At what applicant age is it unreasonable to apply to MD/PhD?

[sat0ri]

---

Members don't see this ad.

QUESTION: At what applicant age is it unreasonable to apply to MD/PhD?

DEFINITION: I think a definition of what is reasonable should include both: (1) at what age will your application start to be viewed negatively to a significant extent and, (2) what age will someone be "too old" to have enough time to complete degrees, post-docs/residency, and start up a lab and/or practice? I think personal lifestyle goals (eg., having children) should NOT be part of this definition because it will vary between persons and depend on extrinsic factors that are not meaningful to compare.

MOTIVATION: There has been limited and divergent opinion on what age is considered "too old" to apply to MD/PhD programs, so here is a poll to get a more quantitative answer.

INTRODUCTION: While the general consensus is you're never too old to apply to MD schools (with many people reporting student's in their late 30's and early 40's in their class), the duration of MD/PhD programs mean that startings "too late" will entail spending most of your life to complete degrees and a limited of time to make a contribution to society in your actual career (starting in your 60's with only 10-15 years to practice is pretty unreasonable). There have only been a few threads where this is addressed but the answers from person to person and thread.

 

[AxelLopez]

Usually there a program where you get you're bachelor and your MD at the same time but it 6 years i think. I'm not sure though

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Lawpy]

@Neuronix @eteshoe @Lucca would know a lot more, but personally, I don't think there is an age unreasonable to pursue MD/PhD.

If a former NYPD detective with an awesome backstory can pursue MD/PhD at Cornell at age of 45, I don't see why age plays a key role. Career goals vary based on personal interests.

 

[sat0ri]

Usually there a program where you get you're bachelor and your MD at the same time but it 6 years i think. I'm not sure though

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Did you respond to the right thread? I'm a bit confused by your answer.

 

[AxelLopez]

I think I did sorry

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Lucca]

@Neuronix @eteshoe @Lucca would know a lot more, but personally, I don't think there is an age unreasonable to pursue MD/PhD.

If a former NYPD detective with an awesome backstory can pursue MD/PhD at Cornell at age of 45, I don't see why age plays a key role. Career goals vary based on personal interests.

Don't get me wrong, that guy is a badass. But, I personally do think one can be too old to pursue the dual degree. Neuronix has said at some point that everyone is too old for 8 years of medical and grad school, and nearly a decade of postgraduate clinical training beyond that, and potentially a postdoc. I agree with that sentiment. The important thing is that you are very sure MD/PhD is the training and path you want and that you understand the sacrifices and risks involved in pursuing it.

 

[Pagan FutureDoc]

I was 37 when I applied. Some days I'm like like what the eff was I thinking

 

[topsoil municipio]

@Neuronix @eteshoe @Lucca would know a lot more, but personally, I don't think there is an age unreasonable to pursue MD/PhD.

If a former NYPD detective with an awesome backstory can pursue MD/PhD at Cornell at age of 45, I don't see why age plays a key role. Career goals vary based on personal interests.

I agree with my learned colleague.

 

[bannie22]

I dont think there is an age. However prepare yourself to have to dedicate to the rigors of academia and sacrificing alot of other things during that period of your life.

Adcoms might have different perspectives as to the overall value of an older applicant given less overall years remaining in the field and therefore academic productivity. But those things are hard to adjust for anyway, not everyone with the PhD will be academically productive.

 

[Med Ed]

QUESTION: At what applicant age is it unreasonable to apply to MD/PhD?

The average age of initial R01 award is 42 for MD/PhD's, so it takes an average of about 18 years of education and training to reach that career-defining moment. While one can always find a feel-good example of someone in middle age who is starting down the medical scientist route, those individuals are rare, and they are the exception. I'm not inherently pessimistic by nature, but I agree with @Lucca that there does come an age, ill-defined as it may be, when starting the longest combined degree program in medicine becomes absurd. As in, when you can anticipate your first R01 arriving two years before you qualify for Medicare.

 

[Lucca]

I think since MD PhD programs cover your tuition, there isn't an age at which you're too old since you don't have to worry about paying back your loans.

In the abstract, this might have something to it but in reality people's lives and priorities change as they age. As a 22 year old, I have no problem (well, some problems but it's a trade off) spending 8 years making 35k a year if it means I get to do what I love and accrue 0 debt. Could I say the same at 35 when I might be married, have a family, or have to take care of my elderly parents? I don't think I could.

 

[eteshoe]

Typically I'd say the age where an additional 15 yrs of training puts you at the point of absurdity. IMO I personally wouldn't start the dual degree path >35 yrs old. Not that people can't, but at a certain point (especially if you have a SO and/or kids) one starts feeling the pressure to contribute in a meaningful manner to the finances. The real danger with the PhD is that unlike the MD, it can take as long as it will take (typically 4-6 yrs) so no one is "guaranteed" to finish in 8 yrs.

 

[libertyyne]

I was 37 when I applied. Some days I'm like like what the eff was I thinking

are you planning on NSG for residency as well?

 

[Pagan FutureDoc]

are you planning on NSG for residency as well?

Psh, I'm not that crazy.

 

[Gauss44]

The average age of initial R01 award is 42 for MD/PhD's, so it takes an average of about 18 years of education and training to reach that career-defining moment. While one can always find a feel-good example of someone in middle age who is starting down the medical scientist route, those individuals are rare, and they are the exception. I'm not inherently pessimistic by nature, but I agree with @Lucca that there does come an age, ill-defined as it may be, when starting the longest combined degree program in medicine becomes absurd. As in, when you can anticipate your first R01 arriving two years before you qualify for Medicare.

What is R01? I was going to ask how long does it usually take to get an MD/phd? (I think I know of a person who took 8 years to get just a phd. Not sure if that's common or not.)

 

[cactusman]

What is R01? I was going to ask how long does it usually take to get an MD/phd? (I think I know of a person who took 8 years to get just a phd. Not sure if that's common or not.)

7-9 years usually, 8 is most common (2 preclinical years; then 3-5 research years, often with occasional clinical rotations; then 2 clinical years). It's free with stipend to make up for the added length and lower pay for research, but overall net loss in comparison to someone who goes full pay and has 4 additional years of private practice pay.

An R01 is a type of NIH research grant that funds several years on a specific project.

 

[sat0ri]

What is R01? I was going to ask how long does it usually take to get an MD/phd? (I think I know of a person who took 8 years to get just a phd. Not sure if that's common or not.)

Before @Med Ed answers more fully, R01 is a funding scheme by NIH that is the largest and it's enough to start up your own lab on your own--in a sense a sort of "you made it" moment. Most of your professor's that you worked with in lab likely have an R01. Here's the NIH explanation and comparison to other grants.

NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01) | grants.nih.gov

Comparison of R01, R03, R21, & R15 Mechanisms

8 years is on the upper limit, 5 years is probably the most common though 6-7 is certainlly normal (for PhD only tracks). It is highly field (and individual/project) dependent. For instance, some biology projects may take longer if you have to wait months-years for mice to grow/die before you can get usable data compared to an in vitro project which may take days-weeks before you can get usable data. Some projects might be harder if the low hanging fruit in the field is already taken, but in a brand new field getting data that is publishable might be much easier.