Chances, applying broadly

[RayitoLX]

Hi all! I submitted my AMCAS primary about 10 days ago. Though my advisor said that "fit [to schools] is more important in some cases than metrics," I would appreciate some help in balancing and broadening my top-heavy list. I'd love to attend where there are plentiful resources and lots of possibilities for great research mentorship. Particularly, I'd like to do research that is heavily translational, related to med tech, or with engineering-based projects (e.g. devices, optical / imaging systems, m-Health). Here are my WAMC-styled info and two school lists (1. already applied, 2. other schools I marked as possible additions; looking for 5 or so additions).

• cGPA: 3.9, sGPA: 3.88
• Dual degree: Physics and Electrical Engineering
  
• MCAT: 510 (C/P:130, CARS:128, B/B: 128, P/S: 124) - well aware this is the weakest metric. After much consideration and contact with schools, I was encouraged to apply.
  
• U.S. Permanent Resident; state: MD
• Research:
  • 2.5+ yrs research in computational physics, (2 posters/conferences, mentored 3 students)
  • 1 summer in particle physics (1 poster),
  • 1 summer in bioengineering (2 posters),
  • 1 semester research project (120 hrs) in OCT imaging (from an EE perspective)
    
  • current - 1-yr biomedical imaging and clinical research, possible publication by May 2017
  • no publications so far
• 4 stellar rec. letters (3 previous PIs, 1 clinical).
  
• Clinical ECs: 170+ hrs Spanish medical interpretation, 140 hrs on global health partnership with local hospital and blood/bone-marrow drive coordinator
• Non-clinical EC: 3 yrs IT support + manager (1200 hrs), other part-time jobs (150 hrs), founder + leader of music performing group (500+ hrs), science education outreach in local primary schools (300 hrs), ethnic/cultural student group leadership and cultural showcases (250 hrs).

Applied to these schools (fortunately waived by FAP):

1. Baylor / Rice
2. Case Western Reserve
3. Columbia
4. Emory
5. Harvard-MIT
6. Mt Sinai
7. Johns Hopkins
8. Stanford
9. UCLA / Caltech
10. UCSD
11. UCSF
12. UPenn
13. USC / Caltech
14. U Washington
15. Wash U St Louis

How I composed my lists. I filtered by:

• Program type (i.e. mostly PhD curricula with work tied to BME / EE / (Bio)Physics / CS),
• Location (i.e. imagine myself living there for 8-10 yrs),
• Identifying faculty with interesting work,
• Resources committed to translational research.

I was not able to look into every school, so I streamlined the list by best fit, either by interest or availability of resources. Here are other schools I have considered applying. I'm having trouble picking 5 more schools to broaden my school list:

1. Mayo
2. U Cincinnati
3. U Colorado Denver
4. U Maryland Baltimore
5. U Pittsburgh / CMU
6. U Rochester
7. U Virginia
8. Wake Forest / VTech
9. UCI
10. Boston U
11. NYU

Your advice would be helpful while I wait for verification! If you know programs you'd like to suggest, feel free to do so.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[markovchn123]

You should probably retake the MCAT. I say this because the average md PhD applicant has around a 3.7 gpa and 512 mcat whereas the average matriculate has a 3.8 gpa and 515-516 mcat (when converting old to new score)

I got my data from the AAMC website

 

[Neuronix]

MCAT is a 31 in the old scoring system. That's tough. Most of the top-tier isn't even going to look at your app with that MCAT. You might get interviews at lower tier MSTP or fully-funded MD/PhD programs that aren't MSTP since the rest of your application is solid. A retake with a higher score would be very helfpul. At least a 513, preferably 516 would be quite helpful in this situation.

 

[Datypicalpremed]

IMHO I wouldn't expect to hear back from any schools in your first list...but perhaps some from your second. Unless the importance/cutoffs of MCAT for MD/PhD programs has changed since I applied, I would definitely apply to at least 5-10 more schools in the "mid/low" tier range

 

[carpediem22]

I agree with the others, I think your first list is too top-heavy. At those schools you're going to be competing with students with lengthier research experience, publications, more stand-out ECs, and higher MCAT scores. Your second list looks better!

