Best MSTPs

[Newquagmire]

I'm well acquainted with the idea that no MSTP program is a bad one. That being said, I'm sure y'all have opinions on which ones are *better* than others. Anybody willing to throw out a list of 5-10 programs that they consider to be best (I'm not particularly enthralled by the idea of 8 years of neuroscience btw)? Just trying to get an idea of if there are any "sleeper" programs I haven't heard of already. Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MacGyver]

well, its kinda hard to separate out the best MSTP program vs the best clinical training, best research in various departments, etc.

so my thoughts on the best PROGRAMS, with no regard for clinical training, location, and other stuff, but based SOLELY on the organization and administration of the MSTP program itself is that the following schools are the "best":

WashU
Hopkins
Duke
Pitt
Cornell/SKI
Penn

 

[surge]

A true "sleeper", although not for long, is UTSouthwestern.
They're the only school that can compete with WashU in terms of organization (and size) in my opinion. That's what a Nobel laureate as the director and Ross Perot as the sugga daddy will do for a program....

They're truly amazing.

 

[MacGyver]

what about Penn surge?

they already have a larger MSTP class than WashU.

as for UT southwestern, i thought they only take like 10 people a year. they'd have to more than double their class to compete with WashU/Penn.

 

[surge]

You're right about Penn. I forgot to include them.

Southwestern made 24 initial offers this year. They expect a class of 15+. But size aside (I don't know what their actual size will be, it was 12 last year) they are very well organized are extremely well funded.
Definitely up and coming.

 

[Neuronix]

I think another sleeper program is Northwestern. I was so impressed with Northwestern that I turned down some other bigger name acceptances (Baylor, Mayo, etc) so that I'm only holding NU at this point. A few years ago they were only admitting 6 - 8 students/year, but this year they expect around 15, and hope to keep admitting more with time. The school is pretty well established in clinical research and now they're pouring money into basic science research. The program is very well run and I expect it will continue to expand in the future.

I will admit though, one of the big reasons I liked NU was its location. If you like urban, Northwestern has a great location in the best part of Chicago. Few other schools have such a great location, both because NU is in the city, not in a suburb like most schools, and in a such a nice part of the city.

Don't omit Harvard and UCSF from the list. They're hardly sleepers though I also was not impressed with one of the schools listed in this thread, but I'm not going there again

Edit: In response to MacGyver's post after mine. I completely agree about Harvard's reputation. I've heard similar rumors about Hopkins. I've heard that graduation time coupled with an unwillingness to contribute medical school money to the program has led to the NIH pledging not to increase their funding until they change their ways. However, the academic reputation and selection of investigators can't be beat at Harvard (Hopkins does well here too). I heard that Harvard usually only extends one more acceptance than they have spots for. I believe it.

 

[MacGyver]

I thought about Harvard, but didnt put them up there because they have a notoriously long inception to graduation time.

They are in the process of reorganizing their program too, because the NIH put pressure on them to bring down the time to graduation.

So, I would not put Harvard on the list of best MSTPs right now. Maybe after they change some things, they will get back into the thick of the hunt.

As for UCSF, I agree they should be added to the list.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by MacGyver
I thought about Harvard, but didnt put them up there because they have a notoriously long inception to graduation time.

For this reason, Harvard SHOULD NOT be on the list. Give them a few years to get themselves together.

 

[Grignard]

Could anyone tell me the reason why UPitt's MSTP is competitive? What department is the best? Since you guys make that list, there must be a reason or "a proof" of that, doesn't it?

 

[mjs]

As it says in the second message, those are the best-run programs. Of the ones there that I saw, I'd agree. And there's no real proof of that. Those administrations are just known for being on the ball throughout the circuit, their students sing their praises, etc. But administration is only part of the equation.

You could make a separate list of places that represent the best academic pedigree, those best known for producing students focused on research and academic medicine, etc., etc.

There's no magic formula for an MSTP. I was less than impressed with some of the schools (even on that list) where I'd been told to look forward to my interviews, because there was one thing that would have driven me nuts had I gone there.

So in my opinion, you're out of luck with the rankings game. No numbers will guide you in the right direction. They're little, focused programs, each with their own quirks... more like a small graduate department in the liberal arts than something like a medical school class.

On the bright side, you don't often run into people who are sorry they enrolled in their MSTP.

 

[nooreen]

In the end, I decided to go to Wash U precisely because of the program's organization. That should definitely be a factor in deciding where to apply. I would also add that Mayo's program seemed very well-run.

At the same time, I would talk to your research mentors or people in the field that you'd like to do a PhD in to identify which schools are good in your area. At the very least it will make for a more interesting interview experience if you get to choose people.

good luck!

 

[bailey39]

I would definitely add UCSF into the pool with Harvard on the "long time to graduate" due to admin and other issues. In fact, I think Harvard has done more to fix this than UCSF. (Harvard's revisit just blew me and the other applicants away) Both schools have made some serious changes, so we'll just have to wait and see.

But because of these "issues," I'm still undecided. WashU is just such a well organized (and so friendly with such great research--they are awesome) program that it's still in the running for me. I love the ocean and the mountains but WashU has really forced me to consider other factors.

