Also, and no offense to Neuronix and D&G, but my original post was more intended for current applicants, and not necessarily as a forum for critiquing the MD-PhD system in general.
I am asking questions that are absolutely on applicant's minds. They are absolutely loaded questions, but that's what people want the answers to. It's easy to get feel good or generic answers to feel good questions when you come interview. We may take some advantage of our anonymity on this site, but even then many applicants do not feel comfortable asking these types of questions here. I don't blame them. With everyone posting their undergrads and stats and MDapplicants profiles, you could figure out who people are. I know this from personal conversations I've had numerous times with applicants over the years. If I'm not asking these questions, I guarantee you there's about a dozen lurkers thinking about them. I ask so that when the questions do get asked, a week, a month, even a year from now, I can refer back to this thread and have the real PD's answers. That's what you offered us. I'm not sure I've seen it yet other than the one answer about 7.7 years.
People ask roughly every month on this forum: what do MD/PhD students end up doing with their careers? They don't know enough yet to ask the question intelligently: i.e. what percentage end up with R01 grants or what percentage end up doing greater than 50% basic science research. Program directors often quote to them, "well x percentage go into academic medicine". Applicants don't know that academic medicine is usually more about generating RVUs than doing research. If you explain to them what these things mean, they will ask these questions.
People frequently ask what the PhD drop-out rate is. If not on here, I get that question frequently in person. But I can dig up those threads if you prefer.
The Hopkins MD referral thing just came up in another active thread. It comes up roughly every year.
As for my critical personality. It's why I'm in science. I am a critic. It has nothing to do with my recent difficulties. If you look back at my posts over the years, you will probably find little has changed. Similarly, when I interviewed I would actually ask some program directors to their face these sorts of questions. I was the only one doing it and I know it hurt me at some schools to actually ask these questions that matter. So now that I'm not applying, I'm asking these questions on behalf of the applicants; as a moderator and as someone who doesn't have to apply for MD/PhD programs again. I also don't have to worry about applying to Hopkins for residency. I still have no desire after they canned that guy for whistleblowing them on the 80 hour work week rules.
Neuro and D&G, y'all are like bulldogs. No applicant is going to be asking those questions.
No, I am a corgi. Corgis have this bad habit of nipping at your heels to herd you in the direction they want you to go. It's an instinct
Though in all seriousness, Q that's a great idea to offer to post the questions anonymously. The same offer applies for me. If you ever want me to ask something on your behalf in any thread send me a PM. Your identity is safe with me.
An open offer stands to any program directors that want to answer questions directly. We have an advisor system on SDN. If you are willing to verify your identity to the admins you can have your own account and answer questions submitted anonymously by applicants. This can be in the advisor forum but we will make a redirect for you in this forum as well. It can be your own show without interference from us cranky MD/PhD students.
Hey Neuronix, for our program it has been 7.7 in the last five years, so what you were getting at is correct, it's tracked upward.
so I think in any case our stats don't support your theory that MD-PhD's must take eight years.
I never said it must. I said you should expect it to take 8 years. Your data supports that. Getting done in 7 comes down to luck. You can (and should) try to set yourself up to get done in 7, but as you can see from my posts as well as the posts of others, you may just get screwed.
However, I'll get the full data later; this might be a reflection of the change in types of PhDs that students are completing (basic science vs. more translational, different fields, etc.)
I would be very interested to know if this is the case. My intuition tells me this is very unlikely, but feel free to get data.
*waits for Neuronix to facepalm again*
There are still two questions floating around from Q and delirium. I look forward to their answers.
If I may delirium, a big problem with your question has to do with how to define "physician ability". The only real thing you can compare is test score #1 with test score (or passing rate) #2. We do have two things that hold us to accepting high MCAT scores however...
1) How else can we separate applicants?
2) USNews rankings weight them.
I doubt a program director will pull those two reasons out, however.