Harvard vs Stanford both full tuition

[themagictaco]

Hi All,

Very surprised and grateful for how this cycle has gone. Tiny bit of background I am interested in competitive surgical specialty and will most likely be applying internal MSTP at whichever program, with the goal of one day owning a lab. Was pretty convinced on Stanford because I thought outcomes were the same, until I found some juicy data online showing Harvard med graduates have a drastically higher RO1 pull rate and now I'm back to being lost. Would really appreciate some insight/shoves in the right direction.

Personal background: Grew up in Cali/went to north Cal for undergrad. low-income background. Want to eventually settle in north Cal and live in SF one day.

Harvard Pros
-Its Harvard which apparently opens a bunch of doors? Idk what/who these doors are or if they are in the room with us right now but seems to be the case. As I mentioned before Harvard graduates have higher RO1 pull than Stanford which is a huge compulsion for me. data found here: What makes a top research medical school? A call for a new model to evaluate academic physicians and medical school performance - PubMed. papers not perfect and there are confounders but the data still point in a very specific direction.
-Lay prestige, seems silly but it does annoy me hearing the responses my non-med friends give when I say I might say no to HMS LOL
-Internal MSTP is easily attainable (99% acceptance rate according to them)
-Match list strong with great past matches to UCSF (honestly seems even better at Stanford than this) and Stanford as well as option of staying at HMS hospital.
-Vandy leads to close community
-Finacial aid is set and will not change + Reach seems like a cool opportunity
-I like cities and Boston seems neat
-Not like a real pro but would be the first person from my undergrad to go there in over 20 years which is sick af

Harvard Cons
-No support network in the area, although I am pretty confident I can form one
-It's cold its cold its cold
-While I def vibed with students here, felt better at Stanford
-Student body not as diverse, most are very well off
-Students are not as happy as they are as Stanford
-Curriculum is rigid and admin is well known for not budging on many things.


Stanford Pros:
-Family is in California and have close friends in the Bay Area
-Weather is fantastic I love the beach
-Close to SF which I love as a city
-Vibed super-duper well with admits
-Med student community seems very tight knit here
-Students are very happy and engaged in all kinds of stuff.
-Research Opps are great here too, have the option of doing Berg Scholarship if I decide PHD is too much.
-Hyper Flexible curriculum
-Match list fantastic as well.
-Surgical department of interest seems very close knit and very open to student involvement.
-Way higher diversity/cool/challenging backgrounds in my potential class

Stanford Cons
-Have to reapply for financial aid every year and can see my family's finances improving next year IE aid might go down
-Whole thing about graduates are less successful at getting RO1s.
-Internal MSTP is competitive, and data not shared.
-It's not Harvard
-Palo Alto just isn't it, but honestly not too bad
-Thats it

Reflection: I feel like I know I will be happier at Stanford but am very afraid of sacrificing the potential professional benefits that come with Harvard. And it's not to say I won't be happy at HMS I just don't know, while there is certainty at Stanford. I am a very social person so forming a community should not be too much of a problem, but you never know. Money might change too at Stanford which would suck. I also know that I have a great shot at matching back to the bay from HMS. Would appreciate any thoughts/angry words on the subject.

Thanks all.

-Taco

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[peroxisome]

Having your family + support system in the Bay is really enticing, especially if you're trying to do an internal MSTP and stay there for a while. As a CA resident my whole life, weather is also really hard to beat. And tbh it's ~Stanford~ which is an INCREDIBLE institution... I think that turning Harvard down for Stanford (especially given weather and proximity to loved ones) is not radical in the slightest. I think that happiness is a massive (if not the most important) factor in choosing your school, and you will make it work at Stanfy!!! I'd say maybe talk around w/ Stanford students re the internal MSTP thing in case that doesn't pan out, and see what your other options would be in that case. Congratulations & you got this!

 

[theoceanman]

Stanford and Harvard, in most ways, are equal in prestige although Lil Pump and some others may disagree, saying Harvard is better. Despite this, Stanford seems right for you as its cons can be managed better while Harvard's cons will be much more difficult to manage, from your list or so it seems. Congratulations on an amazing cycle!

