Harvard Hope?

[R_C_Hutchinson]

---

Members don't see this ad.

so yeah, i just decided that MD/PHD was probably the path for me.
I just got done taking the MCAT (which was a most unpleasurable experience) because my parents paid for it. I can't believe im saying this, because a year ago i was convinced that i'd be a phd and that was that, i had absolutely no interest in medicine. as the year wore on i found out that phd programs are not the promised land for those who are eclectic like myself. The harvard MD/PHD program seems to fit me perfectly, and i've always dreamed of going to Harvard but i keep reading (in threads and online) that i will need a 45 on the mcat and a 4.0 with a nobel prize to be given an interview.

so here are my worries, i hope someone here has some experience with the Harvard MD/PHD program. can adress/advise them.

1. I took the mcat with no prep outside of self-conducted review. this was partially because i wasnt sure about medicine and partially because im, well, (insert euphamism here) poor. which really doesnt help (from what i gather) because im white. That said, i took a free kaplan eval test 3 months before the mcat and got a 37. I hope i improved, but i kinda doubt it.
2. I'm starting this med-school thing late. for the first two years of college all i did outside of school is work at a biotech company (hopefully this will help?) over last summer and tutor writing for the university. oh yeah, and that brings me to my next point. Is there any way i can make this lost time up?
3. I did one other thing, i joined a fraternity. Its a national one, so there is the outside chance that someone from the harvard chapter could help me out, but i doubt it. The guys in my frat are great, so sling stereotypes if you must. the only reason i say this is that i know for the vast majority of professors, liberal politics are like a religion, and people both in the frat and out have advised me not to mention it in my application or during an interview. is this true?
4. I've got the research end of the deal locked down, i should be published this next year, but my medical volunteering is at a big zero right now- essentially any volunteering i do now will look selfish and contrived, no?
5. finally, my majors are biochem (1st major) Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics (2nd major) and Women's studies (minor, its a long story) and yes, im getting out in 4 years (bless you AP's). i've got a 3.8 that prolly isnt going anywhere. At UCLA (my school) that's a ridiculously high GPA as grade inflation is pretty minimal, but for many private schools that's average- is there a way to make sure that schools i apply for dont screw me on this issue (maybe send class rank?)

thanks to anyone who read that entire nonsensical diatribe and double thanks to anyone who responds

 

[Neuronix]

I'm a little confused. How much research experience do you have?

Why exactly do you want to go to Harvard anyway?

 

[calebho501]

I'm also a Microbio, Immunol, Molec Genetics major at UCLA!

See I think the weak part of your application is your clinical experience. YOu really need to convince admissions that you feel comfortable working in a clinic or hospital environment. This is the case even for MD/PhD.

As for the fraternity, I think it'll vary from person to person as to what kind of impression it can make. But one thing is for sure, it won't be very impressive to emphasize it in your application.

Finally, don't set your sight on ONLY one school, especially when Harvard is one of the most competitive schools around. I mean, even people with 45 MCAT and 4.0 GPA can be rejected at every single school. The process is really unpredictable, so maximize your chance by applying to a range of schools.

 

[looseygoosey]

>3. I did one other thing, i joined a fraternity. Its a national one, so there is the outside chance that someone from the harvard chapter could help me out, but i doubt it. The guys in my frat are great, so sling stereotypes if you must. the only reason i say this is that i know for the vast majority of professors, liberal politics are like a religion, and people both in the frat and out have advised me not to mention it in my application or during an interview. is this true?


If you had a leadership role in your fraternity, I would definitely mention it. I discussed with a couple MD/PhDs at Stanford how my fraternity participation would affect my application. They said it would help me immensely if I had played an active role in the leadership of the chapter. I mentioned my leadership role and community service opportunities offered by my chapter on several secondary applications.

(If you didnt know already) Harvard doesn't officially recognize their two campus fraternities (sigmachi and sae) so I doubt that someone from the Harvard chapter would be able to make a difference.

I have several acquaintances in the Harvard program because somehow my school gets 1-3 acceptances each year there. They all have positive comments about the program so go for it but don't limit yourself to Harvard only.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

just an update:
got my mcat - 43S
i think that if im granted an interview i should be ok, will a 3.8 / 43S with standard to above average ec's get me an interview?
what the hell impresses these people? do i need to eat coal and **** diamonds here or what?