Re: MCAT, I do know one or two students at top programs who had an MCAT score around yours, but your chances would be better for top programs if it were higher. That being said, if you don't want to retake, just make sure you adjust your school list to something a bit more safe.

 

[RayitoLX]

Thanks all for your feedback. I talked to several program directors about my MCAT with respect to the rest of my student profile and was encouraged to apply despite the low score, as the new MCAT (Psych/Social) section has still been difficult to predict/use as a metric. However, it is true that the overall score is lower than many top schools' acceptable ranges.

I agree with the others, I think your first list is too top-heavy. At those schools you're going to be competing with students with lengthier research experience, publications, more stand-out ECs, and higher MCAT scores. Your second list looks better!

Re: MCAT, I do know one or two students at top programs who had an MCAT score around yours, but your chances would be better for top programs if it were higher. That being said, if you don't want to retake, just make sure you adjust your school list to something a bit more safe.

At the time I took the MCAT for the first time, some circumstances prevented me from re-taking, so I will likely continue the cycle with these scores. I will be adding 5-6 more schools from the second list to the main list, hoping that it balances things to a safer margin.

 

[Neuronix]

Schools will always encourage you to apply unless your application is glaringly bad. They make money on each application. It's really easy for them to just reject you. If you contact them after the fact they always have some generic let-down. It's not that that they're trying to make money off admissions fees unethically (though more applications do help their budgets and keep their matriculation rates low...), but academic politics is such that people always tell you what you want to hear. It's kind of an academic survival skill that maybe some day I'll have to start using myself. Until that day...

Make sure you apply to a lot of places. Since you're applying with that MCAT score, even two dozen or more programs would be reasonable, with at least a dozen in the lower tier. Many places are going to auto-screen out that MCAT, but there's no way of knowing which places those are in advance.

 

[starfun21]

Hi RayitoLX! I seem to generally agree with the posts above, and particularly with what Neuronix has just suggested. I think it's an excellent step that you've really been analyzing your application and reaching out to programs. I also think that much of your application is very strong.

However, as Neuronix suggests, it may be dangerous to place too much weight on what programs have told you. Even if those you spoke to feel that you have a very solid chance at their school, you have to remember that even they have not seen the future applicant pool yet. They cannot possibly know what their applicant demographic will be like this year and exactly what kind of chances they can take on people based on the slots they need to fill. When you're applying to what essentially looks to me like the top 20 programs in the country, no matter what your stats are, you are -- in my very humble but strongly felt opinion -- taking a huge risk. Even for someone with excellent stats for both GPA and MCAT, this list is top-heavy and makes me nervous.

Again, this is not to say anything about you personally. I really admire your drive and initiative. This is also not to say that you can't succeed at all with your MCAT score; speaking from personal experience, MSTP is possible! But your schools all have an average MCAT significantly higher than yours, from my understanding... and I think almost all of them would be a "reach" on just about anybody's radar anyway, regardless of stats, because you just never know what they will look for in a given year.

I would suggest adding at least five of the lower-ranked programs from the bottom list you mentioned, but I would also suggest adding in more "lower-tier" programs. Look specifically for MSTPs with lower stats or particularly with lower MCAT scores. And please do consider adding non-MSTPs that are still funded. Remember, you can ALWAYS choose not to go to an interview if you do end up having awesome success this cycle even with the big schools -- this is what I'm hoping for you! You can always scale it back, but once the cycle really begins, you can't do much to start making interviews appear if you're not getting them. Having more options means that if you need them, you may actually end up going to a school you would never have considered before and realize right away that it is home. You also avoid being $1000+ in without getting to see a school, which would really be a bummer. "Safeties" are a MUST on any list, or at least as "safe" as is possible for MD/PhD!

 

[RayitoLX]

Schools will always encourage you to apply unless your application is glaringly bad. They make money on each application. It's really easy for them to just reject you. If you contact them after the fact they always have some generic let-down. It's not that that they're trying to make money off admissions fees unethically (though more applications do help their budgets and keep their matriculation rates low...), but academic politics is such that people always tell you what you want to hear. It's kind of an academic survival skill that maybe some day I'll have to start using myself. Until that day...