Stanford > Harvard

 

[i_like_apple_sauce]

If you want to apply internally to MSTP, I feel like you only really have one option unless you can pry the internal application data from the Stanford MD-PHD program director to get a better picture.

The match differences seem like a wash. Maybe Stanford matches more students into California, but that probably speaks more to the preferences of the graduates in both schools.

With regards to Harvard opening more doors, I feel like any professional advantage is negated by you going to Stanford, honestly. Apparently Stanford's other professional schools (law, business) are better regarded than Harvard's nowadays for what it's worth because of the entrepreneurial edge. If your professional interests are related to startup/biotech, I would argue that Stanford gives you a greater advantage because of it's proximity to Silicon Valley/overall culture and the data in this Linkedin post reflects that: Ilya Strebulaev on LinkedIn: #stanford #stanfordgsb #venturecapital #startups #innovation #technology | 25 comments

Also, the discrepancy in the grant number in the article you posted is probably more of a function of the recruitment priorities of the schools. Stanford probably places considerably more value on "diversity/cool/challenging backgrounds" like you mentioned.

I would probably prioritize support network when the schools are this close but idk 🤷

 

[themagictaco]

If you want to apply internally to MSTP, I feel like you only really have one option unless you can pry the internal application data from the Stanford MD-PHD program director to get a better picture.

The match differences seem like a wash. Maybe Stanford matches more students into California, but that probably speaks more to the preferences of the graduates in both schools.

With regards to Harvard opening more doors, I feel like any professional advantage is negated by you going to Stanford, honestly. Apparently Stanford's other professional schools (law, business) are better regarded than Harvard's nowadays for what it's worth because of the entrepreneurial edge. If your professional interests are related to startup/biotech, I would argue that Stanford gives you a greater advantage because of it's proximity to Silicon Valley/overall culture and the data in this Linkedin post reflects that: Ilya Strebulaev on LinkedIn: #stanford #stanfordgsb #venturecapital #startups #innovation #technology | 25 comments

Also, the discrepancy in the grant number in the article you posted is probably more of a function of the recruitment priorities of the schools. Stanford probably places considerably more value on "diversity/cool/challenging backgrounds" like you mentioned.

I would probably prioritize support network when the schools are this close but idk 🤷

Just got data for internal mstp at Stanford this year they had 8-10 apply for 4 spots

 

[GoSpursGo]

Just got data for internal mstp at Stanford this year they had 8-10 apply for 4 spots

Welp. If you want MSTP, it seems like HMS is the way to go. Other pieces are important, but if your goal truly is MSTP I don't see how you get around this.

 

[deleted1065184]

That article is from 2015, so it's unlikely those data are still accurate 8 years later. But even then, where you do your postdoc and who you do it with have a much bigger impact on R01 acceptance rate as a new investigator.

Having said that, Harvard having higher MD-to-MSTP acceptance rate plus you potentially losing aid at Stanford due to having to reapply yearly might make a strong case for Harvard.

One thing you need to ask before factoring in that high transfer acceptance rate, though, is what percentage of those transfers are fully funded like other MSTPs. Not all Harvard MD/PhD students are fully-funded.

 

[deleted1136042]

Not advice, but congrats man. You're living everyone's dreams!

 

[deleted1017183]

That article is from 2015, so it's unlikely those data are still accurate 8 years later. But even then, where you do your postdoc and who you do it with have a much bigger impact on R01 acceptance rate as a new investigator.

Having said that, Harvard having higher MD-to-MSTP acceptance rate plus you potentially losing aid at Stanford due to having to reapply yearly might make a strong case for Harvard.

One thing you need to ask before factoring in that high transfer acceptance rate, though, is what percentage of those transfers are fully funded like other MSTPs. Not all Harvard MD/PhD students are fully-funded.

Need based aid that has to be calculated/assessed year after year could potentially make your debt more volatile than you need it to - huge thing to consider really.

