Harvard MD vs top 20 MSTP

[mrcdsbenz2000]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Theres a similar thread in the md forum...would you guys consider going to Harvard and take your chances with the second cycle/ non-funded PhD?

edit: so the question is not whether to do an MD or an MD/PhD...it is more whether one would take the funded slot at say WashU or Penn versus an MD spot at Harvard and either a) take your chances at getting funded after the 2nd year or b) do a non-funded PhD or a number of research years within your MD...so yes, a purely academic question...my thinking here is that Harvard excels in so many fields (not only biomedical science, but say philosophy, physics, etc) that choosing Harvard would give you an overall higher quality education than anywhere else...so maybe it would be worth spending the 200k (or 100k if you get funded) in the end? I was talking to some faculty members and it seems that almost half of the current MD/PhDs are second cycle funded?

 

[happydays]

Do this: Get your MD at Harvard, then you'll be able to do a PhD almost anywhere you wish! PhD's are almost always free with stipend, anyway.

 

[SeventhSon]

.

 

[neoserenity333]

as was previously said in the older thread, it depends on your motivations for getting into the MSTP in the first place and also your persuasion (leaning more towards the clinic or research?).

 

[mrcdsbenz2000]

as was previously said in the older thread, it depends on your motivations for getting into the MSTP in the first place and also your persuasion (leaning more towards the clinic or research?).

lets assume we are talking about the typical MSTP applicant with hopes of the 80 research/20 clinic split

 

[mytirf]

lets assume we are talking about the typical MSTP applicant with hopes of the 80 research/20 clinic split

Well Harvard is a good place to be, but here are two considerations...
1. Are any of the other places that you have gotten accepted to, felt right to you? I feel strongly that a good match is better than any ranking, given certain basic education standards which all the top 20 or so schools provide. Also are there people you would be interested in working with at these other schools? This can be a very important consideration, especially if you have a particular research or clinical field in mind.

2. You can also apply for second-cycle funding. At Harvard and many other schools, if you don't get into the MSTP program specifically you can often apply for funding during and after the PhD years. That means, you still have to pay for the first two years, but in general most people get the funding for the PhD and clinical years.

So I think the decision really comes down to how you feel the school matches your career goals and such, and don't discount the importance of a gut feeling.

 

[neoserenity333]

how about harvard vs. top 10* mstp?
that, for me at least, would be a no brainer.
(the MSTP of course 😛 )


*whatever that means...

p.s. do you think US News will ever come out with a ranking for MD/PhD programs? I'm surprised they haven't already. (not that I would necessarily trust their tier list 🙄 )

 

[carrie]

Any MSTP (there are only about 40 programs) would be better than a Harvard MD to me! I say this because I want an education that teaches me how to think about scientific problems and not just treat patients, and I believe that the combined program will teach me that. Any MSTP has gone through a rigourous screening process to get the NIH funding and in that sense I believe puts them all in a pile above the rest.

 

[neoserenity333]

you can also be taught how to think about scientific problems with a quality fellowship after graduating from harvard MD.

 

[tr]

This question makes no sense.

I'm kind of not clear on what it is that you kids think separates Harvard from any other top-flight medical school. Do you really imagine that the name 'Harvard' vs. 'Penn/UCSF/JHU/WashU/insertdesiredschoolhere' is going to make one whit of difference to your residency program application? You'll no doubt get a boost from top-20 vs. state school, but among the top schools I seriously doubt that you get a comparable boost from having attended any particular individual school.

Btw I will be shocked if you can find a single metric on which Harvard students differ significantly from students at any other top school. E.g., for GPA it seems they are neck-and-neck with Mayo and WashU; for MCAT they trail Duke, Columbia, WashU, etc.

http://www.princetonreview.com/testprep/testprep.asp?TPRPAGE=301&type=MCAT-LEARN

 

[huknows00]

I agree that the difference b/t any top school is insignificant. Hehe, it's funny that in a forum with scientists-to-be the most sophisticated analysis we could do is comparing means... If one was to go crazy on this, I had a lecture yesterday in neuronet class on support vector machines, and I think that may be a great way to classify good vs. bad schools. I mean, there are so many features, and each school differ in their relative strengths in each... sounds like a linearly inseperable problem to me... 🙂 I'm not a statistician, any experts in this area?

