How to Decide Between Offers

[mudphud2b]

When I first interviewed, I was most surprised by how strongly the school/program tries to sell itself to you. Now, having received several offers from different MSTPs, I understand.

Torn by my own decision between several great programs, I thought I'd ask how you have been deciding (or, for those already enrolled, how you made your decision).

Is it all about the research? Does strength in a particular clinical department really matter as a med student? How heavily does the strength of the program itself weigh? Will you accept living somewhere you didn't quite imagine yourself being a year ago? Is it a gut feeling or are you making spreadsheets and scoring each school in several categories?

Also, does anyone have any information on the different programs that isn't fed from the schools themselves? Are there any independent evaluations of the MST programs?

If anyone wants to sound off on a particular MSTP and give its pluses or minuses, I'd love to hear that too.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MSTPDad]

It might help if you told us which programs you are considering.

 

[gbwillner]

Torn by my own decision between several great programs, I thought I'd ask how you have been deciding (or, for those already enrolled, how you made your decision).

Is it all about the research? Does strength in a particular clinical department really matter as a med student? How heavily does the strength of the program itself weigh? Will you accept living somewhere you didn't quite imagine yourself being a year ago?

It's not ALL about the research. But if you ar really interested in Genetics and school A has a very reputable genetics department with excellent faculty, while school B has just one or two faculty members you would consider working for, go with school A. The grad school years are much tougher IMHO, and you want to get a quality PhD with a reputable PI. Those are relationships that will last your entire career. And there's nothing worse than spending 4-6 years working on something you don't actually like.
On the other hand, if school B is Harvard, and School A is university of Suckville, you may want to reconsider because in the long run Harvard might be better for you in other ways.

About the school location- I am now seven years into an MSTP program in a city I never thought I'd live in. And it's turned out pretty good. I never thought I could live in this city until I got here, and I was convinced by the quality of the institution, not the city itself. Every place has its pluses and minuses. Don't forget, you'll likely live indoors anyway while you get worked to death either studying or producing data.

Is it a gut feeling or are you making spreadsheets and scoring each school in several categories?

I made spreadsheets!! It worked, I think. It's really easy to bias them and throw your "gut" into them, but clearly different programs are better at different things, and you can't focus on just one aspect of your future. And yes, "city quality" was one of my qualifiers.

Also, does anyone have any information on the different programs that isn't fed from the schools themselves? Are there any independent evaluations of the MST programs?

If anyone wants to sound off on a particular MSTP and give its pluses or minuses, I'd love to hear that too.

I do remember there being forums where prospective students evaluated the programs after their interviews. I would wait for the moderator to answer this one.

 

[Vader]

http://www.mdphds.org/

 

[Dr.Watson]

I'm with you mudphud2b. I didn't really expect to have choices and then, to be so conflicted about where I want to go. In addition to the obvious, curriculum, research, location - what has struck me about each school is how different the student population vibe is - whether its a diversity thing, a regional slant (east coast/west coast, state if public), undergrads feeding into the school, happiness level, and generally if I fit in. To those in already in MST programs, how much did the "student vibe" factor into your choice? Is it just too hard to evaluate with a couple weekends visiting and your impression is probably wrong anyway? Or is it a reasonable factor that might help decide where one might be happiest?

 

[chirurgino]

I'd agree with gbwillner that it's almost all about the research--make sure that the place has breadth as well as depth, since I (and many other people) ended up working on something completely different for the PhD than I had originally planned. One crude indicator is to go to the HHMI website and see how many HHMI investigators are at the different programs--I would highly recommend considering one of those labs very strongly. I would say "student vibe" should matter about zero--you'll see your classmates for 2 short years and then you'll disappear, seeing even your MD/PhD mates once a year at a retreat. Besides, as an MD-PhD I think the biggest determinant of your overall happiness will be the lab experience...which is obviously not program-dependent.

