. Several of the late interview programs have extended their initial acceptances. We are 3 weeks away from the deadline to offer as many acceptances as programs intend to enroll. If you interviewed with several MD/PhD programs and you are waitlisted, your chances remain very good. However, given the size of the majority of MD/PhD programs, the CYMS tool is not as helpful to MD/PhD programs as it was hoped. I suspect that movement on waitlists will be much slower this year as compared to prior cycles. This is unfortunate because it truly affects most applicants and increases the angst of the process, just to benefit a few... Although not perfect, a MD/PhD match would improve the process significantly.

 

[WhiteblossoM]

Is it every possible that a program would accept a post-interview rejected student? Or are only those officially on a waitlist able to possibly be accepted?

 

[Fencer]

I have seen it (Post-interview RJ to AC/MA) but it is rare. More often waitlisted applicants get all acceptances. I suspect that as a result of the traffic rule changes, in future cycles across the board, there will be less applicants rejected after interview. This cycle is weird not only because of the implementation of the new traffic rules (and reports) but also due to an overall smaller number of applicants. We are learning together....

 

[MSTPadvocate]

MSTP Director here - relatively large program, first time commenting....

Our experience mirrors that of Fencer and Maebea. We have very little clarity this year compared to years past. Very few of our accepted applicants have used the "Plan to Enroll" tool (only 15% of our accepted applicants have used it). 50% of our accepted applicants have 3+ offers and 25% have 4+ offers. In the meantime, we are being innundated with emails from waitlisted applicants giving updates and asking for clarity.

For those of you with multiple offers, please use the "Plan to Enroll" feature. It is non-binding, but does help us plan. Additionally, if you are holding a spot in a program that you know you aren't going to, please formally pull out - there aren't any hard feelings. There are many good programs and you can only get your MD/PhD from one.

 

[tilapiaexpress]

MSTP Director here - relatively large program, first time commenting....

Our experience mirrors that of Fencer and Maebea. We have very little clarity this year compared to years past. Very few of our accepted applicants have used the "Plan to Enroll" tool (only 15% of our accepted applicants have used it). 50% of our accepted applicants have 3+ offers and 25% have 4+ offers. In the meantime, we are being innundated with emails from waitlisted applicants giving updates and asking for clarity.

For those of you with multiple offers, please use the "Plan to Enroll" feature. It is non-binding, but does help us plan. Additionally, if you are holding a spot in a program that you know you aren't going to, please formally pull out - there aren't any hard feelings. There are many good programs and you can only get your MD/PhD from one.

What a shame. I hope everyone who traffics this site is using the plan to enroll tool and that those with 4+ acceptances cut down quickly. Those applicants owe it to programs to make rapid decisions. Nevertheless, the onus doesn't fall just on applicants. I'll reiterate some of what I've said before - we sit in the dark for months after submitting applications or after our interviews. As a director of a relatively large program, I hope that you will set an example for your colleagues to rapidly reach decisions for applicants, and to share those decisions in a timely fashion. Why are Skip Brass, Loren Walensky, Mark Anderson and others making applicants wait months after they finish interviews to release initial decisions? Why is it that most of the time the only way you know you've been waitlisted is that you have to go on SDN and find out your peers from the same interview date already got their decision? why are interviewees from Tufts having to go on SDN to find out whether anyone has heard anything yet? Why are schools pressuring us to decide if we are coming to revisit when we haven't even heard an initial decision from every school yet? A complete picture makes it a lot easier to make decisions and that isn't something that we as applicants have the power to change. All the PDs get together every year, why don't you ask your colleagues why they can't be more punctual with decisions? It would make everyone's life easier, I'm sure. The effects trickle down - as applicants get into some schools they release their acceptances and then that opens spots for other applicants, and so on...

