MD/PhD Admissions?

[Spinach Dip]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Okay....

So after talking with a research adviser, I'm considering applying to a couple MD/PhD programs this coming cycle.

I am wondering what is different about MD/PhD admissions (aside from more essays)? Are the interviews longer/more intense/structured differently?

I'm assuming that they want to see a dedication to research (got it). And that if I don't make it into an MD/PhD program, I might still be offered a spot in a normal MD route.

Any words of wisdom from those who have gone this route?






PS. I copy-pasted my resume below, for those of you who haven't memorized it yet...


40 MCAT (14/11/15) (that's the score breakdown, not the date)
3.4 undergrad GPA (at a state college you've never heard of) Major in Animal Biology.
3.3 graduate GPA (at OHSU) Major in Biochemistry. Yes, there is a good reason my GPA is so low; I had some health problems and had to be hospitalized a couple times in one term which absolutely tanked my GPA.

Oregon resident.

ECs:

-Worked as a CNA for a while (couple hundred hours) (Had to quit for personal reasons)
-Shadowed an anesthesiologist
-A publication in JAALAS (2nd author) (Journal for the American Association of Lab Animal Science)
-Potentially a first-author publication in an embryology journal
-Did a poster presentation
-Did another poster presentation
-Did some PCR research
-Did some animal research (swine and primates primarily)
-Was an Ochem tutor for a year
-Produced a short video (2 mins) explaining the value of science to a grade-school audience
-Appeared in a couple university-produced educational videos
-Learning spanish
-In my spare time (ha!), I play online chess through FICS. I think I'm nearing in on 2500 games

 

[NickNaylor]

Aside from the obvious that MSTP programs are typically more competitive, the interview process is different. At my institution and pretty much every one that I've heard about, the interview process occurs over two days rather than one. One day is the typical MD interview day while the other is what you would consider to be a standard graduate school admissions day. You're also typically treated much better (eg, get out up in a hotel - here the MSTP interviewees get a free hotel stay at a nice hotel downtown as well as all transportation) and are wined and dined a bit more. The interview focus is somewhat different; remember that you are expected to do a substantial amount of research, so that will form a much larger part of the evaluation process than the straight MD process. You should be prepared to talk about your research experiences in quite a bit of detail. For the MD side, you should be able to articulate how clinical work fits into your career aspirations and research interests (if you have any). I personally don't treat MSTP applicants any differently than MD applicants with respect to the questions I ask, but you very well might be depending on who interviews you.

I don't have any particular words of wisdom other than good luck.

 

[Ismet]

The interview is 2 days at my school as well. Day 1 is several MSTP interviews (4-5 maybe?) and Day 2 is the regular interview day that every MD applicant gets, with 2 more interviews (faculty and student)

 

[Goro]

Key word is competitive. Your GPAs are well below the median for them. Stick with MD programs.

 

[ridethecliche]

Your GPA is low for MD programs let alone MD/PhD. The fact that you didn't do much better in grad school vs undergrad isn't really confidence inspiring either. If you aced a post-bacc, then maybe, but MD/PhD applicants are typically strong from the get go. Maybe you'll get lucky, but it's a pretty big maybe.

More pubs would probably help since you only have one and it's uncertain how important the poster presentations were.

 

[Doug Underhill]

I think one pub will probably place you in the 95th percentile as far as pre-meds are concerned. The only thing holding the TC back is the GPA.

40 MCATs tend to open doors, though, at least as far as MD admissions are concerned. With a 3.39 and a 40, the TC has a 62.5% chance of a MD acceptance.

 

[ridethecliche]

I think one pub will probably place you in the 95th percentile as far as pre-meds are concerned. The only thing holding the TC back is the GPA.

Not for MSTP. It's an entirely different ballgame.

