Data: Elite School Bias in MD/PhD Admissions

[aldol16]

This phenomenon makes sense though, those who chase the prestige of a "top" MDPHD are likely to be historic prestige chasers, going to these top colleges. In the end, any MDPHD will likely conduct amazing research regardless of where you go.

If the hiring of MD/PhD researchers in academia has any semblance to PhD hires, going to top MD/PhD programs is quite important for someone wanting to go into academia. The old saying in academia is that you will never teach somewhere higher-ranked than your grad school and/or post-doc program. Science is becoming increasingly collaborative and nowadays, it's not enough to be a research genius. You need other top-notch researchers around you to work with in order to get truly phenomenal results. So in my opinion, doing a PhD in a non-top-ranked program isn't worth the time.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[benjamin94559]

If the hiring of MD/PhD researchers in academia has any semblance to PhD hires, going to top MD/PhD programs is quite important for someone wanting to go into academia. The old saying in academia is that you will never teach somewhere higher-ranked than your grad school and/or post-doc program. Science is becoming increasingly collaborative and nowadays, it's not enough to be a research genius. You need other top-notch researchers around you to work with in order to get truly phenomenal results. So in my opinion, doing a PhD in a non-top-ranked program isn't worth the time.

MD/PHD researchers are a much lower risk than PHD only researchers for an academic institution since if you start to not get grants they can just make you do clinical crap to get paid instead so I'm not sure how much exactly the assumptions hold true. Obs some will and some wont but i'm sure someone more knowledgable than me can elaborate more

 

[benjamin94559]

With the second set of graphs (the ones with red bars), and forgive me if someone already stated since im just kind of skimming, shouldnt the y axis be proportion as a percentage of 0.6 seems very low. should it be 60% instead? 60% seems to match up better with the first set of graphs.

 

[Lucca]

With the second set of graphs (the ones with red bars), and forgive me if someone already stated since im just kind of skimming, shouldnt the y axis be proportion as a percentage of 0.6 seems very low. should it be 60% instead? 60% seems to match up better with the first set of graphs.

Yes it should be proportion, that was an oversight on my part

 

[Fijj]

People who go to top schools normally do so for the career opportunities/resources that you can't get at most other schools; not prestige chasing. And you can do good research anywhere, but there is very much a large difference between the research opportunities at a top program and a mediocre program.

Ie. My med school gives me great access to clinical research projects, but the basic science research is crap. We don't have the facilities or funding to do the research I did at my old job, so i would not be able to do a PhD here in the area that I want. Top programs give you more areas of research, access to top PIs, access to better collaborators, access to more facilities at other institutions, likely more connections at other top schools, more connections to journals, etc.

I don't think the bias is occurring at the MD/PhD applicant level, where certain student are choosing not to apply to top programs, but rather the bias occurs in who the schools choose to accept

Yeah I am sure most MDPHDs apply to 20+ schools, so it is likely acceptance bias.

I suppose it also depends, for the MDPHD clinical research aspect. Having a rich and well connected lab is helpful, so that is true that more funded labs would be better for a MDPHD. But this is speaking at the lab level, individual PI level. Of course, top funded schools generally have more labs with heavy funding, but I don't think it's that cut and dry.

My point with prestige is that all MDPHDs are usually well funded as PIs anyways. So I don't believe that job opportunity is the only motivator to applying to a extemely competitive MSTP program in which the school has the most NIH funding.

 

[aldol16]

My point with prestige is that all MDPHDs are usually well funded as PIs anyways. So I don't believe that job opportunity is the only motivator to applying to a extemely competitive MSTP program in which the school has the most NIH funding.

In academia, who you work for is very important. Now, I can't speak to how it is in the biomedical sciences but in the physical sciences, pedigree is very important for an academic post. For MD/PhDs who are appointed to the chemistry department, for example, it doesn't matter that you have that MD. You're evaluated on your past research (who you worked for) and research proposal.

 

[aldol16]

MD/PHD researchers are a much lower risk than PHD only researchers for an academic institution since if you start to not get grants they can just make you do clinical crap to get paid instead so I'm not sure how much exactly the assumptions hold true. Obs some will and some wont but i'm sure someone more knowledgable than me can elaborate more

Well, you're talking about two different things here. PhDs are expected to fund a substantial part of their salary through grants. The university isn't paying them for most of their salary. I'm not sure what the MD/PhD pay structure is, but if they also contribute towards their own salary in terms of grants, then by not doing publishable research, the university then has to pick up a substantial part of their pay.

