MD/PhD age stigma: is there one?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

petomed

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
418
Reaction score
224
All other things equal, am I likely to encounter fewer interview invites and acceptances because I am 10 years older than the straight-through applicant? It's easy to come up with reasons why, but is it something to consider before applying straight MD/PhD for a cycle?

Members don't see this ad.
 
The average age range for MD/PhD applicants is probably in the 24-27 range. Very few are applying at 22. I doubt anyone will care if you're in your 30s. If you were in your 40s they might start questioning your sanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
All other things equal, am I likely to encounter fewer interview invites and acceptances because I am 10 years older than the straight-through applicant? It's easy to come up with reasons why, but is it something to consider before applying straight MD/PhD for a cycle?
Yes, you are. But are you really not going to go for what you want because your hill to climb might be a bit steeper?

If you are going to go the combined program route, you definitely want to make sure that your credentials are on par with those of the trads, and ideally better than the average MD/PhD trad applicant. I'm talking about grades and MCAT score, but also your research bona fides. You will also want to apply broadly and consider other alternatives for backup, especially if you are not a rock star candidate. Some other options are five year research MD programs, or you could do MD-only and then take a research leave (with or without getting a graduate degree). You could also consider doing a research fellowship (and even completing a PhD) after residency. If a combined program doesn't work out, then focus on getting yourself a medical school acceptance, because it's much easier to go to grad school as an MD/DO than the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Seriously?

Let's say you are 40 when you apply. You're 41 when you start, 49 when you finish. Now if you're taking the "standard" MDPhD path you are looking at 3 years residency and 3 years fellowship making you 55 when you have your first "real job". Now you have to convince institutions and funding agencies to put money into you as a researcher when you only have 10-15 years of productivity left in your career. Yeah if someone applied MD PhD at 40 I'd question their sanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yes, you are. But are you really not going to go for what you want because your hill to climb might be a bit steeper?

If you are going to go the combined program route, you definitely want to make sure that your credentials are on par with those of the trads, and ideally better than the average MD/PhD trad applicant. I'm talking about grades and MCAT score, but also your research bona fides. You will also want to apply broadly and consider other alternatives for backup, especially if you are not a rock star candidate. Some other options are five year research MD programs, or you could do MD-only and then take a research leave (with or without getting a graduate degree). You could also consider doing a research fellowship (and even completing a PhD) after residency. If a combined program doesn't work out, then focus on getting yourself a medical school acceptance, because it's much easier to go to grad school as an MD/DO than the other way around.
Thanks for the reply. You have mentioned several options I had never considered. Medical school acceptance is likely not going to be an issue today for anyone who can pull off a reasonable MCAT score. Being accepted to one of the MSTP programs or a fully funded MD/PhD program is a very different story. Being nearly 30 and considering medical school by taking out total cost of attendance loans for four years however, should make any sane individual question whether or not medical school is a good financial fit. Yes, time is money and whether straight MD or long MD/PhD, it's time or money. I understand that fully. But I'm the type of person who much prefers to owe time, not money. The below analysis is a no frills realistic assessment of the two scenarios for myself. Perhaps there is a way to pay down the $427,929 debt during the four years an MD grad has to work while the MD/PhD grad is still in training. But I doubt that. Even if with the ridiculous number of hours it would take it were possible, the MD will still not have a PhD at 44.

Beginning MD school at 32:
Tuition: $55,000/yr
Living: $25,000/yr
TCA: $80,000/yr
MD degree: $320,000 (before interest)
MD degree: $360,795 (after 4 full years of compound interest)
MD degree: $472,929 (after 4 full additional years of compound interest during residency)
---> $427,929 debt at age 40

Beginning MD/PhD program at 32:
Tuition: $55,000/yr
Living: $25,000/yr
TCA: $80,000/yr
MSTP award: $80,000/yr
MD degree: $0
PhD degree: $0
---> $0 debt at age 44
 
Let's say you are 40 when you apply. You're 41 when you start, 49 when you finish. Now if you're taking the "standard" MDPhD path you are looking at 3 years residency and 3 years fellowship making you 55 when you have your first "real job". Now you have to convince institutions and funding agencies to put money into you as a researcher when you only have 10-15 years of productivity left in your career. Yeah if someone applied MD PhD at 40 I'd question their sanity.
All true. However, do institutions and funding agencies account for your age when questioning the scientific merit of your proposal? Would there not be legal implications for such behavior?
 
Beginning MD school at 32:
$427,929 debt at age 40

Beginning MD/PhD program at 32:
$0 debt at age 44

4 years attending salary = $400k plus (and probably closer to $600k+ even in FM based on the offers I've seen the seniors consider) so it's at best a wash.

MSTP programs aren't aiming to graduate MD/PhDs without debt, they want to graduate PIs that will get R01s and have their own labs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Let's say you are 40 when you apply. You're 41 when you start, 49 when you finish. Now if you're taking the "standard" MDPhD path you are looking at 3 years residency and 3 years fellowship making you 55 when you have your first "real job". Now you have to convince institutions and funding agencies to put money into you as a researcher when you only have 10-15 years of productivity left in your career. Yeah if someone applied MD PhD at 40 I'd question their sanity.

Most people who are 40 aren't getting their first "real job" after med school. The whole thing that makes non-trads attractive candidates is exactly the fact that most of us have had real jobs long before we start medical school. As far as getting someone to invest money into research, that's more about the idea than researcher's age. Otherwise, NIH would just cut off funding for 50-year-old physician-scientists regardless of what age they received their PhD. Additionally, lots of people are more productive in any given 5 years of their lives than others are for their entire careers.

OP, yes, there is bias, but I would say that is only because there are limited slots and most non-trads don't have the stats to compete (metrics-wise), often for a multitude of valid reasons (like working 50 hrs per week while their counterparts were supported by their parents and were instead able to put those hrs into research lab hrs).

It could be done, but the chances are not good, especially the older you get. At the end of the day, you don't need a Ph.D. to do research anyway. Bruce Beutler is a Nobel laureate in medicine and doesn't have a Ph.D. Aside from that, if you really want one just to have one, it is entirely possible to do so after medical school. I seem to remember one of the oncologists who worked on Gleevec did that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Let's say you are 40 when you apply. You're 41 when you start, 49 when you finish. Now if you're taking the "standard" MDPhD path you are looking at 3 years residency and 3 years fellowship making you 55 when you have your first "real job". Now you have to convince institutions and funding agencies to put money into you as a researcher when you only have 10-15 years of productivity left in your career. Yeah if someone applied MD PhD at 40 I'd question their sanity.
Thanks, I was just curious about applying MD in general at this age.
 
Medical school acceptance is likely not going to be an issue today for anyone who can pull off a reasonable MCAT score.

