Effect of the new MSTP grant application tables

[Fencer]

The MSTP grant application eliminated MCAT scores from the T32 pre-doctoral tables, which prior to 2016 required: 1) reporting the MCAT score and cGPA of every single student in the program and 2) MCAT score, cGPA, and outcome for each applicant of the prior completed application cycle relative to date of submission for new or competing (renewal) MSTPs. The new tables require only cGPA means and ranges without identifying the applicants or student (see - http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/datatables.htm).
Here is the NIH example of what they need to report for a renewal MSTP:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/datatables/Instruc_Renewal_or_Revision_Predoctoral_Training.pdf .

Despite that this change has been talked about for several years, it really is just been place into effect for admissions in the 2016 application cycle, and it is yet unclear what would be the effect on selection of interviewed or accepted students. That is, whether the presence of a new MCAT section and/or the overall use of MCAT in MD/PhD admissions have changed. In addition, we now have to report the extent of prior full-time research experiences.

• Are MSTPs taking a risk in applicants who have good GPA but marginal MCAT scores? I believe so based upon my personal experiences and discussions.
• Are MSTPs valuing post-bacs more (additional full-time research experiences)? I bit more unclear, but I think that it is the case.

This is an important change of the factors important to program directors that might change my advice as I counsel potential MD/PhD applicants.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lucca]

The MSTP grant application eliminated MCAT scores from the T32 pre-doctoral tables, which prior to 2016 required: 1) reporting the MCAT score and cGPA of every single student in the program and 2) MCAT score, cGPA, and outcome for each applicant of the prior completed application cycle relative to date of submission for new or competing (renewal) MSTPs. The new tables require only cGPA means and ranges without identifying the applicants or student (see - http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/datatables.htm).
Here is the NIH example of what they need to report for a renewal MSTP:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/datatables/Instruc_Renewal_or_Revision_Predoctoral_Training.pdf .

Despite that this change has been talked about for several years, it really is just been place into effect for admissions in the 2016 application cycle, and it is yet unclear what would be the effect on selection of interviewed or accepted students. That is, whether the presence of a new MCAT section and/or the overall use of MCAT in MD/PhD admissions have changed. In addition, we now have to report the extent of prior full-time research experiences.

• Are MSTPs taking a risk in applicants who have good GPA but marginal MCAT scores? I believe so based upon my personal experiences and discussions.
• Are MSTPs valuing post-bacs more (additional full-time research experiences)? I bit more unclear, but I think that it is the case.

This is an important change of the factors important to program directors that might change my advice as I counsel potential MD/PhD applicants.

I'm curious as to what you believe MSTPs are valuing post-bac research more. Do you mean more than they did in the past, or more relative to research undertaken as an undergraduate? Is there anything motivating this? I would imagine it might have something to do with predicting future outcomes or something.

 

[Jelly Bones]

Thanks for this info @Fencer

Just to be clear. How do you think this might affect students with marginal GPA and good MCAT scores? Since the MCAT isn't included in the new tables, does it imply that directors will be favoring GPA over MCAT? What was the reason for this change in your opinion?

 

[ImmunoLove]

Thanks for this info @Fencer

Just to be clear. How do you think this might affect students with marginal GPA and good MCAT scores? Since the MCAT isn't included in the new tables, does it imply that directors will be favoring GPA over MCAT? What was the reason for this change in your opinion?

I think marginal GPA/good MCAT applicants might be selected against, if you will.

I'd be curious about the rationale behind this, too. It seems a bit counter to the recent emphasis on post-bac research experiences. That is, the new guidelines seem to favor applicants with high GPAs AND gap years; however, there's an obvious correlation between lower GPAs and gap-years as well. So in either case, the emphasis on GPA appears to prevail. Though this rationale appears (more) sound when applied to MD-only applicants, I am less convinced it is necessary and sufficient in assessing the desirable qualities of potential physician-scientists. This is a rather interesting discussion. I'm curious what others think.

 

[Lucca]

I think marginal GPA/good MCAT applicants might be selected against, if you will.

I'd be curious about the rationale behind this, too. It seems a bit counter to the recent emphasis on post-bac research experiences. That is, the new guidelines seem to favor applicants with high GPAs AND gap years; however, there's an obvious correlation between lower GPAs and gap-years as well. So in either case, the emphasis on GPA appears to prevail. Though this rationale appears (more) sound when applied to MD-only applicants, I am less convinced it is necessary and sufficient in assessing the desirable qualities of potential physician-scientists. This is a rather interesting discussion. I'm curious what others think.

When PDs and MD/PhD programs have come to campus, their leadership and students frequently express concern about how the length of training can negatively affect the physician-scientist's desire to stay in academics / research in a highly competitive environment when other, more lucrative opportunities present themselves during their early career years (~35-40 y/o for the average MD/PhD doc).