 

[Neuronix]

If you answer the two questions I asked a couple weeks ago, I will try to answer yours.

 

[gschl1234]

Originally posted by R_C_Hutchinson
just an update:
got my mcat - 43S
i think that if im granted an interview i should be ok, will a 3.8 / 43S with standard to above average ec's get me an interview?
what the hell impresses these people? do i need to eat coal and **** diamonds here or what?

Congratulations on the great score! I read on the MCAT discussion Forum that 43 was the highest score this year (2 people apparently scored it, although I don't know how the person who posted the message got that information. When I got my MCAT score in April the only statistics included were a few bar graphs with no mention of score range). Good luck with Harvard.

 

[Habari]

though your scores will undoubtedly help you - you really need ot have a good reason for them to accept you into the med school. their program, like ucsf requires you to be accepted seperately to both programs. even if you are sure you want to hst rather than np - you still need to be able to answer 'why medicine' convincingly - and back it up. a fellow mdphd here at my school was a harvard ugrad, published 1st author in science, has great scores and fantastic recs from people who knew the committee members well, but when it came to his np and hst interviews, he pretty much went blank on a convincing reason for why med. on the other hand - another mdphd in my class did get into harvard mstp and was just an all round candidate with unique ec's.

as for the fraternity stuff - like looseygoosey said, certainly mention it if you had a leadership role, but don't count on it helping you at all through indirect means.

i find it hard to imagine that 'haravrd mstp is for me' isn't concomitant with other confounding factors - with that in mind, you should ask yourself if mstp is for you if it isn't going to be harvard, or even if it is.

best of luck.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

in answer to the why harvard question:
i want MDPHD, both for the fact that its ideally what i'd be most happy with/in and think its the program i'd be able to get the most done within (I want to do work with terminal patients with experimental, fresh from the lab treatments for those who are in the "last chance" phase of an illness).

my reason for harvard is (maybe) less admirable. my family 3 or 4 generations back had a history there. then some of those ancestors made some selfish decisions and consequently my parents were raised relatively poor and any money the family had accumulated was lost/squandered. When i was born we were still pretty poor, but through very admirable and very dilligent work by my parents and some smart monetary planning combined with scholarships they were/are able to keep me in UCLA without me having to work for tuition/book/rent money, which i deeply appreciate. Maybe i'm overblowing it, but harvard is my number one because it would be a kind of return to legitimacy for my family and myself.

I dont know if any of that made sense- is that a legit "reason"?

thanks to all who've replied to this thread
ryan

 

[pathdr2b]

I can certainily understand the "why Harvard" question ( I seriously considered it too), but what you have failed to convince us on this thread of is why MD/PhD (I hope that doesn' t sound too harsh). Quite frankly, without substantial research AND clinical expereinces I think you'll have a difficult time being accepted at ANY top 10 school especially Harvard.

My advice would be to get into a research setting and volunteer in a clinical setting over the next year. I'm sure that then with your scores and good letters of rec, you'll get into a great school! Good luck!!!

 

[coldchemist]

I'm a little surprised. I was expecting your answer to "Why Harvard" to be some variation of the tired old "because it's the best" answer. Your answer actually seems to have a little depth. Not the absolute best answer I can think of, but it certainly is good, personal, and tailored to your specific situation. Path is right, though. Work on your clinical exposure and keep your research strong. You've at least got a good shot.

 

[Neuronix]

My first question was still not answered. How much research experience do you have? You still have no publications correct?

The answer to whether or not you are competitive enough for a top school is contigent on the answer to that question.

About clinical experience, it can only help, but I know several people with strong research backgrounds and virtually no clinical experience (e.g. my roommate, also Penn MD/PhD) who got into top programs. MD/PhD programs are mostly evaluating their candidates for the potential to be basic science researchers. I think most programs really measure themselves on a basic science stick, and so I don't think most programs care if their applicants are not very clinically oriented. The MD evaluation sheet at Baylor even says something to the effect of "substantial research experience may be substituted for clinical experience, especially for those interested in academic medicine or the MD/PhD program."

