Is MD-PhD a good fit for me?

[MaxiVaxx]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I went into undergraduate at the ripe age of 14 thinking that I wanted to do pre-med and become a doctor, but I was discouraged by the difficulty of the pre-med curriculum at my school- so I ended up going into general biomedical science instead, content to pursue a PhD. Even though I wasn't officially pre-med, I've definitely completed most of the requirements except for Physics II, and Orgo I/II (although I have Biochem).

This year I started working in a vaccine development lab for this year and so far I have really enjoyed the work we are doing. My PI has asked about what my ambitions for grad school are and for now I've just been saying PhD. In reality, the field I want to go into (vaccine development and infectious disease) can be approached with a PhD or an MD, or both.

I'm still a little apprehensive to pursue an MD/PhD seriously because I know they are really selective. I still haven't taken the MCAT yet, and I would probably want to go back to school and finish up my requirements. Also, I don't have much clinical or volunteer experience- although I'm doing okay in the research department.

The idea of doing an MD/PhD seems really rewarding to me because the clinical focus and opportunity to take classes in the context of medical school complements some of the downsides I see in the PhD programs I'm looking at. I'm just worried that I've been gearing to a PhD as an undergraduate, so my grades have slipped a little bit for my requirements and I haven't used my time as effectively as my Pre-Med friends.

TL;DR - great research experience, mediocre academics at best, very young (no rush though).

EDIT: The programs I am specifically looking at may be on the more competitive side. So far my list is:

-Sackler (Tufts)
-University of Washington*
-Harvard-MIT
-University of Rochester MC
-Stanford*

*Strong preference

 

[Dave1980]

Might be.

 

[DocOrBust2019]

With "mediocre academics at best", I don't think you'd make it into a MD/PhD program. What are you defining as mediocre academics?

 

[MaxiVaxx]

With "mediocre academics at best", I don't think you'd make it into a MD/PhD program. What are you defining as mediocre academics?

The combination of the colleges I went to, their prestige, and the grades I actually got. I finished with about a 3.6 GPA from a moderately tough school with a good track record of getting pre-meds to medical school, but like I said before, I was not a pre-med and the rigour of the degree I completed is more tailored for graduate bioscience.

Here is a breakdown of my grades for relevant courses:

Calculus I: C- (SLAC)
Calculus II: B (SLAC)
Statistics I: B- (CC)
Lab+Chemistry I: A (CC)
Lab+Chemistry II: A (SS)
Biochemistry: A- (IL)
Physics I: B (SLAC)
Biology: B+(SLAC)
Cell Biology: A- (SLAC)

Neurobiology: A (SLAC)
Immunology: A (SLAC)
Marine Biology: A (SLAC)
Developmental Biology: A (SLAC)
Herpetology: A (SLAC)
Botany: A* (IL)

IL = Ivy League
SLAC = Small Liberal Arts College
SS = State School
CC = Community College

*(A+, taken at institution that offers A+ as highest grade)

As you can see, the grades in traditionally pre-medical courses average around a B and they were taken at a community college or state school. When you add the courses I essentially took for pre-Bio, it goes up to A, A- range and they include courses taken at a more rigourous small liberal arts college and ivy league university. When I was in school, I didn't have medicine in mind, so I didn't put as much pressure on myself as my pre-med peers. Compared to the pre-meds I graduated with, my academics are terrible, but compared to a greater pool of pre-med graduates they aren't remotely as bad.

 

[DocOrBust2019]

MD-PhD programs are more competitive than most MD programs. Your GPA is certainly low for MD-PhD, but not low for an MD application. How much post bacc coursework would it take for you to raise your GPA to a 3.7 or 3.8?

At the end of the day if you do exceptionally well on the MCAT I would think you'll probably have a shot.

 

[MaxiVaxx]

MD-PhD programs are more competitive than most MD programs. Your GPA is certainly low for MD-PhD, but not low for an MD application. How much post bacc coursework would it take for you to raise your GPA to a 3.7 or 3.8?

At the end of the day if you do exceptionally well on the MCAT I would think you'll probably have a shot.

I'm planning on taking Physics II and an Orgo course to round up the traditional requirements, so I have a shot at getting higher grades there. My CGPA is probably higher because my graduating GPA only included the last 2 years of university because I had transferred (and the first 2 years didn't factor in). On the bright side, it means that the 3.6 graduating GPA could be more easily brought up by post-bacc work although it could reflect a thinking error on my part in terms of what academic work an MD/PhD admissions committee would look at and give value to.

I'm currently planning on continuing my work in the lab for the next 2 years, maybe working at a free clinic as a scribe, and just taking a few courses on the side to shore up the requirements- but not a full on post-bacc program. I can talk with my PI to see if I could possibly be brought on as a master's student for the work I am already doing in the lab, but that would mean potentially taking other courses as well.

