Caltech PhD

[MangoPlant]

Does anyone have any info on either the UCLA/Caltech MSTP or USC/Caltech MSTP programs? I'm interested in doing my PhD in Caltech but I can't find any good info in terms of numbers (MCAT/GPA/OOS Acceptance Rates) on these programs.

Also looking at some data, it seems like the median MCAT for UCLA David Geffen SOM is 34. Would I be correct in assuming that the median MCAT for the UCLA/Caltech MSTP is much higher than 34?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SynBio]

I was looking into this as well. I could only find MD admissions statistics for UCLA and USC (Mean GPA & MCAT: 3.6 & 34). I would say on average the GPA will be between 0.2-0.3 higher and the MCAT will be 2-4 points higher for MD-PhD.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I interviewed at the USC-Caltech program this cycle. I believe the stats are on their website, but they give them to you anyway when you interview. IIRC the stats are something like avg. MCAT 32 and avg. GPA is somewhere in the 3.6 to 3.7 range. They also barely accept anyone; last year they matriculated two students.

Personally I'd recommend against the USC-Caltech program, and even Caltech just by itself. I actually went into that interview wanting to like the program because even though it's non-MSTP they had a lot of big name researchers in my field. However, the interview pretty much made me write off the program after I was done. It was the only interview I was at where the students weren't enthusiastic about the program; you could tell people weren't happy. And this went for both USC and Caltech. Both schools also seemed to have very disorganized administrations; without going into detail, there were some things that happened to me while I was interviewing that made me want to walk into the office and say "I've seen enough, I'm going home".

Also, a big red flag that went up for me at Caltech was the length of the graduate phase there. Apparently 6-7 year graduate phases aren't just common there, they're normal. It was my impression that this was due in large part to Caltech fostering a very hands-off environment with its students. You're encouraged to screw up there which is fine if you're a PhD student, but if you're MD/PhD it's terrible because you're going to wind up doing a 10+ year MD/PhD which, btw, was indeed the case for some people there.

Anyway, tl;dr, I'd advise leaving USC and Caltech off your list. I hear good things about UCLA though.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Does anyone have any info on either the UCLA/Caltech MSTP or USC/Caltech MSTP programs? I'm interested in doing my PhD in Caltech but I can't find any good info in terms of numbers (MCAT/GPA/OOS Acceptance Rates) on these programs.

Also looking at some data, it seems like the median MCAT for UCLA David Geffen SOM is 34. Would I be correct in assuming that the median MCAT for the UCLA/Caltech MSTP is much higher than 34?

Do you get admitted outright or only after you go to UCLA/USC and then find out later on? If so, I wouldn't bank on something that wasn't a sure thing. I'm sure the training at CalTech is fantastic, but I would worry that the lack of integration between the MD-granting institution and PhD-granting institution could lead to significantly prolonged time to completion of the MD/PhD. If you're very basic science oriented and want to be a physician-scientist and may not pursue a residency, maybe that's a good fit. If you want to be a physician-scientist, maybe think of a more integrated option?

 

[daolso]

I interviewed at th I agreee USC-Caltech program this cycle. I believe the stats are on their website, but they give them to you anyway when you interview. IIRC the stats are something like avg. MCAT 32 and avg. GPA is somewhere in the 3.6 to 3.7 range. They also barely accept anyone; last year they matriculated two students.

Personally I'd recommend against the USC-Caltech program, and even Caltech just by itself. I actually went into that interview wanting to like the program because even though it's non-MSTP they had a lot of big name researchers in my field. However, the interview pretty much made me write off the program after I was done. It was the only interview I was at where the students weren't enthusiastic about the program; you could tell people weren't happy. And this went for both USC and Caltech. Both schools also seemed to have very disorganized administrations; without going into detail, there were some things that happened to me while I was interviewing that made me want to walk into the office and say "I've seen enough, I'm going home".

Also, a big red flag that went up for me at Caltech was the length of the graduate phase there. Apparently 6-7 year graduate phases aren't just common there, they're normal. It was my impression that this was due in large part to Caltech fostering a very hands-off environment with its students. You're encouraged to screw up there which is fine if you're a PhD student, but if you're MD/PhD it's terrible because you're going to wind up doing a 10+ year MD/PhD which, btw, was indeed the case for some people there.

Anyway, tl;dr, I'd advise leaving USC and Caltech off your list. I hear good things about UCLA though.

I had a similar experience interviewing there. I think you hit a lot of good points.

The USC guy (Mittelman) was alright and I think he'll be good for the program, but I really did not like the Caltech program director (Mazmanian). I asked about the long graduation rates (I talked to a student from his lab the night before at dinner that was finally going back to USC after her 7th year in PhD) and he got very defensive. So I would avoid that topic if you do interview there. I also noticed a lot of students did PhDs in topics not related to whatever medicine they wanted to do (one of them was working on a solar-toilet?), and he argued that it was more about teaching them to be a "Caltech quality" investigator (which is somewhat fair but if it's going to be 7 years of something completely unrelated what is the point of the MD/PhD program?). I agree that not all the students seemed all that thrilled with the program, and the organization was bad.

