Choosing a Master's

[AzuraDragon]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello
I am scrambling to complete masters programs applications right now. I've recently noticed that they fall into 2 categories: masters in medical sciences (like Drexel's IMS), and field-specific programs (like Tulane's Genetics MA). Do you think that one would be favored over another by medical schools? I feel like I would rather study something specific, like genetics, and have a feather in my cap upon entering medical school, instead of taking general medical classes, only to repeat them when I get into medical school.

Of course, I must do what pleases the Adcomms, for I am their ever-whipped dancing monkey.

 

[relentless11]

do what floats your boat. more importantly do something that you enjoy and can get good grades in.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Hello
I am scrambling to complete masters programs applications right now. I've recently noticed that they fall into 2 categories: masters in medical sciences (like Drexel's IMS), and field-specific programs (like Tulane's Genetics MA). Do you think that one would be favored over another by medical schools? I feel like I would rather study something specific, like genetics, and have a feather in my cap upon entering medical school, instead of taking general medical classes, only to repeat them when I get into medical school.

Of course, I must do what pleases the Adcomms, for I am their ever-whipped dancing monkey.

Many on SDN feel like the MMS degrees are looked at more favorably by adcoms and are usually only 1 year. I am not sure how true the feeling on SDN is, provided each program is tailored for medical/dental acceptance. So if the Genetics masters program was created for pre-med students to get into tulane, then I think the programs are comparable in terms of how an Adcom will look at them.

Generally a masters is pretty worthless if you are continuing to get a doctorate of some kind. A masters of arts in a science discipline is kind of a funny concept. In terms of courses, genetics is very low on the totem pole in medical school. For instance at my school it was only 1 month long and we were taking biochemistry at the same time. So unless you are going into medical genetics, the genetics masters is not going to do much for you (outside of perhaps giving you a boost to get in).

If you want something that will be pertinent to medicine look at a masters in physiology. Phys is probably the single most important class of year 1 and sets the foundation for all of medicine.

And you will be very happy to repeat the courses when they put you at the top of the class.

 

[abyshaky]

..

 

[relentless11]

Many on SDN feel like the MMS degrees are looked at more favorably by adcoms and are usually only 1 year.

I'd have to disagree with this. Although if you are doing a masters in medical sciences to prove that you can handle med school courses, then yes, however if academic performance isn't an issue, then a traditional thesis-based masters in science is actually better than any MMS degree due to the research aspect. Clearly a 1 year MMS program does not mimic the rigors of a thesis-based program. You could do some extra research on the side, but its tends to be limited compared to a masters thesis.

Therefore it depends on what the goal is. An MMS does not guarantee admissions, nor does an MS in some science. If an MMS was so pleasing, then I would be very content that my PhD in pathology would get me into med school. I'm sorry to say that is most like not the case. Ultimately, you are expected to do well in whatever you do. Eitherway the OP will learn some medical science between now and the future. However to "tailor" your application so that it is more "pleasing" to adcoms is quite ludicrous given so many variables involved with the admissions process.

Generally a masters is pretty worthless if you are continuing to get a doctorate of some kind.

Although I am also perplexed that there is such a thing as an MA program in Genetics, I can't agree with this statement. "Generally" a masters does involve research over a 2 year period. For those that want to get a doctorate, it serves to give them some research training, and additional specialization in a select topic which they plan on using in the future. I would say that half of our med school faculty have at least a masters in addition to their MD. Most if not all of these faculty members use their masters for their research. Obviously the MPH degree is quite numerous, but we have faculty who have a masters in statistics, biomedical engineering, biochemistry, and so on. This highlights the fact that it DEPENDS on what you wan tto do, rather than a masters being generally worthless due to earning a doctorate degree.

Based on this assessment, one might as well call my PhD worthless since the core curriculum consists of the 2nd year med school courses, and some of the 1st year courses as well. Obviously this is false, since within the scope of a normal MD program, I wouldn't have been able to complete a PhD-level thesis project. Therefore the take home message is it really depends on what the OP wants to do. IMO, to assume that "Action A" is pleasing to the variety of adcoms (e.g., humans) is just a tad naive. Just think about it, if an MMS is so pleasing, people would be flocking to such programs by the truckload. Yet, most applicants apply with just a BA/BS degree.

 

[Farmy]

I think the most important thing in any SMP is which courses you will take alongside first year med students (if any). A program with the more challenging courses (biochem, physiology, maybe neuro or pharm) would be better b/c an adcom will be more impressed with good performance in these classes than other like gross or histo where its basically just memorization/regurgitation. Other than that, I don't think what degree you get matters a whole lot, but if its something you like than that will definately be a plus.