You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of getting an acceptance. You need the scored and something else these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of getting an acceptance. You need the scored and something else these days.
To me, reasonable >= 510 MCAT + GPA >= 3.5. Data translates this to > 50% chance of acceptance to at least one MD school.
https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstablea23.pdf

Score high on the MCAT (> 515) with other qualifying resume attributes and MD/PhD doors start to open (pg 2).
https://www.aamc.org/download/321548/data/factstableb10.pdf

That being said, I agree. You probably do need something beyond the measuring stick to get into either route today. That something should probably further accentuate and verify your qualifications. We all believe we have that something or we wouldn't bother wasting money on an application.
 
4 years attending salary = $400k plus (and probably closer to $600k+ even in FM based on the offers I've seen the seniors consider) so it's at best a wash.

MSTP programs aren't aiming to graduate MD/PhDs without debt, they want to graduate PIs that will get R01s and have their own labs.
Those offers would be much more meaningful to me if a reasonable estimate on hourly wage were available. I fully understand 'that's not how it works, you're responsible for people's lives, you will work long hours'. I also suspect such lucrative offers are not without substantially increased burnout rates due to the number of accompanying hours. Not every doc works 60+ hours/wk, that's a guarantee. Many simply choose to do so for one reason (debt) or another (early retirement, etc).

Ask yourself, how many hours would you work if your medical education did not come with debt? Perhaps you would choose to pursue something more in-line with why you decided to become a doctor, rather than a reason skewed by the need to reduce debt. Not everyone needs to make $200k/yr to be satisfied. Many, myself included, need far far less.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Most people who are 40 aren't getting their first "real job" after med school. The whole thing that makes non-trads attractive candidates is exactly the fact that most of us have had real jobs long before we start medical school. As far as getting someone to invest money into research, that's more about the idea than researcher's age. Otherwise, NIH would just cut off funding for 50-year-old physician-scientists regardless of what age they received their PhD. Additionally, lots of people are more productive in any given 5 years of their lives than others are for their entire careers.

OP, yes, there is bias, but I would say that is only because there are limited slots and most non-trads don't have the stats to compete (metrics-wise), often for a multitude of valid reasons (like working 50 hrs per week while their counterparts were supported by their parents and were instead able to put those hrs into research lab hrs).

It could be done, but the chances are not good, especially the older you get. At the end of the day, you don't need a Ph.D. to do research anyway. Bruce Beutler is a Nobel laureate in medicine and doesn't have a Ph.D. Aside from that, if you really want one just to have one, it is entirely possible to do so after medical school. I seem to remember one of the oncologists who worked on Gleevec did that.
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that the odds are unlikely if I apply with stats that are not at par or better than traditional applicants. I would not waste my money applying with sub-par stats. The measurables for MD/PhD matriculants in the most recent cycle are MCAT >= 515.6 and GPA >= 3.79.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321548/data/factstableb10.pdf

So then, do you believe I would face age-bias if applying with at-par or better MD/PhD matriculation stats?
 
The age bias will be there no matter what you apply for.

MD/PhD is very weighted towards those who have demonstrated a continued interest and success in research. Having high scores and wanting to do research without a track record will not get you a spot in my experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The age bias will be there no matter what you apply for.

MD/PhD is very weighted towards those who have demonstrated a continued interest and success in research. Having high scores and wanting to do research without a track record will not get you a spot in my experience.
Thank you for your reply. Proven research skills with low MCAT/GPA, not happening. High MCAT/GPA with no proven research skills, not happening. This shouldn't surprise anyone. MD/PhD, especially a full blown MSTP, represents a major cost to the funding institution. The resume of an accepted student should be expected to be exactly what the funding institution deems acceptable for the associated cost of training.

I was just wondering if I would be facing a further uphill battle because of my age, if everything else were equal. Which it never will be for those traditional students, who never were fulltime working professionals, hitting their deadlines, balancing numerous projects, dealing with peers, bosses, etc. That is what comes with the age baggage in the professional world. Life experiences will vary but as a general rule of thumb, those with greater age have at least had more opportunity to live. Whether or not they actually lived is conjecture.

Personally, I would expect age bias at the end of the day, namely for all the reasons mentioned on this forum. I just hoped to be wrong.
 
The age bias is very depressing . I am starting to worry now, although I am not planning on MD/PhD
 
One of the other things about the age bias (and, perhaps a valid reason) is that there is concern about older non-trads actually finishing the program. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but a trusted friend/advisor who is an MD/PhD has said on more than one occasion to me that they thought the attrition rate for the combined programs was higher for older students. If that's the case, it is unfortunate, but it would be a reason for age to be a legitimate concern for an adcom that had limited slots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You should probably ask this on the physician scientist forum. It seems like I'm the only mstp here, while they have multiple program directors on that forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I agree with you that the odds are unlikely if I apply with stats that are not at par or better than traditional applicants. I would not waste my money applying with sub-par stats.

Ummm...n=1 but I applied to med school with a 99th centile MCAT and PhD already in hand. No red flags as far as I'm aware. I only had 1 acceptance. I mean, 1 is all you need, but even with good stats/ background I came dangerously close to not making it in. Don't underestimate this process.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
Age can be overcome with a strong app and scores. IMHO being very young is a steeper hill than being a bit older non trad. I just finished with a 20YO applicant (807/3.7) who seemed to receive a lot of discrimination based on his age. He did land 10 II's due to a strong app, but only 3 acceptances. He was 20 and had a baby face at that. At the interview, I believe this hurt him,
 
Thanks for the reply. You have mentioned several options I had never considered. Medical school acceptance is likely not going to be an issue today for anyone who can pull off a reasonable MCAT score. Being accepted to one of the MSTP programs or a fully funded MD/PhD program is a very different story. Being nearly 30 and considering medical school by taking out total cost of attendance loans for four years however, should make any sane individual question whether or not medical school is a good financial fit. Yes, time is money and whether straight MD or long MD/PhD, it's time or money. I understand that fully. But I'm the type of person who much prefers to owe time, not money. The below analysis is a no frills realistic assessment of the two scenarios for myself. Perhaps there is a way to pay down the $427,929 debt during the four years an MD grad has to work while the MD/PhD grad is still in training. But I doubt that. Even if with the ridiculous number of hours it would take it were possible, the MD will still not have a PhD at 44.

Beginning MD school at 32:
Tuition: $55,000/yr
Living: $25,000/yr
TCA: $80,000/yr
MD degree: $320,000 (before interest)
MD degree: $360,795 (after 4 full years of compound interest)
MD degree: $472,929 (after 4 full additional years of compound interest during residency)
---> $427,929 debt at age 40

Beginning MD/PhD program at 32:
Tuition: $55,000/yr
Living: $25,000/yr
TCA: $80,000/yr
MSTP award: $80,000/yr
MD degree: $0
PhD degree: $0
---> $0 debt at age 44
DO NOT apply MD/PhD for the supposed financial benefit. The 4 years of additional physician salary make up for the increased debt load and it's not worth it.

