Chance me for MD/PhD

[SoMinty]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm currently working on applications, waiting on MCAT scores (Aug 14th). I don't have any MCAT scores but based on my practice tests I'm hoping for a 40, feel like this is not an unreasonable prediction but of course nothing is guaranteed. I'm a chemical engineer with a 3.86 GPA at a top 20 USNWR school. Have done research in the same lab (biochemistry) since summer 2011, author on paper that was just returned with revisions (will likely be accepted). Currently interning in an industrial research lab (chemical engineering) full time for the summer. Have little/no clinical experience (just shadowed one DO) or medical extracurriculars.

I'm applying to MD/PhD only, and the schools I'm applying to are all top tier. Specifically they are:
Baylor
Case Western
Duke
Harvard
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
UPenn
Stanford
UChicago
UMich
UVA
WUSTL

Assuming that I get around a 40 (38-41) on the MCAT, what do you think my chances are at these schools? If you want other information just let me know (I read the sticky and I think I've included the stuff thats relevant). Thanks in advance.

 

[StIGMA]

You should do well but your research experience is very weak (only 1 year, and you stopped working in this lab for the summer for some reason- suggests that you may not be focused on a single project- you may get asked about this on interviews). Your intentions for an MD/PhD career and your research knowledge will be critiqued, and of course your letters of rec from your research advisor(s) will make a big difference whether or not you get interviews. You should obtain more shadowing experience.

I suspect with a great MCAT score you will still get a reasonable number of interviews. However, you should apply to more schools. Based on the locations you mention, apply to UNC (Duke), UPitt (UPenn), UCSF (Stanford), UTSW (Baylor), which are all schools as prestigious as the ones you are considering. Consider applying to 15-20 programs total, perhaps more if you want to play it safe or are socially inept (eg: interview poorly). If you have other credentials not listed (eg: Goldwater, Rhodes contender, athlete), you shouldn't worry.

 

[SoMinty]

Thank you for your candid evaluation. It blows my mind that a year of productive research is "weak" (I'm not disagreeing with your statement I'm just surprised that this seems to be the case). I think that my P.I.'s rec letter will be very positive/strong. I feel confident that I will be able to defend my intentions in interviews.

I'm hesitant to apply to more schools because completing secondarys is time consuming and expensive and its hard to get motivated to do all the extra work when I'm not even sure I'll get the MCAT score I'll need. That said, I'll consider applying to more if I can make some significant progress on my secondaries.

Also is there an advantage to applying to MD/PhD only rather than MD and MD/PhD? Would it indicate a strong commitment or whatever?

Thanks again, if anyone else has input I'd appreciate it.

 

[samsunimomo]

Thank you for your candid evaluation. It blows my mind that a year of productive research is "weak" (I'm not disagreeing with your statement I'm just surprised that this seems to be the case). I think that my P.I.'s rec letter will be very positive/strong. I feel confident that I will be able to defend my intentions in interviews.

Thanks again, if anyone else has input I'd appreciate it.

I talked with several MSTP admissions officers last week through the NIH Graduate Fair. All of them agreed that a significant research experience is one of the most important factors in a successful application. In the MSTP panel, a student asked what a "significant" amount was and the general answer was two years, usually through a combination of full-time summer terms and part-time academic research. Another officer at a top MSTP program told me that I should make sure that I demonstrate participation in a long-term project.

 

[StIGMA]

I should point out that it is very important to get you secondaries in as soon as possible- I took my MCAT when you did (mid-August), and I was on the latter-half of the interview trail. Some of my interviews were on the last day the schools offered interviews. If you do not get the MCAT score you hope for, it won't be the end of the world to apply next year and have a great chance at a top program. It is a risky position to apply right now, taking the MCAT very late and applying late, with sub-optimal research experience. I strongly suggest applying to more programs if you go through with this cycle.