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

yeah, sorry about missing the research q's
im currently a third year, so i still have *some* time. I'm on a research project now that hopes to publish by the end of winter (its me and one UCLA funded postdoc researcher) and then i (hopefully) will have a scholarship to conduct research of my choosing (which i've already outlined, but which is pretty out there and so could easily fail, leaving me with one pub).
as for the clinical side, i plan to shadow a doctor (who is one of the greatest people i've met thus far at UCLA) starting this coming summer- i know its last minute etc. but i just decided on going into any kind of md program this summer, so i certainly have some catching up to do
thanks to all who reliped, i genuinely appreciate the responses
ryan

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by R_C_Hutchinson
I'm on a research project now that hopes to publish by the end of winter (its me and one UCLA funded postdoc researcher)

How long have you been on this project? Any projects before this one and how long were you on them?

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

Originally posted by Neuronix
How long have you been on this project? Any projects before this one and how long were you on them?

Just started with this one (three weeks ago?) as for previous research- does research conducted in private industry (i worked at an antibody lab and did some endotoxin interference research for them) that would (obviously, trade secret) never be published count? I did that for about 4 months. in total i should have more than a year and a half of combined research experience by the time I apply (more than 2 by the time i actually go there)- is this enough? as for clinical experience, i'll only have about 6 months- again, is this enough?

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by R_C_Hutchinson
in total i should have more than a year and a half of combined research experience by the time I apply (more than 2 by the time i actually go there)- is this enough? as for clinical experience, i'll only have about 6 months- again, is this enough?

In my estimate your clinical experience is fine. However, your basic science experience is lacking. 1 1/2 years of research with your stats could easily get you into a top-20 program, but it's unlikely you will end up at Harvard. The people who end up at Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF, etc tend to have been doing research continuously since HS or Freshmen year, usually with publications. Would anyone else like to confirm or deny this?

There are a number of people around here from last year with similar stats and even more research experience who did not even get interviewed at the big H. I suggest that you broaden your horizons a bit.

 

[medhopeful08]

Neuronix,

did u apply to the Harvard HST program? If so, what are your perceptions about it?

thanks for all your helpful insights!

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by medhopeful08
did u apply to the Harvard HST program? If so, what are your perceptions about it?

Yes, I did apply. My perception is that it's hard to get into as they rejected my sorry ass without an interview 🙂 Sir William Osler from SDN is there, and you might be able to get some feedback out of him if you're interested. I know there is a MD/PhD student who posts on here from there once and awhile, but the name escapes me. If you look back you might be able to find it (I'm a lil busy). I can get some comment from people who interviewed there (Habari + two friends here at Penn, one of which turned Harvard MD/PhD down) if you'd like.

AIM me sometime if you're interested. My screenname is Neuronix2.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Neuronix
[B My perception is that it's hard to get into as they rejected my sorry ass without an interview 🙂[/B]

I only know 2 people that have been accepted to Harvard and they both had about as much clinical experience and research experience.(A few years of both) I guess my point is that if you're shooting for the top school in the world, why leave anything to chance? I'd make sure EVERYTHING in my app was right on point that way if you're rejected you can at least say you gave it your best shot.

 

[Habari]

In my estimate your clinical experience is fine. However, your basic science experience is lacking. 1 1/2 years of research with your stats could easily get you into a top-20 program, but it's unlikely you will end up at Harvard. The people who end up at Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF, etc tend to have been doing research continuously since HS or Freshmen year, usually with publications. Would anyone else like to confirm or deny this?