 

[nakamarra]

What a shame. I hope everyone who traffics this site is using the plan to enroll tool and that those with 4+ acceptances cut down quickly. Those applicants owe it to programs to make rapid decisions. Nevertheless, the onus doesn't fall just on applicants. I'll reiterate some of what I've said before - we sit in the dark for months after submitting applications or after our interviews. As a director of a relatively large program, I hope that you will set an example for your colleagues to rapidly reach decisions for applicants, and to share those decisions in a timely fashion. Why are Skip Brass, Loren Walensky, Mark Anderson and others making applicants wait months after they finish interviews to release initial decisions? Why is it that most of the time the only way you know you've been waitlisted is that you have to go on SDN and find out your peers from the same interview date already got their decision? why are interviewees from Tufts having to go on SDN to find out whether anyone has heard anything yet? Why are schools pressuring us to decide if we are coming to revisit when we haven't even heard an initial decision from every school yet? A complete picture makes it a lot easier to make decisions and that isn't something that we as applicants have the power to change. All the PDs get together every year, why don't you ask your colleagues why they can't be more punctual with decisions? It would make everyone's life easier, I'm sure. The effects trickle down - as applicants get into some schools they release their acceptances and then that opens spots for other applicants, and so on...

I completely agree with this. An "earlier" response from my first acceptance, one of my top five choices, allowed me to immediately withdraw from a majority of the schools I had interviewed at, and turn down a few additional interviews. Now I'm in a position in which I'm delaying confirmation to attend a second look, because I'm hoping my absolute top choice may or may not get back to me this next week or so. I don't want to confirm immediately and buy plane tickets, because that's an acceptance and second look spot I would be very willing to give to another qualified applicant, but not without any information.

 

[peanutbuttercup24]

I just find it mind-boggling that the AAMC didn't foresee this happening because there is honestly no real incentive for applicants to fill out the tool before April 30th (other than to end other applicants' misery). I had a few late interviews, so it's frustrating to know that I likely won't hear back/know where I'm going until May.

 

[MSTPadvocate]

What a shame. I hope everyone who traffics this site is using the plan to enroll tool and that those with 4+ acceptances cut down quickly. Those applicants owe it to programs to make rapid decisions. Nevertheless, the onus doesn't fall just on applicants. I'll reiterate some of what I've said before - we sit in the dark for months after submitting applications or after our interviews. As a director of a relatively large program, I hope that you will set an example for your colleagues to rapidly reach decisions for applicants, and to share those decisions in a timely fashion. Why are Skip Brass, Loren Walensky, Mark Anderson and others making applicants wait months after they finish interviews to release initial decisions? Why is it that most of the time the only way you know you've been waitlisted is that you have to go on SDN and find out your peers from the same interview date already got their decision? why are interviewees from Tufts having to go on SDN to find out whether anyone has heard anything yet? Why are schools pressuring us to decide if we are coming to revisit when we haven't even heard an initial decision from every school yet? A complete picture makes it a lot easier to make decisions and that isn't something that we as applicants have the power to change. All the PDs get together every year, why don't you ask your colleagues why they can't be more punctual with decisions? It would make everyone's life easier, I'm sure. The effects trickle down - as applicants get into some schools they release their acceptances and then that opens spots for other applicants, and so on...

At our program, we interview on 8 or so dates and have a decision (admit, waitlist, reject) back to the applicant within 4-6 weeks. We send out 2 large batches of interview offers - one in mid to late August to cover the fall and another in mid-to-late October to cover the winter. We reject those outright who won't be competitive for an interview.

Where we have difficulty is differentiating people right at the interview : no interview cusp and we hold alot of applicants in the high hold for an interview category. This pays off for a number of applicants, though, as when students get into other places, they cancel their interview with us and we often pull people from the high hold for interview category in for a later interview. We also release all these students once our final interview date has occurred. I can't speak to other programs, but we are cognizant of this issue.

 

[peanutbuttercup24]

Is there a date by which schools have to give applicants an initial post-interview decision? Or is that just April 30th?