The city does make some difference--first, you'll be there for a good chunk of your 20s, so you should enjoy it. Second, look at the match lists for any program and you'll see that about half (or more) of the people end up staying at that place for residency, for various reasons. Obviously if the hospital you're affiliated with is, say, JHU, MGH, Wash U, etc. it makes the choice easier since any residency program there will likely be at the top of their field. As an MD-PhD, you'll be even more likely to stay because of the possibility you'll have a significant other, roots in the area, etc. That being said, you'll be very marketable with both degrees and if you want to leave, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Maebea]

I would agree with most of what Chirurgino writes, except for he HHMI part. Only a few of our students go into HHMI labs here. The problem is that most of the HHMI labs are postdoc heavy and are not geared toward training graduate students. The PI's tend to travel a lot of the time, and students can sometime be orphaned. The HHMI/Nobel Laureate-type lab may make better sense for the postdoc/instructor phase of training.

That being said, there are some HHMI labs here that are a great environment for grad students, and the students gravitate to these labs. HHMI labs do interesting, top-notch science and have deep pockets. If they also have a mentor and lab structure that fosters the training of graduate students, then they can be an excellent choice for MSTPs.

 

[Neuronix]

Torn by my own decision between several great programs, I thought I'd ask how you have been deciding (or, for those already enrolled, how you made your decision).

I chose mostly based on location and strength of research in general. I did end up getting off the waitlist at my first choice school pretty late, but before that I was definately going to go to a weaker research school for its prime urban location.

Is it all about the research? Does strength in a particular clinical department really matter as a med student? How heavily does the strength of the program itself weigh? Will you accept living somewhere you didn't quite imagine yourself being a year ago? Is it a gut feeling or are you making spreadsheets and scoring each school in several categories?

I have to disagree with gbwillner on:

Don't forget, you'll likely live indoors anyway while you get worked to death either studying or producing data.

I've heard this sentiment numerous times from numerous people, so I'm not saying it's not a valid viewpoint. However, I really wanted to be in a happening urban environment with plenty to do both inside the city and around the city. Sure, there have been 80hr/week weeks, but I'd say I probably average on the order of 40hrs/week since starting this whole program. That's plenty of time to get out and enjoy the location you have. I like to travel alot too, so I'm close to two international airports and several big cities I can even day trip to (that's the NE for ya).

I guess the question then becomes, what sort of environment do you want to live in?

Also, does anyone have any information on the different programs that isn't fed from the schools themselves? Are there any independent evaluations of the MST programs?

Not really. The NIGMS reviews the programs once and awhile, but we don't get to see what they write even if it was useful. I mean www.mdphds.org has reviews by applicants, but how much do they know about a program? I could tell you about my school, though it hasn't given out any acceptances yet so you're not considering it yet I guess, but even if I did how much does just my opinion matter? I wouldn't give it too much weight because different people see things differently.

From there I wish I could say to ignore your gut feelings, but I turned down a strong program sbecause of gut feeling. It was much stronger than the school I was going to go to. But, I got a really bad feel from it. The admissions process there was strange, the administration was turning over, I knew people there that were unahppy, I didn't like the location, and I heard rumors both from friends and from SDN about people spending too long for their dual degrees. That being said, I wouldn't weight just subjective gut feeling (I listed some objective stuff above) or student vibe too highly. It's hard to pin that stuff down and who knows what your class will end up being like. Hopefully you can be in an interesting enough place that there's more to do than just med school.

 

[chirurgino]

Point taken Maebea--you'll also find when applying for residencies after the MSTP that the biggest name program isn't always the best residency training program...

The reason why I mention HHMI as a surrogate measure (albeit, a crude one) for quality of the lab is because the HHMI selection process is so rigorous--certainly I felt that HHMI was better at evaluating the quality of the science going on in the lab--relative to all labs in its field--than I could as a second year med student. Again, though, HHMI isn't necessarily the stamp of approval for great grad student training, as Maebea points out.

