Do I stand a chance?

[medzk]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Edit: Please see update in newer post below (school list/questions)

Hi, I'm interested in applying to MSTPs and I have around 2.5 years of research experience in the same lab. I worked on two projects with the same researchers, neither of which have much biological relevance.

The first project involved organometallic chemistry and catalysis (related to plastics) and resulted in a second-author publication in a leading chemistry journal. The second project involved organic/polymer solar cells and will result in a forthcoming second-author publication (probably not in time for apps though).

My question is whether it will matter that the research was not biologically relevant?

Thanks!

 

[medzk]

I'm not sure if this should be in the "What are my chances" sub-forum. I feel it is particularly relevant to this sub-forum.

As mentioned in a previous post, I have 2.5 years of research experience in the same lab that resulted in a second-author publication in a leading chemistry journal. Further publications are forthcoming, however probably not in time for applications.

I have clinical and volunteer experiences.

So I ask the kind souls of the physician-scientist board: do I stand a chance?

Thank you.

 

[Neuronix]

I merged your threads together since they are both relevant to the same overall question.

My question is whether it will matter that the research was not biologically relevant?

Chemistry as a "hardcore" science is fine. There are a lot of chem background people in programs doing work in biochemistry, pharmacology, or other departments. This is a non-issue.

I'm a graduating senior in CA. I took the MCAT in May so I don't have my score yet. I was averaging 36 on aamc practice tests, higher on Kaplan practice tests. I have cGPA ~3.4, sGPA ~3.3, aoGPA ~3.6.

As mentioned in a previous post, I have 2.5 years of research experience in the same lab that resulted in a second-author publication in a leading chemistry journal. Further publications are forthcoming, however probably not in time for applications.

I have clinical and volunteer experiences.

So I ask the kind souls of the physician-scientist board: do I stand a chance?

This is going to depend a lot on your MCAT score. If it really is 36+ I think you do stand a chance at low to mid tier programs though you should also apply MD to your state schools that don't have strong MD/PhD programs. If the MCAT is under a 34, the combination of a below average MCAT and a below average GPA will make it very difficult for you to gain MD/PhD acceptance. Let's see how that turns out...

 

[medzk]

This is going to depend a lot on your MCAT score. If it really is 36+ I think you do stand a chance at low to mid tier programs though you should also apply MD to your state schools that don't have strong MD/PhD programs. If the MCAT is under a 34, the combination of a below average MCAT and a below average GPA will make it very difficult for you to gain MD/PhD acceptance. Let's see how that turns out...

Thank you for merging the threads and for the information. Forgive my ignorance, but what are some of the schools in CA that don't have strong MD/PhD programs? Additionally, if you can say, do you think I'm a better candidate for MSTPs or MD-only programs due to my research background?

 

[Neuronix]

Thank you for merging the threads and for the information. Forgive my ignorance, but what are some of the schools in CA that don't have strong MD/PhD programs?

The MSTPs in California are http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/InstPredoc/PredocInst-MSTP.htm
UCLA, UCSD, Stanford, UC Irvine, UCSF

Unfortunately these are all very competitive, UCI a little less so. You might still consider applying to them if you really want to stay in California.

Other allopathic schools in California:
USC, Loma Linda, UCD

All of these have fully-funded MD/PhD programs if I recall correctly. So you should probably apply to those as well.

So you got me, there's probably no schools you'd want to apply MD only there. Let's see how your MCAT score turns out and then we can talk about school application choice some more.

Remember that MD/PhD programs are not location selective. Also, midwest or other less desirable location programs tend not to be as competitive. So you'll want to apply to a lot of programs outside of California.

 

[medzk]

So you got me, there's probably no schools you'd want to apply MD only there. Let's see how your MCAT score turns out and then we can talk about school application choice some more.

Remember that MD/PhD programs are not location selective. Also, midwest or other less desirable location programs tend not to be as competitive. So you'll want to apply to a lot of programs outside of California.

I think that your suggestion about applying out of state is a good idea.

In your previous post you mentioned applying MD only to the less competitive MD/PhD programs. Why should I not also apply MD only to the more competitive programs? Is it because I have even less chance with their MD program than the MD/PhD?

 

[Neuronix]

Is it because I have even less chance with their MD program than the MD/PhD?