There are a number of people around here from last year with similar stats and even more research experience who did not even get interviewed at the big H. I suggest that you broaden your horizons a bit.

i wouldn't agree with the 'continuously through college' thing about people who get into the schools you mentioned. i didn't have publications, nor have i done research continuously in college - but interviewed at all 3 and was accepted at ucsf. for people in my program who were accepted at hopkins [3 peopel in my class i think] and harvard [1] they have widely varying backgrounds and stories. i know 3 students at harvard mstp - and 2 of them have very different backgrounds [bailey39 would be a great person to ask - better to have 1st hand information].

harvard interviews quite a few people - last year they had 5 interview dates [the 5th tacked on at the end] with about 20-25 people at each; with about 100 interviewed total [this is rough, but you get an idea]. this is about the same as penn; more than cornell; more than hopkins/sf. the groups of interviewees were pretty much overlapping at cornell/sf/hopkins/harvard.

again, it's better to ask people who are in their respective programs about their experiences rather listening to anecdotal information.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

so what i'm getting from this is that if you want to be an MD/PHD you have to have known that from your senior year of high school? man, i barely even knew about college then. kinda sad that people are not allowed any time to find their place, but i guess its fair, someone who's wanted and gone after (and know about) this for that long deserves it over someone like me.

 

[dan0909]

no way mann...who cares how long someone has wanted it...id rather have a better doctor than a crappy one who's wanted to be one longer...

 

[bailey39]

Hi there-- As habari mentioned, I'm a first-year at harvard, and the first notion that I want to dispel is that "you had to know about the MSTP process since high school." You can definitely take time to find your place, and all schools definitely appreciate that. I was a humanities major (albeit with one year lab exper and a bunch of grad level science classes) as an undergrad-- I then took two years off to do research, in the US (NIH) and abroad.

In fact, seven (out of 12) of us took time off--four of us for two years or more. Also, my classmates have worked in more countries than I can count, and most have demonstrated a really strong interest in areas that can be related to science, but not necessarily directly--there are starters of non-profits, clinics in developing countries, and there?s strong interest in human rights/public health. While we're all pursuing PhDs in basic science, we have pretty interesting ideas of how we may to utilize them...Also, since the program is affiliated with MIT and the Harv-Grad school, they take a number of Engineers and theoretical scientists (chem, phys), which is different from many other programs. We do have a really diverse range of extracurrics/life experiences?some pretty wild ones?habari?s ?different backgrounds? definitely sums us up well.

Also, I don?t want to be too harsh, but really look around at other schools. Going to Harvard will not return or provide ?legitimacy? to a family, a person, or anything else for that matter. There are reasons to come here, but that is not one of them. Like everywhere else, this MSTP program definitely has its strengths and its weaknesses. As habari and others know, I had a really tough time deciding, with Wash U (it?s absolutely amazing?that was the hardest to say no to!) and a few others as my own choices. You?re all going to have some great options. From any of these programs, you can go just about anywhere and do anything?you guys are going to have great choices?good luck!

 

[xanthines]

If you wouldn't mind, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could spare a few precious mintues to elaborate on Harvard's weaknesses. I've heard that the regular PhD program is pretty competitive and that collaborative projects between grad students don't happen very frequently. Frankly, I like collaborative projects. I do a little work, and my name goes on a paper! If someone does a few experiments that will bolster my project, I don't have any problems including them on my pubs. ( I work as a lab tech now, and that's how I currently operate)

-X

Originally posted by bailey39
...reasons to come here, but that is not one of them. Like everywhere else, this MSTP program definitely has its strengths and its weaknesses. ...

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by Habari
again, it's better to ask people who are in their respective programs about their experiences rather listening to anecdotal information.

Exactly. Which is why I was referring the op to others for advice. Thank you for coming up with bailey's name; I was inbetween exams and it slipped my mind. Nevertheless, do you disagree with my estimation of the op's chances? Regardless, in some ways it can be better to get the opinions of those outside of programs who have had experiences with those programs. We all know that people are cheerleaders in their respective programs and that they always try to sell their programs. Those who have been involved in some other way, but with no attachment, often provide a unique and interesting perspective.

In response to your question RC, the problem is really that it's all about competition. If someone has been doing research for a long time (and there's alot of them out there), they just have a better app from all the experience. Wouldn't you feel the same way if you were in the adcom's shoes? Still, I suppose I should have phrased my last post differently. What you need is extensive research experience, and as jot and bailey have pointed out, you can get that after undergrad as well. I took a year off myself to get more research experience. Without that, I'm certain I would not have done as well in the admissions game.

