Advice on school selection

[plumazul]

---

Members do not see this ad.

While gathering info on MSTPs on my application list, I noticed that several of them had very skewed data on gender and instate matriculation. (esp. recent matriculation data). Since there are very few seats per school, (and I can not afford to just throw away $) I was wondering if I should just avoid these schools? For example, should a female from a state school avoid a program that does not seem to enroll either(and also has almost half their students from instate)? Or a school that had only 1 woman out of 11 seats?

Since these are MSTPs, I was surprised by what I found. My stats (+regional and program preferences) would suggest these schools should be on my list, so perhaps there is a rational explanation? Are woman, public school, and OOS applicants being accepted but for whatever reason not matriculating? Comments welcome.

 

[Member011]

While gathering info on MSTPs on my application list, I noticed that several of them had very skewed data on gender and instate matriculation. (esp. recent matriculation data). Since there are very few seats per school, (and I can not afford to just throw away $) I was wondering if I should just avoid these schools? For example, should a female from a state school avoid a program that does not seem to enroll either(and also has almost half their students from instate)? Or a school that had only 1 woman out of 11 seats?

Since these are MSTPs, I was surprised by what I found. My stats (+regional and program preferences) would suggest these schools should be on my list, so perhaps there is a rational explanation? Are woman, public school, and OOS applicants being accepted but for whatever reason not matriculating? Comments welcome.

Are you sure that those are the stats for the MSTP program? I feel like the majority of the state MSTP programs do not factor in state residency for MSTP admission.

 

[StIGMA]

Progams that are skewed male should be recruiting females more strongly. They need a diverse program to retain their MSTP grant (or applying for it if they are not MSTP). You may have a stronger shot at the programs that have fewer females- they may simply have more difficulty recruiting them for whatever reason. You are not dealing with very large sample sizes, and the national average is only around 40% female already- so a a few poor recruitment years (even if they accepted females that did not matriculate) really skews the numbers. Being from a state school means you need to apply to a few (3-5) more programs if you have an otherwise competitive application (state residency is a non-factor). Many of these females could have been holding multiple acceptances and chose other schools than the ones where you find them less represented. Don't worry about it.

 

[Fencer]

Are you sure that those are the stats for the MSTP program? I feel like the majority of the state MSTP programs do not factor in state residency for MSTP admission.

I can assure you that state of residency or gender (slight preference to balance 50/50) is not considered in MSTP or in large MD/PhD programs. State of residency might account for an increased number of in-state applications (leading to increase in-state matriculants) as compared to some programs with greater national recruitment.

 

[plumazul]

Are you sure that those are the stats for the MSTP program? I feel like the majority of the state MSTP programs do not factor in state residency for MSTP admission.

I am applying (with one exception) only to MSTPs. I was using the 2012 data here

Progams that are skewed male should be recruiting females more strongly. They need a diverse program to retain their MSTP grant (or applying for it if they are not MSTP). You may have a stronger shot at the programs that have fewer females- they may simply have more difficulty recruiting them for whatever reason. You are not dealing with very large sample sizes, and the national average is only around 40% female already- so a a few poor recruitment years (even if they accepted females that did not matriculate) really skews the numbers. Being from a state school means you need to apply to a few (3-5) more programs if you have an otherwise competitive application (state residency is a non-factor). Many of these females could have been holding multiple acceptances and chose other schools than the ones where you find them less represented. Don't worry about it.

Yes, I suppose I'm suffering from the pre-submit jitters. Thanks for talking me down 😀
I currently have 20 schools on my list and was trying to reduce it to save a little $. Perhaps I should just stay with 20. 🙁

I'm going to call a few places to see if their 2013 cycle was much different. I want to believe these were just anomalous results.