But let me also say that one shouldn't necessarily be scared off by a big post-doc heavy HHMI lab with a famous PI who travels all the time (essentially, my PhD lab)--you'll have to grow up faster, be more independent and assertive, learn when to ask for advice and help, maybe lean on your postdocs a bit more for advice on the day-to-day stuff, but as MSTPs you'll have to grow up faster anyway (also, as MSTPs, you may not realize it yet but you are much higher-quality material than the average PhD student...take my word for it). I personally liked the feeling of being "on an island" without my PI breathing down my neck for my latest southern blot. I certainly made more mistakes along the way than I would have otherwise, but I learned a lot from those mistakes also. Just my two cents.

 

[gbwillner]

I've heard this sentiment numerous times from numerous people, so I'm not saying it's not a valid viewpoint. However, I really wanted to be in a happening urban environment with plenty to do both inside the city and around the city. Sure, there have been 80hr/week weeks, but I'd say I probably average on the order of 40hrs/week since starting this whole program. That's plenty of time to get out and enjoy the location you have. I like to travel alot too, so I'm close to two international airports and several big cities I can even day trip to (that's the NE for ya).

I guess the question then becomes, what sort of environment do you want to live in?

OK, Maybe I was exaggerating a bit. In general, during the first couple years you probably will average 40 hrs a week. It varies tremendously in grad school. I would say I averaged about 65 hrs/week in the lab. And once you're in clinics it varies even more. I easily beat 100 hrs/wk in Medicine and probably averaged 85-90 in Peds. Neuro was about 25hrs/wk! (this was before government regulations were there to probably be ignored regrading the number of hours you should work).

My point really was that you may have a faulty impression about a city- and you really have to be there to see its strengths and weaknesses. You will also change as a person in 7-10 years. You may think that having a happening downtown is the most important thing right now, but you could be married with kids in 5 years and want affordable housing or peace and quiet. Most major medical centers that have MSTP-caliber programs are in Urban centers anyway, but some in affordable areas and some are not.
Bottom line is that city "quality" should be important to you... but not THAT important, IMHO, because you just won't know till you live there.
On this note I'd like to know how many WashU students regret going there or are unhappy just because St. Louis sucks.

 

[Dr.Watson]

I'd agree with gbwillner that it's almost all about the research--make sure that the place has breadth as well as depth, since I (and many other people) ended up working on something completely different for the PhD than I had originally planned. One crude indicator is to go to the HHMI website and see how many HHMI investigators are at the different programs--I would highly recommend considering one of those labs very strongly. I would say "student vibe" should matter about zero--you'll see your classmates for 2 short years and then you'll disappear, seeing even your MD/PhD mates once a year at a retreat. Besides, as an MD-PhD I think the biggest determinant of your overall happiness will be the lab experience...which is obviously not program-dependent.

The city does make some difference--first, you'll be there for a good chunk of your 20s, so you should enjoy it. Second, look at the match lists for any program and you'll see that about half (or more) of the people end up staying at that place for residency, for various reasons. Obviously if the hospital you're affiliated with is, say, JHU, MGH, Wash U, etc. it makes the choice easier since any residency program there will likely be at the top of their field. As an MD-PhD, you'll be even more likely to stay because of the possibility you'll have a significant other, roots in the area, etc. That being said, you'll be very marketable with both degrees and if you want to leave, it shouldn't be a problem.

Okay - so it's about research and the city and potential for staying there longer. Anyone have other criteria they used?

I actually narrowed my initial applications based on big factors like location, research strengths, size of programs (ie 10ish, not 2 or 20 per year). Once I interviewed I kept programs with reasonable time to graduation, good involvement of administration, breadth of research/strengths in my field, and 'gut feeling.' And so exceeding my wildest expectations I have four schools that I love, and I'm hoping second looks will help me decide. Anyone have ideas of the types of things to ask, look for, consider once I go back, without the interview stress, to help me decide?

 

[gbwillner]

Okay - so it's about research and the city and potential for staying there longer. Anyone have other criteria they used?

I actually narrowed my initial applications based on big factors like location, research strengths, size of programs (ie 10ish, not 2 or 20 per year). Once I interviewed I kept programs with reasonable time to graduation, good involvement of administration, breadth of research/strengths in my field, and 'gut feeling.' And so exceeding my wildest expectations I have four schools that I love, and I'm hoping second looks will help me decide. Anyone have ideas of the types of things to ask, look for, consider once I go back, without the interview stress, to help me decide?