Anyway, any sophiscated analysis beyond looking at relative prestige may ultimately prove to be futile. I mean, it's like choosing a car, b/t. Mercedes, BWM, Lexus and Acura, Cadillac. They're all good in their own right, but how "good" the car you actually take home is depends on the upgrades YOU choose to put in. In the end, some people may go with the Mercedes (Harvard) or BWM (Hopkins) just because they're better known... I don't have any problem with that... Now, MD/PhDs are like European sports cars, it's not worth the cost (in this case oppourtunity cost) unless you wanna drive REALLY fast.

 

[hawkeey]

how about harvard vs. top 10* mstp?
that, for me at least, would be a no brainer.
(the MSTP of course 😛 )


*whatever that means...

p.s. do you think US News will ever come out with a ranking for MD/PhD programs? I'm surprised they haven't already. (not that I would necessarily trust their tier list 🙄 )

I don't like rankings and I would not take them too seriously. I think they do help bring some recognition to lesser known schools though. The fight among the traditional elite is meaningless though.

US News does have a ranking of Medical Schools in terms of Research

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/med/brief/mdrrank_brief.php

 

[Vader]

Now, MD/PhDs are like European sports cars, it's not worth the cost (in this case oppourtunity cost) unless you wanna drive REALLY fast.

The first word that comes to my mind in association with MD/PhD is definitely not "fast". 😉

 

[mjs]

Theres a similar thread in the md forum...would you guys consider going to Harvard and take your chances with the second cycle/ non-funded PhD?

The way this question is phrased, it's purely 'academic'. Sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously, I wouldn't think about it unless I had to.

 

[epalantequevoy]

can we rephrase the poll question to harvard md vs. top 5 mstp?

 

[neoserenity333]

huknows00,

i love your analogies hahahah they crack me up.
are you a car fanatic?

i'm driving a good ol' toyota down the right side of the highway. gives me time to 😴 & saves me some $ at the mechanic.

 

[kobester]

What kind of question is that?

do you want to do an MSTP?


An MSTP is a long road, you're looking at 8 years. You will get your med school paid for, but if you're not seriously interested in research, you're wasting your time. I'm finishing an MSTP, and I'd do it again. But I realize that many people who do it have no idea what they are going into.

It just seems dumb to me to do all that research without a strong interest in pursuing an academic/research based career. You can get to private practice a lot of different ways, and if you are interested in clinical research, I don't think you need a PhD. A PhD is years of extra training. If you view it as just a means to an end, than don't do it.

I will say this- if an MSTP at a top program has the same test scores and grades as a MD student at Harvard, the MSTP will get just about any residency over the Harvard MD. The Harvard name doesn't get you nearly as much as 4 years committment to research and a PhD for many of the more competitive residencies.

And the talk about paying for Harvard Med and applying later for the PhD? Why would you spend $100K+ for that priviledge? Trust me, you're wasting your $$.

 

[solitude]

What kind of question is that?

do you want to do an MSTP?


An MSTP is a long road, you're looking at 8 years. You will get your med school paid for, but if you're not seriously interested in research, you're wasting your time. I'm finishing an MSTP, and I'd do it again. But I realize that many people who do it have no idea what they are going into.

It just seems dumb to me to do all that research without a strong interest in pursuing an academic/research based career. You can get to private practice a lot of different ways, and if you are interested in clinical research, I don't think you need a PhD. A PhD is years of extra training. If you view it as just a means to an end, than don't do it.

