Current Average time to graduation

[barcamdphd21]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What are the current average time to graduation for the following programs:

UPenn:
Columbia: 7 to 8 years (according to webpage) Real: ?
Havard:
WashU:
Cornell: 7 to 8 years (according to webpage) Real: ?

If any one has this information, please feel free to add it up.

 

[Neuronix]

See: http://www.neuronix.org/2011/09/meeting-about-return-this-past-week-i.html

Summary: a lot of programs claim 7-8 years, but the average at most is actually ~8 years, and you should assume 7-9 years. Given the rapid increase in time to graduation, I worry that for people starting MD/PhD programs now the average will be more like 8.5 years.

Also add to that:
http://journals.lww.com/academicmed..._PhD_Programs_Meeting_Their_Goals__An.35.aspx

"The unweighted average time to complete both degrees for graduates in AY1998-2007 was 8.0 ± 0.4 years (mean ± 1 SD; 7.8 years when weighted by program size, range 7.2-8.5 years)."

That said, if someone has the hard numbers for RECENT graduates for programs, feel free to post. I doubt you will get any hard data here.

 

[K31]

The number that my program always throws around is that 8.1 is the national average for MSTP programs.

They say that we are right around the average, at least when they calculated it a couple years back for the T32 renewal. That seems about right for what I've observed in my program--out of my class of 12, we have two who will graduate in 7, most of us will be 8 year grads, and 3 will graduate in 8.5 or 9.

Our average has actually been dropping--there were way too many 9+ years grads 10 or 15 years ago, and the program leadership has been very serious about decreasing time to degree (we had a bit of a reputation a while back).

 

[Neuronix]

I got an anonymous PM that Columbia's remains about 7.5.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I expect this to increase in the coming years given poorer funding to PIs, hence more people having to switch labs, do extra rotations, etc. and rising standards for getting published. More and more, even mid- to lower-tier field-specific journals are demanding mechanistic insight, intricate in vivo experiments, etc. and it's not just enough to publish something really interesting but mostly descriptive if you want it to go into a decent journal. Unless PhD programs further streamline things for MD/PhDs (which will bring up the doubts of "is this a real PhD?" more and more), I see this heading towards 9 years in the near future.

That is if the US is anything like it is now in 15-20 years time. I doubt it will be.

 

[condor87]

Here at WashU, the breakdown is roughly:

<5% 6 years (rare but it does happen every few years)

15-20% 7 years (a decent fraction of each class)

70-75% 8 years (the vast majority of people, both due to program guidance and a flexible 4th year that lets people go back to clinic for 16 months if you take 4.5 years in lab)

5% 9 years (1-3 people in each class [classes are usually ~25 people])

<5% 10 years (happens every few years or so and is usually due to personal issues/external factors such as having multiple kids while in school, your PI leaving, you deciding to switch labs, taking time off, etc...)

Thus average = ~7.85 years...FWIW....

The wisdom I've received: "Expect 8, be ready for 9, but work hard enough to *try* to get out in 7."

 

[barcamdphd21]

Thanks to everyone for their postings.

What about Harvard and UPenn. Has Harvard reduced the long graduation times? What about UPenn? Some students there comented that the average is near to 8 but 7 is doable.

It was hard to get this information out of the programs during interviews. I'll email more students and try to get an honest answers, if it is posible at all.

 

[Neuronix]

What about UPenn? Some students there comented that the average is near to 8 but 7 is doable.

I would agree with this. Last I heard the 5 year average was almost exactly 8 years, but that info is a few years old.

 

[barcamdphd21]

here are the results:

UPenn: average 8 or slightly lower
Columbia: 7.5
Havard:
WashU: 7.85
Cornell: 7 to 8 years (according to webpage) Real: ?

What about Harvard and Cornell? If anyone wants to expand the list, please feel free to do so.