The "interview stress" should not go away. When you go back for the "accepted candidate weekends" you still have interviews. Typically these are with faculty members whose research you are interested in.

I think most of your criteria are good. I do find it interesting that you include the "gut" in your logic. I would try to identify what comprises you "gut" feeling about a certain school and compare that characteristic to other programs. I also think the "reasonable time to graduation" is probably a bad choice. Programs with longer times probably churn out more quality PhDs. Sometimes the time is due to a poor curriculum or redundency with med school, but more often than not it is because the program demands more from you.

If I remember correctly, my categories were: Med school quality (reputation), Grad school quality (in genetics departments), Clinical curriculum (I preferred ones that allowed clinical training before the PhD), clinical training environment (hospital quality and quantity), city quality, and student body quality (my subjective assesment of how cool students were).

 

[Dr.Watson]

The "interview stress" should not go away. When you go back for the "accepted candidate weekends" you still have interviews. Typically these are with faculty members whose research you are interested in.

Okay, well it's a different sort of stress. I've done plenty of lab interviews, and it is more about trying to pick a good place to rotate than anything else. It's not - if this doesn't go well, I won't be an MD/PhD.

I think most of your criteria are good. I do find it interesting that you include the "gut" in your logic. I would try to identify what comprises you "gut" feeling about a certain school and compare that characteristic to other programs. I also think the "reasonable time to graduation" is probably a bad choice. Programs with longer times probably churn out more quality PhDs. Sometimes the time is due to a poor curriculum or redundency with med school, but more often than not it is because the program demands more from you.

Well "gut" is what I'm calling all the subjective factors and, more or less, can I see myself here for 8 yrs. And as far as graduation time, I don't think you can equate 6 yr PhD with higher quality than a 3.5-4 yr PhD solely based on time. I think it's a matter of the program directors, quality/appropriateness of projects, quality of mentor, a bit of luck with things working, and regular committee meetings. Also, some has to do with the schedule/curriculum integration/time management - when you do lab rotations and later clinical rotations (do you skip some as mstp?), when you do grad school coursework, and ultimately the actually lab time can up being the same as those with 6yr PhDs. Of the 10 yr MD/PhD post-docs I know, most of them say there wasn't much integration with their program, little oversight and communication b/t MD and PhD school, and they sorta got lost or left in lab with a lot of wasted time that they really think they could/should have finished earlier. Granted these people started the program in the early 90s and NIH has gotten on some programs cases for unduly long graduation time. Wow - that turned into a rant. Sorry - just time to graduation doesn't necessarily equal lab time or quality of work.

If I remember correctly, my categories were: Med school quality (reputation), Grad school quality (in genetics departments), Clinical curriculum (I preferred ones that allowed clinical training before the PhD), clinical training environment (hospital quality and quantity), city quality, and student body quality (my subjective assesment of how cool students were).

Thanks! This is the sort of response I was looking for. I'm just trying to figure out questions to ask (especially at second look) and multiple ways/criteria to assess my choices.

 

[vector07]

And as far as graduation time, I don't think you can equate 6 yr PhD with higher quality than a 3.5-4 yr PhD solely based on time. I think it's a matter of the program directors, quality/appropriateness of projects, quality of mentor, a bit of luck with things working, and regular committee meetings. Also, some has to do with the schedule/curriculum integration/time management - when you do lab rotations and later clinical rotations (do you skip some as mstp?), when you do grad school coursework, and ultimately the actually lab time can up being the same as those with 6yr PhDs. Of the 10 yr MD/PhD post-docs I know, most of them say there wasn't much integration with their program, little oversight and communication b/t MD and PhD school, and they sorta got lost or left in lab with a lot of wasted time that they really think they could/should have finished earlier. Granted these people started the program in the early 90s and NIH has gotten on some programs cases for unduly long graduation time. Wow - that turned into a rant. Sorry - just time to graduation doesn't necessarily equal lab time or quality of work.