 

[noy]

Originally posted by R_C_Hutchinson
so what i'm getting from this is that if you want to be an MD/PHD you have to have known that from your senior year of high school? man, i barely even knew about college then. kinda sad that people are not allowed any time to find their place, but i guess its fair, someone who's wanted and gone after (and know about) this for that long deserves it over someone like me.

I'm sure this is not the case... I only came up with this idea perhaps a few months before I applied, but had dated someone going into medicine so I knew the ropes...

Once I figured out what was needed, I steered myself to doing medically relevant research, in contrast with the in-depth & interesting but hard engineering research of before.

I chose to sacrifice a lot of money for this experience for one main reason: to know what I was getting myself into. This was not to make me look better on paper (I'm sure it helped a little), but to see if I would be doing myself (and the program) a disservice by jumping into something new so suddenly.

All my previous experiences I did for myself, and fit in well with this plan of medical research. Now I can finally sit on my porch and know I am going into something that makes me feel good inside. It doesn't really matter when you discover that, because you should be the curious, diverse, intelligent person long before you ever know there are combined programs.

Did it take years of grooming? No... the premed office said I should be getting letters since freshman year. I got them all in 3 months, from january to april, 8 or so solid letters (they did not send them all out). Studied for the MCAT's from scratch in 4 months, without taking a bio course in the previous 6 years (I did well). It all can be done if you want it, and thankfully it has worked out for me. (although I am in the middle of the process and there are many schools to go!...)

Someone who wanted it longer make get a better chance at exploring their options, But the person who deserves it the most is the one who is the best fit, hands down.

My only advice: if you can't do it all and get it all organized quickly, including MCAT's in April & applying early (some secondaries out in august), then wait a year. It will be much less stressful.

 

[noy]

Originally posted by xanthines
If you wouldn't mind, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could spare a few precious mintues to elaborate on Harvard's weaknesses. I've heard that the regular PhD program is pretty competitive and that collaborative projects between grad students don't happen very frequently. .....

-X

This seems to happen everywhere I go - people are ragging on the Harvard program, and I can't tell what is just jealousy and what is rooted in reality.

I really like MIT, and its made out to be a jungle of egos and empires. I really want to see for myself.

It seems everyone mentions in a desrcription of their program "well, unlike certain H schools in boston, we have teamwork/dont overwork students to suicide/collaborate among labs/dont have such cutthroat competition/etc..."

It can't be that bad, if they produce many decent folks, and students DO end up choosing the program...

Makes me really wonder what its like from the inside. PM'ing me is fine.

 

[looseygoosey]

Originally posted by noy
This seems to happen everywhere I go - people are ragging on the Harvard program, and I can't tell what is just jealousy and what is rooted in reality.

I agree with this completely. Everywhere i have interviewed so far, an interviewer has spent several minutes telling me why i shouldnt go to Harvard even though i never mentioned any interest in going there. Hahvahd/MIT seems to be a decent program and all but I dont think any MSTP should warrant such an inferiority complex that some programs seem to have. If anything, the interviewers' comments sparked interest in Harvard/MIT and detracted from their program.

In an even more bizarre event, a couple interviewers at different schools started ragging on U of Washington out of nowhere. It was very strange as if they were ordered to say that. Do MSTP committee members around the country take bets/odds on where a particular applicant might end up and then their hardest to convince the applicant otherwise? I wonder how much money is riding on these bets.

 

[pbp4]

this whole idea of having to do an MD/PhD at a particular school, albeit a great one, is nuts (altough i am oddly drawn to it). if a few years ago you did not want to be in medicine and now you have get in at harvard. this just crys out. it seem to me you want to get into an elite club and into the most difficult school- i hope you remember when and if you accomplish this goal-you will have decades of work ahead. in addition, i doubt you will pick up more women once your in. i conducted my own experiment on this one- just lied about the havard thing. anyway-
good luck-
p

 

[adesua]

More info on the weaknesses of HMS will be appreciated. Factual has preference over anecdotal but the latter could serve as a starting point for further investigation.