Yep. MD programs are often even more fixated on numbers than MD/PhD programs. The exception tends to be at state schools or other lower tier allopathic programs with small and/or unfunded MD/PhD programs where you wouldn't necessarily want to do MD/PhD there and you'd have a good shot at the MD acceptance.

As for MD or MD/PhD, you really choose to apply to one or the other at most programs. Many claim to consider you for both, but the reality is that is practically untrue at most schools.

 

[medzk]

Yep. MD programs are often even more fixated on numbers than MD/PhD programs.

As for MD or MD/PhD, you really choose to apply to one or the other at most programs. Many claim to consider you for both, but the reality is that is practically untrue at most schools.

Gotcha.

I'll be back when the scores are in...or more likely when I have more questions.

Thanks for doing what you do, Neuronix.

 

[Neuronix]

You're welcome. Good luck!

 

[geeyouknit]

I merged your threads together since they are both relevant to the same overall question.



Chemistry as a "hardcore" science is fine. There are a lot of chem background people in programs doing work in biochemistry, pharmacology, or other departments. This is a non-issue.



This is going to depend a lot on your MCAT score. If it really is 36+ I think you do stand a chance at low to mid tier programs though you should also apply MD to your state schools that don't have strong MD/PhD programs. If the MCAT is under a 34, the combination of a below average MCAT and a below average GPA will make it very difficult for you to gain MD/PhD acceptance. Let's see how that turns out...

If you don't mind me asking, what's keeping him from a high tier program? Is it because of the slightly low GPA? Or is the research not good enough (it seems pretty good - I'm not even close that kind of experience).

Thanks.

 

[Neuronix]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=539268

This is my thought process in a nutshell.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

If you don't mind me asking, what's keeping him from a high tier program? Is it because of the slightly low GPA? Or is the research not good enough (it seems pretty good - I'm not even close that kind of experience).

Thanks.

GPA plus not necessarily compensating MCAT. If one is lacking, the other has to be great. I had a very slightly higher GPA and when I applied with a 34 MCAT got only 2 interview invites and when I applied with a 40 MCAT (same GPA) I got 18 interview invites.

 

[Danlee07]

For MD/PhD, is it just a basic req to have that higher gpa? Or are there also anecdotal events where there were some lower GPAs (3.0-3.3) with great research + great MCAT?

 

[cdonahue]

I'm in the same boat, w/ c/sUGPA ~3.4 (3.7 PB) and a 36Q MCAT. Solid research/industry work, 3 pubs, with a very good idea of what I'm hoping to do (BME / Imaging).

I tried to chat with professors before applying and got such mixed responses. One guy at a top tier on the adcom for md-phd would say 'I don't care about the GPA as much as the rest of your resume. You would be a good fit for my lab.' Other professors would essentially see the GPA and say, 'Good luck, see ya.'

It's a tough process.

 

[medzk]

_

 

[Neuronix]

I'm thinking aim for mid to low tier less competitive MD/PhD programs with MD as a backup.

 

[medzk]

I'm thinking aim for mid to low tier less competitive MD/PhD programs with MD as a backup.

Do you mean mid to low tier MSTPs or just normal MD/PhDs?

And you mean apply MD/PhD AND MD to those programs? or select some schools to apply MD-only to?

Sorry!

 

[Neuronix]

Do you mean mid to low tier MSTPs or just normal MD/PhDs?

Both.

And you mean apply MD/PhD AND MD to those programs? or select some schools to apply MD-only to?

Select some state or some other schools to apply MD-only to if you want a backup.

 

[medzk]

I would really appreciate any input you have on my school list. Might have too many schools here...

1st choice is to stay in CA, but aside from that I prefer fairly urban areas.

Do you think the strong research background mitigates the GPA/MCAT and increases chances at MD/PhD vs. MD-only at all?


Research:
Continuous (2 projects in same lab), 3/2009-present
2nd author publication in top chem journal
At least one more 2nd author in prep for submission
Staying on as post-Bac researcher for a few months to wrap up work

Activities:
~120 hrs volunteering in ER
~40 hrs shadowing neurosurgeon
some leadership
some volunteering with underserved
etc...

School List:

MD-only:

Jefferson Medical College
Rush
Temple
Georgetown (5-yr research track)
George Washington
Tulane

MD-PhD + MD:

UCSF
Duke
Stanford
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
University of Chicago
UCLA
University of Pittsburg
UCSD
Vanderbilt
Cornell
Mount Sinai
Northwestern
UNC, Chapel Hill?
Emory
Baylor
Univ. Texas, Southwestern
NYU
University of Maryland
Albert Einstein
UCI
University of Cincinnati
Indiana University
Tufts
University of Illinois, Chicago

Ohio State
USC
UC Davis


MD-PhD only:

Univ. of Washington

Unknown: MD only/MD-PhD/both?