 

[kamikaze1992]

I think you have a shot at most MSTP programs. I've seen a couple of folks at my school with similar stats who got interviews at top programs. But as many others have pointed out, MSTPs are generally more competitive (i.e. in that applicants are more self-selected, most folks I met at interviews are much older than me who took 2-3 years off to do research and get a master degrees/publications). If you'd like to do clinical research, I think an MD is a much better fit and you'd benefit more from MD training in a research intensive school.

 

[Doogie17]

I got in at a MD/PhD program for next year. The interview process does take more time and the success odds are lower, usually only 3 to 8 spots each year at most schools. I missed my current classes for most of October going to interviews and part of Nov, and will miss two weeks next semester for scheduled invites. Most do two full days of interviews, with travel days before and after, most were Thursday and Friday interviews, but one was Wednesday and Thursday so I also missed Friday classes getting back home. UT Houston separates the two days by a couple of weeks so I did two separate trips.

I have had 13 II so far, have been rejected/not invited by 4 schools I applied to for MD/PhD program even with a 4.0 / 37 mcat/ double major biology and biochemistry, two years research, though they were still considering me for MD, but I have withdrawn those apps. Still have not heard from 5 schools. I turned down 4 invites due to scheduling conflicts since they usually offer only one or two interview dates at each school. MSTP is a term used for NIH funded programs where your tuition is paid and you also receive about $25K/year to live on for the eight years, these programs pay your airfare and hotel to interview. Two of the other MD/PhD schools had not heard of the term MSTP when I used it, and their funding varies by school. So to the OP , your mcat is great but your gpa is way too low from what I have seen, when I talk to the other students at the interviews they are all 3.85 or better.

 

[neurotroph]

Two of the other MD/PhD schools had not heard of the term MSTP when I used it

WUT

 

[Noctámbulo]

In addition to what was mentioned above, MSTPs are tailored towards those with an interest in biomedical research, and it sounds like your previous research experience may not be the right fit for that.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Okay....

So after talking with a research adviser, I'm considering applying to a couple MD/PhD programs this coming cycle.

Why MD/PhD is the biggest question to answer. People in your M1/M2 class will be done with fellowships by the time you start your intern year. It's a huge time commitment that rarely pays off, either financially and intellectually.

 

[tima]

Why MD/PhD is the biggest question to answer. People in your M1/M2 class will be done with fellowships by the time you start your intern year. It's a huge time commitment that rarely pays off, either financially and intellectually.

+1

It's hard to use your MD/PhD in private practice. You will find the most opportunities in academics, which pays a lot less than private practice. If you really like research you can do clinical research.

 

[mimelim]

WUT

We don't use the term MSTP. Not to say that most of us don't know what the term means, but we call it "MD/PhD" almost exclusively. This was true at my prior institution as well.

Regarding the OP.

Take home: you should apply MD/PhD if your finances allow you to do in addition to MD.

For the sake of completeness, I'll repeat what you already know/others have said.

#1 Your GPAs are low, even for US MD. A 40 MCAT will save you from questions of, "is he academically capable to get through medical school?" (US MD question) But, will NOT save you from the question, "How does he stack up academically against the MD/PhD pool?" (MD/PhD question)
#2 MD/PhD is very different from MD. It is much more similar to residency or top top medical school applications. You have to be academically sound, but really the only way to get consideration if you don't have very good stats is to have something that someone on committee will say, "I don't care what you people say, I want this guy."
#3 Research is very tricky to appreciate. First, with the number of disciplines that people publish in, it is hard as an outsider to know the quality of work. Second, it is next to impossible to really appreciate someone's involvement in a given project regardless of authorship unless it is first author. You pretty much have to interview someone to really get a handle on it. I've been in and out of research for a decade now and even paying attention to this stuff, it is still very difficult. Well above the appreciation of your average pre-med, medical student, resident or even US MD adcom.
#4 There are very few people that should be applying MD/PhD out there. You can do most research as an MD if that is what you are interested in.
#5 Research advisers are the worst people to listen to when it comes to future plans when going MD. They nearly universally have no clue what they are setting you up for. Even if they are MD/PhDs, unless they are actually a PI running a lab while practicing medicine, they have no idea what the realities are.
#6 With a 40/3.4 you will get bites from some MD/PhD programs if you have something that people need an interview to look at closely. If not, it is a waste of your time.