 

[kepler16b]

I know this has been discussed before, but what is a reasonable timeline for updating/communicating with schools at which you are waitlisted? 4 weeks? 6 weeks?

 

[Beebee12]

Just wondering if anybody knows anything about the difference of MD/PhD vs MSTP beyond the finances. I've been accepted to one MD/PhD program in my ideal location and I really liked the medical school, and one MSTP program that I loved but the location is a huge issue for me. Both medical schools are similarly ranked on US News (for what that's worth) and both seem to send their graduates to decent residencies. Finances aside, would it be a horrible career move to choose the MD/PhD school over the MSTP? Can't seem to find out if residencies/future employers really care about the MSTP vs MD/PhD or if getting the degree/doing well with publishing and STEP is more important.

 

[looptheloop]

Just wondering if anybody knows anything about the difference of MD/PhD vs MSTP beyond the finances. I've been accepted to one MD/PhD program in my ideal location and I really liked the medical school, and one MSTP program that I loved but the location is a huge issue for me. Both medical schools are similarly ranked on US News (for what that's worth) and both seem to send their graduates to decent residencies. Finances aside, would it be a horrible career move to choose the MD/PhD school over the MSTP? Can't seem to find out if residencies/future employers really care about the MSTP vs MD/PhD or if getting the degree/doing well with publishing and STEP is more important.

My $0.02:
1. First and foremost, go where you think you will be happiest over the course of your training, whether it's due to location or faculty or whatever else might be a priority for you. I think this is the absolute most important consideration.
2. If you are planning to go into academia, which is likely the case, the prestige of your school, program, and/or research advisor probably holds some weight. I don't know how much it truly matters. Publishing well is important. I imagine that, if you can publish well at the MD/PhD program, it won't pose a big disadvantage compared to an MSTP program (also because, truly, it's impossible to know for sure how the PhD will go no matter what school you go to).
3. To me, the #1 advantage to MSTP programs is their size. I personally want to be part of a larger group of MD/PhD students, and the small class size of non-MSTP programs would therefore pose a big downside to me. This is entirely a matter of personal preference, though, so if you don't mind (or even prefer) a small class size then it may not be a factor to consider at all.

 

[WhiteblossoM]

If waitlisted at 3 schools, what are the chances of eventually getting an acceptance?

 

[WhiteblossoM]

Also is there anything to do to increase chances of being selected off the waitlist?

 

[Fencer]

Every interview and interviewee is different... As I indicated previously, while each decision is an independent event, it is not truly entirely independent event. After all, it is the same interviewee doing interviews at each place - same person with same traits, pluses and deficits, etc. Nevertheless, it is likely to be > 80% chance for at least one acceptance. The present cycle is the first time with new traffic rules. The acceptance might be delayed until mid-May.

 

[peanutbuttercup24]

Hypothetical question-- Since we are required to select “commit to enroll” 21 days prior to starting a program, what happens if we are accepted to a program that begins in June but are hoping to get off a waitlist and haven’t heard back by the time we have to select “commit to enroll” in May? Does that mean we have to give up the waitlist spot?

 

[Fencer]

This is not a hypothetical question. It will happen later in this cycle because these are the new rules. They provide more choice to applicants earlier, but they come with more teeth for programs (responsibility for applicants) later on. You are embarking into a profession that truly requires professionalism... (not like the fixers testifying in c-span because they got caught).