University of Connecticut
Temple
Drexel
NYMC

 

[PfNO22]

I would really appreciate any input you have on my school list. Might have too many schools here...

1st choice is to stay in CA, but aside from that I prefer fairly urban areas.

Do you think the strong research background mitigates the GPA/MCAT and increases chances at MD/PhD vs. MD-only at all?

Only you can decide if it's too many schools... How much money do you want to spend on primaries? How much time can you spend on secondaries? 38 schools X $$ = $$$$$$$$$

Your extracurriculars are fine.

You have a solid research background.

A second author publication is not as interesting as you think. What would be interesting is a First author pub. Second author doesn't really say anything about your work, just that the project was ready to be published. Sorry. It's not going to help you.

Your GPA is Weak. Research DOES NOT compensate for GPA. GPA is a fundamental stat you must overcome.

Your MCAT is weak. 34 is not very strong and the N is very weak. Make sure you have strong essays to make up for the very weak essay subsection.

You're going to have difficulty with top-notch schools, especially in California. I'd say UCSF, Stanford, UCLA are out of reach as are Cornell and UW.

 

[tttttc]

top chemistry journal = JACS or Angew Chem?

organometallics rules!!! I would give you admission to my MD-PhD program (sadly I don't have one...)

My advice: drop UNC. Seriously.

 

[medzk]

PfNO22, thanks for the opinion.

Tt, Angew Chem

My advice: drop UNC. Seriously.

Why?

 

[fastrandstrongr]

Only you can decide if it's too many schools... How much money do you want to spend on primaries? How much time can you spend on secondaries? 38 schools X $$ = $$$$$$$$$

Your extracurriculars are fine.

You have a solid research background.

A second author publication is not as interesting as you think. What would be interesting is a First author pub. Second author doesn't really say anything about your work, just that the project was ready to be published. Sorry. It's not going to help you.

Your GPA is Weak. Research DOES NOT compensate for GPA. GPA is a fundamental stat you must overcome.

Your MCAT is weak. 34 is not very strong and the N is very weak. Make sure you have strong essays to make up for the very weak essay subsection.

You're going to have difficulty with top-notch schools, especially in California. I'd say UCSF, Stanford, UCLA are out of reach as are Cornell and UW.

have i missed something or have schools actually started caring about the writing portion of the mcat? i don't know where you get your information, but a 34 is not a weak MCAT. the OPs GPA is low, but his research is great. a second author pub IS a great item to put on his CV and it's better to have it than not have it (i.e. it helps).

OP: you will have trouble getting past the interview invite stage for most of these schools so i think your method of applying broadly is your best bet. the top 10 schools are going to be tough. give some non-NIH MD/PhD programs a shot, too. if your PI has any contacts at any of the schools on your list, now would be a good time to exploit them. you CAN get into an MD/PhD program and i think your research will put you over the top. good luck!

 

[ablavar]

A second author publication is not as interesting as you think. What would be interesting is a First author pub. Second author doesn't really say anything about your work, just that the project was ready to be published. Sorry. It's not going to help you.

You are seriously sadistic. Where do you get your information from?

 

[StIGMA]

You are seriously sadistic. Where do you get your information from?

Agreed, that specific comment is absurd. A sizable proportion of MD/PhD students graduate with a single first-author publication. To suggest that only a first author publication is significant- at the undergraduate level no less!- is beyond absurd. A second author publication can mean more or less depending on what it actually took to become that second author, but it is significant and not to be mocked. Be proud of your accomplishments- the publication (and more importantly the experiences that it represents) will indeed help you.

As for application advice: I'd suspect that you will get into an MD/PhD program if you apply broadly enough. I would cut the MD-only schools if they are only there for backup.

 

[tttttc]

Why?

Sorry, the comment about UNC was a peronal feeling. It is ranked really high, so it could be a good choice for you.

 

[kathrasis]

A sizable proportion of MD/PhD students graduate with a single first-author publication.

If you want an academic job, admittance to a program, etc, you need to stand out. I don't see how this is a valid thing to cite.