You can take this with whatever amount of salt you want, and n=1, but...
I applied MD/PhD my first app cycle at 29.
I had been swayed by some of those financial arguments and really enjoyed research to the point where I could see making a career out of it. I did not get in. This was, I am sure, mostly due to not having the stats (had done gpa reinvention, but still had low cumulative, and had good MCAT, but at the accepted MD avg, not at the accepted MSTP average, which is a couple points higher). I had years of research, but no pubs. I talked to a lot of people, most of whom were wildly (and naively) encouraging. The ones I talked to who told me not to (1- somebody in a MSTP, 2- somebody who had been in a similar position and applied without success), I didn't listen to because they were the minority. I should have.
Applying MD/PhD instead of straight MD cost me 2 years, a lot of money, and a lot of preventable stress.
While I'm certain my stats were the main thing holding me back from that, I'm also sure age played a role. The folks I talked to in, or around, MD-PhD programs all said that 26 to start was considered old. And if you dig deep enough, that's supported by the AAMC data.

If you want to do research in addition to medicine, you can do it without the PhD. The MD is more than sufficient. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
If you only want to do research, then don't bother with the MD at all. Straight PhD programs are also free and much easier to get into.

If you are hell bent of going the MD-PhD route, then you better have ******* pristine stats - 3.9+ gpa, whatever the current equivalent is of a 34+ MCAT, and some sort of serious research record that hopefully includes pubs, but at least has multiple posters and LORs that say you're the next best thing for science. Anything less and your age won't even matter because they'll find plenty of other reasons to not accept you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ummm...n=1 but I applied to med school with a 99th centile MCAT and PhD already in hand. No red flags as far as I'm aware. I only had 1 acceptance. I mean, 1 is all you need, but even with good stats/ background I came dangerously close to not making it in. Don't underestimate this process.

I feel the same way. I think my app was stronger than most and, although I'm matriculating to a school I wanted to go to, I ultimately landed fewer acceptances than I think I would have if I had been 15 years younger. All of my friends that got in had poorer stats than I did plus nothing close to the life experience or volunteer experience I had. Those that had similar healthcare hours were working in civilian jobs, which is drastically different than providing medical care while being fired upon. Yet, here we are, all going to medical school. I'm happy to be going, and even if I would have been accepted to every school I applied to, I would still have chosen to matriculate to the school I am attending, but the fact that so many schools wouldn't give me the time of day even though my stats were better than their median matriculant, makes me realize I will need to crush step if I want to remain competitive for residency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DO NOT apply MD/PhD for the supposed financial benefit. The 4 years of additional physician salary make up for the increased debt load and it's not worth it.

You can take this with whatever amount of salt you want, and n=1, but...
I applied MD/PhD my first app cycle at 29.
I had been swayed by some of those financial arguments and really enjoyed research to the point where I could see making a career out of it. I did not get in. This was, I am sure, mostly due to not having the stats (had done gpa reinvention, but still had low cumulative, and had good MCAT, but at the accepted MD avg, not at the accepted MSTP average, which is a couple points higher). I had years of research, but no pubs. I talked to a lot of people, most of whom were wildly (and naively) encouraging. The ones I talked to who told me not to (1- somebody in a MSTP, 2- somebody who had been in a similar position and applied without success), I didn't listen to because they were the minority. I should have.
Applying MD/PhD instead of straight MD cost me 2 years, a lot of money, and a lot of preventable stress.
While I'm certain my stats were the main thing holding me back from that, I'm also sure age played a role. The folks I talked to in, or around, MD-PhD programs all said that 26 to start was considered old. And if you dig deep enough, that's supported by the AAMC data.

If you want to do research in addition to medicine, you can do it without the PhD. The MD is more than sufficient. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
If you only want to do research, then don't bother with the MD at all. Straight PhD programs are also free and much easier to get into.

If you are hell bent of going the MD-PhD route, then you better have ******* pristine stats - 3.9+ gpa, whatever the current equivalent is of a 34+ MCAT, and some sort of serious research record that hopefully includes pubs, but at least has multiple posters and LORs that say you're the next best thing for science. Anything less and your age won't even matter because they'll find plenty of other reasons to not accept you.
Thank you for your reply. You bring up many good points but you did gloss over one of the main reasons for pursuing MD/PhD instead of simply MD + research--the money. Annual interest alone on $428k at 7% is $34k. I agree this can all be paid down in the 4 years differential between paths, but not without a) taking a job you otherwise wouldn't and/or b) working a metric ton of hours to pay down those differential years of debt and c) further delaying investing in the abysmal retirement account.

You brought up the experience of others and your own, highlighting how difficult it is to walk the MD/PhD route. I don't doubt that. At the end of the day it may not matter. Reading replies like yours and the others on this forum do lead me to believe I should not waste my time applying MD/PhD. I know full well a PhD isn't needed to be a researcher as an MD. My good friend just secured a part-time gig researching with his residency hospital while he starts his full time doc in the box. He is an MD who simply got involved in research, and published first author, during med school/residency. For me, it's always been the debt and corresponding hours required to offset it. The analysis here is tending toward mountainous debt or no doc.
 
Thank you for your reply. You bring up many good points but you did gloss over one of the main reasons for pursuing MD/PhD instead of simply MD + research--the money. Annual interest alone on $428k at 7% is $34k. I agree this can all be paid down in the 4 years differential between paths, but not without a) taking a job you otherwise wouldn't and/or b) working a metric ton of hours to pay down those differential years of debt and c) further delaying investing in the abysmal retirement account.

You brought up the experience of others and your own, highlighting how difficult it is to walk the MD/PhD route. I don't doubt that. At the end of the day it may not matter. Reading replies like yours and the others on this forum do lead me to believe I should not waste my time applying MD/PhD. I know full well a PhD isn't needed to be a researcher as an MD. My good friend just secured a part-time gig researching with his residency hospital while he starts his full time doc in the box. He is an MD who simply got involved in research, and published first author, during med school/residency. For me, it's always been the debt and corresponding hours required to offset it. The analysis here is tending toward mountainous debt or no doc.
B1 And if you don't get in? Not getting accepted cost me another $40k just in student loans for my masters, plus the cost of another app cycle and all other expenses for the 2 years until I did get accepted to med school.
B2 That entirely depends on how you play your cards/what the political climate is at the time of graduation/what you're willing to do. It doesn't have to be awful. But recognize that the majority of physicians in this country graduate with mountains of debt and are not really struggling long term to pay it back or fund their retirement accounts. The ones I know that are, have generally just made poor financial choices along the way.