"Commit to Enroll" means that you closed your recruitment. You are supposed to inform other programs that you are no longer in their waitlist. If you withdraw because someone invites you to another school, believe me, you will be marked by taking two slots away. A program that begins on June 1 can't just reopen their enrollment in mid or late June because "an applicant" decides to go and train elsewhere. [EDIT: The program that loses that applicant, loses that slot for that class. MSTP grants will need to consider that "attrition" for that program because a matriculated applicant leaves.] Even MSTP programs from SOMs ranked in the 50-100 USNW&R consistently place graduates in top 10 schools (of same ranking) for residency/fellowship. If you are not prepared to "Commit to Enroll", place the "Plan to Enroll" in your decision, but be prepared to own the consequence, which might a though conversation and/or as it will likely be in my personal case, a rescinded acceptance at 21 days from orientation. That would open the position to another person who wants to train at my institution within the time-frame that allows other programs to recover. The following cycle, you will need to explain to your perceived top Ten (or perceived better) programs why you did that in the first place, if they ever would give you that opportunity... This is not a game, but a community training the physician-scientists for the future of biomedical research. As the Ivy programs released acceptances, I was ecstatic that some of my accepted or waitlisted applicants made decisions, and contacted me. I am truly happy for them...

Edit (for clarification):
On April 30, you need to choose a single program AND then choose Plan to Enroll or Commit to Enroll. This is without penalty. Every program would have slightly different policy, but the system encourages programs to make a policy that at a time no more than 21 days from orientation (first official MD/PhD activity) to require every applicant to Commit to Enroll or risk rescindance of the acceptance.

 

[peanutbuttercup24]

Sorry if it sounded like I was making this a "game." That was not at all my intent, and I understand that we are all on the same side. At this point, for me, it was just truly a hypothetical that crossed my mind and I was curious as to how that scenario would play out (clearly I'm going stir-crazy waiting for 4 initial post-interview decisions). I think requiring "commit to enroll" 21 days before matriculation is a great idea because it does force applicants to make decisions, which should help open up spots for people on waitlists in a reasonable time frame.

 

[looptheloop]

This is not a hypothetical question. It will happen later in this cycle because these are the new rules. They provide more choice to applicants earlier, but they come with more teeth for programs (responsibility for applicants) later on. You are embarking into a profession that truly requires professionalism... (not like the fixers testifying in c-span because they got caught).

"Commit to Enroll" means that you close your recruitment. You are supposed to inform other programs that you no longer are in their waitlist. If you withdraw because someone invites you to another school, believe me, you will be marked by taking two slots away. A program that begins on June 1 can't just reopen their enrollment in mid or late June because "your majesty" decides to go and train else. They lose a slot for that class. Even programs from SOMs ranked in the 50-100 USNW&R consistently place graduates in top 10 schools (of same ranking) for residency/fellowship. If you are not prepared to "Commit to Enroll", place the "Plan to Enroll" in your decision, but be prepared to own the consequence, which might a though conversation and/or as it will likely be in my personal case, a rescinded acceptance. That would open the position to another person who wants to train at my institution within the time-frame that allows other programs to recover. The following cycle, you will need to explain to your perceived top Ten (or perceived better) programs why you did that in the first place, if they ever give you that opportunity... This is not a game, but a community training the physician-scientists of the future. As the Ivy programs released acceptances, I was ecstatic that some of my accepted or waitlisted applicants made decisions and contacted me. I am truly happy for them...

After the long and not-unstressful application cycle, it's awful, IMO, that we have to face any consequences for wanting to see if we get off of a WL. The new traffic rules seem not to do anybody much good. This is particularly true for MD/PhD programs, where we are making a decision about the next eight years of our lives. If one ends up in a position, come April 30, where they are WL'd at their top choice (and keeping in mind that people won't be pulled off the WL until May 1 at the earliest, for the most part), how can they, in good conscience, be expected to withdraw from that WL (by "committing to enroll" at another school) or risk having their other acceptance rescinded and potentially left with nowhere to go? Am I misunderstanding? I hope I am misunderstanding, because that seems too convoluted. Especially after the months of waiting to hear back about decisions from some schools. This is a huge decision. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to hold an acceptance while waiting to hear back from a WL. That is, after all, the only way an informed decision can be made.

I do hope that applicants will be professional about withdrawing in a timely manner from programs into which they have no intention of matriculating, as that is just about the only thing that can make the WL movement more bearable for all parties.