Advice for Undergraduate Pre-MD/Phd MSTP

[disque71]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am currently an undergraduate in computer engineering and pre-med. Can you guys offer some advice on gaining admissions to MSTP programs. I have decent research experience but I have yet to publish and this worries me. I would like to have at least one publication by the time I graduate. Can you also offer any incite on to resources to turn to? Thanks.

 

[Reimat]

You don't need to have published to get into a MSTP, just do lots of research. At interviews, you can always say you have publications coming

 

[solitude]

I think if you have more specific questions, people will be more able to help you. It's kind of difficult to rehash ALL of the advice for an undergraduate pre-MSTP. So what specific questions do you have?

 

[disque71]

When did you take the MCAT?

What else do you feel you could have done to improve your MD/PHD application?

I will come up with a few more, these were off the top of my head. Thanks.

 

[solitude]

Well to be honest, I'm only a sophomore, and so you're probably farther along in the process. But I can probably answer these two questions, with input from the more experienced users on this forum 🙂


When did you take the MCAT?

This depends on a lot of things. For example, are you going to study abroad during the spring or summer semester? When are you going to enter the MSTP program? When are you going to be finished with all of your pre-reqs? Do you want to take some upper-level biology courses as further preparation for taking the MCAT?

If you plan to enter immediately after graduation (i.e. apply the summer after your junior year), you almost have to take the MCAT in the spring of your junior year at the latest. Do not take it in August, you will be essentially screwed (although not quite as badly as for regular MD admissions). A number of people to choose to take the MCAT the summer after their sophomore year, when all of the pre-reqs are fresh and when they have a lot of time to focus on studying for the exam. This is my situation. If you're a sophomore, I would recommend giving it some serious thought. The consensus is that with all of the pre-reqs and the MCAT done, you can spend your last year doing a ton of research and taking classes, and then you'll be all ready to apply! It also gives you more time to decide which schools to which you will apply based on your score, etc. But if you tell us more about your specific situation then we can probably give you a more definite answer.


What else do you feel you could have done to improve your MD/PHD application?

Well, technically this doesn't apply to me as well, since I haven't applied yet. But I can tell you what you can to do maximize your chances:
-do a ton of research. The consensus is quality over quantity. So if you find a lab that you like, stick with it and work there for a few years. Get a publication if you're lucky.
-get great grades. 3.5 and you're in contention, 3.7 and you're in awesome shape (these are only estimates, there are people who get in with lower grades of course)
-get a good MCAT score. low 30's and you're in contention, mid to upper-30's and you're in awesome shape (these also are only estimates and there are exceptions)
-get some clinical experience. It's not as important as it may be for MD admissions, but you will get asked questions about "why the MD also" and you need to be able to articulate this in your essays and interviews
-join some clubs/activities around campus. A few will probably suffice. Obtain leadership positions if at all possible.
-get to know your professors, particularly your research advisors. They will advocate for you come application time.

A lot of this also depends on where you plan to apply. For example, at the very top MSTP's, where you do your undergrad will be a factor (in my estimation, others may beg to differ), and most people will need phenomenal grades and MCAT scores (3.7 or 3.8 and mid-30's).

Well I'm sure there is stuff I'm forgetting, but I think this is a decent primer. I hope this helped in some way, shape or form. Like I said, if you have more specific questions then those with more experience will pipe in.

 

[tr]

I've done a bunch of applicant interviews for our program. Most of what solitude said is spot-on; there are a few areas where I disagree, noted below.

-do a ton of research. The consensus is quality over quantity. So if you find a lab that you like, stick with it and work there for a few years. Get a publication if you're lucky.

Ditto this. Definitely don't bounce around from lab to lab; find one good one and keep with it. Also agree with solitude's assessment on grades, MCAT, and clinical experience.

-join some clubs/activities around campus. A few will probably suffice. Obtain leadership positions if at all possible.

Disagree. You should do these because they are fun and will help you have a better time in college. They won't help your MSTP application much if at all, and if they are a big timesuck and pull down your GPA they will be far more trouble than they are worth. Nobody on the admissions committee looks at the guy with the 3.3 and says, "He was editor of the paper so we'll cut him some slack." They just take the guy with the 3.7 and no extracurriculars (other than research) instead.