But you do you. You sound like you're gonna do it anyway. I'm just passing on the same warning that I wish I had listened to 5 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
B1 And if you don't get in? Not getting accepted cost me another $40k just in student loans for my masters, plus the cost of another app cycle and all other expenses for the 2 years until I did get accepted to med school.
B2 That entirely depends on how you play your cards/what the political climate is at the time of graduation/what you're willing to do. It doesn't have to be awful. But recognize that the majority of physicians in this country graduate with mountains of debt and are not really struggling long term to pay it back or fund their retirement accounts. The ones I know that are, have generally just made poor financial choices along the way.

But you do you. You sound like you're gonna do it anyway. I'm just passing on the same warning that I wish I had listened to 5 years ago.
B1 need not apply for me, I work fulltime. I spent a great deal of time trying to balance the spreadsheet of debt with the income one receives as a physician. On the low end, you could be making less than $200k starting out. On the high end, well there really isn't much to be concerned with on the high end aside from the hourly rate. The fact is that starting that rat race at nearly 40 is quite different from the typical physician, who starts at around 30. $430k debt at 40 is vastly different from $430k debt at 30...

And $430k debt is low if you're taking out total cost of attendance loans for 4 full years at a reasonable tuition university. I posted a more thorough analysis on the snowball of debt acquired (compound interest) after a 4 year residency. That number was roughly $500k and was vetted by posters in that route to actually be on the low end of their reality...

Does medical school really cost $505,244?

Most of the physicians you're talking about are likely either one of two types--1) began med school at the straight-through age or 2) work a ton of hours to accommodate high retirement contributions/quickly paying down their debt. Again, both are reasonable and clearly do-able.

If $500k debt at 40 is truly what comes with beginning an MD at 32, then yes, I will continue to exhaust all other possible roads to MD. Or perhaps not pursue one.
 
Last edited:
Does medical school really cost $505,244?
Your numbers here are pretty accurate and DrMidlife's breakdown of the repayment options is really good.
You also say there that you're already making in the 50k range and are comfortable with that... so I'm not sure what the concern would be with continuing that level of living expenses after graduation, at least for a few years.
Most of the physicians you're talking about are likely either one of two types--1) began med school at the straight-through age or 2) work a ton of hours to accommodate high retirement contributions/quickly paying down their debt. Again, both are reasonable and clearly do-able.
Some of them are, but also all the other varieties. I've talked to a lot of physicians - trad, non-trad, workaholics, part-timers, good financial managers and bad. None of them have really struggled with repaying their loans, though what they have left over after that does vary person to person. But it's sufficient for their needs, if not all their desires, even the ones bringing in 200k or less. Some of that is the smaller loans/lower interest rates that the older generation of docs had, but there are more repayment/forgiveness options now than there were then as well.
If $500k debt at 40 is truly what comes with beginning an MD at 32, then yes, I will continue to exhaust all other possible roads to MD. Or perhaps not pursue one.
All of this comes back to the main point though... if you're doing this for the money, then you need to do something else. Knowing you're debt free won't get you through the hard times that exist throughout medical training and practice. You have to want to be there more than you want the money. Yes, it is a job, but it's one that you need some passion for or you'll just walk away when it gets too much - I know those docs too.

Nobody's gonna let you into a MD/PhD program to save you some change, you have to prove you want it regardless of the money to get in that route and out compete a bunch of trads too, which is hard (read - very, very hard) to do. There are a few 5yr funded programs (CCLCOM, RWJMS, ...etc?) that might look a bit more leniently on the age issue, but still need you to measure up and show passion for the program, not just the lack of debt.

So if you would be down with being a doc while bringing home the same functional income as you are currently, then you'll be fine, and it gets better from there. If you're not okay with that, then medicine may not be for you.
I started med school at 32, will have ~500K in principal loans at graduation and will count myself extremely lucky if I can pay it off by 50. I'm working on investments now to help make that more achievable, regardless of what specialty I go into. But even if I didn't have that Plan B, I would still be happy living off 50k a year - heck, I've been in the ~20k bracket for a decade now, so 50k sounds downright luxurious. And I am doing it because I love medicine - not the studying or the debt or the perpetual student lifestyle - but the future of getting to be a doctor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Your numbers here are pretty accurate and DrMidlife's breakdown of the repayment options is really good.
You also say there that you're already making in the 50k range and are comfortable with that... so I'm not sure what the concern would be with continuing that level of living expenses after graduation, at least for a few years.
Definitely. I wouldn't know what to do with the amount of money a typical doc makes. Unless I had the loans to go with it.
Some of them are, but also all the other varieties. I've talked to a lot of physicians - trad, non-trad, workaholics, part-timers, good financial managers and bad. None of them have really struggled with repaying their loans, though what they have left over after that does vary person to person. But it's sufficient for their needs, if not all their desires, even the ones bringing in 200k or less. Some of that is the smaller loans/lower interest rates that the older generation of docs had, but there are more repayment/forgiveness options now than there were then as well.
One of my points from the very beginning was freedom. You have so much more freedom without loans (exception HPSP). You can work as few hours as you need or take a job focusing on exactly what drives you. Add in progressively more loans and you are all but guaranteed to focus more on the salary in said job than the work when examining an offer. Or perhaps you don't and still choose the work over the salary. You would eventually work more hours than you want in order to hit the income you dictate sufficient to pay off your loans at the rate you're comfortable with.

I could be totally upside down on this but I think burnout rates would drop precipitously if docs didn't feel obligated to work so many hours. Not the extra hours that are required in order to keep your patients safe. The hours they feel they need to stay afloat because of their massive, massive, loans or lavish lifestyle, or both. I know not all docs live lavishly but that's not because they can't.
All of this comes back to the main point though... if you're doing this for the money, then you need to do something else.
I couldn't agree more, no one should get into medicine for the money. Like you mentioned, I'm more than happy with what we'll call my current, 50k. What I'm talking about is being able to make ends meet with 500k+ loans at 40 yrs old and not working so many hours that I burn out. Or dramatically increase my risk of failing the work/life/family balance.
So if you would be down with being a doc while bringing home the same functional income as you are currently, then you'll be fine, and it gets better from there. If you're not okay with that, then medicine may not be for you.
I started med school at 32, will have ~500K in principal loans at graduation and will count myself extremely lucky if I can pay it off by 50. I'm working on investments now to help make that more achievable, regardless of what specialty I go into. But even if I didn't have that Plan B, I would still be happy living off 50k a year - heck, I've been in the ~20k bracket for a decade now, so 50k sounds downright luxurious. And I am doing it because I love medicine - not the studying or the debt or the perpetual student lifestyle - but the future of getting to be a doctor.
You actually sound financially a lot like the me of the future, if I stay the MD course. Call it what you like but MD/PhD would be a way to circumvent the financial headache.

The 'if' in the room is whether I could produce an app of caliber required by a fully funded MD/PhD program. That is difficult of course and I don't mean to minimize that fact. Potential age-related stigma would add to this difficulty, hens my initial post here. All this money tangent is valid but for me, only adds to the value provided by the MD/PhD.
 