Make sure you apply to a lot of places. Since you're applying with that MCAT score, even two dozen or more programs would be reasonable, with at least a dozen in the lower tier. Many places are going to auto-screen out that MCAT, but there's no way of knowing which places those are in advance.

Thank you, Neuronix. It's unfortunate that it's hard to tell where I can/cannot apply, so I will try my best to broaden my prospects.

Hi RayitoLX! I seem to generally agree with the posts above, and particularly with what Neuronix has just suggested. I think it's an excellent step that you've really been analyzing your application and reaching out to programs. I also think that much of your application is very strong.

Thank you, starfun21. While I agree that my score is lower, I believe that I am confident and ready for the next phase of my career, and I think there are parts beyond the MCAT that can show this. Of course, the competition will be fierce.

However, as Neuronix suggests, it may be dangerous to place too much weight on what programs have told you. Even if those you spoke to feel that you have a very solid chance at their school, you have to remember that even they have not seen the future applicant pool yet. They cannot possibly know what their applicant demographic will be like this year and exactly what kind of chances they can take on people based on the slots they need to fill. When you're applying to what essentially looks to me like the top 20 programs in the country, no matter what your stats are, you are -- in my very humble but strongly felt opinion -- taking a huge risk. Even for someone with excellent stats for both GPA and MCAT, this list is top-heavy and makes me nervous.

My current list makes me very nervous too, which is why I posted here to ask for opinions regarding "non-top" programs as well. Particularly with my interests in technology-focused translational research and/or mobile health (e.g. POC diagnostics, portable optical systems, informatics, etc), the list of programs I can choose is much narrower than the basic science-oriented applicant's school list. I wanted to know if there were any specific schools I should definitely keep in mind as an applicant with interest in applied science research.

Again, this is not to say anything about you personally. I really admire your drive and initiative. This is also not to say that you can't succeed at all with your MCAT score; speaking from personal experience, MSTP is possible! But your schools all have an average MCAT significantly higher than yours, from my understanding... and I think almost all of them would be a "reach" on just about anybody's radar anyway, regardless of stats, because you just never know what they will look for in a given year.

I would suggest adding at least five of the lower-ranked programs from the bottom list you mentioned, but I would also suggest adding in more "lower-tier" programs. Look specifically for MSTPs with lower stats or particularly with lower MCAT scores. And please do consider adding non-MSTPs that are still funded. Remember, you can ALWAYS choose not to go to an interview if you do end up having awesome success this cycle even with the big schools -- this is what I'm hoping for you! You can always scale it back, but once the cycle really begins, you can't do much to start making interviews appear if you're not getting them. Having more options means that if you need them, you may actually end up going to a school you would never have considered before and realize right away that it is home. You also avoid being $1000+ in without getting to see a school, which would really be a bummer. "Safeties" are a MUST on any list, or at least as "safe" as is possible for MD/PhD!

I will add several more schools and update this thread once I have done so. You are both right that it's best to apply broadly; I am hoping if there are physician-scientists in these forums who could pitch in regarding PhD curricula in fields outside of the biological sciences, like electrical engineering, physics, or computer science, but with research that is bio-medically applicable.

 

[starfun21]

Sounds good, RayitoLX. From the discussions we've had on these forums, I can also say that I am sure you will make an excellent physician scientist. It sounds like you've thought about it a lot and you really are ready to proceed, and I admire that. I just want to make sure we can give you the best chance possible to get there!

Again, I really can relate to what you are saying -- my MCAT score was just a few points lower than yours and I am now entering an MSTP, but it was a HARD uphill battle. It's definitely possible though, and a HUGE component of that will be to make sure that you do frame the other major strengths you have as well as possible. I had to apply very strategically to compensate for the MCAT, but I still wish I had added on more schools and more "realistic" options for me -- out of the 18 programs I applied to, I was eventually accepted to only 1 off of the waitlist. I fully understand now that it's better to be cautious and to have more options than to not have enough! I understand that this will be limited by the type of programs you can apply to, but I'm glad you will look into it.