 

[deleted1065184]

Need based aid that has to be calculated/assessed year after year could potentially make your debt more volatile than you need it to - huge thing to consider really.

Yes, and equally huge is the prospect of having to take out *any* loans when doing an MD/PhD. But if OP can guarantee full funding upon transfer at Harvard, I 100% agree with you.

 

[premedasaurus]

N=1 here, but I feel like I fall into the bucket of cool/challenging backgrounds and I was accepted at HMS and pre-II R at Stanford. I haven't been to Stanford so I cannot comment on the diversity of the class. I would say though, make sure that there is an actual difference in diversity vs a perceived difference. A lot of people's backgrounds, like mine, cannot be gleaned from simply looking at them.

Congrats on your INCREDIBLE CYCLE!!! Taco for the win!!!!

 

[spezi321]

That article is from 2015, so it's unlikely those data are still accurate 8 years later. But even then, where you do your postdoc and who you do it with have a much bigger impact on R01 acceptance rate as a new investigator.

Having said that, Harvard having higher MD-to-MSTP acceptance rate plus you potentially losing aid at Stanford due to having to reapply yearly might make a strong case for Harvard.

One thing you need to ask before factoring in that high transfer acceptance rate, though, is what percentage of those transfers are fully funded like other MSTPs. Not all Harvard MD/PhD students are fully-funded.

During the Harvard revisits, the Harvard MD-PhD director (Loren Walensky) commented that 100% of internal affiliates to the MD-PhD program have been funded over the past few years (as in, the 2nd half of the MD is funded). Other students at HMS have validated this is true based on their friends/their own experiences affiliating. They definitely are very supportive of internal applicants and allocate a certain amount of funding for this each year because they expect a lot of people to be interested.

 

[deleted1065184]

During the Harvard revisits, the Harvard MD-PhD director (Loren Walensky) commented that 100% of internal affiliates to the MD-PhD program have been funded over the past few years (as in, the 2nd half of the MD is funded). Other students at HMS have validated this is true based on their friends/their own experiences affiliating. They definitely are very supportive of internal applicants and allocate a certain amount of funding for this each year because they expect a lot of people to be interested.

That's good to know, are they funded to the same degree as MSTPs? Are they funded by the MSTP or separate means? And lastly, how often do they have to take out loans?

 

[spezi321]

That's good to know, are they funded to the same degree as MSTPs? Are they funded by the MSTP or separate means? And lastly, how often do they have to take out loans?

Well your first two years of the MD won't be funded, but once you affiliate into the program, your PhD is funded (by your graduate department) and your last two years of the MD are funded (by institutional funds I believe). I think the stipend you get each year should be the same as the people who applied MSTP. According to my understanding, they are not funded specifically by the MSTP (as the MSTP is NIH-allocated funds specifically for MD-PhD students who apply to it), but I'm not sure. I don't think whether you are funded by MSTP or other institutional funds will ultimately make a huge difference, as long as you're getting the $$.

I'm not sure how often people have to take out loans, but probably less often than MD-only since you're ultimately paying for less tuition. Of course, this comes with the cost of having to take more years for training, delaying when you will get a job and start working as a physician-scientist.

 

[deleted1065184]

Well your first two years of the MD won't be funded, but once you affiliate into the program, your PhD is funded (by your graduate department) and your last two years of the MD are funded (by institutional funds I believe). I think the stipend you get each year should be the same as the people who applied MSTP. According to my understanding, they are not funded specifically by the MSTP (as the MSTP is NIH-allocated funds specifically for MD-PhD students who apply to it), but I'm not sure. I don't think whether you are funded by MSTP or other institutional funds will ultimately make a huge difference, as long as you're getting the $$.

I'm not sure how often people have to take out loans, but probably less often than MD-only since you're ultimately paying for less tuition. Of course, this comes with the cost of having to take more years for training, delaying when you will get a job and start working as a physician-scientist.

Lol I'm quite familiar with how MD/PhD training works, but I'm asking this question to confirm that transfer MD/PhD students receive the same $ amount for funding as other MSTPs. Some schools like mine will give the same amount (and, if they're eligible, fund them using the NIH grant), while others may not.