-get to know your professors, particularly your research advisors. They will advocate for you come application time.

Agreed.

A lot of this also depends on where you plan to apply. For example, at the very top MSTP's, where you do your undergrad will be a factor (in my estimation, others may beg to differ)

Yeah, I don't agree with this. I'm at an MSTP where the med school is notorious for favoring Ivy Leaguers, and I don't think the MSTP operates this way at all. They really take a good hard look at your whole application, and by the time that's done there are usually so many other factors that differentiate people that it's unnecessary to rely on convenient stand-ins like undergrad institution.

 

[xanthines]

solitude and tr are spot on.

The only thing I would add is to get some practice interviewing. Learn how to convey your research experience and its significance in a lucid and somewhat eloquent way. Ask your PI and his/her collaborators (if possible) for some practice. They'll be able to tell you if you're explaining it well. Then ask them if they know a prof experienced with interviewing who will do the same with you (ie they don't know your research area well). I didn't have the best numbers (3.4/32) which did hurt me, but I was accepted at every place at which I interviewed. I owe that to being able to explain my research well, answering their questions (if they had any) well, and showing some enthusiasm for the research.

Just my opinion.

-X

 

[disque71]

solitude and tr are spot on.

The only thing I would add is to get some practice interviewing. Learn how to convey your research experience and its significance in a lucid and somewhat eloquent way. Ask your PI and his/her collaborators (if possible) for some practice. They'll be able to tell you if you're explaining it well. Then ask them if they know a prof experienced with interviewing who will do the same with you (ie they don't know your research area well). I didn't have the best numbers (3.4/32) which did hurt me, but I was accepted at every place at which I interviewed. I owe that to being able to explain my research well, answering their questions (if they had any) well, and showing some enthusiasm for the research.

Just my opinion.

-X

where did you apply?

 

[solitude]

Disagree. You should do these because they are fun and will help you have a better time in college. They won't help your MSTP application much if at all, and if they are a big timesuck and pull down your GPA they will be far more trouble than they are worth. Nobody on the admissions committee looks at the guy with the 3.3 and says, "He was editor of the paper so we'll cut him some slack." They just take the guy with the 3.7 and no extracurriculars (other than research) instead.


I do agree that the primary motivation for activities should be for fun and diversion, but I was under the impression that some extracurricular activities are helpful for MSTP admission? tr you would know better than I, of course, so I defer in this case. But this has piqued my interest: do extracurriculars (aside from research and clinical stuff) really not matter much at all?



Yeah, I don't agree with this. I'm at an MSTP where the med school is notorious for favoring Ivy Leaguers, and I don't think the MSTP operates this way at all. They really take a good hard look at your whole application, and by the time that's done there are usually so many other factors that differentiate people that it's unnecessary to rely on convenient stand-ins like undergrad institution.[/QUOTE]


tr is probably right here too. As any scientist knows, it's difficult to determine causation from correlation. When I look at the MSTP rosters at many schools, I see the same familiar USNews undergrad schools popping up for the majority of the MSTP students. It's hard to know whether the actual undergrad is favored, or if it's just that these schools seem to produce more adequate applicants that eventually are accepted? I am curious, what's your take on this tr?


Thanks and good thread!

 

[tr]

I do agree that the primary motivation for activities should be for fun and diversion, but I was under the impression that some extracurricular activities are helpful for MSTP admission? tr you would know better than I, of course, so I defer in this case. But this has piqued my interest: do extracurriculars (aside from research and clinical stuff) really not matter much at all?

They all go on one little line buried in the middle of your application. Most people have a bunch of things listed there. It's hard to tell what the degree of involvement was, and I'm not sure most of the readers will care. They are too busy looking at your GPA, MCATs, research experience, and letters of recommendation.

tr is probably right here too. As any scientist knows, it's difficult to determine causation from correlation. When I look at the MSTP rosters at many schools, I see the same familiar USNews undergrad schools popping up for the majority of the MSTP students. It's hard to know whether the actual undergrad is favored, or if it's just that these schools seem to produce more adequate applicants that eventually are accepted? I am curious, what's your take on this tr?