Take care of yourself and give us an update when you've made any changes. Good luck!!

 

[Neuronix]

I will add several more schools and update this thread once I have done so. You are both right that it's best to apply broadly; I am hoping if there are physician-scientists in these forums who could pitch in regarding PhD curricula in fields outside of the biological sciences, like electrical engineering, physics, or computer science, but with research that is bio-medically applicable.

Sure. That's what I do. I've posted on this stuff extensively in other threads.

MD/PhD programs are geared towards basic science. You should find a PhD curriculum in a biomedical field that is agreeable to you. Biophysics or bioinformatics are the best choices given what you've written.

Particularly with my interests in technology-focused translational research and/or mobile health (e.g. POC diagnostics, portable optical systems, informatics, etc)

Building new devices is generally not a focus of MD/PhD programs. There are very limited positions for bioengineering research, and they tend to be even more competitive. Broadly, the goal of MD/PhD programs is to investigate mechanisms of diseases. You could do a master's or year out program for what you've just posted.

You should not use the terms applied science when you apply to MD/PhD programs. MD/PhD programs train you in basic science. Your goal is to apply/translate that later in your career.

 

[RayitoLX]

Sure. That's what I do. I've posted on this stuff extensively in other threads.

MD/PhD programs are geared towards basic science. You should find a PhD curriculum in a biomedical field that is agreeable to you. Biophysics or bioinformatics are the best choices given what you've written.

Building new devices is generally not a focus of MD/PhD programs. There are very limited positions for bioengineering research, and they tend to be even more competitive. Broadly, the goal of MD/PhD programs is to investigate mechanisms of diseases. You could do a master's or year out program for what you've just posted.

You should not use the terms applied science when you apply to MD/PhD programs. MD/PhD programs train you in basic science. Your goal is to apply/translate that later in your career.

Thanks for the clarification, particularly on the term applied science. I think biophysics, bioinformatics, and bioengineering are all fields that I am willing to explore. My goal is to be trained first in MD/PhD programs and then to translate this knowledge later in my career. Although I am not expecting to build devices, I hope that I can do research that is close to the interface between engineering / physical / computer sciences and the life sciences.

 

[Neuronix]

That's fine. You have a thin line to walk for MD/PhD programs, especially with your MCAT score. You have to bill yourself as a basic scientist and be careful not to make programs think you're too clinical or engineering oriented.

You need to keep your options open. Many applicants are surprised to find out that the biggest, most well known MD/PhD-bioengeering programs don't take many bioengineering candidates and they tend to have outstanding applications. I don't generally recommend bioengineering as a PhD anyway because they tend to have a lot of requirements that prolong graduation times. The most positions and programs out there are for lab based scientists, so you need to bill yourself as ready and able to do that kind of work. This is where biophysics and bioinformatics come in...

 

[carpediem22]

While I agree with @Neuronix that there are far fewer non-basic-science MD/PhD spots than there are social science and/or engineering, I do want to make a quick plug (for future readers as much as for OP) that those spots do exist and it's not a death sentence if that is what you are interested in. If your research has a plausible connection to medicine, go for it. In my program close to 1/3 of us are social science, and there is at least one bioengineer whose research is exactly related to building new devices. Yes, programs are largely geared towards basic scientists and yes, there are fewer spots, but it's becoming increasingly common for programs to give spots to students pursuing non-traditional PhDs.

 

[Datypicalpremed]

If you are still looking for schools to add to your list, shoot me a PM. In hindsight, my application was very similar to yours (i.e. High gpa, low mcat, good research). I made note of schools that didn't seem to screen me out on my mcat (which seems to be your best bet right now), but don't want to post them for the sake of anonymity.

 

[RayitoLX]

You have to bill yourself as a basic scientist and be careful not to make programs think you're too clinical or engineering oriented.
The most positions and programs out there are for lab based scientists, so you need to bill yourself as ready and able to do that kind of work.