I agree about graduation time, and the argument that you can't equate time in a PhD with quality of the PhD. There are two schools I interviewed at in particular that come to mind when contrasting these things. Both of them churn out spectacular students.. one has an extremely involved administration that is involved in your PhD starting at lab rotation decisions all the way to thesis defense. The other said 'do you PhD', and if you're still working on your PhD after 5 years we'll contact your thesis advisor and see what the problem is. The first has a PhD average time of 7.5, the second 8.5. Maybe you'd gain some "independence" by being in the latter program...

Also, I think your personal work ethic and your family (or lack thereof) determines the length of the PhD as well. At one school with an 8.5 year average, I met a student who was gunning to graduate in about 6.5 years. As all the other MSTP students told me, this girl is nuts and is never around. But she'll finish very quickly..

Anyway, one of the directors I met with gave me some interesting criteria with which to evaluate MSTP students. He told me to ask other schools about their students' publication and grant acquisition records. This has certainly yielded interesting results for me..

 

[gbwillner]

And as far as graduation time, I don't think you can equate 6 yr PhD with higher quality than a 3.5-4 yr PhD solely based on time. I think it's a matter of the program directors, quality/appropriateness of projects, quality of mentor, a bit of luck with things working, and regular committee meetings. Also, some has to do with the schedule/curriculum integration/time management - when you do lab rotations and later clinical rotations (do you skip some as mstp?), when you do grad school coursework, and ultimately the actually lab time can up being the same as those with 6yr PhDs. Of the 10 yr MD/PhD post-docs I know, most of them say there wasn't much integration with their program, little oversight and communication b/t MD and PhD school, and they sorta got lost or left in lab with a lot of wasted time that they really think they could/should have finished earlier. Granted these people started the program in the early 90s and NIH has gotten on some programs cases for unduly long graduation time. Wow - that turned into a rant. Sorry - just time to graduation doesn't necessarily equal lab time or quality of work.

OK, let me clarify:
Length to graduation does not necessarily indicate bad things about a program. It CAN be because of poor intergration in some programs, but this is not always the case. Within any one program you will meet people with 4 yr and 10 yr PhDs. This much more dependent on the individual and their mentor than anything else. Some schools (like mine) have a good integration system, but some programs (especially mine) have very high standards for graduation. Just having a publication is not enough here- you need a body of work- a complete story. If you get really lucky you get out quickly, but most of the time it takes time. In the end it does make you a better scientist, and we do have longer graduation times.

 

[Neuronix]

Sorry - just time to graduation doesn't necessarily equal lab time or quality of work.

I agree. One program with a average graduation time of 8.5 years justified it by saying "Here at URochester, we give out real PhDs". So I guess the PhD I get at Penn isn't real because their average graduation time is 7.5 years? Sorry, I just don't believe it. There's lots of reasons why time to graduation doesn't equal PhD quality, and I'll expand if anyone wants. I just strongly disagree with gbwillner on that statement.

On the topic of looking at students grant records, students here don't usually apply for grants. There's no pressure to do so. I wrote one, but that's just because I felt like it. At some schools it's much more common.

 

[gbwillner]

I agree. One program with a average graduation time of 8.5 years justified it by saying "Here at URochester, we give out real PhDs". So I guess the PhD I get at Penn isn't real because their average graduation time is 7.5 years? Sorry, I just don't believe it. There's lots of reasons why time to graduation doesn't equal PhD quality, and I'll expand if anyone wants. I just strongly disagree with gbwillner on that statement.

On the topic of looking at students grant records, students here don't usually apply for grants. There's no pressure to do so. I wrote one, but that's just because I felt like it. At some schools it's much more common.

I have modified my statement to reflect more of what I meant to say. It's also important how we define a "quality" PhD. If URochester students take an average 8.5 years to Penn's 7.5, but on average churn out 1 more paper per student and an impact factor of 5 more, wouldn't they be more "quality"?

