Advice would be great...

[Treg]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi everyone,

I am finishing up my Ph.D. in Immunology and have applied to med school for this fall. I have some interviews coming up, and I need your help. I have chosen to go the M.D. route following my Ph.D. not because I am looking for a way out. Rather, I knew I loved research, and I was unsure if I wanted to go MSTP out of undergrad because I wasn't sure the MD was neccessary (I have a chem UG degree). Thus, I went to grad school, and now I am convinced that I want to be involved in heavily translational/clinical research. I think that the patient contact will add to my research interests and I am passionate about truly bringing the "bench to bedside." I have done quite well in grad school and I have several outstanding LORs from PIs who know me well explaining my potential as a clinician-scientist, etc. I also addressed this in my personal statement.

Whew-that got long.

My question for you guys is the following:

What happens if I have an interviewer who tries to corner me in terms of "why do you need the M.D. to do research?" I feel really strongly about my interest in the MD, I know it is what I want to do career-wise for the above reasons, but I think I might struggle to vocalize this coherently if I am pressured.

How did you guys handle this during MSTP interviews? Do they try to corner you like this, or am I just paranoid?

I have already arranged to meet with prospective PIs at the schools I am interviewing with so that I can potentialy continue researching during med school. I hope that this demonstrates my commitment to this career, instead of just bailing from research at this point.

Does this make any sense?

Thanks!

Treg

 

[ImmunoANT]

On another thread somebody posted a link to an article by Joseph Goldstein and Michael Brown titled "The clinical investigator: bewitched, bothered, and bewildered--but still beloved" on JCI. You may want to check that out. That article crystalizes my motivation in pursuing a MD/PhD combine degree. 😀 😀

 

[doctorvenkman]

The "why md" question is very relevant and you'll probably get it, depending on how research or medicine oriented your interviewer is. I'm very strong on the research side and weak on the clinical, so I had an answer prepared that, of 25+ interviewers, all but one was happy with. They're not really out to get you, just to know why you're there. As to the rare case of a high pressure interviewer, stand your ground, explain yourself without being antagonistic or hostile, and you'll be fine.

 

[tofurious]

It's an interesting question that I even got during my residency interviews: is clinic there to supplement your research? From most MSTP applicants' perspective, any of the ideological/theoretical answer is good since they have done neither and realistically have no idea as far as the ad com's are concerned. For you however, making what you want down the road as clear as you did to us may not work to your advantage. When you interview for MSTP, the people who are interviewing you KNOW that you are going to end up somewhere in the middle between pure research and pure clinical work. In your case, you are ONLY interviewing for MD: while there is a need for physician-scientists in the pure MD group, saying that you need some clinical training to make your research better UPFRONT is definitely not the way to go. There are many other applicants who are willing to devote 100% of their time to clinical work or bringing research into their clinical practice, and plenty other MD-PhDs and straight PhDs to do mostly research. I hope you see how that would come across to the ad coms, especially when some of them are like family physicians or non-research clinicians.

I would advise you to first evaluate whether you NEED to go to med school if transitional research is all you want to do. The line between transitional and basic research is getting so blurred now one day there may not be a division at all (unless what you mean by transitional research is more clinical evidence-based research). Second, it's likely that if you want to do research (and if you tell them that), you need to come up with an answer as to whether you want to do a residency. Med schools are evaluated by how their graduates do after graduation, and non-residency outcomes are still a no-no among most med schools. Third, if you still think 7-8 years of not so easy work (quite different from grad school I can tell you that) is worth it, I would modify your interview answers because you are not obligated to keep all your interview promises after getting your foot into the door. You can say you want to do surgery now and nobody would hold it against you if you decide to do allergy down the road. If I were an ad com person, I would admire your desire and drive to add medical knowledge and training to your resume to do better research, but at the same time I would be much more inclined to rank some young kid from some poor inner city who wants to do pure clinical work because I know that you can STILL do research without the MD and the kid will get to serve more patients.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by tofurious
In your case, you are ONLY interviewing for MD: while there is a need for physician-scientists in the pure MD group, saying that you need some clinical training to make your research better UPFRONT is definitely not the way to go. I hope you see how that would come across to the ad coms, especially when some of them are like family physicians or non-research clinicians.

While I think you'll have to make a compelling argeument for wanting to now go to medical school, I don't get the impression from any of the many schools I've talked to making a convincing arguement is going to be any harder than it would be in general to get into medical school. The caveat here of course is that I've asked this question of attending medical school following the research programs like Chapel Hill, Harvard, Hopkins, and Yale. I also think if you've done some translational research as a PhD student it would help your case.

Originally posted by tofurious
I would advise you to first evaluate whether you NEED to go to med school if transitional research is all you want to do. The line between transitional and basic research is getting so blurred now one day there may not be a division at all

I disagree that the line is bluring in general and would say that it depends on the school. For example the pathology department at Hopkins clearly has a translational focus where as the pathology department at UMaryland is more basic science oriented. Not suprisingly, Hopkins is more of a "research" institution than is UMaryland.

Originally posted by tofurious
If I were an ad com person, I would admire your desire and drive to add medical knowledge and training to your resume to do better research, but at the same time I would be much more inclined to rank some young kid from some poor inner city who wants to do pure clinical work because I know that you can STILL do research without the MD and the kid will get to serve more patients.

Again, school dependent. I'd say you 'd probably have an "easier" time getting accepted to UNC-Chapel Hill than say East Carolina University, a school whose focus is clearly Primary Care.

 

[Treg]

First off, thanks for the replies.

I only applied to a handful of schools based upon my research interests, so I definitely picked schools that appear to encourage research for MDs. In terms of my specific research interests, I want to be at the interface between translational and clinical work. Think Frederick Banting, who discovered insulin with countless dog experiments coupled with patient feedback.

I am interviewing at Einstein in a few weeks. They have an outstanding diabetes institute there, and when I contacted the director about my upcoming interview visit and my plans for research in med school, he was very enthusiastic. In fact, I am touring the center and meeting with several PIs (including him) the day of my interview. This guy happens to be the director for the IM residency there, so I think he understands the type of career I want.

I also contacted the director of the MD/PhD program at another school I applied to, and he seemed supportive. He offered to have me participate in the research program/seminars etc.

I hope that the fact that my PhD research is good quality from a "famous" group in the field helps. Also, all 6 of my LORs are from academic scientists, some MD/PhD (one HHMI fellow), who are very supportive of my intentions.

Still, I really hope to transfer internally into the program at my current school, then I get the $$ for med school 🙂

Any more thoughts would be appreciated.

Treg

 

[Treg]

Hi all,

Well, my interview went well, and I think that my reasons for going into medicine now were considered valid. Here's hoping...

My interviewer also told me that if you do decide to do the MD after the PhD and end up incurring debt, that NIH has a nice loan repayment program. For each year that you commit to a >50% clinical research program (post residency), NIH will pay $35K + taxes on that amount towards loans. So, if you incurred $100K in debt, after 3 years of clinical research you could have it all paid. The program encourages MD/PhDs to apply and funds upwards of 70% of the applicants.

It is nice to know that those of us that are pursuing this route are supported by NIH in a similar fashion to MSTP. It is also reassuring that some med schools are receptive to people with the PhD that are committed to clinical research.

Good luck everyone!

Treg

 

[dannieboy20]

hi treg!
i sent u a PM