I would definitely concur that 'USNews' undergrad institutions are more likely to make their students aware of these opportunities and shepherd them through the resume-polishing and application processes. Despite this, I do get the feeling that our own MSTP is less skewed towards Ivies than our med school is in general (although this varies a lot by year). Again, I ascribe this to the fact that there are better ways to differentiate MSTP applicants from each other than UG institution. The med school has a much higher volume of applicants, so (I suspect) tends to take the shortcut route to paring things down.

I have to say that when I read applications, I do not take much account of UG institution, nor have I generally found that applicants from USNews schools seem more qualified than others. There are more of them though, and my perception is that the 'accepted' pool is not more skewed towards these schools than the applicant pool. (Many of our students hail from these UG institutions, but so do many of our applicants in general.) I don't have data to back this up though. In general I suspect that the applicant pool is pretty self-selected. Pretty much everyone who applies is already an achiever, regardless of UG institution.

 

[Vader]

About extracurricular activities, I think tr's point is a good one: do them, but not to the point of significantly sacrificing other parts of your application. It is easy to get stretched too thin and it will be good practice now to find out what your limits are. A career as a physician-scientist is one that by definition requires an ability to multitask.

Among MSTP applicants when I applied that I met through interviews, many had done amazing extracurriculars in addition to everything else. In some instances, this can be a small way that may help you differentiate yourself from other amazing applicants. If your other stuff is all outstanding, ALSO being involved with other things can convey the impression of being able to multitask well.

 

[solitude]

Very interesting. No further questions 🙂. Thanks.

They all go on one little line buried in the middle of your application. Most people have a bunch of things listed there. It's hard to tell what the degree of involvement was, and I'm not sure most of the readers will care. They are too busy looking at your GPA, MCATs, research experience, and letters of recommendation.



I would definitely concur that 'USNews' undergrad institutions are more likely to make their students aware of these opportunities and shepherd them through the resume-polishing and application processes. Despite this, I do get the feeling that our own MSTP is less skewed towards Ivies than our med school is in general (although this varies a lot by year). Again, I ascribe this to the fact that there are better ways to differentiate MSTP applicants from each other than UG institution. The med school has a much higher volume of applicants, so (I suspect) tends to take the shortcut route to paring things down.

I have to say that when I read applications, I do not take much account of UG institution, nor have I generally found that applicants from USNews schools seem more qualified than others. There are more of them though, and my perception is that the 'accepted' pool is not more skewed towards these schools than the applicant pool. (Many of our students hail from these UG institutions, but so do many of our applicants in general.) I don't have data to back this up though. In general I suspect that the applicant pool is pretty self-selected. Pretty much everyone who applies is already an achiever, regardless of UG institution.

 

[Neuronix]

A lot of this also depends on where you plan to apply. For example, at the very top MSTP's, where you do your undergrad will be a factor (in my estimation, others may beg to differ), and most people will need phenomenal grades and MCAT scores (3.7 or 3.8 and mid-30's).

To disagree with some of the other posters, what I have seen at my MSTP makes me agree that where you do your ugrad is a factor. Obviously, it's not a huge factor as I went to a no-name state school ugrad, but it's something that gets considered. I'm pretty sure this is true for the other biggest name MSTPs as well from my experiences applying.

I wasn't offered interviews at many of the very big name places though I knew others from big name ugrads who didn't have the stats or research I did who got interviews at all of those schools. Now, it could be other factors on my application, though when I interviewed here I was told by my application reviewer "We usually don't interview people from your undergrad, but your application was very interesting and I wanted to see if it was true..." Later I was told by an adcom member that she didn't even want to look at applications that weren't from big name undergraduate schools unless they were really stellar. Take home message for me is: It's a factor here, and I'm pretty sure it is at Hopkins/Harvard/UCSF/WashU/etc even if they would deny it publicly...

 

[mdphdhopeful]

To disagree with some of the other posters, what I have seen at my MSTP makes me agree that where you do your ugrad is a factor. Obviously, it's not a huge factor as I went to a no-name state school ugrad, but it's something that gets considered. I'm pretty sure this is true for the other biggest name MSTPs as well from my experiences applying.

past success is a good indicator of future success...