On the other hand, I really liked the researchers I met with, and both campuses are beautiful. So MangoPlant, if you want to apply, you can, but I would keep your options open when applying (always good advice anyway, pick a lot of schools) because you might feel the same way.

Also, the stats OCDOCDOCD listed (the ones they give you at the interview) are for the med only program, I had emailed earlier about the MD/PhD stats since they aren't listed anywhere and was told they are 3.81/37. http://imgur.com/PZ7wDUa

Do you get admitted outright or only after you go to UCLA/USC and then find out later on? If so, I wouldn't bank on something that wasn't a sure thing. I'm sure the training at CalTech is fantastic, but I would worry that the lack of integration between the MD-granting institution and PhD-granting institution could lead to significantly prolonged time to completion of the MD/PhD. If you're very basic science oriented and want to be a physician-scientist and may not pursue a residency, maybe that's a good fit. If you want to be a physician-scientist, maybe think of a more integrated option?

USC/Caltech lets you do your PhD at either institution with no questions asked, UCLA/Caltech has 2 spots specifically set aside for applicants that want to do the PhD at Caltech. It does seem to be an excessively long time and not so integrated at Caltech, but this is not true of all split school programs. I also interviewed at Indiana/Purdue and Wake Forest/Virginia Tech and they seemed to be very organized.

 

[MangoPlant]

I interviewed at the USC-Caltech program this cycle. I believe the stats are on their website, but they give them to you anyway when you interview. IIRC the stats are something like avg. MCAT 32 and avg. GPA is somewhere in the 3.6 to 3.7 range. They also barely accept anyone; last year they matriculated two students.

Personally I'd recommend against the USC-Caltech program, and even Caltech just by itself. I actually went into that interview wanting to like the program because even though it's non-MSTP they had a lot of big name researchers in my field. However, the interview pretty much made me write off the program after I was done. It was the only interview I was at where the students weren't enthusiastic about the program; you could tell people weren't happy. And this went for both USC and Caltech. Both schools also seemed to have very disorganized administrations; without going into detail, there were some things that happened to me while I was interviewing that made me want to walk into the office and say "I've seen enough, I'm going home".

Also, a big red flag that went up for me at Caltech was the length of the graduate phase there. Apparently 6-7 year graduate phases aren't just common there, they're normal. It was my impression that this was due in large part to Caltech fostering a very hands-off environment with its students. You're encouraged to screw up there which is fine if you're a PhD student, but if you're MD/PhD it's terrible because you're going to wind up doing a 10+ year MD/PhD which, btw, was indeed the case for some people there.

Anyway, tl;dr, I'd advise leaving USC and Caltech off your list. I hear good things about UCLA though.

I had a similar experience interviewing there. I think you hit a lot of good points.

The USC guy (Mittelman) was alright and I think he'll be good for the program, but I really did not like the Caltech program director (Mazmanian). I asked about the long graduation rates (I talked to a student from his lab the night before at dinner that was finally going back to USC after her 7th year in PhD) and he got very defensive. So I would avoid that topic if you do interview there. I also noticed a lot of students did PhDs in topics not related to whatever medicine they wanted to do (one of them was working on a solar-toilet?), and he argued that it was more about teaching them to be a "Caltech quality" investigator (which is somewhat fair but if it's going to be 7 years of something completely unrelated what is the point of the MD/PhD program?). I agree that not all the students seemed all that thrilled with the program, and the organization was bad.

On the other hand, I really liked the researchers I met with, and both campuses are beautiful. So MangoPlant, if you want to apply, you can, but I would keep your options open when applying (always good advice anyway, pick a lot of schools) because you might feel the same way.

Also, the stats OCDOCDOCD listed (the ones they give you at the interview) are for the med only program, I had emailed earlier about the MD/PhD stats since they aren't listed anywhere and was told they are 3.81/37. http://imgur.com/PZ7wDUa



USC/Caltech lets you do your PhD at either institution with no questions asked, UCLA/Caltech has 2 spots specifically set aside for applicants that want to do the PhD at Caltech. It does seem to be an excessively long time and not so integrated at Caltech, but this is not true of all split school programs. I also interviewed at Indiana/Purdue and Wake Forest/Virginia Tech and they seemed to be very organized.

Thanks for the useful information both of you! I also heard that Caltech/USC and UCLA were far enough that it was necessary to move between graduate and medical school years. I guess I'll think harder about applying to these programs. This sucks because Caltech had some really nice faculty I was interested in doing research with :\. But as you guys have mentioned, I'd rather not spend 10 years getting my degrees..