The way I see it there are two potential solutions if the above is true:

1. You somehow shorten the length of training and encourage people to get in the pipeline and get out as fast possible.
2. You attempt to select for candidates even more likely to continue research and academics in spite of the above hazards.

It seems to me that given the complexity, expense, and pace of modern academic research that (1) might be more of a pipe dream than anything else although I doubt anyone would discourage someone who feels ready right out of undergrad from applying. Encouraging a strong academic record with a longer, more sustained research record (in the form of post-bacc research + high GPA) and decreasing the focus on a resource-consuming (in terms of study and expense) exam that really only predicts pre-clinical coursework outcomes. Given that most potential MD/PhD candidates have already self-selected themselves to excel at academic coursework, option (2) might be the most prudent form of action.

I'm only speculating, very interested to hear what the MD/PhDs and @Fencer have to say on the matter.

I'm glad if the MCAT is de-emphasized, personally. It's stressful knowing that the median MCAT at many programs is in the 95th percentile. I would have rather spent more time thinking about research than my MCAT study plan, personally.

 

[ImmunoLove]

When PDs and MD/PhD programs have come to campus, their leadership and students frequently express concern about how the length of training can negatively affect the physician-scientist's desire to stay in academics / research in a highly competitive environment when other, more lucrative opportunities present themselves during their early career years (~35-40 y/o for the average MD/PhD doc).

The way I see it there are two potential solutions if the above is true:

1. You somehow shorten the length of training and encourage people to get in the pipeline and get out as fast possible.
2. You attempt to select for candidates even more likely to continue research and academics in spite of the above hazards.

It seems to me that given the complexity, expense, and pace of modern academic research that (1) might be more of a pipe dream than anything else although I doubt anyone would discourage someone who feels ready right out of undergrad from applying. Encouraging a strong academic record with a longer, more sustained research record (in the form of post-bacc research + high GPA) and decreasing the focus on a resource-consuming (in terms of study and expense) exam that really only predicts pre-clinical coursework outcomes. Given that most potential MD/PhD candidates have already self-selected themselves to excel at academic coursework, option (2) might be the most prudent form of action.

I'm only speculating, very interested to hear what the MD/PhDs and @Fencer have to say on the matter.

I'm glad if the MCAT is de-emphasized, personally. It's stressful knowing that the median MCAT at many programs is in the 95th percentile. I would have rather spent more time thinking about research than my MCAT study plan, personally.

Agree that 1 is a "pipe dream" and really, the point is to select individuals who will be satisfied in the profession despite more lucrative positions available to their peers. I understand fully and completely agree that sustained research experience (e.g. in the form of post-bac gap years) is the greatest indicator of becoming a research-oriented physician-scientist (I'm in favor of this rationale, and there's data to back it up).

The MCAT correlates with step 1 scores, and GPA with P/F in pre-clinical years (if memory serves me right, scores above an MCAT of 27 and GPA of 3-point-something not show any added advantage to passing boards/medical school). The issue isn't whether the MCAT should be de-emphasized, but whether GPA should be so emphasized (which is what the new guidelines propose). There is a greater differential diagnosis for poor GPA than there is for poor MCAT, so if anything, the MCAT is a better "equalizer" among applicants. I agree that it's imperfect, and I'm not arguing that we should use MCAT exclusively (or that it's even better than GPA), but I AM arguing that GPA by itself is not a great indicator of ability, and such an emphasis on GPA alone (as with MCAT alone) is faulty at best. Furthermore, because the uGPA is "set in stone", it cannot reflect more recent abilities which may have required some time to mature; these more recent abilities would best be assessed by post-bacc GPA, but it is unclear how, if at all, the post-bac GPA will be assessed relative to the uGPA.

 

[Lucca]

Agree that 1 is a "pipe dream" and really, the point is to select individuals who will be satisfied in the profession despite more lucrative positions available to their peers. I understand fully and completely agree that sustained research experience (e.g. in the form of post-bac gap years) is the greatest indicator of becoming a research-oriented physician-scientist (I'm in favor of this rationale, and there's data to back it up).

The MCAT correlates with step 1 scores, and GPA with P/F in pre-clinical years (if memory serves me right, scores above an MCAT of 27 and GPA of 3-point-something not show any added advantage to passing boards/medical school). The issue isn't whether the MCAT should be de-emphasized, but whether GPA should be so emphasized (which is what the new guidelines propose). There is a greater differential diagnosis for poor GPA than there is for poor MCAT, so if anything, the MCAT is a better "equalizer" among applicants. I agree that it's imperfect, and I'm not arguing that we should use MCAT exclusively (or that it's even better than GPA), but I AM arguing that GPA by itself is not a great indicator of ability, and such an emphasis on GPA alone (as with MCAT alone) is faulty at best. Furthermore, because the uGPA is "set in stone", it cannot reflect more recent abilities which may have required some time to mature; these more recent abilities would best be assessed by post-bacc GPA, but it is unclear how, if at all, the post-bac GPA will be assessed relative to the uGPA.