The other unique thing about Harvard is that you can affiliate with the MSTP early on (even during 1st year), but not all affiliates are ultimately accepted into the MD/PhD program or funded for M3/M4.

From the website: "Maintenance of affiliate status is dependent on completion of laboratory/research rotations, application and acceptance to a graduate program, and satisfactory completion of medical and graduate school requirements. Affiliate students are included in all MD-PhD activities. While not funded by the MD-PhD Program during the first two years of medical school, students are eligible to apply for funding of the third and fourth years of medical school. Affiliate students who are eligible for NIH F30/F31 fellowships are required to submit this grant application in order to be considered for M3/M4 MD-PhD funding."

I can imagine a scenario in which OP becomes an early affiliate, applies and gets accepted into Harvard or MIT for the PhD, completes the PhD, but then does not get funding for the M3 and M4 years. I'd hope that's not common, but it's a possibility.

 

[spezi321]

Lol I'm quite familiar with how MD/PhD training works, but I'm asking this question to confirm that transfer MD/PhD students receive the same $ amount for funding as other MSTPs. Some schools like mine will give the same amount (and, if they're eligible, fund them using the NIH grant), while others may not.

The other unique thing about Harvard is that you can affiliate with the MSTP early on (even during 1st year), but not all affiliates are ultimately accepted into the MD/PhD program or funded for M3/M4.

From the website: "Maintenance of affiliate status is dependent on completion of laboratory/research rotations, application and acceptance to a graduate program, and satisfactory completion of medical and graduate school requirements. Affiliate students are included in all MD-PhD activities. While not funded by the MD-PhD Program during the first two years of medical school, students are eligible to apply for funding of the third and fourth years of medical school. Affiliate students who are eligible for NIH F30/F31 fellowships are required to submit this grant application in order to be considered for M3/M4 MD-PhD funding."

I can imagine a scenario in which OP becomes an early affiliate, applies and gets accepted into Harvard or MIT for the PhD, completes the PhD, but then does not get funding for the M3 and M4 years. I'd hope that's not common, but it's a possibility.

Ah okay sorry, I wasn't sure what your background was. I personally did not understand the whole MD/PhD training process until recently (as someone without significant advising/family in medicine), so thought it might be useful for others.

I'm not sure about your questions – all I know is my friends have said that HMS *guarantees* its MD-PhD affiliates funding for M3 and M4 years (regardless of what the website you linked says, the HMS program directors have directly told us in conversation that funding is guaranteed). Furthermore, I think they make it really easy to affiliate into the MD/PhD program (in order to join the MD/PhD program, you just need to be accepted to the PhD program of your interest and then from there you are pretty much guaranteed entrance). Around 40% of MD/PhD graduates each year at HMS are affiliates and did not originally apply MSTP. I really don't think that the scenario you described would ever happen.

Others who know more can feel free to add!

 

[deleted1065184]

Ah okay sorry, I wasn't sure what your background was. I personally did not understand the whole MD/PhD training process until recently (as someone without significant advising/family in medicine), so thought it might be useful for others.

Understandable, I didn't understand either until I became a student!

I'm not sure about your questions – all I know is my friends have said that HMS *guarantees* its MD-PhD affiliates funding for M3 and M4 years (regardless of what the website you linked says, the HMS program directors have directly told us in conversation that funding is guaranteed).

Okay, good to know! The website might be a bit outdated or doesnt guarantee anything in writing just to cover their tail if they choose not to fund somebody.

Furthermore, I think they make it really easy to affiliate into the MD/PhD program (in order to join the MD/PhD program, you just need to be accepted to the PhD program of your interest and then from there you are pretty much guaranteed entrance). Around 40% of MD/PhD graduates each year at HMS are affiliates and did not originally apply MSTP. I really don't think that the scenario you described would ever happen.

Yeah, I guess there's the possibility of not getting into a PhD program but I'm sure that very rarely happens.

Others who know more can feel free to add!