 

[Fijj]

In academia, who you work for is very important. Now, I can't speak to how it is in the biomedical sciences but in the physical sciences, pedigree is very important for an academic post. For MD/PhDs who are appointed to the chemistry department, for example, it doesn't matter that you have that MD. You're evaluated on your past research (who you worked for) and research proposal.

Agreed.
You don't need pedigree to meet someone though.

 

[benjamin94559]

Well, you're talking about two different things here. PhDs are expected to fund a substantial part of their salary through grants. The university isn't paying them for most of their salary. I'm not sure what the MD/PhD pay structure is, but if they also contribute towards their own salary in terms of grants, then by not doing publishable research, the university then has to pick up a substantial part of their pay.

Not necessarily. At Pitt I hear after a certain number of years of not getting grant money the university just cuts your salary, even if you're tenured. kind of a way of telling you to gtfo lol. So after a certain amount of years of not getting grants you can end up with a salary (from the university) of 0. Sometimes they'll give you some adminstrative/teaching positions to justify not cutting your salary but its a cold world and there arent as many administrative positions that pay all that great for a phd. an md/phd can be given clinical load to "justify" paying you a salary.

 

[aldol16]

Not necessarily. At Pitt I hear after a certain number of years of not getting grant money the university just cuts your salary, even if you're tenured. kind of a way of telling you to gtfo lol. So after a certain amount of years of not getting grants you can end up with a salary (from the university) of 0. Sometimes they'll give you some adminstrative/teaching positions to justify not cutting your salary but its a cold world and there arent as many administrative positions that pay all that great for a phd. an md/phd can be given clinical load to "justify" paying you a salary.

Oh, trust me, the "salary" the university pays you then is peanuts. It's very small compared to what they have to pay clinicians. From their perspective, it's still much better for MD/PhDs to bring in the grant money - at the very least, they will need that to keep their labs running. Most academics pay rent for their office and lab space that is taken out of the grant money. They also pay for communal facilities so if there are proteomics facilities, mass spec facilities, etc.

 

[benjamin94559]

Oh, trust me, the "salary" the university pays you then is peanuts. It's very small compared to what they have to pay clinicians. From their perspective, it's still much better for MD/PhDs to bring in the grant money - at the very least, they will need that to keep their labs running. Most academics pay rent for their office and lab space that is taken out of the grant money. They also pay for communal facilities so if there are proteomics facilities, mass spec facilities, etc.

I agree with you there. But what Im saying is that MD/PhD > PhD only because an institution can still get a good deal out of you by making do clinical stuff and underpaying you relative to what the broader market would bear.

 

[Lawpy]

Not sure whether this was mentioned but are there data showing elite school bias for MD programs? AAMC 2013 survey suggests that may be the case for private schools but are there any additional data? @Lucca @aldol16 @efle

 

[WedgeDawg]

Not sure whether this was mentioned but are there data showing elite school bias for MD programs? AAMC 2013 survey suggests that may be the case for private schools but are there any additional data? @Lucca @aldol16 @efle

Check my post (#2) for a number of schools = 1 example. I have data from Yale somewhere in my post history too.

 

[efle]

Not sure whether this was mentioned but are there data showing elite school bias for MD programs? AAMC 2013 survey suggests that may be the case for private schools but are there any additional data? @Lucca @aldol16 @efle

For me it's just a gestalt impression from interview days and sporadic data I've seen over the years. There's no doubt in my mind that the most selective private schools tend to love high GPAs from tough undergrads but I don't have anything near the level of Lucca's data to back that up.

 

[aldol16]

Not sure whether this was mentioned but are there data showing elite school bias for MD programs? AAMC 2013 survey suggests that may be the case for private schools but are there any additional data? @Lucca @aldol16 @efle

Only experiential and anecdotal evidence that top schools care about pedigree. At each of my top 20 interviews, the majority of applicants were from elite schools - i.e. the Ivies, Michigan, Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, top liberal arts universities, etc.