I will say this- if an MSTP at a top program has the same test scores and grades as a MD student at Harvard, the MSTP will get just about any residency over the Harvard MD. The Harvard name doesn't get you nearly as much as 4 years committment to research and a PhD for many of the more competitive residencies.

And the talk about paying for Harvard Med and applying later for the PhD? Why would you spend $100K+ for that priviledge? Trust me, you're wasting your $$.

Good post. That about sums it up.

 

[mrcdsbenz2000]

I disagree here...its not just about money or even getting to the next step ie residency placement etc. Its about the quality of the research and the people you train with, thus ultimately, what you learn...and although Im sure that for schools like hopkins, washu etc, there isnt much of a difference there...I think that for many schools in the top 20...youd be better of in terms of quality of training at harvard. and really, how much does a 100k sacrifice matter in the short term if in the long run you are better prepared to conduct quality research...perhaps the higher level of education will save you some grief in your PI years and thus youd be better able to balance your career as a physician-scientist.

What kind of question is that?

do you want to do an MSTP?


An MSTP is a long road, you're looking at 8 years. You will get your med school paid for, but if you're not seriously interested in research, you're wasting your time. I'm finishing an MSTP, and I'd do it again. But I realize that many people who do it have no idea what they are going into.

It just seems dumb to me to do all that research without a strong interest in pursuing an academic/research based career. You can get to private practice a lot of different ways, and if you are interested in clinical research, I don't think you need a PhD. A PhD is years of extra training. If you view it as just a means to an end, than don't do it.

I will say this- if an MSTP at a top program has the same test scores and grades as a MD student at Harvard, the MSTP will get just about any residency over the Harvard MD. The Harvard name doesn't get you nearly as much as 4 years committment to research and a PhD for many of the more competitive residencies.

And the talk about paying for Harvard Med and applying later for the PhD? Why would you spend $100K+ for that priviledge? Trust me, you're wasting your $$.

 

[kobester]

I disagree here...its not just about money or even getting to the next step ie residency placement etc. Its about the quality of the research and the people you train with, thus ultimately, what you learn...and although Im sure that for schools like hopkins, washu etc, there isnt much of a difference there...I think that for many schools in the top 20...youd be better of in terms of quality of training at harvard. and really, how much does a 100k sacrifice matter in the short term if in the long run you are better prepared to conduct quality research...perhaps the higher level of education will save you some grief in your PI years and thus youd be better able to balance your career as a physician-scientist.

Mentorship is important, without a doubt. It will be the single most important decision you make for your PhD. Harvard may have the most depth of quality mentors out of all institutions, but to think that you can't find mentors as good or better than Harvard faculty anywhere you go (any top 10-20 program) is a mistake.

During your PhD, the idea is to train to become a scientist and hopefully get some nice pubs. It's not to win a nobel prize. And it's not even to necessarily find the field you will work in the rest of your life. It's a mistake to think the nobel laureate at Harvard is necessarily the best mentor. And its not like there aren't plenty of nobel laureates, national academy members, and HHMI investigators at any top program.

I've been through it, and there are people who don't get great training from top labs and people who get great training at lesser known labs.

Harvard is great, no doubt. But I seriously think you are overvaluing the name and degree a lot. I saw from another thread that you got into WashU? I think the more appropriate questions you should ask yourself is how you could take St. Louis for a bunch of years and how serious you are about a career as a physician scientist. Trust me. There a PLENTY of great mentors at WashU. It will not hold you back 1 bit in any stage of your career.

There's a reason why almost nobody in the country gets into an MD/PhD program, and chooses a different MD program only to later apply into the PhD. Any medical student at a decent school can apply and gain acceptance into a PhD program. It's $100K down the drain. Especially if you have acceptances from top Md/PhD programs. And don't think $100K isn't something. As a physician scientist, you're not going to break $100K in salary for a good number of years after med school.

 

[tr]

I think that for many schools in the top 20...youd be better of in terms of quality of training at harvard. and really, how much does a 100k sacrifice matter in the short term if in the long run you are better prepared to conduct quality research...

