least amount of research that any one has been accepted into any MD/phd

[Genefreak]

I want to apply to an Md/Phd program/ By the time I apply my length of time spent doing research would be very minimal. I would therefore like to find out, what is the minimal amount of time (eg one year, 2 summers) someone did research and got accepted into MSTP?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dmblue]

I basically had 2 summers, but I had a killer GPa and good mcat

 

[Genefreak]

It's really good to hear that you got in with two summers. That gives me hope, I will take the MCAT next spring and I really hope I do well.

I have some more questions for you, if you don't mind, How many schools did you apply to, how many interview invites, and how many acceptances.

What was(or @ least the range of you mcat) score?

Do they accept intentional students at your school.?

(hope you don't mind)

Thanks

 

[Neuronix]

I'm sure somewhere, somehow, sometime someone got accepted with no research experience or maybe one summer of experience with an otherwise amazing application or some other interesting oddity. 2 summers seems like a bare, bare minimum to me. You don't want to be in the bare minimum if you can help it, as just because it has happened doesn't mean the odds are good.

International students need overall fantastic applications as they are competing for very limited positions. If you are an international student, you can't apply what you are being told by a US citizen or permanent resident.

 

[Genefreak]

Thanks for the input everyone. But, do you think I have ANY chance at all for getting into an MD/phd program? Here's a little bit more information.

I am an International student and I transferred to a US school last year. At my CC back home I was a math, biology and chemistry major. My GPA was very low, ~3.4 Since I have taken some of the pre-requisite courses there, I called up some of the MD/phd programs and asked about, if they would accept them.
Some schools said they would accept, some said I had to retake at US school.

I will therefore begin to retake these classes in the fall. Now, how would the AMCAS deal withe foreign grades, would the 'old' GPA from old school affect my GPA from my US school.

Now after my first year in the us my GAP is 3.7. I was thinking of applying next year, and hopefully by then my GPA will be around 3.8. I plan to take the Mcat next spring,and hope I get a good score. How could it look to takes courses like anatomy before gen bio.? Which I will 'retake' in the fall.

In terms of research, that was not possible at my old CC. no resources etc.
I did some research this summer, nothing much, but research not the less.
When I start school in the fall, I will be doing research with one of my professors. Hopefully for the entire school year.

In terms of EC, I am in a few clubs at school and before I left i did a lot of work in a non-profit group for my local community.

Is there any hope for me, if I apply next year for MD/Phd?

Bear in mind, the schools that accept International students are very competitive.

eg. Washington university, Emory, SUNY upsstate, etc.

I would appreciate any honest advice on the matter. Neuronix, please say something, you seem to know alot about this.


Thanks

 

[Ariodant]

There are some non-MSTP MD/PhD programs that you may want to look into, like USC. They are not funded by NIH thus do not have restrictions on immigration status.

 

[Genefreak]

Thanks....A

anyone else?

 

[24thGrade]

There are some non-MSTP MD/PhD programs that you may want to look into, like USC. They are not funded by NIH thus do not have restrictions on immigration status.

In case the OP is not aware... MSTP = school has a specific big NIH grant for their MD-PhD program- this money is only available to US residents.
This does NOT mean that the school does not have lots of other funding for the MD-PhD program though (it may be through private donors or other grants). I'm pretty sure my program actually has more external funding than NIH funding even though it is one of the better-funded mstps.

If you look at NIH funding levels for the larger programs you'll see that the money given definitely isn't enough to support everyone they have. Bottom line: look on the program's website for whether they take international students- most will list it in the FAQ area. If you cannot find the information: call the schools and ask how many international students they can accept (if any).
Even though the # of available spots may seem low at some schools (2-3), I wouldn't let that deter you from applying. Keep in mind that there are a lot less international students applying to mstp programs. You should (as all applicants) be sure to apply widely though.

 

[Genefreak]

bump....

 

[Neuronix]

I don't know enough about international admissions to answer your competitiveness question with any certainty GeneFreak. Sorry. I think you're heading in the right direction, and you should be aiming for 3.8+ GPA (as calculated by AMCAS... Dunno what they do with your international grades), 36+ MCAT, and as much research as you can get before you apply. If you have all that you have a chance. You might end up needing to reapply if you don't have enough research, however.