I could be totally upside down on this but I think burnout rates would drop precipitously if docs didn't feel obligated to work so many hours. Not the extra hours that are required in order to keep your patients safe. The hours they feel they need to stay afloat because of their massive, massive, loans or lavish lifestyle, or both. I know not all docs live lavishly but that's not because they can't
For the docs I've talked to, the underlying reasons for stress/burn out that I've heard mentioned are never about loans. Yes, they exist, yes, they're paying them - but you bring this up and it's usually a hand-flap kinda dismissal. What they did get tied in knots about is most often the administrative BS they have to navigate, and financial issues/overwork they mention is usually secondary to say, a spouse with a serious shopping habit, or kids in fancy schools, or wanting to get a new house/car/whatever that is just outside the budget. Never student loans.
You could argue that if they weren't paying those loans, they'd have the money for those other things, and you'd be right, but everybody just sees it as the cost of doing business and doesn't get too stressed about it.
The 'if' in the room is whether I could produce an app of caliber required by a fully funded MD/PhD program. That is difficult of course and I don't mean to minimize that fact. Potential age-related stigma would add to this difficulty, hens my initial post here. All this money tangent is valid but for me, only adds to the value provided by the MD/PhD.
Yes, and the point of my first response as well. It's hard to get in to a fully funded program anyway (as I explained to somebody else here 50 YO PhD working in Biotech/Pharma wants to go to Med School) and any whiff in your app of you wanting to to it for the money rather than the pure love of medicine/science is swift rejection. When compounding that with the exceedingly high level stats needed for MD-PhD and the very real age discrimination that exists in that pool, your odds of getting into one of those programs drop from very low to infinitesimal.
So would it be a nice bonus to walk out debt free after 8 years? Hell yeah.
Is it anything you can count on? Hell no.
So if you're going to apply,
1- you need to apply to straight MD/DO programs as well. And more of them than MD-PhD programs.
2- you should do so in the expectation that you will not get accepted into one of the MD-PhD programs and that, if accepted at all, you would graduate with the full debt load. Anything else is a bonus.
 
For the docs I've talked to, the underlying reasons for stress/burn out that I've heard mentioned are never about loans. Yes, they exist, yes, they're paying them - but you bring this up and it's usually a hand-flap kinda dismissal. What they did get tied in knots about is most often the administrative BS they have to navigate, and financial issues/overwork they mention is usually secondary to say, a spouse with a serious shopping habit, or kids in fancy schools, or wanting to get a new house/car/whatever that is just outside the budget. Never student loans.
You could argue that if they weren't paying those loans, they'd have the money for those other things, and you'd be right, but everybody just sees it as the cost of doing business and doesn't get too stressed about it.

Yes, and the point of my first response as well. It's hard to get in to a fully funded program anyway (as I explained to somebody else here 50 YO PhD working in Biotech/Pharma wants to go to Med School) and any whiff in your app of you wanting to to it for the money rather than the pure love of medicine/science is swift rejection. When compounding that with the exceedingly high level stats needed for MD-PhD and the very real age discrimination that exists in that pool, your odds of getting into one of those programs drop from very low to infinitesimal.
So would it be a nice bonus to walk out debt free after 8 years? Hell yeah.
Is it anything you can count on? Hell no.
So if you're going to apply,
1- you need to apply to straight MD/DO programs as well. And more of them than MD-PhD programs.
2- you should do so in the expectation that you will not get accepted into one of the MD-PhD programs and that, if accepted at all, you would graduate with the full debt load. Anything else is a bonus.
Understood. It's a shame we need to designate either MD/PhD or straight MD/DO for an application year.

I too will have a sub par GPA, due to not realizing my full potential during undergrad (but acing grad school and postbacc prereq's). I never published during my master's but not because I didn't want to. I've learned a lot of bread and butter technical skills in my field that can be directly implemented in transnational engineering/medicine research. Frankly, research someone without working as an engineer in my niche could never perform. This makes for a very compelling MD/PhD argument at the right university. Particularly, a medical school with strong linkages to grade A mechanical engineering and biomedical engineering research labs. These are the only types of programs I would be applying to.

Considering the aforementioned, I believe a sub 517 MCAT would not be of proper caliber for my app and will likely not apply MD/PhD with anything less. You mentioned you had a good app but were low (relatively speaking for MD/PhD) on the cum GPA and MCAT. I'm sure the research experience area on your app was much more compelling than mine. Having been through the application/interview process for MD/PhD, do you believe you would have had the same experience with an MCAT of 517+? What about with a 520+?

I know the rest of every applicant's portfolio is considered but I'm under the impression it goes as below for MD/PhD, with little exception reserved for slightly lower MCAT/GPA individuals who have proven their extraordinary research skills:

MCAT > GPA > recommendations/research experience

By the way, I really do appreciate your responses here. It's amazing to hear from someone who's navigated this mess and managed to land themselves in medical school. Although at times it may sound as if I'm not receiving what your saying, I am indeed listening.
 
Understood. It's a shame we need to designate either MD/PhD or straight MD/DO for an application year.
Do you? For the whole cycle? When I did it, you had to designate each school as either MD or MD/PhD, but not the whole app.
I too will have a sub par GPA, due to not realizing my full potential during undergrad (but acing grad school and postbacc prereq's). I never published during my master's but not because I didn't want to. I've learned a lot of bread and butter technical skills in my field that can be directly implemented in transnational engineering/medicine research. Frankly, research someone without working as an engineer in my niche could never perform. This makes for a very compelling MD/PhD argument at the right university. Particularly, a medical school with strong linkages to grade A mechanical engineering and biomedical engineering research labs. These are the only types of programs I would be applying to.
Yeah, you and a bunch of bright-eyed, fresh faced 22 yo's with perfect scores, publications, and enough naivete to last them through 8+ years of slog before they start to think of quitting. Or equally fresh faced, but more well rounded 24 yo's finishing their master's with better qualifications than you.
Skills can be taught, and a lot of PIs would prefer to train someone to do it their way, than have somebody do it well, but differently. It's not the ace in the hole you think it is.
Considering the aforementioned, I believe a sub 517 MCAT would not be of proper caliber for my app and will likely not apply MD/PhD with anything less. You mentioned you had a good app but were low (relatively speaking for MD/PhD) on the cum GPA and MCAT. I'm sure the research experience area on your app was much more compelling than mine. Having been through the application/interview process for MD/PhD, do you believe you would have had the same experience with an MCAT of 517+? What about with a 520+?
I had a 32 on the old MCAT (which is apparently something like a 512 now), avg accepted for MD was a 31 and the avg accepted for MD-PhD was a 34 (515?) at that time. So being a couple points above rather than below certainly wouldn't have hurt anything. I don't know that that alone would have made the difference though.
I know the rest of every applicant's portfolio is considered but I'm under the impression it goes as below for MD/PhD, with little exception reserved for slightly lower MCAT/GPA individuals who have proven their extraordinary research skills:

MCAT > GPA > recommendations/research experience
MCAT+GPA>research>>>>anything else
For MD/DO, absolutely the rest of the app is considered and can make a big difference. For MD-PhD though, it pretty much comes down to just the stats.
All the things that will make me a good doc and would have made me a good scientist, are just not things they care about.
Can succeed academically? Check. 3.97 for that biochem degree (but a 2.67 for the philosophy, because parties and apathy)
Know how to read literature, hypothesize, and think outside the box? Check. Have a philosophy degree, a biochem degree, and years of research. (My master's was after that app cycle)
Know how to talk to and collaborate with people? Check. Had been a teacher professionally for 5 years, a TA for 5 more, and lived internationally for 5 years.
Know how to fail at something, then get back up and do it again? Check. Got that life and research experience in spades.

