Is average program length a factor in your choice of school?

[TheMightyAngus]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Would any of you select a shorter MD/PhD program at a less prestigious university over some place more prestigious but with a longer average program length?

 

[physicsnerd42]

Yes, to some extent.

 

[Neuronix]

I think that was very important to me. It certainly depends on the difference though. I wouldn't split hairs over .1 year averages, but if it's as much as a full year, I would take notice! Something to think about is the average for the PhD program at the MD/PhD program you're thinking about. Some of the BioE programs at some places are notorious for holding people forever, while others are famous for getting people out quickly. At my program, some of the PhD options seem much more likely to hold you for 8 years or more than others (though I have no hard data to back this up).

BTW, I'm heading to the Bay Islands of Honduras tomorrow for Spring Break. I'll be back in two weeks. Hope all goes well without me 🙂 If anyone needs any help with anything, feel free to contact any of the other SMODs or Admins!

 

[Thundrstorm]

Not much of a factor. Every school I interview at told me 7.5-8 years was their average. At one school, I met a lot of 9-year people, so that had me worried, but 1. they have a new director and this may not be an issue anymore, and 2. they didn't accept me, so it doesn't matter anyway. 😀

As long as the average isn't like 9+ years or something, I don't think it will matter. It is just an average, after all.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Not much of a factor. Every school I interview at told me 7.5-8 years was their average. At one school, I met a lot of 9-year people, so that had me worried, but 1. they have a new director and this may not be an issue anymore, and 2. they didn't accept me, so it doesn't matter anyway. 😀

As long as the average isn't like 9+ years or something, I don't think it will matter. It is just an average, after all.

So program length is more of a function of the individual than the program itself? Meaning that the program doesn't slow someone down, the actual research does.

 

[tr]

So program length is more of a function of the individual than the program itself? Meaning that the program doesn't slow someone down, the actual research does.

Of course, it is a function of both the individual and the program. But even more than that, it is a function of the project, the PI, and the thesis committee. There are some definite trends that I've noticed. People working on genetic model organisms (flies and worms) tend to finish more quickly than average. Epidemiology is very controllable: you can set up your study to take X number of years, and that's how long it will take. Brain imaging seems to go relatively quickly as well. Also, people in smaller, newer labs tend to finish slightly faster than those in big-name factory labs. And don't make any knockout mice unless you want to be on the 9-year plan.

All of this may be specific to my particular institution, of course. A lot of it has to do with the flavor of the department and what the faculty in general expect of the PhD students.

In general, the role of the program is that they can exert varying degrees of pressure on the PIs to move the students through quickly. This can mean anything from subtle encouragement to financial incentives. Some programs are very good about this; others essentially drop you at your PI's door and wait to hear from you in a few years.

But in the final analysis, there is only so much that can be done from an administrative point of view. The most important factors are the size and ambition of the project, the expertise and attitude of the PI, and the industry and capacity of the student.

 

[Neuronix]

So program length is more of a function of the individual than the program itself? Meaning that the program doesn't slow someone down, the actual research does.

There were definately a few programs that told me over 8 years when I interviewed. Their excuse? "We give real PhDs here". My conversations with current applicants shows that these programs are still telling applicants the same nonsense. What, you don't get a real PhD from the MD/PhD at UPenn because it has a 7.5 or so average? Get real.

In any case, some things always struck me as obvious things that will keep you there longer. Being forced to TA undergrad labs for a year? Must do 3 lab rotations? Must do pre-lims on an unrelated topic? Lots of grad school course requirements that are out of your control because you're not exempted by any of your undergrad courses or med school courses or just because the department(s) is tough? How much are you exempted from in your fourth year of med school? For example, one program at which I interviewed still forced all MD/PhDs to do a rural medicine rotation for 6 months in their fourth year. What a waste of time for the future specialized MD/PhD! Another recent thread revealed a school that required an unrelated extra 3 months of research in the fourth year for MD/PhD students. I would argue that's a waste of time. There are certainly some other things I'm forgetting to mention right now, and think about what those might be. Also, just because a program has a new director or some change, doesn't necessarily mean that their 8+ year average is suddenly going to come down, but again this is something you have to weigh in your own mind. Individual success is up to the individual, of course, but AVERAGE graduation times across a program mostly reflect the program.

Sure, there's alot of other factors, some within and some out of the applicant's control. Nevertheless, what the program may or may not be doing OBJECTIVELY is something you can assess and think about, and as such is something you can partially control by your choice of program. How much you really care about the stuff I mentioned in this post is up to you. The other factors you can worry about once you start your MD/PhD 🙂

 

[Vader]

I have found from my experience that the "program" aspects matter significantly less as opposed to the expanse of the particular project(s) on which the student works. At my institution, I know students who have taken 5+ years in programs with the fewest requirements, while others in programs with more classes, etc have taken 3-4 years.

The largest factors, by far, are the type and extent of your particular project (a function of you, PI and thesis committee) and the amount of oversight (function of PI, thesis committee, graduate program and MD/PhD program).

There is an inherent conflict you will have to face as an MD/PhD student: you (and PhD programs) want a high-quality, rigorous thesis that represents a body of work on a particular problem, but also you are more time-conscious because of future training requirements (i.e. medical school clerkships, residency, postdoctoral work, etc). The truth is that if you do both medicine and research, you will always partake in this type of conflict, as you will be trying to be a part of two worlds that often have very different goals, attitudes, responsibilities, philosophies, etc.

My advice is to choose a program that will let you pursue your goals and give you the best opportunities to learn medicine and science well, and be a reasonably happy person at the same time. If the more prestigious place is one where you will find this, then I wouldn't worry so much about minor differences in time-to-graduate averages, because your situation may be quite different depending on individual factors.