Ah I see what you mean. I doubt that the MCAT will be wholly unimportant and will still serve as something of a barometer to give some context to the GPA. Frankly, the median GPA for dual degree programs can't get much higher lol. If the median goes from 3.8 to 3.9 surely no one actually thinks that shift translates to anything meaningful, really

 

[ImmunoLove]

Ah I see what you mean. I doubt that the MCAT will be wholly unimportant and will still serve as something of a barometer to give some context to the GPA. Frankly, the median GPA for dual degree programs can't get much higher lol. If the median goes from 3.8 to 3.9 surely no one actually thinks that shift translates to anything meaningful, really

Now that you mention it, given that the median GPAs are so high at MD/PhD programs, it seems somewhat peculiar to select GPA as an indicator of anything (since the delta would be less pronounced and its effect less pronounced, which affects the stats/interpretation of the data [but I'm just a lowly scientist and not a physician-scientist so what do I know...Actually this is all speculation and has now piqued my curiosity about the spread of GPA and MCAT and outcomes. National survey, anyone?]).

 

[Lucca]

Now that you mention it, given that the median GPAs are so high at MD/PhD programs, it seems somewhat peculiar to select GPA as an indicator of anything (since the delta would be less pronounced and its effect less pronounced, which affects the stats/interpretation of the data [but I'm just a lowly scientist and not a physician-scientist so what do I know...Actually this is all speculation and I has now piqued my curiosity about the spread of GPA and MCAT and outcomes. National survey, anyone?]).

This is the problem with discussions on the PhysSci forum. Everything becomes a research project.

 

[ImmunoLove]

This is the problem with discussions on the PhysSci forum. Everything becomes a research project.

You mean, this is what is awesome about every discussion! I love that there's a way to find an answer!

 

[Lucca]

You mean, this is what is awesome about every discussion! I love that there's a way to find an answer!

Haha don't get me wrong, curiosity is one of my favorite things about people - it just makes settling things very hard lol.

 

[tr]

When PDs and MD/PhD programs have come to campus, their leadership and students frequently express concern about how the length of training can negatively affect the physician-scientist's desire to stay in academics / research in a highly competitive environment when other, more lucrative opportunities present themselves during their early career years (~35-40 y/o for the average MD/PhD doc).

The problem here is you are assuming this is about the actual desire of physician-scientists to stay in research.
If you pay attention to what many of the oldies here are saying, it's not that we have lost our desire to do research.
It's that we literally are not able to do it. Staying in research requires getting funded, and with NIH funding lines at 10%, getting funded is to a large extent a game of roulette.
Bailing to 100% clinical practice is not necessarily a first choice so much as a forced choice.

Changing selection criteria on the front end of this is not going to change what's happening on the back end. There is no way you can use GPA/MCAT to predict who is going to get funded 15 years down the road. Getting funded as a new investigator is about your mentors, your record of productivity, your grantwriting ability, and a large number of chance factors like who happens to review your grant, what else comes down the pike that cycle, whether you are working in an area the NIH wishes to emphasize, etc. Nothing admissions committees are going to be looking at in 22-year-olds will in any way predict that complicated nexus of factors.

 

[Lucca]

The problem here is you are assuming this is about the actual desire of physician-scientists to stay in research.
If you pay attention to what many of the oldies here are saying, it's not that we have lost our desire to do research.
It's that we literally are not able to do it. Staying in research requires getting funded, and with NIH funding lines at 10%, getting funded is to a large extent a game of roulette.
Bailing to 100% clinical practice is not necessarily a first choice so much as a forced choice.

Changing selection criteria on the front end of this is not going to change what's happening on the back end. There is no way you can use GPA/MCAT to predict who is going to get funded 15 years down the road. Getting funded as a new investigator is about your mentors, your record of productivity, your grantwriting ability, and a large number of chance factors like who happens to review your grant, what else comes down the pike that cycle, whether you are working in an area the NIH wishes to emphasize, etc. Nothing admissions committees are going to be looking at in 22-year-olds will in any way predict that complicated nexus of factors.

I have definitely noticed that from other threads and what people have written, I'm just trying to understand what might motivate these changes coming from the top down.

That being said, the people making decisions probably understand the contents of your post just as well and might have other reasons than I originally proposed. I made some presumptions on my own but I am curious as to what these changes might mean for applicants.