Deciding where to apply based on faculty research

[InNotOf]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm assembling lists of potential MD/PhD programs and the faculty whose research interests me. What is the minimum number of "interesting" faculty members a program should have for me to consider applying to it? On one hand, I don't want to waste an application fee by applying to a program with only one or two faculty in my area of interest (and thus risk not being able to work with someone I want to), but I don't want want to apply to too few programs and therefore risk not getting in anywhere.

 

[j-weezy]

I'm assembling lists of potential MD/PhD programs and the faculty whose research interests me. What is the minimum number of "interesting" faculty members a program should have for me to consider applying to it? On one hand, I don't want to waste an application fee by applying to a program with only one or two faculty in my area of interest (and thus risk not being able to work with someone I want to), but I don't want want to apply to too few programs and therefore risk not getting in anywhere.

is your research interest so narrow that it's likely there's only 1 or 2 faculty members at a given school?

 

[InNotOf]

I'm interested in cancer immunology - both pharmacological (protein) stuff and many aspects of hematopoietic transplantation. Many programs have 5 or more interesting faculty, but there are several with 2 or 3 interesting people. With the latter group, I'd like to apply (esp. if the location is good) but wonder if I'd run the chance of not being able to work with them.

 

[j-weezy]

I'm interested in cancer immunology - both pharmacological (protein) stuff and many aspects of hematopoietic transplantation. Many programs have 5 or more interesting faculty, but there are several with 2 or 3 interesting people. With the latter group, I'd like to apply (esp. if the location is good) but wonder if I'd run the chance of not being able to work with them.

yeah those aren't really small fields....perhaps you should do some broader searches because I'm interested in a combination of cancer and angiogenesis which overlap with your interests and then there's the development people and immunology people so almost every medical school will have people in those general areas...

AND - isn't it a little early to be looking if you're only a sophomore?

 

[solumanculver]

Well, my interest is schizophrenia, but I don't really restrict myself to schools with good schizophrenia programs. There are a lot of things that I can do my PhD research on in the sort of general field of neuroscience... I think the PhD is meant to make you a competent researcher, not necessarily be the pattern for the rest of your life.

In any case, I chose my list of schools based entirely on geography. I was happy when my geographic considerations coincided with good schools...

 

[FoxTrot12]

Personally I combined the two previously mentioned approaches. There were some schools who had faculty I knew I would love, some that were just in sweet places, and some that I applied to just because I knew people who went there loved it. In the end my top choices were two schools I never would have seen at the top of my list. Keep an open mind and don't restrict yourself. The $$ for applications will pay off in the long run if you end up somewhere you love! 😀

 

[tbo]

I agree with all the wisdom posted above. The way I see it, the value of the 'phud' portion of MD/PhD is to be mentored in how to identify, investigate, and defend scientific ideas. Interest in the field can certainly help, but isn't dependent on your ability to develop these skills. If you look at some MD/PhDs who have completed all of their training, you can see a decent subsection of them that did their PhD research in one area (say, heart disease) and are doing a residency in another (neurosurgery).

I would say apply broadly to schools that you like for a number of reasons - geography, curriculum, research areas and experts, research culture, life outside of school, etc. 7-9 years is nothing to sneeze at so don't limit yourself to cancer immunology alone. By the time you graduate from Stanfurd (Go Bears!, btw) and even through MS1 and MS2, you may have a different set of interests. Anyhow, I would bet the lionshare of MSTP programs have excellent cancer programs and faculty.

j-weezy - J. Folkman RIP.

 

[mark-ER]

I think waaaay too many undergrads applying to MSTPs restrict their research choices by the research experience they've already had. How do you know you wouldn't find another area equally interesting down the line?

You really do yourself a disservice by not keeping an open mind and trying a rotation 'out there', if for nothing else then for personal enrichment. As an example, I entered into the program with an interest in doing channel work and another guy in my class wanted to do transcriptional regulation. Well, guess what... I'm doing transcriptional regulation and he's doing ion channels.

As an another extereme example, we've even had an applicant who pigeon-holed himself doing aeronautical muscle/bone research. Seriously, there's like 10 residency spots in the ENTIRE country total for space research & if you try to enter it and discover you don't like it afterall (you only have SO MUCH experience as an undergrad without having gone through a 4-5 year grind of PhD work) -- are you going to be disillusioned with your career???