 

[tr]

Among MSTP applicants when I applied that I met through interviews, many had done amazing extracurriculars in addition to everything else. In some instances, this can be a small way that may help you differentiate yourself from other amazing applicants. If your other stuff is all outstanding, ALSO being involved with other things can convey the impression of being able to multitask well.

I guess that is true, but the extracurriculars have to be really stellar to attract notice. I don't think any of your standard collegiate extracurriculars are going to count for much; but if you ran a successful business out of your dorm room or started a free supplementary education program for underprivileged children in your spare time, that will attract some attention. Again, it won't offset significantly suboptimal grades or MCATs.

I wasn't offered interviews at many of the very big name places though I knew others from big name ugrads who didn't have the stats or research I did who got interviews at all of those schools. ... Later I was told by an adcom member that she didn't even want to look at applications that weren't from big name undergraduate schools unless they were really stellar.

Ah well, perhaps Neuronix knows something I don't. I can't say I was familiar with the stats of many other applicants at the time I was applying, so I don't know much about the interview-granting process. Perhaps undergrad is a factor there. I am speaking on the basis of my experiences with interviewees, all of whom had already passed the initial weed-out.

Actually, if anything the students who stand out in my memory as being the super-superstars were mostly not from big-name schools. Perhaps the explanation for this is that, as Neuronix says, only being such a superstar will get you an interview if you are from a no-name school.

 

[shamus1]

To disagree with some of the other posters, what I have seen at my MSTP makes me agree that where you do your ugrad is a factor. Obviously, it's not a huge factor as I went to a no-name state school ugrad, but it's something that gets considered. I'm pretty sure this is true for the other biggest name MSTPs as well from my experiences applying.

I wasn't offered interviews at many of the very big name places though I knew others from big name ugrads who didn't have the stats or research I did who got interviews at all of those schools. Now, it could be other factors on my application, though when I interviewed here I was told by my application reviewer "We usually don't interview people from your undergrad, but your application was very interesting and I wanted to see if it was true..." Later I was told by an adcom member that she didn't even want to look at applications that weren't from big name undergraduate schools unless they were really stellar. Take home message for me is: It's a factor here, and I'm pretty sure it is at Hopkins/Harvard/UCSF/WashU/etc even if they would deny it publicly...

Not sure that I would agree with this. Here are this year's admissions lists for Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF Wash U & your school:

Harvard

Harvard University (4)
Johns Hopkins University
Massachussetts Institute of Technology (2)
Purdue University
Stanford University
University of CaliforniaLos Angeles
University of Maryland
University of Puerto Rico

Hopkins

Harvard University (2)
Morehouse
Princeton University
Swarthmore College
UMBC
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
University Tulsa
West Virginia University

Penn

Columbia University (2)
Cornell University (2)
Dartmouth
Duke University
Emory University
Harvard University (2)
Johns Hopkins University (2)
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
University of Alabama
University of Florida
University of Maryland
University of Pennsylvania (3)
University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
Yale University (2)

UCSF
Amherst
Harvard University
Princeton University (2)
Stanford University (3)
University of Arizona
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of Utah
Wesleyan University

Washington University

Agnes Scott College
Brown University
Carnegie Mellon University
College of William & Mary
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Davidson College
Duke University (3)
Duquesne University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michigan State University
New York University
Peabody Institute
Princeton University
Rutgers State University of New Jersey
South Dakota State University
Stanford University
University of Arizona
University of Chicago (3)
University of Connecticut
University of Guelph
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
University of Iowa
University of Michigan
University of North Carolina
University of Oklahoma
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin, Madison (2)
Washington State University
Washington University (4)
Wheaton College

To be sure, Harvard, Duke, Penn, Stanford, Princeton, etc. are well represented on this list. But names of schools that are not elite research universities also appear: Purdue, U of Puerto Rico, Morehouse, Oregon, Tulsa, West Virginia, Arizona, Peabody Institute, Oklahoma, Alabama, Wheaton, Duquense, South Dakota State, etc. (I am not hatin' on these schools; their name just would not leap to your mind if you were asked to list the top 25 universities in the country.)