 

[deleted1135362]

what did you decide?

 

[themagictaco]

what did you decide?

work in progress

 

[pierty]

That article is from 2015, so it's unlikely those data are still accurate 8 years later. But even then, where you do your postdoc and who you do it with have a much bigger impact on R01 acceptance rate as a new investigator.

Minor point, but the data are summative for over 60 years. There might be changes, but chances are they are relatively minor shifts.

This is tough. In most cases, I would be happy to suggest Stanford, but the internal MSTP admissions there have been a non-guarantee in previous years as well. Were you accepted as a Berg scholar? You might be able to work through the master's and form a bridge to a full PhD (or finish the MD and pursue the PhD after. Not ideal, but a mentor had done this, and at Stanford nonetheless).

While the "nearly guaranteed" admissions of students (especially HST) to the MSTP at HMS sounds nice, it is actually a bit more insidious. They (very likely) have the funding to expand the entering MSTP class, but they do not. It is because they don't want to pay for some of the students they know they would take as MSTPs for the first two years of their program. Since many of them do not enter with full scholarships, it is a net estimated savings within the field of $150,000 dollars/student they accept only as MD. All of this, and they most likely, again, do not need to do this for the balance books. This is why the entering and graduating classes are so unequal. Not to mention that "support for students" is not particularly evidenced, with their MSTP status at risk in recent history.

On the grand scheme, I would certainly not worry about the "professional benefits" of attending one or the other. Focus on the PIs and field you are interested in; if there are multiple investigators you are excited to rotate with at either institution, you have a chance to do great at either school. Because of the difficulty with matriculation at Stanford, I would consider HMS's offer more heavily - however, speak with the administration more at Stanford and relay how important the research training is to you, and how they may help you make this work.

 

[deleted1065184]

Minor point, but the data are summative for over 60 years. There might be changes, but chances are they are relatively minor shifts.

I understand your reason for feeling this way, but we both know that science and technology progress in an exponential manner, not linear. Single discoveries change entire fields and within just a couple of years can completely shift departmental focus and funding.

A lot has changed within the past 8 years. During the summer of 2014, I worked on CRISPR at an internship and was ecstatic because it was this brand-new technology that was supposed to replace ZFN and TALEN. And as we all know, for the most part it has and SO much more. 2015 was a time when we were still learning how to properly use double nickases and limit off-target binding. Now we can literally cure certain genetic diseases with it.

This is tough. In most cases, I would be happy to suggest Stanford, but the internal MSTP admissions there have been a non-guarantee in previous years as well. Were you accepted as a Berg scholar? You might be able to work through the master's and form a bridge to a full PhD (or finish the MD and pursue the PhD after. Not ideal, but a mentor had done this, and at Stanford nonetheless).

While the "nearly guaranteed" admissions of students (especially HST) to the MSTP at HMS sounds nice, it is actually a bit more insidious. They (very likely) have the funding to expand the entering MSTP class, but they do not. It is because they don't want to pay for some of the students they know they would take as MSTPs for the first two years of their program.

This is a great point. They definitely could expand the MSTP beyond the NIH grant if they wanted, other schools such as WashU and Weill Cornell already have.

Since many of them do not enter with full scholarships, it is a net estimated savings within the field of $150,000 dollars/student they accept only as MD. All of this, and they most likely, again, do not need to do this for the balance books. This is why the entering and graduating classes are so unequal. Not to mention that "support for students" is not particularly evidenced, with their MSTP status at risk in recent history.

On the grand scheme, I would certainly not worry about the "professional benefits" of attending one or the other. Focus on the PIs and field you are interested in; if there are multiple investigators you are excited to rotate with at either institution, you have a chance to do great at either school. Because of the difficulty with matriculation at Stanford, I would consider HMS's offer more heavily - however, speak with the administration more at Stanford and relay how important the research training is to you, and how they may help you make this work.

