MD admissions easier through MD/PhD?

[eklope2000]

From profiles that I have seen on MD applicants, and also posts that I've seen on SDN, I get the feeling that, for a particular type of medical school applicant, it may be more likely to get admitted to a school for only an MD if one applies MD/PhD than if one applied for only the MD to begin with.

It seems like strong candidates to the MD/PhD are much more likely to receive an MD-only acceptance than to receive a complete rejection.

Thus, for a candidate that had strong research experience (generally the qualifications that slants the student to a more academic career in medicine), would it be advantageous to apply to MD/PhD for the somewhat sneaky purpose of at least trying to get an MD acceptance at top schools?

Of course, you may suggest that the candidate, if his or her application is so strong, just applies regular MD to begin with... but the evidence seems to suggest that regular MD admission would be much more of a crapshoot for a research-inclined candidate than this approach.

What do you think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Newquagmire]

Originally posted by eklope2000
would it be advantageous to apply to MD/PhD for the somewhat sneaky purpose of at least trying to get an MD acceptance at top schools?

if you dont mind starting off what is supposedly a moralistic career path on a somewhat dubious foot...

some schools claim that md and md/phd adcoms are completely separate entitites. at many schools, you have separate md-only interviews.

med school admissions is always a crapshoot. in addition, if you're "just doing it for the md" you have to go through the pain of writing an additional md/phd essay and fill out additional forms. and finally, if you actually get into the md/phd program, do you "two and screw" the school? what of the "ideal" md/phd candidate that wants to do translational research whose place you will be taking?

if you only want an md, only apply md. you'll make life a lot simpler for yourself and others.

 

[AlternateSome1]

Originally posted by Newquagmire
if you dont mind starting off what is supposedly a moralistic career path on a somewhat dubious foot...

I always wonder about these posts. I am still waiting for: "Is it ok to rape, pillage, and plunder small villages in Uzbekistan if it will increase my chances of getting in? But won't the experience with pain, suffering, and the human condition make me a more compassionate doctor?"

~AS1~

 

[coldchemist]

Sounds like a bad idea to me...one that could very easily backfire. I know there has been a lot of debate surrounding this, but I really think people who are rejected by MD/PhD programs are at a huge disadvantage when they are moved to the regular MD pool. In my case, I have missed several adcom reviews on the MD admissions side because my application was held up in the MD/PhD office. Large numbers of applicants were already accepted to the MD program by the time I received my MD/PhD rejection.

 

[Bander]

I have also hard rumors that applications that are slid over to the MD pool after being considered by the MD/PhD program are at a serious disadvantage. I've heard Columbia, for example, doesn't like that idea one bit, with an attitude of 'if you really wanted to do an MD/PhD and research, how are you going to convince me you want to be a sole MD now?' I think your application, essays, etc will be much more warmly received by an MD program if you cater it to an MD program specifically if that's what you want to do.

 

[Newquagmire]

Originally posted by AlternateSome1
I am still waiting for: "Is it ok to rape, pillage, and plunder small villages in Uzbekistan if it will increase my chances of getting in?

I feel a SnS/dc post coming...

 

[hockebob]

1) it may vary from school to school but i doubt very much that md/phd candidates who elect to also apply regular md are at a disadvantage in the admissions process (aside from the review delay issue brought up by coldchemist). however, it seems that during your interview for the md/phd you should probably discuss why you also applied md only (eg- you know that you want to be a doctor so if you don't get into an md/phd program you're ready to follow a non-traditional route to be a physician scientist). That way this information will be present in your file for the md admissions committee when they do get around to reviewing it. i also think that, in the eyes of the md/phd committee, it will strengthen the perception of your resolve and dedication to a joint career in medicine and research.

2) that being said, make sure you're pursuing an md/phd for the right reasons. if you really only have a minor interest in research, it will be hard to sell the committee on your reasons for applying md only (if they even know that you are).

3) finally, i would argue that, due to the smaller applicant pool, different backgrounds of md/phd applicants compared to md only applicants and differences in what md/phd committees are looking for relative to md committees, md/phd admissions are generally (slightly) less competitive. i say this from personal experience because there were definitely some schools that interviewed me for md/phd that never would have for md only. anyone else feel the same way?

aaron

 

[chhsu]

I'm a current MD/PhD student and I can tell you that interviewers can definitely tell if someone is not interested in doing clinical research or pursuing a PhD for that matter. This can also be seen in your background, personal statement, recommendations, etc. Save yourself the trouble and go through the traditional medical entrance because the MD/PhD interview also has influence on the medical admissions. If the MD/PhD interview was not impressive, it is likely that they will pass this news to the medical school as well and that actually lowers your chances than if you had applied to just medical school. Besides, and I agree with some previous posters, it is sad to start your career with such a dishonest footing especially in fields such as science and medicine where honesty and integrity are held in the highest regard.

 

[exigente chica]

Originally posted by hockebob
, md/phd admissions are generally (slightly) less competitive. i say this from personal experience because there were definitely some schools that interviewed me for md/phd that never would have for md only. anyone else feel the same way?

aaron

I have always heard that this was the opposite...MSTP being much more competitive in regards to numbers and experiences.


Anyone have any views?

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by exigente chica
I have always heard that this was the opposite...MSTP being much more competitive in regards to numbers and experiences.
Anyone have any views?

It's a question that's not easy to answer.

For MSTP being easier to get into: If you have an applicant who has done alot of research and not a whole lot else on the EC side, they're going to do better in the MSTP admissions process. MSTP numbers do average high, yes, but not any higher than say Penn's MD program or other top-tier MD programs. Also, MSTP does not give preference to location, so it makes schools like UWashington accessable to people from the east coast. Further, the MSTP process is a bit less random than the MD process, in that the best applicants will get in everywhere and the decision to admit is more of a formula than just some weird MD gut feeling.

For MSTP being harder to get into: The stats for MSTP average much higher than the average MD stats. This is especially apparent at state schools or schools outside the top-20 that don't have MD averages above 3.7/34. Also, you must have a good amount of research experience to get in (2 years+?), which is prohibitive to some applicants who did other stuff than research. Our interviews count for more than MD interviews (at least here they do), and as such we tend to have alot more of them.

I'm sure there's other factors I left out, and some of these things may apply more or less to some schools, but I hope this provides a framework for this question.