But none of that mattered to them. Because I didn't have the pristine scores they wanted.
I researched every school thoroughly. I had a huge spreadsheet of every program, their avg stats, their rates of acceptance, even data of whether they'd ever historically accepted someone with my background (older/gpa reinvention/alumni from my schools/etc.) I researched PIs and affiliations, and had essays geared towards individual schools & research programs. I was strategic in where I applied. It didn't matter.
I had a 3.01 cGPA, a 32 MCAT, and no pubs. I was sub-par for them.
Perhaps I would have been more successful if I had applied after my Master's, but I wasn't willing to be burned again and cared more about being a doctor than being a scientist. Medical schools, while still competitive, are much more forgiving and much more interested in the whole app than any MD-PhD program will ever be.
By the way, I really do appreciate your responses here. It's amazing to hear from someone who's navigated this mess and managed to land themselves in medical school. Although at times it may sound as if I'm not receiving what your saying, I am indeed listening.
I hear you being exactly where I was 5 years ago and trying to talk yourself around the push back, because you know you can do it. And I'm sure you'd make a very capable physician-scientist. But this process doesn't work that way and, frankly, doesn't care to acknowledge that somebody slightly outside their usual parameters could do this. They live and die by the numbers, and the numbers say that people starting a MD-PhD program after 26 (28? I forget exactly, but around there)...as non trads... are 3x more likely to drop out and only complete one of the degrees. So they deem that too risky and find any other excuse (grades, MCAT, no pubs) to reject you.
So if I come off salty, it because I'm in the middle of step studying and just don't want to see someone make the same mistake I did. Glad you're listening though :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If the skills I'm talking about were such a commodity then the company I work for would be out of business tomorrow. Yet, I'm still gainfully employed. If my skills were being used to perform the translation research in academia then there should be a mountain of research out there when I perform key word searches in the journals. Oddly enough, no one seems to be doing the work. Academia doesn't necessarily contain all the smartest people on earth. Many, arguably much smarter, realize they can make buckets more money in industry. If that's true then perhaps academia does not always contain people with the skills needed to perform the research. Good luck learning those skills on your own during your PhD...

You mentioned how easy it is to butter yourself up and ignore the nay-sayers. I agree. I'm also not sure there is a way around this. Aside from posting on SDN and being torn into by individuals such as yourself, which is always welcomed :) I would hope all the folks who apply to medical school, and especially MD/PhD programs, believe in their ability to perform. I know what you would say--'belief is meaningless, the app (specifically MCAT+GPA>research>>>>anything else ) is everything'.

But perhaps I'm able to pull off a great MCAT. Perhaps my lower GPA is offset by the implications of the transnational research I want to develop. Perhaps I get lucky with a few nontrad interviewers. Perhaps I'm ok with the financial risks and delayed start date associated with one failed MD/PhD application cycle. Perhaps you yourself were a hair away from numerous acceptances. Risk vs. reward is quite tempting if you ask me.
 
SDN can be kind of brutal at times, but I think the gist is that people are trying to reality-check some of the misguided assumptions that those who aren't deeply familiar with this process (aka, most of us before we went through it) make. We don't mean to deprecate the value of your skills, but just to point out that there is the potential that they will be underappreciated by the med school application process, which is ultimately run by humans who only have so much bandwidth/time to spend on reviewing any given applicant. Think of the classic "one-liners" that are out bread and butter in medicine ("68yo man with a past medical history of COPD presents with subacute productive cough") and then think of what your one-liner as an applicant might look like ("28yo with past work history of X, volunteer experiences Y, and GPA/MCAT Z applies to MSTP with these research interests in medicine"). Maybe, as you say, someone in the room really relates to your background/ interests and serves as your advocate, but you can't bank on that. It's great to believe in yourself (necessary even!), but try not to tie up too much of your self-worth in what can be a difficult, arbitrary process and try to approach it with as much humility as possible.

As others have said, you will be miserable if you do an MD-PhD just for the money. I agree that there's tons of brilliant people outside academia, but also that being brilliant is no guarantee in academia given where current NIH funding lines are, etc. Sometimes part of being brilliant is knowing when to walk away from academia... Also, I agree 100% with the comment above about PIs often preferring people who may be inexperienced but smart and teachable, rather than someone experienced but set in their ways.

I was a more-or-less traditional, run of the mill MD-PhD applicant myself a decade ago, and at least qualified enough to be offered an interview. That interview went well until the program director apologized that they'd already offered their last available MSTP spot the week before and there was unlikely to be much movement. I wish I'd consulted SDN before I drew up my school list (which needed to be longer and better balanced, with at least 50% of programs MD only). But I didn't so ended up doing things the hard/expensive way :p I don't regret the path I took and have certainly learned a lot about myself along the way, but one of those things is never to take for granted how you will be perceived by others. In my old job, for whatever reason they thought I was hot ****, and I got a lot of positive reinforcement. In med school, not so much, but still I'm grateful for the learning opportunities and enjoy the company of my mostly younger classmates.

I hope some of this is useful. Feel free to let me know if you have questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
SDN can be kind of brutal at times, but I think the gist is that people are trying to reality-check some of the misguided assumptions that those who aren't deeply familiar with this process (aka, most of us before we went through it) make. We don't mean to deprecate the value of your skills, but just to point out that there is the potential that they will be underappreciated by the med school application process, which is ultimately run by humans who only have so much bandwidth/time to spend on reviewing any given applicant. Think of the classic "one-liners" that are out bread and butter in medicine ("68yo man with a past medical history of COPD presents with subacute productive cough") and then think of what your one-liner as an applicant might look like ("28yo with past work history of X, volunteer experiences Y, and GPA/MCAT Z applies to MSTP with these research interests in medicine"). Maybe, as you say, someone in the room really relates to your background/ interests and serves as your advocate, but you can't bank on that. It's great to believe in yourself (necessary even!), but try not to tie up too much of your self-worth in what can be a difficult, arbitrary process and try to approach it with as much humility as possible.