Huh? You think an MD program is going to prepare you for research more thoroughly than an MD/PhD program??? 😕

The advantage to HST over MD/PhD is that you will finish more quickly. It's the fast-and-dirty route. Hard-core science classes are nice, but they don't prepare you to conduct research. Only conducting research does that. Of course you can segue into a PhD easily from the HST program, but in that case you're doing the MD/PhD anyway, except you're paying for the MD. So if you have $200,000 to spare and it'll make you feel better to say you went to Harvard, go right ahead. Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone but a trust-fund baby would make that choice.

 

[epalantequevoy]

and actually it's not hst that we're talking about here. it's new pathways, if that changes anything.

 

[gbwillner]

and actually it's not hst that we're talking about here. it's new pathways, if that changes anything.

You should go to Harvard.
If you wanted the PhD for real you would not waste time asking these questions.

You can also do research without the PhD, although it will be much tougher for you, and you will probably do crappy projects on how much aspirin you should take for a headache.

you CAN get a PhD anywhere, as someone said, after getting the MD from Harvard, but that is a dumb comment because if you are good enough to get into MD/PhD, you can get into any PhD program you want WITHOUT going to Harvard. Besides, no one does that. Once you get an MD you will go to residency, not PhD. I've never seen it happen.

Going to Harvard gets you residencies maybe as well as an MD/PhD does, and it takes less time. If you really want to do good research and a PhD, why would you ask a question that poses NOT doing just that?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

The whole idea behind the MD/PhD is learning how to do research in a coherent program rather than using post-docs and/or fellowships after med school to do that.

It is NOT about the prestige and it is NOT about getting a dermatology residency. If you care about prestige, yes, a Harvard MD will sound much more prestigious than an MD/PhD from UT Southwestern. If you care about an ultracompetitive residency, they will work equally fine.

In summary, if prestige is most important to you, go to Harvard. If basic science research is most important to you, go to any top 20 MD/PhD. Both will get you into ultracompetitive residencies.

Personally, I can't understand anyone wanting to do research choosing Harvard MD over schools like Penn, WashU, Duke, UCSF, etc. MSTP, not getting trained in research and throwing 100K on it. An MD/PhD is not about the number of labs available (to a degree it is, but for your purposes, there is really no difference between Harvard and any top 20), or the Nobel Laureates. People do superb research at all of the top 20s, only there are fewer PIs as you go down the list. You only need to choose ONE lab for your PhD. You don't need all the facilities of MGH, Brigham and Women's, MIT, Harvard philosophy and physics departments (I don't know who came up with that one!), Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz to do just one measly PhD in the biomedical sciences!

P.S. For the person interested in a philosophy MD/PhD, you probably don't need the MD, and if you insist, the University of Chicago will prepare you just as well (if not better!) in philosophy as will Harvard.

 

[noy]

Agreed - if you want the name, go to Harvard. It wont mean better research, just some debt and a delay of the decision to do the PhD. If you really have to think hard, were you super committed to the PhD? (Remember, you dont need a PhD to do research...)

And, if you want to do your homework and check up on MSTP 'rankings', the closest thing you will get is the NIH rankings, done with the grant renewal every 5 years.

Remember - every MSTP has a competitive NIH grant that is peer-reviewed. So these are the same scientists who will hire you in the future deciding the relative strength and merit of each program.

If I recall correctly, Hopkins got the highest score ever - a rather incredible 1.1 or something, where a 1.4 would usually be considered fantastic. Lower scores are better and they seem to be asymptotic.

 

[pny06doc]

Agreed - if you want the name, go to Harvard. It wont mean better research, just some debt and a delay of the decision to do the PhD. If you really have to think hard, were you super committed to the PhD? (Remember, you dont need a PhD to do research...)

And, if you want to do your homework and check up on MSTP 'rankings', the closest thing you will get is the NIH rankings, done with the grant renewal every 5 years.