A last note. There are people who take more thna 10yrs at all the places we've listed. There is no school that's going to guarantee a quick route. But some definitely make it a smoother ride than others. Cheers

 

[magpie]

Originally posted by MacGyver
what about Penn surge?

they already have a larger MSTP class than WashU.

as for UT southwestern, i thought they only take like 10 people a year. they'd have to more than double their class to compete with WashU/Penn.

Dunno about the notion that size matters. If a program is not well run, large size would probably be a problem. Fortunately Penn & WashU are pretty well run, so they can handle the big classes. MacGyver, how many people does Penn have in their MSTP class? WashU says they have something like 25 students in next year's class.

Neuronix, I'm not sure about Harvard saying that they only have one person turn them down annually. Two 2nd year students at WashU told me they turned down Harvard's MSTP; I can't imagine WashU is the only place that HMS loses people to. Duke has been saying the same sort of thing, that they rarely have anyone turn them down. However, according to the postings on SDN, 3 people have already turned them down this year (and 2 have accepted). Sal would probably say that this year was an aberration. Right.

 

[Newquagmire]

WashU
Hopkins
Duke
Pitt
Cornell/SKI
Penn

maybe: UCSF, HMS, UT-SW

Thanks for the quick replies guys. This was more or less along the lines of what I've heard. I was thinking more along the lines of generally "good" programs in terms of organization, research opportunities AND clinical teaching -- yes, I realize how difficult it is for a school to have all of those. Neuroscience isn't my bag; I'm more inclined to genetics and molecular bio of disease, so this plays a role in my not-as-impressed opinion of UCSF and Yale.

I'm surprised that UT-SW wasn't in originally in the list and that Duke and Pitt were -- based primarily on the size of the programs used as an indicator of the criteria mentioned above. I've also heard that UCSF and Harvard's integration of research and clinical is rather lacking and that's why they're not as good as some of the bigger programs. (!!!) I think the biggest surprise to me is that UWashington isn't on there at all (Why?).

Any other "sleepers" that might be worthwhile looking into as this cycle's AMCAS comes out? Utah (?!), UCLA, and Vanderbilt have been recommended to me by people I respect.

 

[Neuronix]

Well my recommendation is to go for MSTPs that are strong in genetics and throw some preference towards location (type of location and where in country) if you care about those things.

Two schools not listed that are MSTPs strong in genetics:
Baylor
U of Chicago

UCLA is fairly strong in pathology, but their genetics department is very messed up.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by Neuronix
Edit: In response to MacGyver's post after mine. I completely agree about Harvard's reputation. I've heard similar rumors about Hopkins. I've heard that graduation time coupled with an unwillingness to contribute medical school money to the program has led to the NIH pledging not to increase their funding until they change their ways. However, the academic reputation and selection of investigators can't be beat at Harvard (Hopkins does well here too). I heard that Harvard usually only extends one more acceptance than they have spots for. I believe it.

Havent heard any bad rumors about Hopkins, when I visited there they provided an MSTP list and none of the people was over 9 years, the average was 8 with 2 or 3 people in the 9th year. WashU had one guy at 13 years I think but again he was an outlier and not representative of the class. Harvard on the other hand, had 8 or 9 people in the program who were beyond the 10th year.

as for Harvard's acceptances, i think somebody has been telling you tall tales. I know 3 people accepted to Harvard MSTP who turned it down for other places, 1 chose Hopkins, 1 chose UCLA, and another chose UCSF.

these were all people that applied within 2 years of each other.

 

[khan]

How is University of Michigan in terms of length of time for their MSTP?

 

[momoco way]

I found a site www.phds.org/rankings that ranks graduate programs based on criteria that are important to you. And the site provides a lot of useful information too.

 

[Newquagmire]

Two schools not listed that are MSTPs strong in genetics:
Baylor
U of Chicago

Thanks for the advice. A PI I worked with (and probably will be working under next fall) used to teach at Baylor but got offered the job to run the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK. That was significant enough to me to be interested in Baylor, but I haven't heard ANYTHING about their MSTP so it's not really high on my schools of interest (unless I can be convinced otherwise, perhaps by some thoughtful soul out there reading this).

As for the link posted above, it seems to only rate PhDs. I'm also interested in the MD too -- otherwise, why would I bother with the MD/PhD in the first place? Thanks though.

 

[Neuronix]

I interviewed, was accepted, and attended the second look at Baylor. I also have a friend who is a medical student there. If you're interested, PM me and we can talk more about it. I'd recommend the school, even though it wasn't exactly what I was looking for. For genetics, they have a HUGE patient base and are well respected.

If you want some ratings, check out my sticky thread at the top of the forum index. I have a few links posted there for MD and PhD rankings. There are no ratings for MD/PhD programs, however if there was I'm certain it would look alot like the AMSA MD rankings. Very few medical students are unhappy, just as very few MSTP students are unhappy. Everyone turns into an instant cheerleader for the school they join, so it's difficult to get an idea about a MD program from those kinds of rankings. It ends up coming down to personal preference. With MSTP, I really don't think you can go wrong.

 

[Newquagmire]

bounce