Furthermore, regarding time- If you want to write a Cell paper, you probably have 3 year of work right there. And if you're stepping into someone else's work to complete it for a cell paper- then you probably won't have a first author-type of publication out of it.

 

[Neuronix]

I have modified my statement to reflect more of what I meant to say. It's also important how we define a "quality" PhD. If URochester students take an average 8.5 years to Penn's 7.5, but on average churn out 1 more paper per student and an impact factor of 5 more, wouldn't they be more "quality"?

Yep, you beat me on your post by 30 seconds How much does 1 more paper per student and an impact factor matter? I don't really care what impact factor my papers have, but then again I'm not doing cell & molecular work for my PhD. Personally, I'll take one less year so I can have 3 pubs instead of 4 or 2 pubs instead of 3 and less impact factor. That being said, I don't necessarily believe that's the case. URochester has alot more requirements for their students than Penn does (i.e. 1 year of teaching), so I think that explains a bit right there.

Furthermore, regarding time- If you want to write a Cell paper, you probably have 3 year of work right there. And if you're stepping into someone else's work to complete it for a cell paper- then you probably won't have a first author-type of publication out of it.

That's true--the requirements for publication in the top journals just keep growing. It's nice to have it, but we're PhDs. I look at this as a time to get trained in science. Not as a time to cure cancer (or get a Nature/Science paper). I don't necessarily equate spending more time doing experiments to becoming a better scientist. I believe that the more time you spend doing your PhD the less return you're getting after awhile. You have to pick up and get on with life and come back to research 7 years from now. How much will that extra work matter when you get back into your post-doc/fellowship so long down the road?

 

[gbwillner]

That's true--the requirements for publication in the top journals just keep growing. It's nice to have it, but we're PhDs. I look at this as a time to get trained in science. Not as a time to cure cancer (or get a Nature/Science paper). I don't necessarily equate spending more time doing experiments to becoming a better scientist. I believe that the more time you spend doing your PhD the less return you're getting after awhile. You have to pick up and get on with life and come back to research 7 years from now. How much will that extra work matter when you get back into your post-doc/fellowship so long down the road?

Hey- I don't disagree. I think it's a shame that we tend to stress the publications so much, after all, we are supposed to be learning here, not producing. HOWEVER- with the extra work, you WILL be better prepared for the future. I'm sure I'll be more ready for my own lab than someone who had a nice project handed to them for a PhD, since I had to do all my own thinking, write grants, write protocols, write IRBs, and of course write papers. It's really a question of how you define "quality" IMHO. I'm sure Penn students are plenty smart anyway and won't suffer from not having that extra paper. But the PhD students will benefit from the extra work, as a scientist is judged by his record.

 

[Neuronix]

I'm sure I'll be more ready for my own lab than someone who had a nice project handed to them for a PhD, since I had to do all my own thinking, write grants, write protocols, write IRBs, and of course write papers.

I'm not saying I didn't have to do all those things. I'm a second year grad student and I've put through a few IRBs, protocols, and I'm still waiting to hear on my grant. I think alot too. You should be doing all these to get a PhD.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter to me a whole lot if I spend an extra year trying to get a bigger name publication or an extra publication. I mean where do you draw the line? Some people may feel like you don't have a "real" PhD until you've spent 8 years getting your PhD (Penn Anthropology for example, which is why we don't let people do Anthro MD/PhDs). The last Nobel Prize winner in medicine had no publications during his PhD. It didn't seem to hurt him a whole lot.

 

[antinomian]

I hear this at times from PhD students at my institution, and there's no point in responding. The main reasons for people in my program taking longer than ~4 years for their PhD (which averages out to a 7.5 year graduation time depending which side of that 4 years one takes - <3.75 year would be a 7 year MD/PhD, longer would be an 8 year PhD) are either choice or incompetence. I can't think of one person in my program who wasn't/isn't on the diminishing returns end of their grad school time at >3.5 years.

There are a few reasons for it, at my institution, at least:

1) We have nominal class requirements during graduate school (we get credit for some specialized md/phd classes in medical school), whereas the regular graduate school students have a year and change of class requirements (albeit very flexible requirements).