Remember - every MSTP has a competitive NIH grant that is peer-reviewed. So these are the same scientists who will hire you in the future deciding the relative strength and merit of each program.

If I recall correctly, Hopkins got the highest score ever - a rather incredible 1.1 or something, where a 1.4 would usually be considered fantastic. Lower scores are better and they seem to be asymptotic.

Do you happen to have the score rankings for the MSTP grants or know where to find such information? Thanks!!

 

[cerulean grass]

Do you happen to have the score rankings for the MSTP grants or know where to find such information? Thanks!!

I'd like a link to that too. I was under the impression that scores were confidential (only NIH and PI have access).

PIs, institutions, and abstracts for NIH grants can be found through the NIH CRISP database, http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generate_screen. You can search using a variety of criteria, such as grant numbers (or wildcards, like %T32%, for MSTP, I think) or project keywords or PI names.

 

[noy]

I'd like a link to that too. I was under the impression that scores were confidential (only NIH and PI have access).

PIs, institutions, and abstracts for NIH grants can be found through the NIH CRISP database, http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generate_screen. You can search using a variety of criteria, such as grant numbers (or wildcards, like %T32%, for MSTP, I think) or project keywords or PI names.

My understanding is that the scores are not released publicly (oops?)

Its worth asking as you travel to different programs (probably after you are accepted) - they have the information and should be willing to share with you. It seems exceptional numbers 'travel through the grapevine', as do programs that get chewed out by the section...

You can get the grant abstracts online at CRISP, that alone will give a nice overview of the program. T32 is institutional training grants, including MSTP.

 

[Habari]

My understanding is that the scores are not released publicly (oops?)

How coy.

Its worth asking as you travel to different programs (probably after you are accepted) - they have the information and should be willing to share with you. It seems exceptional numbers 'travel through the grapevine', as do programs that get chewed out by the section...

You can get the grant abstracts online at CRISP, that alone will give a nice overview of the program. T32 is institutional training grants, including MSTP.

They are not released publicly, and are not meant to be shared at all (not that it's against any "rules"). The score does not constitute a ranking, merely an acceptability for renewal. In fact, they are explicitly not designed for rankings (it's like ranking PI's in a field based upon their recent R01 score: sure it makes sense for the R01, but for the PI?). One could argue that the features of each programs "R01"/T32 are relatively stable, and conducive to ranking, but that would be misinterpreting the content of the grant renewal, and the process of how the score arises. There are a few people that will show this full document to applicants etc... (like I was shown at U Pitt), but in general it isn't meant for consumption beyond the program administrators/faculty.

There are a few schools that have high enough scores to enable them to extend the grant to 5 years, and there are a few schools that have high enough scores in certain areas to have the number of MSTP positions increased (only one school - not hopkins, and certainly not harvard - had this increase on the last renewal). The trend in the last cycle has been to hold the number of slots constant, or decrease them due to NIH funding pressures. While there may be small or large programs, there is a maximum number funded slots by the NIH, with the rest supplemented by private funds (deep private funds in the cases of places like WashU).

Like hopkins, a few other programs have told students/applicants "highest score ever", "#1", (Duke comes to mind during my interview season a few years ago) - but they lack context and in some cases, truth.

It's easy enough to make a ranking with arbitrary categories and weights: given the number of factors to be considered while choosing a program for oneself, one could probably make post-hoc adjustments to have on the order of 15 programs #1 (conjecture). I'm sure some of you have done something similar to this in a data-driven quest for the perfect choice. Maybe for controversy's sake we'll do something like this one day. 😉

In a lamentable desire to make have rankings obviate personal decision-making via external validation, the search for MSTP rankings will probably continue as long as they exist.

