higher standard of rigor for md/phd?

[Zephyrus]

Hi guys,

I've seen on several websites advisors suggesting that md/phd is "exceedingly competitive" and requires course overloads in terms of both semester hours and high-level, rigorous science courses. Is it true that in md/phd, not just GPA but the CONTENT of our curriculum is more closely scrutinized? Thanks.

Z

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[EvoDevo]

Moving to the MD/PhD forum. You should be able to get pretty accurate feedback there. Good luck.

 

[jc11011]

Hi guys,

I've seen on several websites advisors suggesting that md/phd is "exceedingly competitive" and requires course overloads in terms of both semester hours and high-level, rigorous science courses. Is it true that in md/phd, not just GPA but the CONTENT of our curriculum is more closely scrutinized? Thanks.

Z

I wouldn't say that harder course loads are required, but it will certainly help you out a lot if you demonstrate that you can perform very well when overloaded with school work. I wouldn't worry about it too much though - there are lots of other factors that will help them determine if you can process a large amount of information in a short amount of time (namely, your MCAT).

 

[Habari]

Is it true that in md/phd, not just GPA but the CONTENT of our curriculum is more closely scrutinized

while i imagine it is expected that one has taken more science courses than the minimum pre-med requirements, even this isn't a hard and fast rule (taking a year off to do productive research will be more convincing than taking an upper level course in mol bio). take the courses you want/need and do well in them - there is no point in guessing what programs want to see, and possibly over-stretching yourself academically in the process.

 

[Sonya]

while i imagine it is expected that one has taken more science courses than the minimum pre-med requirements, even this isn't a hard and fast rule (taking a year off to do productive research will be more convincing than taking an upper level course in mol bio). take the courses you want/need and do well in them - there is no point in guessing what programs want to see, and possibly over-stretching yourself academically in the process.

I know this isn't what you were asking, but MD PHD look much more at your research and it's quality.

 

[ears]

I've seen on several websites advisors suggesting that md/phd is "exceedingly competitive" and requires course overloads in terms of both semester hours and high-level, rigorous science courses. Is it true that in md/phd, not just GPA but the CONTENT of our curriculum is more closely scrutinized?

MD/PhD programs tend to be pretty arduous, and so committees definitely need to be satisfied that you can hack the first two years of med school (not hard stuff, but the pace is quite fast) while simultaneously getting ground work done on your graduate studies (grad classes, research rotations, attending lab meetings with labs you're interested in). So most programs will probably look for more from you academically.

But assurances that you can actually hack the classroom stuff only get you in the game. If you want to win, the commitee has to be convinced of two things: first, that you have an aptitude for research; and second, that you have a personal (almost spiritual) commitment to research. It's a long course to stay to get where they want you to go (say, eight years in school, plus another four-five years of clinical training, plus research time).

Good luck.

 

[_ian]

While I'm still an undergrad, most of the schools I've looked into have far more strict admissions than either MD or PhD programs, because they accept far less people. My number one choice at the moment (which may very well change) accepts 10-12 a year (don't know how many apply) and my second choice accepts ~25 out of ~400 applicants. You really have to apply yourself during undergrad.

Though, while the admissions are tough, the curriculum isn't all that different; there are seminars to go to, some graduate classes may replace your medical classes, and there's a stronger emphasis on clinical research during medical school. The PhD track tends to be sped up a little bit from the norm, because they assume that the clinical research rotations have helped you become acclimated to what is expected of you to obtain your doctorate.

Since I haven't experienced it, I could be wrong, but on paper it doesn't look remarkably more rigorous than doing the MD and PhD in separate programs.

 

[xanthines]

At my school, we're supposed to take an additional grad course on top of the regular medical curriculum. So while your friends are studying or goofing off, you're still in class. That's in addition to the seminars and whatnots.

The PhD track tends to be sped up because MSTP students are very motivated to finish. This is probably because they have clinical rotations and residencies waiting for them, as opposed to a post-doc. I know that's what motivates me!

-X

Though, while the admissions are tough, the curriculum isn't all that different; there are seminars to go to, some graduate classes may replace your medical classes, and there's a stronger emphasis on clinical research during medical school. The PhD track tends to be sped up a little bit from the norm, because they assume that the clinical research rotations have helped you become acclimated to what is expected of you to obtain your doctorate.

 

[Neuronix]

To the op: In my experience it hasn't been the case that MD/PhD courseloads are scrutinized unless you took a long time to graduate (they might look at why) or you took a really quick time to graduate (bonus points if you had some really wild courseload and still excelled). Otherwise, they don't pay any attention to it. I took 12-14 credits per semester every semester and here I am, so I don't really think it matters much at all.

My advice is always do to a relatively small courseload, get as close to a 4.0 as you can, and do as much research as you can on the side. That's going to maximize your competitiveness IMO. If anything, it should show that you can handle coursework AND research typical of grad school.

 

[_ian]

Quick question...

Aside from research, what sorts of ECs rank the best with MSTPs? My only other ECs are IM sports and sporadic volunteering at a soup kitchen. I'm not going to do anything I won't enjoy, but I'd like suggestions; should I add in clinical volunteering? Anything else?