My take home messages would be different from yours. FIrst, I would say that MSTPs seem to attract their own: Harard had 4 homegrown matriculants, Penn 3, and Wash U 4. The exception this year was Hopkins; UCSF has no undergrad school. Another take home message would be that there is a regional bias to matriculation; whether that bias is on the part of the admissions committess or the applicants, I do not know. 8 of Harvard's 11 matriculants are from the Eastern Seaboard, as are 5 of Hopkins' 10 and 17 of Penn's 22. 8 of UCSF's 13 are from the West, and 16 of Wash U's 41 are from the Midwest. Penn seems to attract a lot of Ivy and near-Ivy students, so perhaps that is the basis for your observation that undergrad reputation matters. But keep in mind that the 600+ individuals that matriculated into MD-PhD programs in 2005 came from more than 200 different undergraduate institutions. My final take home message is that individuals at Slippery Rock State College should take heart: if you have strong research credentials and a good undergraduate record, you can get into an MD-PhD program.

 

[Neuronix]

My take home messages would be different from yours. FIrst, I would say that MSTPs seem to attract their own: Harard had 4 homegrown matriculants, Penn 3, and Wash U 4. The exception this year was Hopkins; UCSF has no undergrad school. Another take home message would be that there is a regional bias to matriculation; whether that bias is on the part of the admissions committess or the applicants, I do not know.

I wouldn't say your message is different--I just didn't address those issues. I would agree about regional bias, and argue that (at least on the coasts) it probably has more to do with applicants wanting to stay near home or their undergrads.

My final take home message is that individuals at Slippery Rock State College should take heart: if you have strong research credentials and a good undergraduate record, you can get into an MD-PhD program.

Again, I went to the University of Delaware for undergrad and I would argee with this statement. I still do think ugrad reputation matters, but not necessarily a great deal.

I do also think that there is a certain tiering level to the undergraduate reputation I'm referring to. I would argue that the vast majority of MD/PhD students came from schools with big name biomedical research institutes, with medical schools (or one closely affiliated), or from big name small liberal arts colleges. There are very few schools listed in your post that do not fit these catagories and yet they make up a small percentage of the total colleges in this country. In my mind, the biggest name undergrad students get perhaps a bit more consideration, the types of schools I listed above otherwise are on an equal playing field, and the undergrads from schools that don't fit what I said above get dinged. It may all be in my head or specific to Penn, so feel free to disagree. The data supports my argument more if one takes out WashU data, which is more varied with regard to undergrad tier/affiliations, based on my understanding they have a harder time recruiting students from the big name coastal schools because of its location. I wouldn't know, but it's also possible that you guys consider undergrad status less than other schools.

Thanks for the analysis! Are those matriculation lists posted on their respective school websites? What would really settle the argument would be objective factors relating to admission. i.e. Did the students from the not-as-big-name undergrads have higher GPAs, MCAT scores, more research experience/publications, more URM students, etc? Or, were they equal in these other factors to their Ivy/"Near Ivy" peers? The big problem with my argument is that it's based on small sample sizes and word of mouth. I've had this conversation with various adcoms, other applicants, and on this site a bunch of times and what I'm saying tends to be the general consensus. It could be that it's wrong--though my impression of your text is that you're not saying directly whether or not undergrad rep matters or not, just saying that those who didn't go to big name schools shouldn't lose heart. That's the same thing I would continue to say.

PS: Where have you been for the past couple years? 😉

 

[solitude]

I am also interested in where the poster got all of this data. I have not been able to find anything like it, even by scavenging every school's site. Please tell us more!

 

[solitude]

They all go on one little line buried in the middle of your application. Most people have a bunch of things listed there. It's hard to tell what the degree of involvement was, and I'm not sure most of the readers will care. They are too busy looking at your GPA, MCATs, research experience, and letters of recommendation.



A little late on this, but I was wondering...

Is the attitude somewhat different at those schools that evaluate you in both the MD and MSTP committees? I would imagine that the MD committee would more closely scrutinize your extracurriculars, whereas the MSTP would focus on the more academic things. Therefore, you would pretty much need to have stellar EC's and all of the other MSTP stuff. Is this right or no? Any thoughts?

