Advice for MSTP hopeful -- wise to shorten my bachelor's to begin MSTP early?

[InNotOf]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'll be starting my freshman year at Stanford this fall, and I want to eventually do an MSTP. I worked in an immunology lab there last summer and will be continuing this summer and very likely through my undergraduate years.

Between AP credit and college credit I've already accumulated, it is feasible for me to graduate in three years and apply for/begin my MSTP a year early. I'm wondering if this is the best course of action, though. Clearly, considering the sheer length of the MSTP and subsequent training, I would love to have a head start on my medical training. However, a three-year B.S. would entail applying only having completed my lower division coursework. My third-year coursework would be strong, but, nevertheless, not complete when I apply. Another concern is that I wouldn't have the luxury of being able to retake the MCAT should I want to do so (though I think I could do well on it and have adequate preparation time).

At the rate things have progressed with my research, I'll probably have a couple second- or third-author papers and 2-3 years of research experience in the same lab by the time I apply, so that part isn't an issue.

Alternatively, I could finish most/all of my B.S. requirements in three years and add a coterminal master's degree in bio at Stanford for my fourth year, thus giving me a "normal" application schedule and perhaps a bit more credibility with upper-division coursework.

Currently, I'm interested in places like Cornell Tri-I and UCSF for cancer immunology. I don't want to jeopardize my chances of admission by short-circuiting my undergrad program (I certainly don't want to have to apply to med school twice!), but I am definitely interested in finding out if I can get a head start.

Let me know what your thoughts on this process are. Thanks!

 

[gaganheim]

I'll leave this to other people to be more constructive. My advice, slow the hell down, enjoy college, and let your interests speak to you. People who plan their life too far in advance have a tendency to end up unhappy. They were so goal oriented they never stopped to ask themselves if their aim was what they still truly wanted. I don't recommend graduating in three years, but not for the reasons you listed. You will only be able to take courses that you need to graduate. Undergrad is your only chance to take courses on completely random and interesting topics. You'll have the rest of your life to study bio.

 

[ChyLn]

I agree with gagenheim. Your undergrad years are probably the last chance in your life where you can freely explore so many different classes and options without taking away from your other obligations. Take your time, enjoy yourself. If it would make you feel a little better about it, get the masters (I did), but most importantly, make sure that you have fun, doing what you love to do.

 

[MrMunkily]

I did this (finished early) and besides saving my parents 30K, I got an extra year to post-bacc and build credibility.

It seems like it worked out OK, as I'm happy with what I've been able to do with the time I had. Of course, I had to give up some of that exploratory spirit, and I probably could have done a double major or a thesis had I stayed.

I would NOT reccomend cutting short college so that you can go to professional school early. Even, nay, especially the MSTP route. It's a long haul, and you should enjoy and explore while you can. Of course, if finance is an isssue, certain humans would be eternally grateful if you finished up early. In that case, you might want to do something interesting to you for a year. You need time to mull over the big decisions.


At the very least, you're going to have an incredibly hard time dealing with interviews and the application season during what amounts to a squeezed and high pressure junior/senior year - You'll be taking HARD classes while your application cohort will mostly be taking senior-type classes or will be out of school altogether.

So, yeah. Stay in undergrad if you can. If you really don't want to, at the very least take some time off.

 

[Habari]

Far be it for me to dampen such enthusiasm, but I'd say only a few things:

Merely an observation- many, if not the majority of my classmates have taken time off after graduating from college to travel, work, pursue more coursework or do research, without remediation of a percieved application deficit necessarily in mind. Some of the greatest insights in biology and medicine are not native to the canonical training of these fields, and experience in other arenas only enhances the possibility of contributing in a non-canonical manner. As I see some of this country's best junior-faculty candidates interview at Rockefeller's open faculty search, it is clear that their unique perspective has often been afforded by seemingly tangential approaches to mainstream biology. While it can be helpful to have plans and trajectories, course-corrections and flexibility are often more important.

Finally, if one views their training/schooling as one herculean trial after another on the road to an after-school life, the experiential wisdom to be gained in the process will, to some degree, be lost. Stanford is a great place, and before you plan your departure, make sure you look with open eyes at what it has to offer, in biology and beyond. If you feel the same about graduating in 3 years and starting in your md/phd by the time that decision comes around, so be it. As those in various stages of their md/phd training will assure you: this is far from a destination, and recieving your MD and PhD does not herald your arrival.

 

[solitude]

I'm a sophomore at Duke and have the same option, but I recommend against graduating in 3 years flat. My current plan is to graduate in 3.5, and spend the fall semester of my senior year interviewing and taking a slightly lighter course schedule (with one or two interesting and non-science courses) and then graduating before spring semester so that I can finish and write up my research in the lab. I think this is a reasonable compromise to your suggestion and the recommendations of others that you should definitely not graduate in 3 years. The benefits of this plan are that you still glean everything from college (e.g. interesting classes, time with friends, senior year), but your interviewing season won't be as terribly hectic, and you will get a substantive interval to write up your research without taking an entire year off from school. From the admissions standpoint, the extra semester that I will be spending in college has cleared up room for four additional graduate-level science classes, which certainly can't hurt in the admissions process. The year that you would save looks enticing, but I highly discourage applying after only 2 years of undergrad (as does every advisor with which I have spoken). If you feel strongly about graduating an entire year early, just do some research your senior year while applying. While it is certainly possible to gain acceptance with only 2 years of undergrad, it will almost definitely hurt you at schools like UCSF and Cornell where the competition is extremely stiff: many fellow applicants will have been in your shoes with research, and loads of AP and college credit prior to undergrad, but chose to strengthen their application and scientific knowledge base instead of matriculating one year early. Why should the admissions committee choose you over them?

 

[solitude]

Far be it for me to dampen such enthusiasm, but I'd say only a few things:

Merely an observation- many, if not the majority of my classmates have taken time off after graduating from college to travel, work, pursue more coursework or do research, without remediation of a percieved application deficit necessarily in mind. Some of the greatest insights in biology and medicine are not native to the canonical training of these fields, and experience in other arenas only enhances the possibility of contributing in a non-canonical manner. As I see some of this country's best junior-faculty candidates interview at Rockefeller's open faculty search, it is clear that their unique perspective has often been afforded by seemingly tangential approaches to mainstream biology. While it can be helpful to have plans and trajectories, course-corrections and flexibility are often more important.

Finally, if one views their training/schooling as one herculean trial after another on the road to an after-school life, the experiential wisdom to be gained in the process will, to some degree, be lost. Stanford is a great place, and before you plan your departure, make sure you look with open eyes at what it has to offer, in biology and beyond. If you feel the same about graduating in 3 years and starting in your md/phd by the time that decision comes around, so be it. As those in various stages of their md/phd training will assure you: this is far from a destination, and recieving your MD and PhD does not herald your arrival.

Well said and great insight! 👍

 

[OddNath]

many fellow applicants will have been in your shoes with research, and loads of AP and college credit prior to undergrad, but chose to strengthen their application and scientific knowledge base instead of matriculating one year early. Why should the admissions committee choose you over them?

Exactly-- if you already feel at an advantage now, being ahead, why not strengthen that advantage even more by spending the 4th year taking higher level courses and doing more research? Kind of like...we all probably could've graduated from high school in 3 years, but most of us didn't. That senior year was spent raking in more AP classes/experiences/etc which set us apart when applying.

But what everyone else has said about personal development is even more important than the above point.