 

[dl2dp2]

I am applying (with one exception) only to MSTPs. I was using the 2012 data here




Yes, I suppose I'm suffering from the pre-submit jitters. Thanks for talking me down 😀
I currently have 20 schools on my list and was trying to reduce it to save a little $. Perhaps I should just stay with 20. 🙁

I'm going to call a few places to see if their 2013 cycle was much different. I want to believe these were just anomalous results.

You should spend the money and apply broadly. Though from your profile you appear to be an extremely strong candidate, skimping on application fee is one of the biggest mistakes students, especially students from disadvantaged backgrounds make. The application fee is completely negligible, period. The MD/PhD program is worth at least 1-1.5 million dollars if you count the total human capital and at least 300k if you only count tuition and stipend at a private institution. It's an investment that has a possible return of >3000% Borrow money from credit cards if you need to.

 

[mrsanator]

Former member of an MSTP admissions committee at a state school.

As an URM with a 4.0 GPA and 40 MCAT per your MDApps profile, barring some terrible flaw elsewhere you will be a very competitive applicant. So, I definitely think it's fine to consider trimming your list.

However, the strategy you've outlined of trying to trim schools based on gender/state breakdowns of recent matriculants doesn't seem to me to be the best approach. You don't know who was accepted; you only know who matriculated. Every MSTP wants to have geographic, gender, and racial/ethnic diversity in their matriculating cohorts, because MSTPs are judged when they go to renew their training grants on whether they are a "national" or "regional" program and based on whether they are training a diverse group of individuals with respect to gender and race/ethnicity. If anything, sites that matriculated mostly in-state men in their recent cohorts may be slightly more likely to offer admission to an out-of-state woman to try to balance.

I think trimming based on where you want to live, where there are people doing stuff you're interested in pursuing, etc. are far better ways to go.

 

[Watson104]

Don't pay attention to a single year's class in terms of gender or college or home town. In some places, that class is only 2 people, in others up to 25, many 10-12. In my program, which overall has about 50-50 male:female ratio, has some years with nearly all women, and other years with nearly all men. When you only are accepting 20 or so people for 10 spots, sometimes the results end up skewed. It's something MSTPs work hard to avoid. If anything if the class prior had more males or more local matriculants, you bet they're looking to get more women and more OOS in the next class.

 

[dl2dp2]

I think trimming based on where you want to live, where there are people doing stuff you're interested in pursuing, etc. are far better ways to go.

I really don't see the point of trimming. What's the point of saying $500 bucks (at most) now? She should only trim schools she absolutely has no intention of going to. On the other hand, you might fall in love with a school that you inadvertently applied to. Or worse yet, in the off chance that you didn't get into any school because you didn't apply to enough. You need to be more farsighted. Stay focused. Eyes on the prize. Apply broadly. You can trim once you start getting interviews.

 

[mrsanator]

I really don't see the point of trimming. What's the point of saying $500 bucks (at most) now? She should only trim schools she absolutely has no intention of going to. On the other hand, you might fall in love with a school that you inadvertently applied to. Or worse yet, in the off chance that you didn't get into any school because you didn't apply to enough. You need to be more farsighted. Stay focused. Eyes on the prize. Apply broadly. You can trim once you start getting interviews.

So why doesn't everyone apply to every program in the US? At some point the costs outweigh the benefits.

I would argue that, barring some major problem (e.g., plagiarism or felony conviction or PI who will write a malicious letter), a URM applicant with a 40/4.0 and research experience who applies to 20+ programs is well past the point of significant marginal benefit from applying to additional programs, and if there are a couple of places that she knows she wouldn't go if she got into another program for whatever reason, then it's a reasonable choice to drop them off the list. But, it's all in how you balance small marginal cost with small marginal benefit - totally reasonable that others may feel differently.

 

[Neuronix]

4.0/40/3 years research as a URM? You're overthinking it. Just apply to the top 12 programs in the country and take your pick of the URM offices that will be actively recruiting you. I'm not kidding. You won't get in everywhere, but you should have your choice of a few top places. Exactly where, who knows, just apply to where you like and don't think too hard about it.