Sorry about the long delay in replying! The last month has been brutal!

 

[hot sauce]

I had very little research experience before my acceptance to my MD/PhD program - basically two quarters working in the evenings and no publications. However, I did have a 3.95 GPA and a 42 MCAT.

 

[Xcited392]

Not to hijack the thread, but since we're on the subject of minimal research requirements:

I am currently doing research in a particular lab at my school. The lab group is quite small, so I get to do a lot of cool stuff and I get to interact w/ my PI a lot. Not sure about publications, but I will present our research at 1-2 regional conferences. I will be applying in the summer of 2011. By then, I will have 12 continuous months of research in the same lab. During the gap year, I will stay and continue working with my PI. This means that by the time I hope to matriculate into medical school, I will have exactly 2 years of research in the same lab.

I'm just concerned that adcoms will only judge me based on what my application says, which will show that I have only done 1 year of research--which obviously is not enough. Does my research year after submitting still count?

Thank you.

 

[Neuronix]

Does my research year after submitting still count?

It's not ideal, but it still counts. Try to get a LOR in from that advisor you're spending the year with if you can. This is one of those "less than good" situations where you have a good chance if your GPA and MCAT are excellent.

 

[phatlineman]

.

 

[Voistant]

x

 

[QofQuimica]

I think its kind of stupid (and unfair) but somebody with a 3.8 GPA and 38 MCAT but only the bare minimum (according to neuronix) of 2 summer research likely has a better chance then somebody with a 3.5 / 32 and 4 years of research with publications. Especially for the top programs they seem to really care about the MCAT score..

It's "unfair" for Step 1 scores to matter more than things like clinical work or other ECs that show motivation for a specialty too, and yet, in the most competitive specialties, they often do. Get used to this kind of unfairness and stupidity, my friend. Unfortunately, there's a lot more of it coming your way.

 

[Neuronix]

It's "unfair" for Step 1 scores to matter more than things like clinical work or other ECs that show motivation for a specialty too, and yet, in the most competitive specialties, they often do. Get used to this kind of unfairness and stupidity, my friend. Unfortunately, there's a lot more of it coming your way.

I second this. Even for top programs in uncompetitive specialties a lot of consideration is still given to grades and step 1/2 scores. The medical life often bases its evaluations on exams and grades. MD/PhD admissions reflects this, but is by no means the only offender.

 

[Shifty B]

Uh, I'm not sure I can think of anything more arbitrary than the way clinical grades are assigned. It favors blowhards who are willing to make others look bad to inflate themselves. Now, if that's not the quality you want in a resident I don't know what is.

Oh wait, I think med school extracurriculars are actually more arbitrary. They favor blowhards who are willing to waste time on stupid activities just to make themselves look good. That also is really beneficial to being a good resident.

Hold on one more second, I think I found a theme... blowhards.

If you think about it, maybe getting considered by your Step 1 score is actually the least arbitrary.

 

[Neuronix]

If you think about it, maybe getting considered by your Step 1 score is actually the least arbitrary.

To me it seems like step 2 CK AND CS score (clarification: CS is currently P/F) would be the least arbitrary as they actually test clinical knowledge and abilities as opposed to random Step 1 knowledge/trivia that barely gets used in the real world.

It also seems as if research experience should also be highly favored. It is, but just like for MD/PhD admissions, a middle of the road med student with excellent research may not even match in competitive specialties.

 

[QofQuimica]

If you think about it, maybe getting considered by your Step 1 score is actually the least arbitrary.

Maybe. But see, it favors blowhards who are willing to study minutiae for months and do eight zillion practice questions, not because they're actually interested in learning any of the stuff, but so that they look good. Boy, if the ability to sit in front of a computer for eight hours a day answering multiple choice questions isn't what you want in a resident, I don't know what is!

Incidentally, I'm not sure what made your inner Cynical Sam grace this thread with its presence, but no one was complaining about test scores being arbitrary. The complaint is that they are irrelevant as a way to measure how good of a researcher (or clinician either for that matter) someone will be. Or at least, that's how I interpreted phat's post.