This might be more helpful in your decision than rankings (it's been a long time since i've read a science paper with 4 bar graphs as their data):

Science 17 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5763, pp. 1005 - 1007
DOI: 10.1126/science.1121629
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect
Ap Dijksterhuis,* Maarten W. Bos, Loran F. Nordgren, Rick B. van Baaren
Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not always advantageous to engage in thorough conscious deliberation before choosing. On the basis of recent insights into the characteristics of conscious and unconscious thought, we tested the hypothesis that simple choices (such as between different towels or different sets of oven mitts) indeed produce better results after conscious thought, but that choices in complex matters (such as between different houses or different cars) should be left to unconscious thought. Named the "deliberation-without-attention" hypothesis, it was confirmed in four studies on consumer choice, both in the laboratory as well as among actual shoppers, that purchases of complex products were viewed more favorably when decisions had been made in the absence of attentive deliberation.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Hrm. Sounds more like pseudoscience than something that should be published in Science.

 

[Vader]

How coy.

Science 17 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5763, pp. 1005 - 1007
DOI: 10.1126/science.1121629
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect
Ap Dijksterhuis,* Maarten W. Bos, Loran F. Nordgren, Rick B. van Baaren
Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not always advantageous to engage in thorough conscious deliberation before choosing. On the basis of recent insights into the characteristics of conscious and unconscious thought, we tested the hypothesis that simple choices (such as between different towels or different sets of oven mitts) indeed produce better results after conscious thought, but that choices in complex matters (such as between different houses or different cars) should be left to unconscious thought. Named the "deliberation-without-attention" hypothesis, it was confirmed in four studies on consumer choice, both in the laboratory as well as among actual shoppers, that purchases of complex products were viewed more favorably when decisions had been made in the absence of attentive deliberation.

This may explain why many great scientists have an intuitive sense of how to get at the big questions and why breakthroughs often happen in the middle of the night in dreams or in the shower when one isn't yet fully awake.

For MD/PhD applicants, this highlights the importance of looking at all the factors in choosing a program, but then ultimately going with one's gut feeling.

 

[PostalWookie]

Every year, some douchebag starts up this debate. Usually, said idividual has not been accepted to harvard yet.

 

[jjmack]

Every year, some douchebag starts up this debate. Usually, said idividual has not been accepted to harvard yet.

hahah douche bag...

 

[huknows00]

Speaking of accepted or not, does anyone know when HMS send out their acceptances? Does HP, HST and MDPhD send them out all separately? cause that's how I got my interview invites.

I've heard March 9th, but their site said it was March 7th last year.

 

[blkprl]

Any MSTP (there are only about 40 programs) would be better than a Harvard MD to me! I say this because I want an education that teaches me how to think about scientific problems and not just treat patients, and I believe that the combined program will teach me that. Any MSTP has gone through a rigourous screening process to get the NIH funding and in that sense I believe puts them all in a pile above the rest.

well said....

 

[blkprl]

I don't like rankings and I would not take them too seriously. I think they do help bring some recognition to lesser known schools though. The fight among the traditional elite is meaningless though.

US News does have a ranking of Medical Schools in terms of Research

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/med/brief/mdrrank_brief.php

and the rankings are based on how much NIH funding the whole institution gets and has no bearing how well educated the students are.... of course Harvard has the name and hence everyone assumes you will be well educated there.
How often will you see (or for that matter what will you learn from) a PI who has a multi-million dollar grant who spends most of his time at meetings, writing grants, giving away lectures?????

Most graduate students at top reserach schools spend most of their time with post docs and technicians in the PI's lab not the PI himself.

So who have judge for yourself if you want the name or the education

 

[blkprl]

What kind of question is that?

do you want to do an MSTP?


An MSTP is a long road, you're looking at 8 years. You will get your med school paid for, but if you're not seriously interested in research, you're wasting your time. I'm finishing an MSTP, and I'd do it again. But I realize that many people who do it have no idea what they are going into.

It just seems dumb to me to do all that research without a strong interest in pursuing an academic/research based career. You can get to private practice a lot of different ways, and if you are interested in clinical research, I don't think you need a PhD. A PhD is years of extra training. If you view it as just a means to an end, than don't do it.