 

[K31]

It is hard to estimate your chances without a MCAT score--mid-to-upper 30's is average for some of those programs. Good GPA (especially for an engineering major); OK research (tough to evaluate quality online, but quantitatively most applicants have more than a year). You would have a better shot applying in another year with a definite MCAT and another year of research experience (and potentially a publication) but if you insist of applying this year I'd suggest you choose additional, lower tier, MSTPs to apply to.

 

[miz]

Risky. 2 reasons:
1. Late application (assuming you haven't yet submitted your primary, and won't until Aug 14th).
2. Not a lot of research OR clinical experience- how do you know you want to do an MD/PhD?

Even if you are the 1st author, unless it is a very high impact journal, I wouldn't consider your pending publication exceptional. Probably about half of the other people you interview with will have taken one or more years off to do full-time research; most will have done at least 2 years of research part-time during school.

Schools should not be able to see if you've applied MD only at other schools. Asking to be considered for MD if you are rejected from MD/PhD is pretty standard, if the school allows it. Shouldn't hurt your app.

I get the impression that you might not want to matriculate to a lower tiered school if accepted. If you don't want to take a year off and do more research, you might consider MD only or else have a backup plan in case you don't get in anywhere. It's entirely possible. On the other hand good stats from engineering, non bioe bg might help you stand out. I could see it going either way; it's your decision what to do. At the very least I'd apply to more top tiers and try to get secondaries in as quickly as possible. Stigma's recs are spot on.

 

[SoMinty]

My primary has been submitted, I expect it to be approved/verified this week. What do you consider a high impact journal, PNAS? I'm disappointed to hear my research experience is lacking, I worked in lab full time last summer and 20hr/week this past year (which I indicated in my app).

Regardless, theres no point in arguing, if you guys say thats the way it is then I suppose thats how it is. I will broaden my list of schools.

 

[miz]

I apologize, I misunderstood your original post. July/August verification is not late. My first point should not apply to you.

Publication is a tricky thing because it requires some luck to publish in a short time frame. I am advising you to not count on your publication to dramatically enhance your research credentials. This is doubly true if your publication is in an obscure journal or one which is not indexed in PubMed or if you're 5th author on a paper that was submitted 3 months after you joined the lab. This is not true if you're that superstar who publishes a 1st author in Nature in the 1st year of research, because then you are so exceptional, you've been doing thesis-quality research from the womb.

I would recommend that even a 'perfect' candidate include one mid tier MSTP. Although you are a strong candidate, several people have raised knee-jerk doubts about your research. Your interviews and letters will do a lot to reinforce or dispel this impression. Because it's difficult to tell whether or not schools will be positively or negatively impressed by your research, I also still think you should apply to more upper tier schools as soon as your MCAT comes out (assuming it's good) to increase your chances of a positive outcome.

 

[Fencer]

You can always decline interviews if you get flooded....

The class enrolling this year in my program has an average 2.4 publications per student with range of (1 - 5). One of them had a PNAS manuscript, but the most important issue is sustained research leading to a publication, preferably first author or be within top 25% of authorship (i.e.: top 4 out of 12, 3 out of 9). Regarding about the quality of the publication, it certainly helps if you have a first-author pub in PNAS, Nature or Science, but realistically, what matters is that it is good solid journal with reasonable impact factor (> 2 or 3) AND that you can clearly articulate your research.

 

[K31]

I would recommend that even a 'perfect' candidate include one mid tier MSTP. Although you are a strong candidate, several people have raised knee-jerk doubts about your research. Your interviews and letters will do a lot to reinforce or dispel this impression. Because it's difficult to tell whether or not schools will be positively or negatively impressed by your research, I also still think you should apply to more upper tier schools as soon as your MCAT comes out (assuming it's good) to increase your chances of a positive outcome.

To be fair, I would call several of the programs on that list (Baylor, Case, UChicago, UVA) mid-tier rather than top-tier.

 

[geeyouknit]

You can always decline interviews if you get flooded....

The class enrolling this year in my program has an average 2.4 publications per student with range of (1 - 5).