 

[youououa]

What type of people should be applying to MD/PhD programs? Are there disciplines that are best suited to MD/PhD?

We don't use the term MSTP. Not to say that most of us don't know what the term means, but we call it "MD/PhD" almost exclusively. This was true at my prior institution as well.

Regarding the OP.

Take home: you should apply MD/PhD if your finances allow you to do in addition to MD.

For the sake of completeness, I'll repeat what you already know/others have said.

#1 Your GPAs are low, even for US MD. A 40 MCAT will save you from questions of, "is he academically capable to get through medical school?" (US MD question) But, will NOT save you from the question, "How does he stack up academically against the MD/PhD pool?" (MD/PhD question)
#2 MD/PhD is very different from MD. It is much more similar to residency or top top medical school applications. You have to be academically sound, but really the only way to get consideration if you don't have very good stats is to have something that someone on committee will say, "I don't care what you people say, I want this guy."
#3 Research is very tricky to appreciate. First, with the number of disciplines that people publish in, it is hard as an outsider to know the quality of work. Second, it is next to impossible to really appreciate someone's involvement in a given project regardless of authorship unless it is first author. You pretty much have to interview someone to really get a handle on it. I've been in and out of research for a decade now and even paying attention to this stuff, it is still very difficult. Well above the appreciation of your average pre-med, medical student, resident or even US MD adcom.
#4 There are very few people that should be applying MD/PhD out there. You can do most research as an MD if that is what you are interested in.
#5 Research advisers are the worst people to listen to when it comes to future plans when going MD. They nearly universally have no clue what they are setting you up for. Even if they are MD/PhDs, unless they are actually a PI running a lab while practicing medicine, they have no idea what the realities are.
#6 With a 40/3.4 you will get bites from some MD/PhD programs if you have something that people need an interview to look at closely. If not, it is a waste of your time.

 

[Hermione L Knope MD. Ph.D]

I got in at a MD/PhD program for next year. The interview process does take more time and the success odds are lower, usually only 3 to 8 spots each year at most schools. I missed my current classes for most of October going to interviews and part of Nov, and will miss two weeks next semester for scheduled invites. Most do two full days of interviews, with travel days before and after, most were Thursday and Friday interviews, but one was Wednesday and Thursday so I also missed Friday classes getting back home. UT Houston separates the two days by a couple of weeks so I did two separate trips.

I have had 13 II so far, have been rejected/not invited by 4 schools I applied to for MD/PhD program even with a 4.0 / 37 mcat/ double major biology and biochemistry, two years research, though they were still considering me for MD, but I have withdrawn those apps. Still have not heard from 5 schools. I turned down 4 invites due to scheduling conflicts since they usually offer only one or two interview dates at each school. MSTP is a term used for NIH funded programs where your tuition is paid and you also receive about $25K/year to live on for the eight years, these programs pay your airfare and hotel to interview. Two of the other MD/PhD schools had not heard of the term MSTP when I used it, and their funding varies by school. So to the OP , your mcat is great but your gpa is way too low from what I have seen, when I talk to the other students at the interviews they are all 3.85 or better.

Just as a correction--not all MSTP pays for airfare and hotel. I interviewed at all MSTP and most paid for hotel but only one paid for airfare.

 

[Ariodant]

Your GPA is too low. Stick with MD programs. You can do a research fellowship after residency if you want to do basic science.

 

[Chansey]

I'm going to disagree with everyone here. I think you're a very good MD/PhD candidate.

I have friends applying MD/PhD with your GPA and a lower MCAT, and they've gotten many interviews already. Some have even been accepted. The key is to apply broadly.