 

[StIGMA]

It is either valid or it is not. A successful (bioscience) PhD in as many MD/PhD programs as I have encountered, including my own, is to have a student publish one solid paper. Yeah, the more the better- but even one good paper is difficult to do in 3-4 years when you are being kicked out the door back in the clinic. When up to a year or more may be addressing reviewers concerns... one solid first author publication is sufficient and commonplace.

Stick to talking about what you know. MD/PhD graduates who are seeking faculty jobs pursue further research training post-graduation, and this most recent research is what is paramount to securing a job- because this recent research is what secures funding. You have at minimum 5 years between PhD and academic appointment, and this is more likely close to 7 years (5 year residency with research included + 2 clinic years in med school) at minimum. What you did 7-10 years ago DURING your PhD is indeed not important in securing a faculty appointment.

Let's keep it on topic. First author publications are rare among MD/PhD applicants. Of course it would make you stand out-- because it is so difficult to in the time constraints of an undergraduate degree! They are expected by the end of your PhD- this is why they stand out if you are not yet in a graduate program! Publications absolutely are not expected of MD/PhD applicants- solid research foundations are expected. What I 'cited,' if by this you mean stated my personal experiences, is indeed valid.

 

[Neuronix]

I'm 100% agreed with stigma's post. Kudos 👍

 

[ablavar]

It is either valid or it is not. A successful (bioscience) PhD in as many MD/PhD programs as I have encountered, including my own, is to have a student publish one solid paper. Yeah, the more the better- but even one good paper is difficult to do in 3-4 years when you are being kicked out the door back in the clinic. When up to a year or more may be addressing reviewers concerns... one solid first author publication is sufficient and commonplace.

Stick to talking about what you know. MD/PhD graduates who are seeking faculty jobs pursue further research training post-graduation, and this most recent research is what is paramount to securing a job- because this recent research is what secures funding. You have at minimum 5 years between PhD and academic appointment, and this is more likely close to 7 years (5 year residency with research included + 2 clinic years in med school) at minimum. What you did 7-10 years ago DURING your PhD is indeed not important in securing a faculty appointment.

Let's keep it on topic. First author publications are rare among MD/PhD applicants. Of course it would make you stand out-- because it is so difficult to in the time constraints of an undergraduate degree! They are expected by the end of your PhD- this is why they stand out if you are not yet in a graduate program! Publications absolutely are not expected of MD/PhD applicants- solid research foundations are expected. What I 'cited,' if by this you mean stated my personal experiences, is indeed valid.

We need a sticky on this.

 

[whiteshadodw]

We need a sticky on this.

people read stuff on SDN and immediately they start to think it is the norm. for example, people in WAMC asking if they'll get into harvard MSTP with a 3.98, 40 MCAT, and 2 first author papers in 'good' journals. a person with that CV is likely to get in where ever they want assuming they interview fine.

 

[Neuronix]

We need a sticky on this.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=539268

See #3. I guess I could expand on that question a bit more.

 

[kathrasis]

It is either valid or it is not. A successful (bioscience) PhD in as many MD/PhD programs as I have encountered, including my own, is to have a student publish one solid paper. Yeah, the more the better- but even one good paper is difficult to do in 3-4 years when you are being kicked out the door back in the clinic. When up to a year or more may be addressing reviewers concerns... one solid first author publication is sufficient and commonplace.

Stick to talking about what you know. MD/PhD graduates who are seeking faculty jobs pursue further research training post-graduation, and this most recent research is what is paramount to securing a job- because this recent research is what secures funding. You have at minimum 5 years between PhD and academic appointment, and this is more likely close to 7 years (5 year residency with research included + 2 clinic years in med school) at minimum. What you did 7-10 years ago DURING your PhD is indeed not important in securing a faculty appointment.

Let's keep it on topic. First author publications are rare among MD/PhD applicants. Of course it would make you stand out-- because it is so difficult to in the time constraints of an undergraduate degree! They are expected by the end of your PhD- this is why they stand out if you are not yet in a graduate program! Publications absolutely are not expected of MD/PhD applicants- solid research foundations are expected. What I 'cited,' if by this you mean stated my personal experiences, is indeed valid.

I see where you're going with this. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[rofl]

nvm

 

[Dark Templar]

Apply to as many schools as you can afford and are willing to complete secondaries for. The only exception is schools you are 200% sure you definitely do not want to attend due to location or another reason.