2.4 publications per student? And every student had at least one published. Isn't that a lot for applicant? Is this sort of average common at other programs?

Fencer, what happens to the students who haven't published and apply to your program? How far do they usually get? Are most of these people 4 year-undergrads (meaning they've done on avg 2 years of research)?

Edit: sorry for hijacking your thread

 

[miz]

To be fair, I would call several of the programs on that list (Baylor, Case, UChicago, UVA) mid-tier rather than top-tier.

That's true. I never really know how to gauge mid-tier competitiveness. If I were the OP I'd be tempted to add a true safety (lower-tier), but then again I'm pretty risk-averse. The time and money cost of adding one more school isn't much compared to the cost of reapplication.

 

[Fencer]

2.4 publications per student? And every student had at least one published. Isn't that a lot for applicant? Is this sort of average common at other programs?

Fencer, what happens to the students who haven't published and apply to your program? How far do they usually get? Are most of these people 4 year-undergrads (meaning they've done on avg 2 years of research)?

Edit: sorry for hijacking your thread

It just happened that way... we look for research experience but have MCAT and GPA cut-offs (depending upon the class; it varies every year). There were people without publications (but with sustained research experience) who were accepted and chose to go to a MSTPs (4 out of 8 of them). This tells you that MSTPs and large MD/PhD programs do accept people without publications.

 

[SoMinty]

You can always decline interviews if you get flooded....

The class enrolling this year in my program has an average 2.4 publications per student with range of (1 - 5). One of them had a PNAS manuscript, but the most important issue is sustained research leading to a publication, preferably first author or be within top 25% of authorship (i.e.: top 4 out of 12, 3 out of 9). Regarding about the quality of the publication, it certainly helps if you have a first-author pub in PNAS, Nature or Science, but realistically, what matters is that it is good solid journal with reasonable impact factor (> 2 or 3) AND that you can clearly articulate your research.

Thats an extremely depressing post.

 

[K31]

Thats an extremely depressing post.

Not doubting Fencer, but I'd be surprised if over 50% of students entering the program I'm at have any publications. I certainly didn't when I matriculated (although I eventually got a few from research I had done previously) and I don't know anyone else from my class who did either. Granted that was a while ago, but I don't think it has changed all that much based off the applicants I've interviewed. I'm at what I'd call a solidly mid-tier MSTP (not a top 10, but a name everyone would recognize).

 

[Fencer]

I was exhibiting and participated in the post-event Q&A (along with 10 program directors) at the NIH Fair. Data presented there shows that 2/3 of MD/PhD applicants with a MCAT of 40 or higher become matriculants into a MD/PhD program. In contrast, applicants with a MCAT of 29 have 27% chance of matriculating into a MD/PhD program. The average MCAT for MD/PhD matriculants is just over 34 in the nation. The program directors in the panel indicated the expectation of 2 years of research (i.e.; two summers full time, and several semesters at 10 hrs/wk). The emphasis is in depth (experience allowing to get to publications) not on the number of experiences.

MCAT scores mean (for MD/PhD directors) intellectual potential (i.e.: sprint), Science and to lesser extent Total GPA mean continuous performance (i.e.: marathon). However, both will be beaten by sustained passion for research. If you wanted it that bad, you will get it. Keep in mind that we are concerned about keeping students within the program. It lasts 7-8 years and is followed by another 5 post-training years. The best predictors of long term success as MD/PhD is NOT intelligence, but 1) Passion for Research, 2) Persistance, and 3) Thick Skin. However, this assumes that you can get into the program (i.e.: MCAT over 30 and GPA over 3.3).

This is a very exciting career... I finished my training in '97 (after 17 years from finishing high school). I still would had taken the same path if I had to do it again.

Regarding K31, when you take students with MCATs between 31 and 36, those students with publication are able to articulate better their passion for research.

 

[miz]

Well it also depends on what you would call a publication. I had understood it to mean "paper or letter or review in a peer-reviewed journal" but I recently learned that a lot of people also count abstracts submitted to national conferences. Other people also count papers in undergraduate journals and undergraduate poster or oral presentation abstracts as publications. How did Fencer define publication in that statistic?