Here's what MD/PhD Adcoms care about, in order of importance:

1. Research
2. Research
3. RESEARCH
---
4. GPA/MCAT
5. Extracirrculars

For research they're going to look at:
1. How many years of research you've been doing.
2. Whether you've spent a significant portion of time in one lab (good), or multiple shorter stints in different labs (not as good)
3. Whether your research was truly your own (good), or whether you just did scut work for a postdoc (bad)
4. Good letters of rec from your PIs (very important!)
5. Publications. Especially first author pubs (very very good, but definitely NOT necessary.)

Given your research experience, publication record, and MCAT, I say you have a good shot.

 

[neurotroph]

We don't use the term MSTP. Not to say that most of us don't know what the term means, but we call it "MD/PhD" almost exclusively. This was true at my prior institution as well.

Using it regularly is one thing, but never hearing of the term is strange. Especially since I figured that MSTP is a designation that most MD/PhD programs aspire to attain.

 

[mimelim]

Using it regularly is one thing, but never hearing of the term is strange. Especially since I figured that MSTP is a designation that most MD/PhD programs aspire to attain.

Dunno, what this means, I'm referring to Wash U, Northwestern and HMS.

 

[plumazul]

Dunno, what this means, I'm referring to Wash U, Northwestern and HMS.

I believe what s/he meant was that if an MD/PhD program is not already an MSTP, they would like to be one some time in the future.

I'm not sure what you mean about Wash U, NW, and HMS.

 

[gyngyn]

MSTP's fund a small portion of what it takes to train an MD/PhD. With the current state of NIH funding the odds of a school getting MSTP funding for a new position (if they don't already have several) is small.

 

[FalconSlice]

Okay....

So after talking with a research adviser, I'm considering applying to a couple MD/PhD programs this coming cycle.

I am wondering what is different about MD/PhD admissions (aside from more essays)? Are the interviews longer/more intense/structured differently?

...

OP, why don't you post in the Physician Scientists area instead of the allopathic area? You'll get more replies as well as more accurate information since that entire area is made up of people that have (or are in training to get) both an MD and a PhD and have likely gone through this process.

 

[FutureOncologist]

Save the trouble of going MD/PhD. I won't regurgitate what others have said. Your ECs are great, except for shadowing (unless you shadowed the anesthesiologist for a few weeks, 5-8 hours a day). Your stats are good for MD applications. I would research what programs give you liberty during M1/M2 years to do your own research and make a publication (perhaps?) A lot of Top 20 schools do this, as well as other reputable schools (Mayo I believe is an example).

 

[psychgirl95]

I'm also planning on pursuing an MD/PhD program, and some schools allow MS1&2 students to apply to their MD/PhD programs. So OP, if you don't get into an MD/PhD program, but are accepted to MD programs, try to go to a school that allows you to apply to their program after starting med school.

 

[youououa]

I've often wondered this - where does the additional money come from?

MSTP's fund a small portion of what it takes to train an MD/PhD. With the current state of NIH funding the odds of a school getting MSTP funding for a new position (if they don't already have several) is small.

 

[BamaNicole]

I have to ask this since I've seen your past posts and please know that I'm not trying to be snarky or mean.

Are you applying to MD/PhDs because you think it'll give you a better chance at a MD only spot?

 

[gyngyn]

I've often wondered this - where does the additional money come from?

Indirects from labs, dean's discretionary funds, endowments...

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I hope you have really thought this through. Personally, I don't believe MD/PhD is worth it UNLESS you feel you know that the career you want is in academic research. It's simply not worth it otherwise. You can do research with an MD and even choose to do a research based fellowship to pump your CV.

 

[And_so_what]

I agree that an MD/PhD is not worth it. You can be a clinical investigator with an MD. Not sure how the phD will actually benefit. I'm doing cancer research and most of our top leading investigators are MDs. The phD will actually slow you down if you really want to practice and see patients on a regular basis. Most of the time you will end up in academia and seriously your phD is really not valuable if you don't do at least 2 to 3 years of post doc. And having to do 2 to 3 years of post doc after or before residency is just a pure waste of time.