 

[Biochemist3412]

Stanford is more flexible with research and more willing to accommodate different research tracks, they also have more robust basic research (in my field at least). I’ve heard of students finishing PhDs in 1-2 yrs at Stanford bc the labs r much more productive. Email Dr Dennis Bua at Stanford ask to talk abt the MSTP admissions if that’s helpful, he told me earlier this week MSTP internal admissions is based on the quality of the proposed PhD study

 

[Biochemist3412]

Also told me usually students will get the MSTP program if they apply a second time internally if rejected the first time

 

[spezi321]

Stanford is more flexible with research and more willing to accommodate different research tracks, they also have more robust basic research (in my field at least). I’ve heard of students finishing PhDs in 1-2 yrs at Stanford bc the labs r much more productive. Email Dr Dennis Bua at Stanford ask to talk abt the MSTP admissions if that’s helpful, he told me earlier this week MSTP internal admissions is based on the quality of the proposed PhD study

Can you provide evidence of "students finishing PhDs in 1-2 yrs at Stanford"...like is this confirmed or just hearsay? Because that would be insane and I would genuinely question the quality of training in the PhD programs. Usually for PhDs, the first year alone is courses + qualifying exams, and then you start to really get into research in your 2nd year....

 

[Just D.O. it]

Harvard Pros
-Its Harvard which apparently opens a bunch of doors? Idk what/who these doors are or if they are in the room with us right now but seems to be the case. As I mentioned before Harvard graduates have higher RO1 pull than Stanford which is a huge compulsion for me. data found here: What makes a top research medical school? A call for a new model to evaluate academic physicians and medical school performance - PubMed. papers not perfect and there are confounders but the data still point in a very specific direction.
-Lay prestige, seems silly but it does annoy me hearing the responses my non-med friends give when I say I might say no to HMS LOL
-Internal MSTP is easily attainable (99% acceptance rate according to them)

Stanford Cons
-Have to reapply for financial aid every year and can see my family's finances improving next year IE aid might go down
-Whole thing about graduates are less successful at getting RO1s.
-Internal MSTP is competitive, and data not shared.

Strongly seconding @GoSpursGo. I sympathize with your other concerns, particularly about the cold. I'm very much a warm weather man myself.

BUT the bolded information blows every other pro and con out of the water. If you see MSTP and running a lab as an important part of the career you envision, it's Harvard all the way.

 

[deleted1065184]

Stanford is more flexible with research and more willing to accommodate different research tracks, they also have more robust basic research (in my field at least). I’ve heard of students finishing PhDs in 1-2 yrs at Stanford bc the labs r much more productive. Email Dr Dennis Bua at Stanford ask to talk abt the MSTP admissions if that’s helpful, he told me earlier this week MSTP internal admissions is based on the quality of the proposed PhD study

Stanford definitely does not have more robust basic science research overall...maybe in your field (although I'm skeptical of this too), but certainly not all fields. And it's EXTREMELY rare for a biomedical sciences PhD student to finish a PhD in 1-2 years anywhere, it doesn't matter how productive the lab is.

Within my first year in my PhD lab, I had a 1st author paper in a major scientific journal, a 1st author review, and a co-authored paper in a solid scientific journal. I worked hard, I earned those achievements. I was fortunate that everything was working out for me. I was also fortunate that my PhD was very publication-focused and pushed us to produce data quickly (this was stressful at the time, but ultimately paid off). Many students graduate with that number of publications or fewer. But I simply was not ready to graduate.

I'm not sure you have a proper understanding of what it means to get a PhD. You don't get it based on how much you've published in a productive lab. You get it once you've gotten to the point where you have become a independent scientist. This includes passing a qualifying exam, putting together a thesis committee and proposing your project, TAing at least 1 class (varies depending on school), and ofc the publications, grant applications, etc. After doing all of this, once your thesis committee agrees you've become a good, independent scientist...then and only then will they give you permission to defend.

You cannot achieve this in 1-2 years. 3 years, MINIMUM. For MSTPs, more realistically 4. Often 5. On rare occasions, students graduate within 2 years. The vast majority of them aren't ready. The rest of them often did their PhD in the same laboratory that they had worked as a lab technician for a couple years and largely continued that work.