I will say this- if an MSTP at a top program has the same test scores and grades as a MD student at Harvard, the MSTP will get just about any residency over the Harvard MD. The Harvard name doesn't get you nearly as much as 4 years committment to research and a PhD for many of the more competitive residencies.

And the talk about paying for Harvard Med and applying later for the PhD? Why would you spend $100K+ for that priviledge? Trust me, you're wasting your $$.

 

[blkprl]

Theres a similar thread in the md forum...would you guys consider going to Harvard and take your chances with the second cycle/ non-funded PhD?

edit: so the question is not whether to do an MD or an MD/PhD...it is more whether one would take the funded slot at say WashU or Penn versus an MD spot at Harvard and either a) take your chances at getting funded after the 2nd year or b) do a non-funded PhD or a number of research years within your MD...so yes, a purely academic question...my thinking here is that Harvard excels in so many fields (not only biomedical science, but say philosophy, physics, etc) that choosing Harvard would give you an overall higher quality education than anywhere else...so maybe it would be worth spending the 200k (or 100k if you get funded) in the end? I was talking to some faculty members and it seems that almost half of the current MD/PhDs are second cycle funded?

So this debate is between HArvard MD and WashU MSTP??? 🙄

 

[huknows00]

You know as the Harvard decision date is drawing near, I'm gradually becoming less excited about it. Yes, Harvard does have immense name recognition and resources, but it's still human just like the other schools. If I could go to a top school, and for three more years (hopefully) get a PhD and my school paid for, then what's the compelling reason to give it up and go for MD only?

Wash U and Penn are both great schools and their students are probably just as capable as those at Harvard. If one wasn't too far away and the other toooo close, I would probably find it nearly impossible to resist their funded slots.

 

[tr]

Most graduate students at top reserach schools spend most of their time with post docs and technicians in the PI's lab not the PI himself.

That's not true. Time spent with the PI is mostly proportional to the size of the lab, and there are large and small labs at every institution.

 

[let_there_be_light]

I am sure that this question will keep coming back. Now in 2014, I am asking the question again

Harvard MD or Top 15 MSTP + California Weather, which one do you prefer

Here are are my thoughts and let me know if I am wrong

1) $ considerations

a) Tuition: MSTP saves about $50K/year after-Tax , equivalent , to $70K before tax (Since Tuition Waiver is not taxable)
b) Stipend: MSTP average $30K/year, I assume that this is taxable (is this true ?)
So practically MSTP saves $100K/year before tax $s, for 8 years, that is $800K

On the other hand

If you save 4 years of time by doing MD only, and if you make $200K before tax $ as practicing MD, that is 4X$200K = $800K before tax income

So Financially, it makes even

2) Residence Programs Competitiveness

Does everyone agree that Harvard MD and a Top 15 MSTP MD/Ph.D. creates equal opportunity for competitive residence programs ?

3) Quality of the Programs

I would think that is also a wash. No big differences

4) Reputation

Harvard is Harvard, Harvard Medical School is a big deal to lot of people, this should not be under-estimated
For this, Harvard MD Only would be a winner

5) Opportunity for Academic Medicine

If I want to be a Medical School Professor, conducting research, teaching student, and practicing medicine at University Hospital,
I would not think Harvard MD only is less competitive than a top 15 MSTP graduates. Anyone disagree ?

6) Location, Location, Location

Beautiful California is lot more desirable than cold winter at Boston. This may be an important consideration for many people especially for an 8 year program

Conclusion:

Tough choice. Harvard MD maybe slightly better.

 

[gbwillner]

I am sure that this question will keep coming back. Now in 2014, I am asking the question again

Harvard MD or Top 15 MSTP + California Weather, which one do you prefer

...
Conclusion:

Tough choice. Harvard MD maybe slightly better.