2) We've finished our rotations and are starting pure thesis time from the get go, in addition to have some idea of what we're going to be working on from our rotation experience. If you add all the pre-grad school time in, people who graduate in 7 years total from our program are doing the equivalent of ~5 year PhD's. Spending longer than 5 years as a graduate student (not md/phd) in a PhD program for biology is again, on average, a result of choice or incompetence (why these should be different for graduate students vs md/phds is explained subsequently).

3) The most important - is that once we start our thesis work, we're far more prepared than your average graduate student at any top institution. Add more average research experience prior to entering the program (2.5 years at the last census), and two years of simmering in the medical-research environment (starting the summer before med school at our program) vs. straight out of undergrad or that plus a year or two doing research - it's no contest. And the difference is clear at the outset, at a graduate school that competes well for the best graduate students in biology (with some chemists/physicists mixed in).

4) At my particular institution, no thesis committee is going to give any MD/PhD a discount on their thesis. This place is too idiosyncratic and proud of its history, which includes a wariness of MD/PhD's getting "discounted" PhDs. There is also a reason this place has no hard '# of papers published" requirements for the PhD: I remember looking at Science AOP and seeing the names of 6 colleagues in the program as first or second authors (it was a banner day) with wildly different levels of contributions to the paper that was being published. There are many PI's around here who regularly publish in Science/Nature/Cell multiple times a year, and being in their lab and serving time virtually guarantees one of them if you put in the time.

5) Having attended many thesis defenses over the years, the main difference I can discern is the better poise, delivery, and contextualizing of students in our program vs graduate students (on average). Just like every top school I know that has had to respond to NIH criticisms of PhD lengths, if you've taken too long (>6 years), they practically give you your PhD and politely tell you that you're done. In their eyes, it's worthless without a record.

Now, these differences are generally made moot over time, but this is where choice comes in. A person possessing qualities of doggedness and perseverance, more so than creativity and ingenuity, stands a greater average chance of "succeeding" in basic science. Many graduate students from this institution are prominent scientists themselves. MD/PhD's have a surfeit of choices, and often avail themselves of them at various branch points.

 

[Neuronix]

I'm not sure what the point of your long post is in our discussion. There's always going to be variations in time among MD/PhDs at a given institution. The question at hand is, should applicants consider the average time to MD/PhD when they're thinking about which program to join? I say yes. All of the factors you mentioned in your post are important to individual graduation times or points about MD/PhD as a whole, but does not address the differences between averages among different schools.

 

[antinomian]

I guess it was a long post. Quick fingers make long reading, or something.

I suppose the compound take home is that graduation times are somewhat meaningless without context, and programs that are proud of their long times as a proxy for the solidity of training are deluded.

 

[totalcommand]

Along these lines...should I consider the fact that some programs I'm looking at have been put on probation recently (I'm thinking this is because of long gradutaion times)?

Thanks.

 

[tr]

Along these lines...should I consider the fact that some programs I'm looking at have been put on probation recently (I'm thinking this is because of long gradutaion times)?

Well, if they've already been put on probation, they will probably get their act together long before it will affect you. What you need to worry about is a school with an 8.5-year average that is not on probation.

On the other hand, I would definitely definitely take time to graduation into account when you choose a school. More than you think you need to. You can usually take another year if you want to/need to/choose to, but it's not so easy to grad in 7 if everyone else is taking 9, even if you really want to.

Really, time to grad has much more to do with factors like amt of teaching required, etc. than it does with thesis quality. Of course there is surely some relation (a scatter plot would probably give you an r = 0.2 or so), but it's far from the most important factor.

 

[Dr.Watson]

.

 

[mudphud2b]

Thanks for reviving this thread. Well-timed!

So I'm strongly considering the MSTP at the University of Virginia. I'm interested in cancer genetics. I have my opinions, but I wanted to hear yours as it's so hard to get more objective assessments from people not part of the program. What are your thoughts of the med school, grad school, and the MSTP at UVa????

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!!!!!!!!