 

[StIGMA]

Curriculum is a secondary consideration when considering which MD/PhD program to attend, but it can make a difference in graduation times. Some programs put students into lab faster with accelerated pre-clinical years (eg: 3 semester pre-clinicals), and some programs allow students more time in the lab by cutting down in clinical year requirements (for instance, I know Columbia has a condensed 17 month clinical phase for MD/PhD students, where they re-enter lab in January and graduate the following May). Some programs do both, which allow for lower average graduation times without reducing the time during the research phase. Other programs integrate a whole research year for the regular MD students (like Duke & Yale I believe), which also allows for more research time, presumably leading to shorter average graduation times. Within an institution, graduation times will vary by department (and that department's course/other requirements) and of course the individual/PI.

The only red flags when choosing programs are unusually high average graduation times or programs that flat out tell you that they expect all students to be in the program for at least 8 years (one director told me this on revisit).

 

[Neuronix]

some programs allow students more time in the lab by cutting down in clinical year requirements (for instance, I know Columbia has a condensed 17 month clinical phase for MD/PhD students, where they re-enter lab in January and graduate the following May). Some programs do both, which allow for lower average graduation times without reducing the time during the research phase.

That scares me. See: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=870284

 

[StIGMA]

Yeah, students take Step 2 by the end of February, at a time when they have had all of the 3rd year rotations and presumably a subI (so they do not take Step 2 before completing all core rotations). The system is certainly a compromise in the favor of more research. Students match very well from Columbia- the match lists are posted on their md/phd page (and prior years can be found under alumni).

 

[Neuronix]

Yeah, students take Step 2 by the end of February, at a time when they have had all of the 3rd year rotations and presumably a subI (so they do not take Step 2 before completing all core rotations). The system is certainly a compromise in the favor of more research. Students match very well from Columbia- the match lists are posted on their md/phd page (and prior years can be found under alumni).

How I feel about match lists: http://www.neuronix.org/2011/07/nrmp-puts-out-charting-outcomes-in.html

I don't really want to go into the details of exactly how Columbia's program is structured as it detracts from this thread. I'm just very wary of going back to clinics too late.

 

[dl2dp2]

How I feel about match lists: http://www.neuronix.org/2011/07/nrmp-puts-out-charting-outcomes-in.html

I don't really want to go into the details of exactly how Columbia's program is structured as it detracts from this thread. I'm just very wary of going back to clinics too late.

This point is relevant for several reasons: (1) if you want to go into a competitive specialty, i.e. rads, rad onc, surgical subs, etc., likely residency programs would like to see a high step 1 AND a high step 2, which means you should take step 2 early and finish all your core rotations early. (2) if you want to go into a less competitive specialty that value PhD more (i.e. IM, neuro, psych, path), and you did poorly on step 1, it makes sense for you to take step 2 early and argue that the poor step 1 is just a fluke, which means you should finish all your core rotations early. (3) some california programs absolutely positively require step 2 to match. This by the way is also specialty dependent, and if a program is really interested in you you can go to the program director directly to negotiate.

In some instances, doing core rotations late have advantages. (1) if you did really well on step 1, and you are not interested in california programs, it may be advantageous to delay step 2 in case you have less time to prepare for that exam. (2) if you know you won't do well on a particular core rotation (i.e. OBGYN), delaying it makes the P or LP not accessible for ranking purposes late in 4th year. (3) The second point also means that you can blow off certain core rotations as needed so you won't be too burned out toward the end of your 4th year. And believe me, not having to honor OBGYN was a HUGE load off my back.

 

[QofQuimica]

On the other hand, if you put off some of your core rotations until spring of your last year and something happens where you have to make one up, you're screwed, because you can't graduate without passing those rotations.

I have to agree with Neuro that these condensed clinical schedules aren't ideal, and for the reasons he gave. I'm all for condensing preclinical schedules to 1.5 years instead of two; that's entirely doable for a smart, motivated student, which MD/PhD students tend to be. It's all the more doable for students who took grad level classes as UGs and may therefore be able to spend more time in the lab and less time taking grad school classes while in grad/med school. But skimping on rotations? Not a great idea, and especially because residency programs are hiring you to be a clinician, not a researcher. It won't matter how good your academic street cred is if residency PDs perceive that your clinical skills are too poor for them to want to take you on as a resident.