 

[Spinach Dip]

I have to ask this since I've seen your past posts and please know that I'm not trying to be snarky or mean.

Are you applying to MD/PhDs because you think it'll give you a better chance at a MD only spot?

Lol. I am snarky and sarcastic once in a while, but not this time.

I have not made any decision toward going this route, but I am interested in what it would entail.

 

[SynBio]

Lol. I am snarky and sarcastic once in a while, but not this time.

I have not made any decision toward going this route, but I am interested in what it would entail.

A lot.

• 7-8 years medical school & graduate school (4 +~4)
• 3-6 years residency
• 1-3 years fellowship
• 1-2 years postdoc position (if not integrated into a research residency or if a faculty position is not obtained pre-postdoc experience).
• Arrive at a junior faculty position (maybe...)

It's a long road. Going the MD-PhD route with basic science + clinical training, your looking at about ~15 years before landing a faculty position. I would go this route (over MD-only) if you see yourself wanting to run your own lab as well as see patients weekly (anywhere from 20-50% of your time for patients and research 50-80% of your time). 80-20 (research and clinical respectively) is the aimed model for many physician scientists (MD & MD-PhDs), although many succeed at other variations of this model.

If you want to perform research, but don't necessarily want to run your own lab, the MD route with a research residency or post doc after fellowship is always an option that would allow you to perform research with a collaborator. Both routes (MD-only & MD-PhD) lead to qualified physician scientists, you just need to ask yourself how much of your career you wish to dedicate to research.

 

[VitaminVater]

Lol. I am snarky and sarcastic once in a while, but not this time.

I have not made any decision toward going this route, but I am interested in what it would entail.

Here's my advice.

To apply or not:
Don't apply MD-PhD unless you absolutely NEED to.
I'm guessing you want to do research as a physician, what kind of research and to what extent? The MD-PhD is designed for those wanting to pursue basic or translational research and want to dedicate a majority of their time (>80%) to pure research and the rest to clinics/teaching. You have to be content with the idea that one day you might not have enough time to both conduct research/run your own lab and practice clinically, and if in that case you'd run to pure clinical practice then you are NOT the kind of applicant MSTP programs want. If this sounds horrifying to you, run away now.
Do not use MD-PhD as a crutch for a successful career as a physician or in case you don't like medicine, a research intensive MD or MD/MS is enough to allow you to get in on medical trials or other clinic-based side research in the future.
I could tell you my own motivations and incentives for going the MD-PhD route but I'm sure you don't want to hear it. What you should be doing is asking yourself what you want and how you can most efficiently attain it.


MSTP Interview:

This is my N=1 experience but other applicants in the cycle have reflected similar views. I've gone on ~9 interviews so far, all MSTPs mostly in the top 20, and have been accepted to a couple programs.
MSTP applicants are wined and dined like you wouldn't believe. Although I haven't gone through MD interviews, this is in general what I tend to hear they're like:
Half day where travel, lodging, and transportation is up to you. 1-2 interviews where messing one up means a rejection, and where the questions are mostly on why medicine and can range from ethics to why you used certain wording on your PS. Overall, its very questioning and the adcoms are trying to see if you actually know what medicine is about or whether you're in it for the money/prestige. After interviews, you might get a box lunch and be sent on your way.