By billing myself as a basic scientist, would it be necessary to also demonstrate this on my secondaries as well as on the interviews, consistently? There are programs that ask for descriptions of the research areas I would like to explore in graduate school. If I can mention some areas (e.g. electrical engineering, optical physics, and biophotonics) that aren't necessarily basic science-oriented, would this be hurtful?

If your research has a plausible connection to medicine, go for it.

This is encouraging to hear but it seems to be the case that it is necessary to make a very strong case for this over secondaries and the interview process. I hope I can show this in my application -- I think I can perform best in research that is closest to physics or engineering (since these are subjects I've pursued so far and enjoyed them immensely). I would, of course, seek for research positions in labs whose work is clearly medically related.

If you are still looking for schools to add to your list, shoot me a PM. In hindsight, my application was very similar to yours (i.e. High gpa, low mcat, good research). I made note of schools that didn't seem to screen me out on my mcat (which seems to be your best bet right now), but don't want to post them for the sake of anonymity.

Will PM shortly.

 

[Neuronix]

By billing myself as a basic scientist, would it be necessary to also demonstrate this on my secondaries as well as on the interviews, consistently? There are programs that ask for descriptions of the research areas I would like to explore in graduate school. If I can mention some areas (e.g. electrical engineering, optical physics, and biophotonics) that aren't necessarily basic science-oriented, would this be hurtful?

This is tough because it's going to be program dependent. Many programs, especially among the lower tier, may not have had anyone or would not support someone to work further out than bioengineering such as in EE or straight physics. So yes, an application written using those terms would hurt you at such places.

I also advocate trying to stay within the usual biology PhD programs so as not to unleash ridiculous coursework, teaching, or thesis requirements upon you. This is especially important if you want to graduate in 8 years.

What you should do is express interest in bioengineering and biophysics and then put things in simpler terms. I'd never even heard of biophotonics as a term before, and I used to work next to labs that did that sort of work. Talk about applications of optical imaging, for example.

but it's becoming increasingly common for programs to give spots to students pursuing non-traditional PhDs.

The issue here isn't that there are no positions for this kind of work. The issue is that there are a limited number of positions for this kind of work and there are a limited number of positions willing to matriculate a 31 MCAT. If you put those two on a Venn diagram I don't know how well that they'd overlap.

 

[RayitoLX]

This is tough because it's going to be program dependent. Many programs, especially among the lower tier, may not have had anyone or would not support someone to work further out than bioengineering such as in EE or straight physics. So yes, an application written using those terms would hurt you at such places.

I also advocate trying to stay within the usual biology PhD programs so as not to unleash ridiculous coursework, teaching, or thesis requirements upon you. This is especially important if you want to graduate in 8 years.

What you should do is express interest in bioengineering and biophysics and then put things in simpler terms. I'd never even heard of biophotonics as a term before, and I used to work next to labs that did that sort of work. Talk about applications of optical imaging, for example.

This is true. I've found out that some programs haven't quite had, historically (upon seeing many of their "Past Students" pages), students in non-traditional fields. Since my interests are close to imaging applications, I will make an effort to keep my arguments tied to functional optical imaging or radiological applications, for example. The good thing is that my physics background and its intersection with my past research experiences leads well into a case in support of biophysics as well.

As for graduate school requirements, I am not sure how to easily compare them amongst programs (say, in bioengineering vs. a molecular biology program). One main advantage I might have for PhD curricula in bioengineering or biophysics is that I have taken most or all course requirements for entry to these fields, such as courses in physics, differential equations, fluid/thermal mechanics/dynamics, signal processing, biochemistry, etc. Many of the programs to which I think of applying seem to have some prior experience dealing with students interested in bioE or physics, so hopefully it will be possible to work out a more streamlined path with both the MD/PhD program's office and the graduate school department office.

The issue is here is that there are a limited number of positions for this kind of work and there are a limited number of positions willing to matriculate a 31 MCAT. If you put those two on a Venn diagram I don't know how well that they'd overlap.

Positions are indeed limited from my experience in looking into many programs. It's hard to tell how my MCAT score will affect my application, but as previously mentioned, it won't be as easy.