As others have said, you will be miserable if you do an MD-PhD just for the money. I agree that there's tons of brilliant people outside academia, but also that being brilliant is no guarantee in academia given where current NIH funding lines are, etc. Sometimes part of being brilliant is knowing when to walk away from academia... Also, I agree 100% with the comment above about PIs often preferring people who may be inexperienced but smart and teachable, rather than someone experienced but set in their ways.

I was a more-or-less traditional, run of the mill MD-PhD applicant myself a decade ago, and at least qualified enough to be offered an interview. That interview went well until the program director apologized that they'd already offered their last available MSTP spot the week before and there was unlikely to be much movement. I wish I'd consulted SDN before I drew up my school list (which needed to be longer and better balanced, with at least 50% of programs MD only). But I didn't so ended up doing things the hard/expensive way :p I don't regret the path I took and have certainly learned a lot about myself along the way, but one of those things is never to take for granted how you will be perceived by others. In my old job, for whatever reason they thought I was hot ****, and I got a lot of positive reinforcement. In med school, not so much, but still I'm grateful for the learning opportunities and enjoy the company of my mostly younger classmates.

I hope some of this is useful. Feel free to let me know if you have questions.
I used to get annoyed with the candor in replies on SDN when I first started out on this path. But I soon realized it's necessary and really appreciate it. This is a long road and it's best to have unrealistic expectations squelched as early on as possible. You're then further forced to do your homework, which is always a good thing.

I've heard a few times now that PI's will prefer it done their way, and they should. They've been successful with their research already, doing it a foreign way would be a risk.

But I wouldn't be coming into a MD/PhD program as a some wide-eye'd 'what do I do now?' student. I'm an adult who's worked with doctors (of engineering) every day for the past several years. I have a very specific and medically popular direction in mind, well defined hurdles that need to be explored and overcome, and endless opportunity and necessity for bridging the cavern between engineering and medicine. Perhaps it's taboo to have such a specific direction in mind when applying to MD/PhD programs. I venture to guess that's because normally in medicine, a lab with tons of resources and funding are required to pursue research and ultimately publish. My line of research requires zero lab access, just a computer. But if that taboo is still placed upon me and I won't be able to translate my skills, that would be a waste and I would likely not be granted any MD/PhD interviews as verification. I would then pursue straight MD and bring the right people together to pursue my research interests during and after medical school.

You've been through the MSTP interview process, can you speak to how such focused research interests might be received? Keep in mind that the assets on my application would be my experience, and that experience leads to specific research capabilities. Will all MSTP adcoms view such focus as undesirable? I'm not saying I'm unteachable, just that my experience in the world of engineering would not be adequately exploited if not pursuing specific research topics.
 
If the skills I'm talking about were such a commodity then the company I work for would be out of business tomorrow. Yet, I'm still gainfully employed. If my skills were being used to perform the translation research in academia then there should be a mountain of research out there when I perform key word searches in the journals. Oddly enough, no one seems to be doing the work. Academia doesn't necessarily contain all the smartest people on earth. Many, arguably much smarter, realize they can make buckets more money in industry. If that's true then perhaps academia does not always contain people with the skills needed to perform the research. Good luck learning those skills on your own during your PhD...
That's great, and I'm sure your skills are marketable in industry, but... if you're not seeing those techniques pop up when you search the literature, then that should say something to you - and not "oh, there's a niche to be filled" but "oh, I'm gonna have a hard time explaining why this is valuable to a bunch of folks who are unfamiliar with it"
As others have said, you will be miserable if you do an MD-PhD just for the money. I agree that there's tons of brilliant people outside academia, but also that being brilliant is no guarantee in academia given where current NIH funding lines are, etc. Sometimes part of being brilliant is knowing when to walk away from academia... Also, I agree 100% with the comment above about PIs often preferring people who may be inexperienced but smart and teachable, rather than someone experienced but set in their ways.
I've heard a few times now that PI's will prefer it done their way, and they should. They've been successful with their research already, doing it a foreign way would be a risk.

But I wouldn't be coming into a MD/PhD program as a some wide-eye'd 'what do I do now?' student. I'm an adult who's worked with doctors (of engineering) every day for the past several years. I have a very specific and medically popular direction in mind, well defined hurdles that need to be explored and overcome, and endless opportunity and necessity for bridging the cavern between engineering and medicine. Perhaps it's taboo to have such a specific direction in mind when applying to MD/PhD programs. I venture to guess that's because normally in medicine, a lab with tons of resources and funding are required to pursue research and ultimately publish. My line of research requires zero lab access, just a computer. But if that taboo is still placed upon me and I won't be able to translate my skills, that would be a waste and I would likely not be granted any MD/PhD interviews as verification. I would then pursue straight MD and bring the right people together to pursue my research interests during and after medical school.
You see being an experienced adult as a plus (and in both the real world & MD apps it is), but in terms of this kind of app it's actually a minus, because PIs want to pick up smart but malleable lumps of playdough that they can mold into their successors. They're not offering up a platform for budding new scientists to explore and change things, they're looking to further the academic pedigree by having science babies. (If that metaphor seems silly, go ask any PhD about his/her "science pedigree" and you will get a literal family tree listing... it's even a website The Academic Family Tree )
So adopting some (to continue the metaphor) red-headed stepchild is not high on anybody's priority list.
But perhaps I'm able to pull off a great MCAT. Perhaps my lower GPA is offset by the implications of the transnational research I want to develop. Perhaps I get lucky with a few nontrad interviewers. Perhaps I'm ok with the financial risks and delayed start date associated with one failed MD/PhD application cycle. Perhaps you yourself were a hair away from numerous acceptances. Risk vs. reward is quite tempting if you ask me.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. If yesterday had been different tomorrow might have been as well. But it wasn't, so it won't be.
If you're willing to accept the risk and forge ahead anyway, then that's entirely your business. All I can tell you is from the perspective of hindsight, I believe I did a very stupid thing by applying MD-PhD, despite being convinced otherwise at the time.
You mentioned how easy it is to butter yourself up and ignore the nay-sayers. I agree. I'm also not sure there is a way around this. Aside from posting on SDN and being torn into by individuals such as yourself, which is always welcomed :) I would hope all the folks who apply to medical school, and especially MD/PhD programs, believe in their ability to perform. I know what you would say--'belief is meaningless, the app (specifically MCAT+GPA>research>>>>anything else ) is everything'.
Maybe, as you say, someone in the room really relates to your background/ interests and serves as your advocate, but you can't bank on that. It's great to believe in yourself (necessary even!), but try not to tie up too much of your self-worth in what can be a difficult, arbitrary process and try to approach it with as much humility as possible.
Happy to shred. Not into sugar-coating anyway.
Not to say you shouldn't believe in yourself. You should. That's essential to weathering this process. But, as @Naruhodo says, you need to divorce your sense of self worth from the outcome. That sounds easy on the front end, but is very hard in practice as rejection after rejection comes rolling in and you feel like these things you have to offer are being labelled as undesirable or worthless. You know what your skills are worth in the real world. But when you try to market those to academia and nobody wants to buy, how are you going to feel about it? I got 30 "No"s in the space of a year - some by a hair's breadth, some by a mile, but each one stung. And the weight of all of them, compounded by having to reassess my plans and do things I wasn't intending to in order to gear back up for a second round, was painful. Nobody who's failed an app cycle will tell you it wasn't painful.
So perhaps spare yourself that and apply better than I did the first time around. At a minimum, apply to as many MD/DO programs as MD-PhD, though ideally more the former.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You've been through the MSTP interview process