 

[Maebea]

Quick question...

Aside from research, what sorts of ECs rank the best with MSTPs? My only other ECs are IM sports and sporadic volunteering at a soup kitchen. I'm not going to do anything I won't enjoy, but I'd like suggestions; should I add in clinical volunteering? Anything else?

At some institutions, MD admissions committees have input into admissions decisions for MD-PhD applicants. MD admissions committees like to see some evidence of a compassionate heart, even among MD-PhD applicants. So, it will probably be helpful for you to mix a little milk of human kindness into your experiences. The experience does not have to specifically be clinical; there are many ways to demonstrate this through working with others. You will receive bonus points if you have engaged in a leadership role in this activity.

That is not to say that your application is doomed if you do not have a meaningful people-oriented experience on your resume; individuals with no such experiences are accepted by MD-PhD programs every year. (In the same way, individuals with MCATs below 30 are accepted every year, but acceptance is probably more likely if one has an MCAT of 35 or better.)

A more important reason to get some humanitarian-oriented experience is to make sure that you like working with/on people. The human aspect of medicine can be very challenging; people, especially when they are sick, can be a real pain in the a$$. Some individuals are not good at working with people in need; you should find out if you are one of them. If that turns out to be the case, then you might consider dropping the MD and applying to PhD programs.

 

[solitude]

I know exactly what advice you are referring to being a Duke undergrad myself. I think the advice to take grad-level classes and course overload can be a tricky issue. As mentioned above, I certainly wouldn't do it if your GPA will suffer as a result. But if you know you can maintain the same GPA, I say go for it. It is my hypothesis, and just a hypothesis, that these types of things matter less for "lesser" MSTP programs, if lesser programs even exist. However, for the tiptop MDPhD programs, everybody has a 3.8 or a 3.9 and a 35+ and tons of research. So you need things that will set you apart. Having taken an extra science class every semester and at the graduate level are going to help, a lot, if it is noticed by the adcom. I plan to overload every semester and am taking my first 200-level class this fall as a sophomore. So there are going to be people out there doing it, and, because of the competition, to win you probably should too.

Not to mention that the extra class has zero marginal-cost, and you might as well learn as much as you can while you're at this great institution!

 

[Maebea]

However, for the tiptop MDPhD programs, everybody has a 3.8 or a 3.9 and a 35+ and tons of research.

Just to give a bit of perspective, not everyone in tiptop MDPhD programs have 35+ MCATS. Here is the distribution of scores for the last couple of cohorts to enroll in our MSTP:

29-1
31-2
33-2
34-2
35-7
36-3
37-5
38-7
39-3
40-1

Contrary to your claim, better than 40% scored 35 or lower. I would like to think that our program is considered tiptop, but even if it is not I can assure you that the MCAT distribution at tiptop programs would mirror those at my institution. The story for GPA is the same, with the lowest being a 3.5 and around 40% falling below 3.8. The point here is not to give you a hard time ( I agree with your premise that grades & MCATs are not the critical factors in admissions decisions), but to dispel the myth that you have to have golden MCATs and GPA to have any hope of getting accepted by a MD-PhD program. I would argue that taking class overloads is not a good idea. While adcoms do consider the rigor of your undergrad curriculum, it is far more important that you spend a great deal of time in the lab. Grad classes are, well, for grad school. My experience is that an A in a grad class does not help an applicant much. It is much more beneficial for you to devote yourself to your research and get a letter from a PI that says that you are performing lab work at the level of a 1st- or 2nd-year grad student.

 

[microTAS]

I know this isn't what you were asking, but MD PHD look much more at your research and it's quality.

I agree; research is your trump card for bad grades/mcat

 

[solitude]

OK, I concede the point about the GPA/MCAT. Not *everybody* has a stellar one or the other or both. One of my assumptions (faulty or no) in recommending grad-level classes was that the applicant in question already had great research experience. In such a case, I would think those additional difficult classes would have to help, no? I agree with you though that the research is most important. By all means don't course overload if it will cut away from your time in the lab that semester.

All I'm saying is that when it boils down to it, there are going to be a lot of people with similar stats and similar research experience, and anything you have done to set you apart - grad school classes, 6 toes on each foot, nature paper, or whatever - can only help. Some of these things you can control, like taking more or more difficult classes, which is why I am doing it and would recommmend it.

 

[solitude]

One thing I forgot:

Taking more, and grad-level classes, will expose you to more science, and at a more advanced level, which can supplement your lab enrichment. For example, if you're in an immunology lab (e.g. me), but you don't know jack about immunology, in the long run your research will be enhanced by soaking up the knowledge of a semester's worth of grad-level immunology somewhat early (soph. year) in your career in that lab. The time spent in that class might, in the end, save you the time that you missed out in the lab because you will know what the heck you are doing, how to do some of the procedures, how to better plan experiments, etc.

So that's one of my reasons that I will be taking an immunology course (only offered at grad-level) next year.

Just a thought.