 

[deleted1065184]

Can you provide evidence of "students finishing PhDs in 1-2 yrs at Stanford"...like is this confirmed or just hearsay? Because that would be insane and I would genuinely question the quality of training in the PhD programs. Usually for PhDs, the first year alone is courses + qualifying exams, and then you start to really get into research in your 2nd year....

I completely agree with a 2 year PhD being ridiculous. One small thing though, the pathway is a bit different for MSTPs due to the MD coursework counting double (rightfully so), so most MSTPs only have to take a couple of classes and usually do their qualifying exams earlier. Also usually get started heavily in their labs by the latter half of their first year.

Still, there are other responsibilities such as TAing that take away time. And tbh, many MSTPs continue to be involved in their lab when they get back to medical school because there are things they need to finish up but couldn't due to being rushed back into clinicals.

 

[Biochemist3412]

I can confirm that 2 PIs and MSTP directors have told me explicitly that although not the norm, Stanford has had students finish basic science-related PhDs in 1-2 years. Usually these students come into medical school with a strong research background and also carry out research during their M1(-M2) years and summer(s) before starting the PhD programs. I have also heard the hours for research are crazy for these cases.

I don't think it is feasible for most projects and students, but I can confirm that this has been done on occasion and the MSTP directors can fact-check if you reach out to them.

 

[deleted1065184]

It's rare enough that it's honestly not worth mentioning imo. 99.9% of MSTPs will finish their PhD in 3-5 years (yes, I made that % up haha). And if they were carrying out their research in M1-M2 years and summers, then they didn't finish the PhD in 1-2 years. They may have on paper, but not realistically. And even then, it'd require quite a bit of luck.

I know plenty of MSTPs who try to start doing research in their M1 and M2 years. I always try to warn them against it, they never listen, and then they later tell me they should've listened bc either the data they generated wasn't useful or they switched projects...and ended up stressing out and losing summer break for nothing.

 

[pierty]

I understand your reason for feeling this way, but we both know that science and technology progress in an exponential manner, not linear. Single discoveries change entire fields and within just a couple of years can completely shift departmental focus and funding.

A lot has changed within the past 8 years. During the summer of 2014, I worked on CRISPR at an internship and was ecstatic because it was this brand-new technology that was supposed to replace ZFN and TALEN. And as we all know, for the most part it has and SO much more. 2015 was a time when we were still learning how to properly use double nickases and limit off-target binding. Now we can literally cure certain genetic diseases with it.

Well yes of course fields change at times in a step-wise manner, but this is more referring to the operationalizations of the study. The graduates from the last 8 years would have to overcome the delta between them and the other school's graduates over the previous 60 years. Since the largest award measure includes R01, there is also a finite time (and added population who are able) to receive those awards. Couple this with the fact that they remove "outlier" graduates (who have published and been granted awards several standard deviations above the class's mean) and it is hard for things to change in shorter periods.

If the study were repeated and updated annually, weights could be assigned to highlight the mean accomplishments of the most recent graduates, but this is a separate conversation.

 

[deleted1065184]

Well yes of course fields change at times in a step-wise manner, but this is more referring to the operationalizations of the study. The graduates from the last 8 years would have to overcome the delta between them and the other school's graduates over the previous 60 years. Since the largest award measure includes R01, there is also a finite time (and added population who are able) to receive those awards. Couple this with the fact that they remove "outlier" graduates (who have published and been granted awards several standard deviations above the class's mean) and it is hard for things to change in shorter periods.

If the study were repeated and updated annually, weights could be assigned to highlight the mean accomplishments of the most recent graduates, but this is a separate conversation.

8 years is def enough time for the study parameters to have shifted significantly, but also worth noting that the data collection period ended in 2009...a full 14 years ago. If they included data from 2010-2019, they findings would undoubtedly change.

 

[themagictaco]

Hi all just wanted to update, have had some great convos with Stanford Admin about internal transfer given my research background (thank you @Biochemist3412 for great info as always) and will be choosing Stanford. Thanks everyone!