Yes, I've been through the MSTP interview process, and the PhD interview process, and the MD interview process. For that matter I also got accepted to several top MPH programs (no interview required for those though). If there were an award for having applied to many types of graduate programs I'd be a contender ;) All of which is to say, similar to @kraskadva I am hoping that others can learn from my experience and apply more intelligently than I did so that they can save time, energy, money, etc. Don't do what I did in college and apply to 19/20 medical schools as an MSTP applicant with just one MD only application (at a school, I later learned from SDN is unlikely to consider OOS applicants who did not go there for undergrad).

Can you speak to how such focused research interests might be received? Keep in mind that the assets on my application would be my experience, and that experience leads to specific research capabilities. Will all MSTP adcoms view such focus as undesirable? I'm not saying I'm unteachable, just that my experience in the world of engineering would not be adequately exploited if not pursuing specific research topics.

Now to actually answer your question, honestly focused research interests can be a liability. The trick from my MSTP and PhD interviews (which can be marathon affairs where you meet with anywhere from 5-12 PIs) is how to appear broadly interested and curious. Remember the people you're interviewing with have generally spent careers pushing forward the boundary of knowledge about one very specific pathway, protein, or pathogen. You get your itinerary the night before and see that you will be meeting at 8:15am with a molecular plague expert and then at 9am with a epidemiologist who studies health disparities and then at 9:45am with a neuroscientist who studies bird song. Chances are 2/3 of those things (or possibly 3/3) are things you know nothing about and probably will never work on, but you bet you hit up pubmed and read some abstracts to brush up on exciting developments in the world of yersenia pestis, etc. It will be critical that you can articulate your interests in science/medicine, but equally important is showing that your interests can connect to their interests or if you really have no background in what they do, that you can at least express interest in it on a human level and recognize that it has value. The last thing you want to do is come off as, "I'm only interested in X, and so what you do doesn't matter to me." That is the kiss of death when you're around scientists who have poured their hearts, souls, sweat, blood, and tears into their research for decades.

Obviously you think what you do is very cool, and maybe you'll be lucky and get an interviewer who does too. But as @kraskadva said, equally likely is that you get someone who will think "why does this matter?" Be ready to make an impassioned argument in layman's terms (it very well may not be their area, but you still need to get them to care). Even though I worried it might seem pretentious, for my top pick med school interview I printed off figures from manuscripts I was working on so that if they asked me about my research I could show them pictures and talk about what the research meant to patients. Then I'd try to connect what I did to things that might be useful to their clinical practice. Sometimes this was a stretch, but I think they were at least intrigued :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Having worked around PhD and graduate students... from what I have seen its a rough road. Its hard enough on a 20-something with all the time in the world who wants to make something of themselves when they're 30+. There is a lot of uncertainty baked in: What if you don't get along with your PI? What if funding is lost? What if your data is garbage? What if you just hate the research you're doing, and end up putting 4 years into building a CV around a topic you don't care about?

This is just me, everyone is different, but I cannot imagine wanting to live like that past a certain point in life. The school part is hard, the rotation part is hard, but being this poor overworked peon well into your 40's, with little to show for it but a "promising future", is going to take its toll.

You can still do research projects as a MD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Having worked around PhD and graduate students... from what I have seen its a rough road. Its hard enough on a 20-something with all the time in the world who wants to make something of themselves when they're 30+. There is a lot of uncertainty baked in: What if you don't get along with your PI? What if funding is lost? What if your data is garbage? What if you just hate the research you're doing, and end up putting 4 years into building a CV around a topic you don't care about?

This is just me, everyone is different, but I cannot imagine wanting to live like that past a certain point in life. The school part is hard, the rotation part is hard, but being this poor overworked peon well into your 40's, with little to show for it but a "promising future", is going to take its toll.

You can still do research projects as a MD.
On top of this, I have seen that some MD/PhD programs treat the PhD part like a glorified MS project, and it takes ~3 years. So one is done at the seven year mark.

On the other hand, there are programs that treat the PhD part just like any other PhD program, and that takes ~five years. I once dated a gal who had to deal with that at Baylor. So now you're looking at a nine year commitment. And then you you head to residency/fellowships, which add another, what 5 years+?

Food for thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lots going on here. Very interesting. I am a current MSTP student around your age. It sounds like you really do want to do research, which I think is essential. I wouldn't mention the money on your app, even if it is just a perk and your real motivation is the research it makes people naturally wonder if they are going to invest all these resources in you for you to just end up an MD, which isn't the point of an MD/PhD program.

On the chance that money is playing a larger role here, remember that you will be losing the last four years of your medical career (ie. the best paid years) to your PhD training. Also, why spend four year learning about research when you could spend that time becoming a better doctor if that is your true aim?

It is hard to say whether I faced age discrimination at some institutions. Given my stats I think I did pretty well on the interview cycle and I'm really happy with where I ended up. I did apply incredibly broadly, on account of a mediocre MCAT score. It sounds like you may have to do something similar to overcome your lower GPA. Or take a few community college classes to bump it up before applying. I think your bigger problem might be research experience? I can't tell from your posts whether you are actually working in research or just have an engineering background that can be applied to research. Certainly, no one is going to take an MD/PhD application seriously without research experience. You will need to trade in your job for a soul-sucking lab tech position for at least a year before applying. Or renegotiate your current employment so you can volunteer in a lab twenty hours a week.

I also think the attitude I've seen shine through about how you're an adult and have already been working with doctors of engineering for many years etc. won't do you any favors. The hardest part about starting a degree like this so much later than average is being treated like a novice --- because you are a novice. If the annoyance of being treated like a student when you're used to being treated like a seasoned professional isn't something you can get over, life is going to be pretty rough for the better part of a decade. This was the thing I considered the most seriously before applying. It is not easy to go from pro to novice in your thirties. Medical students are basically treated like children. PhD students are not PIs and they are not treated like PIs. If you feel that you already have the expertise to complete research independently then I think you would be better off in a straight MD program - then you can get where you want to go that much faster. The money is really not worth being a student for so many years unless think the education (PhD) on offer is important to your development as a physician-scientist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top