 

[MaxiVaxx]

How much post bacc coursework would it take for you to raise your GPA to a 3.7 or 3.8?

Probably 1 or 2 years would do the trick, but I'm not super interested in changing my focus from research. I've looked into taking classes while I am working, but they are quite expensive at my university (if you aren't a student). Also, the rest of the post-bacc work would pretty much be fluff (that I'd have to pay for) other than Orgo and Physics which would take me a semester on their own.

The way that I've been expressing my GPA also doesn't count courses that I've taken outside of the last 2 years of undergraduate. If I was going to factor in post-bacc work into the number I am giving as my GPA (3.6) then I would also have to factor in class work from everywhere else I've gone outside of the last 2 years of undergraduate, which would bring it up to 3.7 alone.

 

[bluerock]

I went into undergraduate at the ripe age of 14 thinking that I wanted to do pre-med and become a doctor, but I was discouraged by the difficulty of the pre-med curriculum at my school- so I ended up going into general biomedical science instead, content to pursue a PhD. Even though I wasn't officially pre-med, I've definitely completed most of the requirements except for Physics II, and Orgo I/II (although I have Biochem).

This year I started working in a vaccine development lab for this year and so far I have really enjoyed the work we are doing. My PI has asked about what my ambitions for grad school are and for now I've just been saying PhD. In reality, the field I want to go into (vaccine development and infectious disease) can be approached with a PhD or an MD, or both.

I'm still a little apprehensive to pursue an MD/PhD seriously because I know they are really selective. I still haven't taken the MCAT yet, and I would probably want to go back to school and finish up my requirements. Also, I don't have much clinical or volunteer experience- although I'm doing okay in the research department.

The idea of doing an MD/PhD seems really rewarding to me because the clinical focus and opportunity to take classes in the context of medical school complements some of the downsides I see in the PhD programs I'm looking at. I'm just worried that I've been gearing to a PhD as an undergraduate, so my grades have slipped a little bit for my requirements and I haven't used my time as effectively as my Pre-Med friends.

TL;DR - great research experience, mediocre academics at best, very young (no rush though).

EDIT: The programs I am specifically looking at may be on the more competitive side. So far my list is:

-Sackler (Tufts)
-University of Washington*
-Harvard-MIT
-University of Rochester MC
-Stanford*

*Strong preference

I debated this questions too, because I love research, but I decided I like clinical research more than lab research, and I didn't need a PhD for that. You really just need the PhD to run a lab. You really only need an MD if you want patient interactions. Otherwise, you can just partner with MDs for clinical trials. The people who really utilize the MSTP programs well are the ones who do clinic stuff like 1-2 days a week, and then spend the rest of the week in the lab. They basically work with the patients with the illnesses that they're studying, so it's all very translational. Those interactions become great access points for recruiting research patients. If you just want to develop vaccines, you'd be better off just getting that PhD. You can avoid 8 years of training, a handful of mental breakdowns, and hundreds of thousands in debt.
If you go for that PhD, I think other than doing some more coursework to show you can perform well in school, you should probably get published a few times working as a lab tech. Experience is way more important than grades, as long as you can demonstrate you are capable of performing well.

 

[Naruhodo]

I think you could reasonably go either way, but it's never too early to start getting more clinical experiences to figure out how much you'd enjoy being in hospital/clinic during med school and residency. In my opinion, the day-to-day care of patients is really the main reason to get an MD, and if you enjoy this then it's worth going that route (or into another clinical profession) and if you don't then probably stick with research.
I had similar undergraduate grades (I think my lowest science grade was a B-, but I got a couple of those) and managed to snag an MD-PhD interview at Tufts. If you have specific questions about that interview feel free to PM me.

 

[keolu hills]

I debated this questions too, because I love research, but I decided I like clinical research more than lab research, and I didn't need a PhD for that. You really just need the PhD to run a lab. You really only need an MD if you want patient interactions. Otherwise, you can just partner with MDs for clinical trials. The people who really utilize the MSTP programs well are the ones who do clinic stuff like 1-2 days a week, and then spend the rest of the week in the lab. They basically work with the patients with the illnesses that they're studying, so it's all very translational. Those interactions become great access points for recruiting research patients. If you just want to develop vaccines, you'd be better off just getting that PhD. You can avoid 8 years of training, a handful of mental breakdowns, and hundreds of thousands in debt.
If you go for that PhD, I think other than doing some more coursework to show you can perform well in school, you should probably get published a few times working as a lab tech. Experience is way more important than grades, as long as you can demonstrate you are capable of performing well.

Many people have had mental breakdowns in Ph.D programs, I completed one before going to med school. Ph.d programs are about the same length. In fact, just to get a Ph.d can take 7 plus years. This does not include post-doc training. So, it is very important when trying to decide between the two that getting a Ph.d isn't any easier.