Better for what? Certainly not getting into a research-based career or residency. Also, your money math is wrong. Your net "savings" is the average debt burden over 4 years ~250K. Also, you are comparing 8 vs 4 years. So after 4 years the MD grad is -250K vs the MD/PhD. But the MD grad starts practicing 4 years earlier (also at a time when this money matters most- usually with a young family). They will also earn more in a clinical job than in a research one. It is hard to "make" money during the MSTP- typically you are just treading water. The MD-only candidate will start earning real $$ day one and practice on average 4 more years. If you consider the salary on the back end of those years, you will see the $ incentive to do MD/PhD just doesn't exist.

 

[Maebea]

5) Opportunity for Academic Medicine

If I want to be a Medical School Professor, conducting research, teaching student, and practicing medicine at University Hospital,
I would not think Harvard MD only is less competitive than a top 15 MSTP graduates. Anyone disagree ?

Disagree. 3 years of PI-mentored fellowship research < 4 years of committee-mentored reseach + 3 years of PI-mentored esearch. If your goal is to have a research-centered academic career the MD-PhD is a better bet. If you are more interested in patient-centered academic career, do the MD at Harvard. The patient-centered career will likely pay better, so if earnings potential is a concern, do not do the MD-PhD

 

[Underarchiever]

I am sure that this question will keep coming back. Now in 2014, I am asking the question again

Harvard MD or Top 15 MSTP + California Weather, which one do you prefer

Here are are my thoughts and let me know if I am wrong

1) $ considerations

a) Tuition: MSTP saves about $50K/year after-Tax , equivalent , to $70K before tax (Since Tuition Waiver is not taxable)
b) Stipend: MSTP average $30K/year, I assume that this is taxable (is this true ?)
So practically MSTP saves $100K/year before tax $s, for 8 years, that is $800K

On the other hand

If you save 4 years of time by doing MD only, and if you make $200K before tax $ as practicing MD, that is 4X$200K = $800K before tax income

So Financially, it makes even

2) Residence Programs Competitiveness

Does everyone agree that Harvard MD and a Top 15 MSTP MD/Ph.D. creates equal opportunity for competitive residence programs ?

3) Quality of the Programs

I would think that is also a wash. No big differences

4) Reputation

Harvard is Harvard, Harvard Medical School is a big deal to lot of people, this should not be under-estimated
For this, Harvard MD Only would be a winner
5) Opportunity for Academic Medicine

If I want to be a Medical School Professor, conducting research, teaching student, and practicing medicine at University Hospital,
I would not think Harvard MD only is less competitive than a top 15 MSTP graduates. Anyone disagree ?

6) Location, Location, Location

Beautiful California is lot more desirable than cold winter at Boston. This may be an important consideration for many people especially for an 8 year program

Conclusion:

Tough choice. Harvard MD maybe slightly better.

Do you want to do primary investigative research or just clinical research in your career? For the former, MD from Harvard is not sufficient, and you need multiple years of Post-Doc after medical school or resident training. For the latter, you don't need a degree of MD/PhD. The compensation is similar for clinical track and tenure-track faculty with clinical service responsibility. Some institutes do give slight more compensation to tenure-track faculty (with clinical responsibility) over clinical track one. But neither pathway will earn you as much money as you do in private practice. If you are primarily interested in earning potential, you should not do MD/PhD since it has little utility in surgical departments. Academic medicine requires significant earning sacrifice. If academic medicine is your main interest (which I do not recommend unless you are not so concerned about earning), MD/PhD may reduce your debt since you are not going to earn that much with a MD degree either. A MD/PhD from UCSD or UCLA may have a small edge over a MD from Harvard, (if you are reasonably productive and all other things are roughly equal) in resident programs emphasizing research of large hospitals such as MGH, BWH, UCLA and UCSF.

 

[Shifty B]

This forum format really promotes major necrobumps by putting these "similar threads" that are 10+ years old at the bottom. This thread was literally dead for 8 years.