Hidden Gems

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

MSTPtastic

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
134
Reaction score
200
Now that the interview season is entering the end-game, I think it would be helpful to future applicants to highlight the programs that don't get the attention they deserve.

Top of my list would be Utah.

I applied to Utah because I thought it would be nice to be in a mountain environment, but I was surprised at how wonderful the program was overall. They are literally adding a new wing to their cancer research institute, and plan on bringing a 100 new investigators to their cancer program. The campus facilities are brand-new, and the program is situated on a hill looking out over Salt Lake City and the entire valley. The program pays for airfare and lodging for all interviewees, and takes all of its applicants skiing (again, fully paid for, with gear and lessons) the day after interviews. (The mountains are directly behind the university, and the nearest ski slopes are <30m away - much closer than Colorado.) The students are the definition of work hard/play hard - everyone seems to split their weekends between outdoor activities and the lab. On top of it all, their administrator is the best I've encountered (and I've met a number of excellent administrators). They somehow get less than 300 applicants a year. I'd say if you are interested in cancer research or enjoy mountain sports, this is a program that you should be applying to.

I'd also highlight Wisconsin - Madison's a great town, the program's facilities are gorgeous, and the sheer amount of research taking place there means that if you can't find a PI, you're not looking hard enough. The people are friendly, and the leadership is top-notch. The new medical education building looks beautiful, and the cost of living means that people can actually afford decent lives on that $29k stipend.

Any other nominations?

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I guess my biggest surprise was Ohio State. I knew they had great research faculty, but the recruitment event was really well run. They booked flights and a hotel for you, and even reimbursed taxi from the airport. The MSTP office is really organized, and all the students (you'll meet first to seventh years) all seem very happy. It's also ridiculously cheap to live in Columbus. The medical school itself is very impressive. They just built a brand new cancer research and treatment center, and the rest of the clinical facilities are also relatively new.

According to the director, they give offers to about 30 interviewees (aiming for a class size of a little over 10) from 50-60, so once you get to the interview you have a really good shot of an acceptance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think the number of interviews vs acceptances is definitely something to consider. Programs definitely have a wide range from 1/4 to 1/2 getting accepted eventually of those interviewed.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Awww, what a great idea!! I could definitely see this helping applicants in the future as they look into schools and try to figure out their lists. Thanks, @MSTPtastic!

I'm not sure if they qualify, but in terms of underrated MSTPs, I'd throw in UAB. My experience there was very, very similar to what @waasgy said about Ohio State.

UAB pays for travel and lodging for all applicants. Their recruitment was also extremely well run -- we were immediately greeted by program administration and able to get our bearings, but then had plenty of time to hang out with students. I loved that they had "chaperones," or a student kind of assigned to us who would check in on us as social events, etc, and be a resource dedicated for us to individually question lol. My chaperone was also assigned to me based on my hobbies and interests, which I thought really showed how much UAB values their students (and applicants!) as people. They talked to me about ways I could use those talents/skills to get plugged in if I have the chance to attend. Students and faculty alike seemed very happy. I'd say the program overall is also really on the up-swing. Birmingham is rapidly and vastly booming as a city; it has changed a ton in the past few years. The cost of living is absolutely fantastic -- many of the students actually go ahead and buy houses with the stipend. Much more comfortable living than at other programs, which is important to many applicants and especially those with families. I was also super impressed by the children's hospital; it was a beautiful place and a wonderful environment. Their pediatrics and oncology work are their strengths. Faculty members seemed very approachable. One project in particular caught my eye and the PI seemed to have a record of training students well. UAB interviewed 48 this year, and since their class size is 8 and based on what I've heard the director say, I'm pretty sure they are accepting about 20-25 people.

But OMG, the Utah interview experience sounds amazing!!!!! Super wishing I had applied! Maybe I'll throw it onto my list for next year since it's looking more and more like I'll have to do a second cycle at this point! :rofl:
 
Last edited:
I'm going to be a little bit of a snark here, but while you were soaking in the skiing, the shiny new buildings, paid for hotel rooms and cost of living, did any of you manage to take a few minutes to look at the science and training environment?

I would caution you that shiny buildings and outdoors activities are not going to help you when you are stuck in grad school wondering why the MSTP didn't adequately train you on how to select a mentor, publish efficiently or go to bat for you when XY&Z unexpected thing happened. The old mudphuds will know what I am talking about even though none of you can possible imagine a situation in which you may might run into trouble with your training.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm going to be a little bit of a snark here, but while you were soaking in the skiing, the shiny new buildings, paid for hotel rooms and cost of living, did any of you manage to take a few minutes to look at the science and training environment?

I would caution you that shiny buildings and outdoors activities are not going to help you when you are stuck in grad school wondering why the MSTP didn't adequately train you on how to select a mentor, publish efficiently or go to bat for you when XY&Z unexpected thing happened. The old mudphuds will know what I am talking about even though none of you can possible imagine a situation in which you may might run into trouble with your training.

You might have missed the part when I described the numerous mentors one can select, or the excellent program directors...

But truthfully, these are the hardest aspects of a program to judge during interview weekend. With one exception (that will go unnamed), every program I've been to has had effusively happy students and what appeared to be competent, well supported leadership. Any signs of discord have been vague and insubstantial - certainly nothing I would badmouth a program over.

If you have any recommendations for how to determine these sorts of issues over two days, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
Critical questions to ask students during interviews are: If things don't work out, who do you ask for help? and how effective to resolve issues are they?

The quality of the MD/PhD leadership, and their ability to successfully interact with both Graduate and Medical schools are considerably more important than "shiny/new bricks & mortar".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You might have missed the part when I described the numerous mentors one can select, or the excellent program directors...

But truthfully, these are the hardest aspects of a program to judge during interview weekend. With one exception (that will go unnamed), every program I've been to has had effusively happy students and what appeared to be competent, well supported leadership. Any signs of discord have been vague and insubstantial - certainly nothing I would badmouth a program over.

If you have any recommendations for how to determine these sorts of issues over two days, please let me know.

Hey, yeah, I'm sorry I didn't read your other posts and like I said, I was being a little snarky. But you are absolutely right that it's really hard, if not impossible, to know how the environment really is going to be from just a brief 1-2 day interview. Though the overall happiness of the students (or trainees as I like to call them) is a good litmus test of whether people are being treated well, so I think it's smart to integrate that into your decision. I would say though that as the interview season goes on it's natural that the energy drops as the winter sets in and people get tired of hosting interviewees.

I think @Fencer makes a great point. You should feel out the situation, but you could ask how the program has helped students when they've found themselves in a bad project/lab moved/mentor ended up being not so good etc... I would look to see if there are a lot of assistant/associate directors at the program in relation to the number of trainees (usually means more oversight), if the program is actively making improvements (means the director is invested in the program), how much and where the average student is publishing, where the trainees are going for residency. A big red flag is if people are dropping out (or being kicked out), though programs are growing so it's hard to tell if people are leaving when there are 6 people matriculating when only 4 are graduating since it might just be that they are adding spots. Those are a few things I can think of off the top of my head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think @Fencer makes a great point. You should feel out the situation, but you could ask how the program has helped students when they've found themselves in a bad project/lab moved/mentor ended up being not so good etc...
I thought it was helpful to ask administrators this when I interviewed as well. Most gave some generic version of "we go up to bat for our students," but a couple had specific policy examples (like putting assistant directors on every student's thesis committee) and a surprising number basically said "our students don't choose bad labs."

Responses like that, coupled with less-than-positive stories from students, were enough to rule out a few places for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top