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

You can always decline interviews if you get flooded....

The class enrolling this year in my program has an average 2.4 publications per student with range of (1 - 5). One of them had a PNAS manuscript, but the most important issue is sustained research leading to a publication, preferably first author or be within top 25% of authorship (i.e.: top 4 out of 12, 3 out of 9). Regarding about the quality of the publication, it certainly helps if you have a first-author pub in PNAS, Nature or Science, but realistically, what matters is that it is good solid journal with reasonable impact factor (> 2 or 3) AND that you can clearly articulate your research.

Does impact factor really matter that much for admissions? I'd imagine that having a first author publication in a peer-reviewed journal is already more impressive than what the vast majority of applicants will have. Furthermore, most undergrads' projects are determined by the lab they're in and as a result the difference between the guy with a Nature publication and a guy with a publication in a 1 impact factor journal is the quality of the labs they were working in. Granted I'm sure adcoms find it impossible to not give more weight to prestigious journal publications, but with undergrads it would seem to me that the only important thing is the level of authorship on a paper since that at least indicates what role they played.

 

[miz]

I think of it this way: Would you prefer someone who was part of a team making something of good quality, or would you rather that person be in charge of making something that is unlikely to be read widely and may not be held to particularly high scientific standards? I think that helping to publish (as a lower author) in the former teaches undergrads the quality and rigor of good science.
A good, non famous lab will still publish in decent journals.
I don't think admissions should only consider publications in ridiculously high impact journals, but I think they should strongly prefer those from respected journals over unknown journals. There are lots of very low impact journals out there whose sole purpose seems to be to make money for the publisher and pad thin resumes. I think Retraction Watch recently cited some journal for accepting a paper with no results section... might have actually come across that link from SDN.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I think of it this way: Would you prefer someone who was part of a team making something of good quality, or would you rather that person be in charge of making something that is unlikely to be read widely and may not be held to particularly high scientific standards? I think that helping to publish (as a lower author) in the former teaches undergrads the quality and rigor of good science.
A good, non famous lab will still publish in decent journals.
I don't think admissions should only consider publications in ridiculously high impact journals, but I think they should strongly prefer those from respected journals over unknown journals. There are lots of very low impact journals out there whose sole purpose seems to be to make money for the publisher and pad thin resumes. I think Retraction Watch recently cited some journal for accepting a paper with no results section... might have actually come across that link from SDN.

The latter. I wouldn't expect any undergrad to be on par with a PhD yet (that is, after all, the entire point of graduate school and post-docs), so an undergrad being published in a low tier journal isn't exactly surprising. Anyone can be part of a team, and the wonderful thing about teams is that they can carry deadweight. I would much rather have the first author low tier journal paper guy who I know has had experience with every step of research and carried a project on his own. Even if he published in a low impact journal, so what? Chances are very good that given the right resource and direction he can pump out high quality research because he's already shown he knows how to get it all done. Meanwhile the middle author Nature paper kid could have just been a PCR monkey with a generous PI for all I know. While he may have observed the process of high quality research, that means much less than having actually done the process of research.

 

[Fencer]

Adcom members value familiarity. If somebody publishes in Journal of Neuroscience, for example, you know that it is a highly visible complete story, as compared to Neuroscience Letters .. or even worse the open journal of neuro*(*%$ Adcoms would prefer 1st author pubs, but in a reasonable journal. We don't multiply impact factor by location in the authorship by other value. It meant to define "reasonable" journal. Now, as indicated earlier, many people don't have publications. Next question is presentations, particularly at national conferences. Then the Adcom examines a different question: did this person made the most out of their opportunities? perhaps, this applicant did not have those opportunities for the first two years of CC, followed by mid. state univ. applying after their 3rd year. It might hurt you if you come from an Ivy or a well known Tier I research university and you have not even poster presentations.