My 2 cents to RC:
RC, I think what is even more important than getting extensive (in terms of time spent) research experience is understanding the research you are doing. Know where the research is going. Read papers and educate yourself. Afterall there may not be enough space in your application or enough time in your interviews to talk about ALL your research experiences if you have a lot of them; and when it comes to describing your research experience, sometimes what you try to gain in breadth you may lose in depth. So my biggest advice is try to get a solid experience whether it lasts for 1 and a half years or for 4 years.

Cheers.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

quick update for any/all who care:
so i guess i'm on my way. I've actually talked to quite a few folks about this, mostly in real life, but i certainly do appreciate all the cyber-help as well. I have a research project that's pretty much me and a post-doc doing really interesting epigenetics work and we'll probably be getting published, which is really exciting because i never thought anything like this would happen. there are conflicts, however, with other lab's works, so everything is very dicey and there is ample politic-ing in there on a daily basis.

The more i read through these boards, however, the less chance i feel i have- my stats are good (dare i say "impressive"?), but i'm just not the golden boy everyone else seems to be and i really loathe the idea of doing something to bolster an application. by the time i apply for MD or MDPHD i'll only have 6 months of clinical experience- to top that i've already been rejected by medical volunteering programs because its "obvious" to them I dont have the commitment to medicine i should have seeing as it's already my third year. I guess at this point i'm either going to blow up big or fall flat on my face. wish me luck guys, thanks for all the help thus far.

PS- as for the "just harvard" thing, I think i came off wrong- my first commitment is topragmatic science, and hence MDPHD. the only reason I started this thread was to see if there was hope for me at the big H, which, honestly, does fascinate me given my history. I'll probably, at this point, apply to 12 MDPHD and 10 MD schools, most in top 40 with harvard being the only "huge-name" out there. I guess i'll just pray for an interview.

 

[Neuronix]

Hi RC, I'll chime in again. I think if you continue doing research with or without pubs and with your good numbers, you will get in somewhere good. I've always thought that. Keep your head up. In fact, I worry that you might be selling yourself short and not applying to the highest caliber schools you can apply to. If you want to talk about this, PM me.

BTW, I know several people here at Penn who had no clinical experience going in. I certainly met others on the interview trail who were the same way.

Good luck!

 

[fuzzylogic]

pretty interesting analysis. i am here at boston children's (my lab is next to dr. andrews's) and one of my good friends is an mstp here at harvard. based on his experience, the mstp here at harvard takes care of their students extremely well. the only complaint that students have here is that the phd phase can take a long long time.

in terms of your research experience, harvard is extremely research oriented (bench research). though it is not required, working over 2 yrs in a lab can definitely give you an edge in terms of getting an interview (especially if you have a publication). my friend did not have a publication before coming here. however, he did have an extensive bench research experience as an undergrad.

it sounds like you do have pretty good credentials. if you push on your bench research more, that can definitely improve your chance getting an interview here. but, you do have to ask yourslef why you want to be at harvard. it's a simple question. but, you definitely need to think through it!!

 

[looseygoosey]

Originally posted by medhopeful08


did u apply to the Harvard HST program? If so, what are your perceptions about it?

thanks for all your helpful insights!

I was really impressed by the HST (health science and technology) program. When i interviewed at Harvard (NP/HST/MDPHD) a couple weeks ago, i decided to stay a while longer and attend a couple HST classes. The course that astonished me the most was their first year musculoskeletal pathophysiology. The lecture covered fairly hard-core biomechanics and how the principles of biomechanics lends itself to deeper understanding of how the bones and muscles function and how they dont.

From the several HST students i spoke with, HST lends itself to those with Engineering/quantitative backgrounds because of the problem sets and "thought-based" exams (FINALLY, a program without massive amounts of multiple choice). However, HST, especially first semester of MS1, is very difficult. In the first semester, HSTers take anatomy, pathology, immunology, genetics at MIT, and a course i cant remember (biostatistics?). Regardless, they are in class/lab from 8:30-6PM at least, 5 days per week. Fortunately, after first semester, there are relatively few classes so that the students can do research.

Many MD HSTers take 5 years so that they can devote a significant time to research and many join the MD/PhD class after their second year(thats why Harvard has 140 MD/PhD students). Almost all end up in academic medicine in some form.



To RC:

6 months of clinical experience is more than many MD-only applicants have. An MD HST had no clinical experience at all so dont worry.