 

[dl2dp2]

But skimping on rotations? Not a great idea, and especially because residency programs are hiring you to be a clinician, not a researcher. It won't matter how good your academic street cred is if residency PDs perceive that your clinical skills are too poor for them to want to take you on as a resident.

I tend to disagree with this on several counts. First, blowing off one or two core rotations not in your field HARDLY makes you a poor clinician, especially if it makes you less likely to burn out. Secondly, I would argue that in many cases, residency PDs DO hire you to be a researcher, especially if you articulated a genuine interest in continuing research and was hired into a "research track" position. In high end residency programs, they care much more about training future leaders and researchers and would prefer to have every resident coming out a researcher, if it were ever possible. Thirdly, there are many instances where programs and departments are willing and able to overlook slight deficiencies in clinical skills EVEN in the desired specialty of choice because of a great potential for future research.

 

[QofQuimica]

I tend to disagree with this on several counts. First, blowing off one or two core rotations not in your field HARDLY makes you a poor clinician, especially if it makes you less likely to burn out. Secondly, I would argue that in many cases, residency PDs DO hire you to be a researcher, especially if you articulated a genuine interest in continuing research and was hired into a "research track" position. In high end residency programs, they care much more about training future leaders and researchers and would prefer to have every resident coming out a researcher, if it were ever possible. Thirdly, there are many instances where programs and departments are willing and able to overlook slight deficiencies in clinical skills EVEN in the desired specialty of choice because of a great potential for future research.

I didn't say that "blowing off" a rotation or two in medical school necessarily made someone a poor clinician; I'm talking about PD *perception* of clinical weakness in a potential hiree for residency, which is a clinical position. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, as a resident, that evals in both med school and residency have a high degree of subjectivity to them, as do LORs. So being perceived as "weak" is a problem, even if it's not objectively true that the potential resident is unable to do the job at an adequate level. In addition, most people are not so highly academically accomplished coming out of grad school that any perceived significant clinical deficiencies can be overlooked. Even if the PD would like to do so, there will be a great deal of pressure on him/her to prefer applicants with solid research credentials as well as what appear to be solid clinical skills. You still do have to get through residency in order to reach that research fellowship, and it doesn't look so good for the program if the "future leaders" of medicine they graduate aren't at least adequate clinicians as well.

I'm sympathetic to the need for something having to give so that combined degree students can finish their degrees in a reasonable amount of time. But again, I don't support that cutback coming out of the clinical years, especially when it's much less problematic to gain the extra time by condensing the preclinical years.

 

[dl2dp2]

I'm talking about PD *perception* of clinical weakness in a potential hiree for residency, which is a clinical position. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, as a resident, that evals in both med school and residency have a high degree of subjectivity to them, as do LORs. So being perceived as "weak" is a problem, even if it's not objectively true that the potential resident is unable to do the job at an adequate level. .

Perhaps we are talking past each other, but I just don't understand if the PDs don't have ACCESS to the evaluations of these rotations that were done after MSPE were submitted, how it would change their PERCEPTION of your clinical strengths and weaknesses.

In many schools, you can do a number of core rotations after the submission of MSPE. Whether or not you are objectively a good clinician is more or less irrelevant to the strategic question of how you order your rotation so that you wouldn't have to stress and burn out over the ones that are less important to your future career.

For an MD/PhD residency applicant, the likely barrier to clinical "competency" is more or less whether he CARES enough to work hard and be meticulous, as opposed to actual deficiencies in knowledge-base or skill. I have seen too many MD/PhD and MD residents who crash and burn not because they don't know the differential diagnosis of elevated LFTs but because they are incapable or unwilling to manage their stress and take breaks when they can, and eventually perform poorly because they become bitter, numb or contrarian, necessary ingredients for a a poor evaluation in residency. This is why I argue for a more reasonable approach to core rotations, especially the ones positioned at the end of 4th year that are more or less just a passing requirement to graduate, so MDPhDs can catch a break at the end of the long road and have time mental time off and enjoy their sense of accomplishment. If you think this is unreasonable and provides a basis to evaluate for any sort of clinical adequacy, I don't know what else to say.