 

[SeventhSon]

i really think private schools do not like public schools, and i mean i'm from UCSD which last time i checked was AT LEAST a top20 school, right?

 

[drbp]

I am also interested in where the poster got all of this data. I have not been able to find anything like it, even by scavenging every school's site. Please tell us more!

The MSTP at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine has attempted to make more of this kind of information public on their new website: http://mstp.aecom.yu.edu .

As for the discussion at hand, I think you will see that lately, qualified students from smaller schools do just fine. In the past (check out alumni), only the big, well-known, schools sent students to combined programs. But I would argue that in the past, if you were a great student, you were more likely to go to a big, well-known, school. Now, great students often choose smaller schools for various reasons (better living, newer facilities, etc.).

As for extra-curricular activities: I cannot see a biophysicist or geneticist choosing you over another physician scientist applicant because you play the oboe or volunteered as a soccer coach. However, if these things do not affect your grades or research, they certainly cannot be held against you.

If I were doing it all over again, this is what I would rank as important for an MSTP applicant:

1. Research experience. Have some. Understand what you did and be able to talk about it at length. They want to know that you can succeed in lab, and that you like it even when experiments fail (beacuase the will). Publications are a plus.

2. Grades and tests. You have to be evaluated somehow. The higher the better.

3. Personality, motivation, interests. These all come out at the interview. Nobody wants to fund a flake, when the mean graduation time is ~8 years.

4. Major. Undergraduate institution. Extra-curricluar activities. If you have some small holes in the categories above, these areas might help (ie. lower GPA might be considered ok, with a difficult major at a top-tier school).

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

I don't know if anyone has said this to you or not since I really do not want to read every post, but

ONLY APPLY TO SCHOOLS THAT YOU WOULD REALISTICALLY GO TO.

I applied to too many schools and I'm getting really tired of interviewing at places where I don't see myself living for 8 years.

(I am not complaining about going on interviews and I know many people do not have some yet. This is just something to keep in mind.)

 

[solitude]

Thanks for the info! I am getting the gist that MSTP adcoms are fairly ambivalent about extracurricular activities.

The MSTP at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine has attempted to make more of this kind of information public on their new website: http://mstp.aecom.yu.edu .

As for the discussion at hand, I think you will see that lately, qualified students from smaller schools do just fine. In the past (check out alumni), only the big, well-known, schools sent students to combined programs. But I would argue that in the past, if you were a great student, you were more likely to go to a big, well-known, school. Now, great students often choose smaller schools for various reasons (better living, newer facilities, etc.).

As for extra-curricular activities: I cannot see a biophysicist or geneticist choosing you over another physician scientist applicant because you play the oboe or volunteered as a soccer coach. However, if these things do not affect your grades or research, they certainly cannot be held against you.

If I were doing it all over again, this is what I would rank as important for an MSTP applicant:

1. Research experience. Have some. Understand what you did and be able to talk about it at length. They want to know that you can succeed in lab, and that you like it even when experiments fail (beacuase the will). Publications are a plus.

2. Grades and tests. You have to be evaluated somehow. The higher the better.

3. Personality, motivation, interests. These all come out at the interview. Nobody wants to fund a flake, when the mean graduation time is ~8 years.

4. Major. Undergraduate institution. Extra-curricluar activities. If you have some small holes in the categories above, these areas might help (ie. lower GPA might be considered ok, with a difficult major at a top-tier school).

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[AngryTesticle]

Thanks for the info! I am getting the gist that MSTP adcoms are fairly ambivalent about extracurricular activities.

Well, yes and no.

If you have held strong leadership positions (for example, President or Vice President as opposed to Beer Chair, Social Chair, or Club Designated Driver) and demonstrated dedication to your club, then this can help. Leadership is an important quality for any physician-scientist.

Now, if you're a member of 20 clubs with no leadership positions, then the adcoms will suspect that you are a compulsive list-maker who puts down activities where you really have minimal involvement in addition to those activities where you are actively involved.

But, that being said, MSTP programs want future physician-scientists. The scientist part of the equation is of more importance. So, they will scrutinize your research and also grades/MCAT scores become a tad more important in compared to if you were a straight MD applicant.