 

[Shifty B]

Maybe. But see, it favors blowhards who are willing to study minutiae for months and do eight zillion practice questions, not because they're actually interested in learning any of the stuff, but so that they look good.

Touche. Although, as a radiology resident perhaps it works pretty well because I do sit in front of a computer all day answering questions about minutiae. They aren't multiple choice though.

You're right that no one said these things are arbitrary. They said they were unfair, and I was using the word arbitrary in the same sense. It's going to happen again and again throughout your training that these tests are used as a measuring bar. There is just too much variation in some criteria to take them too seriously (grades) and too little in others to find them useful (recommendation letters). At least everyone took the same test.

Back to the original topic. Although no one has chimed in yet, I guarantee that there are people who have minimal research experience with 40 MCAT getting into MD/PhD programs.

 

[Shifty B]

To me it seems like step 2 CK AND CS score (clarification: CS is currently P/F) would be the least arbitrary as they actually test clinical knowledge and abilities as opposed to random Step 1 knowledge/trivia that barely gets used in the real world.

It also seems as if research experience should also be highly favored. It is, but just like for MD/PhD admissions, a middle of the road med student with excellent research may not even match in competitive specialties.

I agree that step 2 is the fairest of the steps and it would make the most sense to use it, but it's just not the case.

MD/PhD programs and competitive specialties alike have an abundance of wealth when it comes to candidates. Most can afford to pass over dozens of qualified candidates and still end up with excellent individuals likely to succeed. That's why they can afford to be so cavalier about their standards.

 

[QofQuimica]

Touche. Although, as a radiology resident perhaps it works pretty well because I do sit in front of a computer all day answering questions about minutiae. They aren't multiple choice though.

Hmm, good point. Maybe they should judge rads applicants based on board scores, and use the touchy-feely stuff for those of us applying in clinical specialties.

All kidding aside, I agree with you about Step 1 being the least arbitrary measure, and I agree that this is why it's probably emphasized so much. But the problem is that Step 1 scores aren't really a useful measure of anything you'll be doing as a resident, except taking in-service exams, I guess. I also agree with Neuro that if you're going to use board scores, Step 2 is more useful than Step 1 as a measure of relevant knowledge. If they wanted to, the programs could easily switch to using Step 2 as a major metric by requiring that people have their scores back before they can be invited to interview. I think that might be a reasonable compromise. Not that anyone cares what I think.

 

[smq123]

But the problem is that Step 1 scores aren't really a useful measure of anything you'll be doing as a resident, except taking in-service exams, I guess. I also agree with Neuro that if you're going to use board scores, Step 2 is more useful than Step 1 as a measure of relevant knowledge. If they wanted to, the programs could easily switch to using Step 2 as a major metric by requiring that people have their scores back before they can be invited to interview.

From what I've been told by PDs, there is some kind of correlation between Step 1 scores and specialty board passing rates. I guess that's not all that surprising since (from what I've been told) specialty boards are a lot of minutiae that don't always reflect everyday clinical practice (i.e. the textbook answer can sometimes differ widely from the "real world" answer).

I assume that people have extrapolated that to mean that the better you did on Step 1, the more likely you are to pass your boards the first time around. And that's what PDs care about A LOT - what percentage of their graduates passed their boards the first go around, and that's something that the RRC looks at too. And I'm sure that it will become a bigger deal in the future, as "board certified" is practically becoming a requirement and "board eligible" becomes less meaningful.


<sigh> The hoops, they never end....

 

[Shifty B]

I think a lot of times there isn't a lot to differentiate candidates, and that's when these standardized tests really kick in. When two candidates have equally great LOR, a few years of research experience, maybe a publication or at least one in prep, and a decent GPA, how else do you compare? I think it's rarely a decision between someone with no research and 40 MCAT vs someone with a lot of research and 32 MCAT.

Every couple of years, there is a rumor that they are going to change the USMLE steps 1/2, and one of the possibilities is making it a pass fail only test
(because it wasn't really designed to evaluate between two high passing individuals). God forbid, if that ever happens, these residencies will have almost nothing to decide based on. Then we will learn a whole new meaning of unfair/arbitrary.