MSTP interviews:
2 days where ~20% of programs will pay for travel, lodging always provided (student host or hotel), and programs will either get students to pick you up from the hospital or provide instructions for a shuttle. All of these is highly coordinated by the programs.
Day 1: Orientations and tours with 12-16 other applicants where the atmosphere is very relaxed and all aspects of the "unique" program are explained; tours are led by students through the affiliated hospitals/research centers. It's either this format OR Orientation/tours +MMIs with the other MD applicants. MMIs are fun, don't let that deter you from any school.
Day 2: 3-4 Research Interviews that follow the following format: 5-10 minutes of yourself, your research, why MD-PhD, why their school etc.. The key is being able to talk about your research. then 15-20 minutes of the PIs research (this is why it's important to select faculty that does cool research or else you risk falling asleep during their much too long diatribes), then 5-10 minutes trying to convince you why their school is the best and most collaborative and why you're awesome for this place. Overall, these people are recruiters because there's a possibility you'll be their grad student one day. Ignore what anyone else tells you, PIs LOVE MD-PhDs in their lab. THEN you might have 1 MD interview. If this is the case, this is a pure formality to see that you aren't a psychopath. Seriously the entire interview will be the interviewer telling you how much of a rockstar you are and how their school is the best for you.

Keep in mind during these two days breakfast and lunch will be provided and most of the time other current students will join and talk to you (sometimes even other faculty). Post interview (both Day 1 and 2) is the funnest. Dinner at a way too expensive restaurant with other students and a ridiculous food budget and an even more so alcohol budget. Most of the time the students will offer to party it up with you afterwards, so going to a bar/club/house party is pretty normal. Remember this is an 8-year program so the school wants you to see how much fun their city is.

Overall the point is to see if you're the kind of applicant I described above, that research is your hardcore passion and you'll be the next great physician-scientist that they can list on their brochures. They already KNOW you want to be a doctor (directors themselves have said this), so the purpose of the interviews is to see if you've done the most you could with your research experiences so far.

Number 1 advice for talking about your research:
TELL A STORY. Why? Because a story follows the scientific method, it's how research is done. Second, it doesn't bore the interviewers. Appearing charismatic and fun while talking about a subject 99% of people would avoid like the plague tells them you were passionate about your research and not just another pre-med trying to buff their AMCAS app. I've had 1-on-1, 2-3 on 1 and a >15 member committee interview where the sole subject was my research and throughout I've talked informally, flapped my hands, and cracked jokes while talking about projects I was highly involved in. inb4 bragmuch? but the feedback I've gotten from multiple schools (including the >15 member committee interview) is that this is how they want to hear about your work. (Maybe not the particular style, but they don't want to hear a robot drone on for 30 min about specific reagents and listing IC50 values).

Sorry for the giant post, pm me if you would like to know anything else.

 

[Dormouse]

To apply or not:
Don't apply MD-PhD unless you absolutely NEED to.
I'm guessing you want to do research as a physician, what kind of research and to what extent? The MD-PhD is designed for those wanting to pursue basic or translational research and want to dedicate a majority of their time (>80%) to pure research and the rest to clinics/teaching. You have to be content with the idea that one day you might not have enough time to both conduct research/run your own lab and practice clinically, and if in that case you'd run to pure clinical practice then you are NOT the kind of applicant MSTP programs want. If this sounds horrifying to you, run away now.
Do not use MD-PhD as a crutch for a successful career as a physician or in case you don't like medicine, a research intensive MD or MD/MS is enough to allow you to get in on medical trials or other clinic-based side research in the future.
I could tell you my own motivations and incentives for going the MD-PhD route but I'm sure you don't want to hear it. What you should be doing is asking yourself what you want and how you can most efficiently attain it.

^This. Just want to emphasize that if you do know already that you'd want to dedicate a significant amount of your time to academic research, to me MD-PhD is a better route because it is all paid and saves you from going into any debt. And the PhD training will help you in the long run when you're in the position to apply for competitive fellowships and design and run your own experiments. The last thing you want is to go through four years of full paid medical school, residency, then decide to go into research as a postdoc.

 

[Dormouse]

Also, if you consider that people actually take a research year in MD programs to be competitive for certain research residencies, then the MD-PhD is really not that much longer and it is fully financially supported for all 7-8 years.