in need of guidance

[musik2468]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am a sophomore music/biology double major at a top 20 school. Before coming to college, I thought that I wanted to be an MD, but I also knew that I wanted to give research a try during college. I've been working in a lab for almost a year now, and I absolutely love it. At this point, I think that I would get bored practicing clinical medicine only, since I would miss the scientific thought and excitement of discovery. But I also know that as a strict researcher, I would miss the clinical aspect of medicine. Ideally, I'd love to be able to combine research and clinical medicine in my career, and especially focus on the intersection of the two through translational research. Therefore, I'm now thinking that I'd like to go for an MD/PhD. Is MD/PhD an appropriate choice for me?

A few days ago I met with one of my biology advisors, and his comments greatly discouraged me. He strongly disapproves of my plans for the coming summer. (I won an award that will allow me to spend the summer working in an international HHMI lab in a different field of biology from my lab at my home institution - both to have an international experience and to get a taste of other types of research/lab environments.) He says that I should be spending all of my time in one lab so that I can get first author papers published by the time I apply. While I see his point, I was very shocked by his disapproval, especially since this international summer research program is highly selective, and I feel that having had experiences in a different type of lab will help me make a stronger case about why I know that research is right for me. He also disapproves of my music major, saying that I should be spending my time in the lab (publishing first author papers, once again), instead of getting a double major and playing in symphonies and chamber ensembles. This comment also shocked me and offended me as well, since music keeps me sane and giving it up is absolutely not an option.

Was this advisor off his rocker, or are his comments true? I know that MD admissions places value on a well-rounded person (so experiences such as music and research abroad would be appreciated), but do MD/PhD programs only care about doing research all the time, and giving up all other activities in order to publish? If I'm going to go through with the MD/PhD path, I want to make sure that my application is as strong as it can possibly be, but if that means severely narrowing my focus and cutting out important parts of my life at the young age of 20, then I'm not sure it's worth it.

Thoughts?

 

[harvman11]

I think your advisor's way off the mark. My PI himself has encouraged me to go to other labs for summer opportunities, and so I've spent 2 summers now in 2 different labs, in addition to my "main" lab here at my undergrad institution. I've really enjoyed working in all 3 labs, and it gave me a chance to make sure that I really enjoy research, not just working in one lab. Sure, I don't have any papers yet, but it's not like they're necessary to get into a top program.

With the music major, I'd say go for it but make sure you do have enough time to work in labs, volunteer, and take upper level bio courses. MD/PhD programs still appreciate diversity, but honestly I feel its a lot more about letters or recommendation and research. However, I will say that anything that makes you stand out from the crowd is a good thing, and a music major might help with that.

On the topic of if an MD/PhD is right for you, how much time to do you expect to devote to research, and how much to the clinic? If you still want to spend a large portion of your time in the clinic, then you might want to consider programs like CCLCM.

 

[Sulfinator]

Yes, I'd say your advisors advice is probably a little misguided. I had very similar experiences as yourself that led me to go into an MD/PhD pathway. Now, 8 years later I'm really glad I chose the path I did. It sounds like you're doing all the right things. The HHMI opportunity sounds good. I think the idea that you need to have 3 publications (or even any publications) before you can be accepted into MD/PhD is pretty darn rediculous. I didn't have any publicaitons when I applied, just one manuscript that had been submitted (and eventually got accepted into) a pretty low-tier journal. Didn't hurt me. I got interviews at several great programs. I can't imagine why your advisor is being so hardcore when you are only about half way through your undergrad.

 

[ucbundergrad]

You should be able to spend the school year working in one lab and some summers in outside labs and still be able to get a publication (or multiple depending on luck), unless of course a project doesn't work out, but in that case I don't see how having the summers would be super helpful. Just be ready to work a lot during school so that you can have these awesome experiences during the summer.

When I was seeking advice from faculty at my school I made sure to ask at least 3-4 people about serious questions. Two of the faculty I knew very well and two whom I thought knew their stuff (i.e. md/phd faculty or people that serve on admissions committees). You don't necessarily have to ask that many but make sure to get multiple opinions, always, and over time try to find which faculty members you can trust. Ask upperclassmen or recent graduates if you can, like I could easily name 3-4 faculty I would reccommend my friends go talk to.

About the music, that is totally up to you. I personally would say you should stick with it, but not necessarily be heavily involved because ultimately that is time away from research. However, in the end you can always make things work out, but it will take a lot of planning and time management, and a lot of it depends on how much time you need to study, which varies widely.

 

[bd4727]

Working in multiple labs is good for many reasons, not the least of which is you need 3 separate research LORs.

The music comment is ridiculous, do whatever you want. However, I think that this person is making a decent point in that even if you can have 1 publication, your chances of getting into top tier MD/PhD programs are highly increased. I know its not required, and I am not saying it is, but from my experience, and talking to other people who got into different programs, and having been on my schools admin committee, having a pub (not even 1st author) seems to actually make a big difference.

So while your advisors comments are a little ridiculous, I think there is some value in erring on the side of trying really hard to get a pub in undergrad. Regardless, more than one lab is beneficial and doing other things besides working in a lab is necessary to be human.

 

[Drexon]

I can see his point of view and I can almost agree with him.
Not many undergrads publish before they apply to any type of grad program
[md/phd , md , phd] so being able to publish in undergrad is great and sets you apart =). While it's not required for entrance to these professional schools it's highly looked up on. One of my advisors is on the md/phd committee told me that even though many people don't publish in undergrad, a vast majority of the md/phd candidates spent time after their undergrad working in a lab [full time tech] to get those publications and to show their determination that they truly want that MD/PhD title [roughly 1-2 years as a tech] granted that you have your clinic hours, com service, club activities etc done. Ask around what the average age of MD/PhD matriculant students are [roughly in mid 20s] because a majority of students spend time after their undergrads to boost their research experience.

So keep that in mind when making a decision like that.

I mean spending 10 weeks / 1 summer in a new environment is great for learning different techniques but once you're trained as a researcher you can jump into any bio field. It's the critical thinking skills and analysis and intuitive nature that'll help you do well not learning different techs in a new lab. But who's to say that going to these summer lab positions might not open some other doors IE connections for your future.

One thing the MD/PhD committee look at is your impact in the lab. There are varying degrees of impact that one can have in a lab. Was the person there just for the "motions" IE do as they are told or were they critical for the project success. Bottom line are you replaceable?

One last piece of advice I'll give you is this [ I ask this to everyone considering MD/PhD ].
What do you see yourself doing in 10-20 years?
Running a lab ? Seeing patients ? or Both?
Doing both requires some serious dedication etc. Most people that I've seen [ not concerning the entire MSTP population ] have either gone with research or medicine after their MSTP careers. Also look at your research directory: how many people that have labs have a PhD attached to their name? MD ? and finally MD/PhD? At my university the population of MD/PhD that have their own labs is very small, only a handful of them have both titles. But this goes to show you that you DON"T need a PhD to do research but a MD can also do research. So let's rethink why you want a MD/PhD vs MD. You're still in 2nd year and have time to figure all this out =)