For me (GlcNAc would concur), Harvard had the most difficult MD/PhD interviews of any school so be prepared to field tough (and excellent) questions about your research.

With your numbers and research, I would apply to all of the top schools that interest you because you will probably have much better luck than you expect.

Good Luck!!!

 

[fullefect1]

R_C_Hutchinson I worship your 43 on the MCAT. Wow, what i would do to have that when i take the test in about 2 years.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

Originally posted by fullefect1
R_C_Hutchinson I worship your 43 on the MCAT. Wow, what i would do to have that when i take the test in about 2 years.

haha, wow, that's very flattering, thanks.

1. best advice i can give is the following:
take the most brutal undergrad schedule you can. I carried a ton of units, took hard honors chem, math and physics classes and made sure to take an average of one humanities class a quarter to maintain the ol' sanity. Yes, it hurts the GPA- i'll be out with a 3.8 at best and a 3.65 at worst, so im no 4.0 golden boy, but i'll get my moneys worth, two degrees and a minor in something i enjoyed studying. If you do this you WILL cook the mcat. just be careful not to cook yourself in the process- (hopefully future) Dr. R_C_ prescribes partying once a week.

2. second-best advice i can give is to download the stuff posted at www.bruinmap.org . its my free-mcat prep site for UCLA students (after we dodged getting shut down, thank God) and i post all the "handouts" i give to people i help prep. granted they're focused at the mid range 25-30 diagnostic hoping for a 32+ on the real thing crowd, as well as those focusing on self-prep, but they have an insight or two. they're not on the main page, but click around and you'll find them.

 

[wallstreet1986]

just an update:
got my mcat - 43S
i think that if im granted an interview i should be ok, will a 3.8 / 43S with standard to above average ec's get me an interview?
what the hell impresses these people? do i need to eat coal and **** diamonds here or what?

Don't you dare complain about those kind of stats. I think 3.5/25 MCAT at least for med school and good ECs should get you into a decent program if you have any kind of personality. You must be horribly insecure and/or a big dork if you think those kind of damn good scores aren't going to get you anywhere. And it's a turn off hearing someone complain about that kind of thing. We would all love to have a 43 on our MCATs. Congratulations to you for getting it and quit complaining.

 

[Neuronix]

I think 3.5/25 MCAT at least for med school and good ECs should get you into a decent program if you have any kind of personality.

For MD/PhD? A 3.5/25 is very unlikely.

 

[agp4]

RC, your numerical stats are jaw-dropping, so I don't think you'll have any trouble there. I just want to urge you to look at other schools also. I have no doubt you'll easily get into some top-20 programs (probably a few top-10s too). I think you should look hard at Harvard's stats before hedging all your bets on it. I don't want to sound like I'm coming down on Harvard, but it takes a special kind of person to endure their program.

Before I say anything, I should mention that I ended up being rejected from their MD/PhD program but did interview HST before I was rejected there too (I think its only fair to mention my bias). When I went there, I was told that even as a normal HST med student, its very easy to get into a PhD program after the second year to make your own home-made MD/PhD. The thing is that there's a lot more independece required of you - you'll have to arrange everything on your own, unlike the cushion that most MSTP programs provide. Plus, I was concerned by the statistic that most students take 9-10.5+ years for their degrees. That seemed far too long to me (most MSTP programs hover at 7-8 yrs). Someone told me that Harvard was being warned by the NIH MSTP committee for that (I never found out if it was true), so that might be changing. Finally, I have no idea if there is credence to any of the rumors of the hyper-competitiveness of students and labs at Harvard, but if any of them are true, God bless the poor souls that have to suffer through it.

Now, I think there's nothing wrong with setting your sights to Harvard - after all (I'm admit it grudgingly), it churns out some of the most brilliant doctors and scientists in the world every year and the HST program is an engineer's dream come true. Its just that if you boost your research some, you could basically have your pick of at least a dozen comparable programs. In the end, it'll end up being which place you liked the most after your interview. Keep an open mind, and good luck (though I doubt you'll need it)! Well, sorry for sounding like a wind-bag - I didn't intend to make this post sound like a lecture.