MD/PhD competition

[PsyDStar]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What do you think it takes to get accepted to an MD/PhD program? What about strictly MSTP?

Will a year of solid research (with perhaps some abstracts and possibly, however unlikely, a publication) show an adequate commitment to a life in academia and research to render one an attractive admit to adcoms?

 

[S_Talos]

What do you think it takes to get accepted to an MD/PhD program? What about strictly MSTP?

Will a year of solid research (with perhaps some abstracts and possibly, however unlikely, a publication) show an adequate commitment to adcoms to render one an attractive admit?

I think a solid MCAT score is the most important part.. think slightly above the average of regular MD matriculants at each school. Publications, research LORs, and not just time in the lab but a good understanding of what you were doing there is also important. If you interview you'll have to explain what you've been doing and the better you can do that the better your chances.

 

[jjmack]

I think a solid MCAT score is the most important part.. think slightly above the average of regular MD matriculants at each school. Publications, research LORs, and not just time in the lab but a good understanding of what you were doing there is also important. If you interview you'll have to explain what you've been doing and the better you can do that the better your chances.

I disagree. I think a good MCAT score can help, but you need extensive, prolonged research epxeriene. Hopefully full time. Also be able to explain what you did.

 

[Rzarecta]

I disagree. I think a good MCAT score can help, but you need extensive, prolonged research epxeriene. Hopefully full time. Also be able to explain what you did.

Agreed. MCAT score doesn't necessarily need to be higher, can even be lower (that is still a relative term, not like a 26) if you have very strong research experience, and publications would definitely help.

 

[Reimat]

First, see the MD/PhD forum - lots of advice in those forums

Second, goto www.mdphds.org - info presented in an organized, well thoughtout manner.


Happy hunting 🙂

 

[austinap]

In addition to this, how many schools will consider a GRE score? I'm likely to take it anyways (PhD as a backup), so I doubt it would hurt if I sent it in assuming I do reasonably well.

Another question: how are the positions decided upon? Is it just the medschool ADCOMs or do the grad-school fellows have a say in things as well?

 

[ClarinetGeek]

Another question: how are the positions decided upon? Is it just the medschool ADCOMs or do the grad-school fellows have a say in things as well?

Depending on the school, admissions can be based on:

1. MD/PhD AdCom Alone (Common)
2. MD/PhD AdCom --> MD AdCom (Common)
3. MD AdCom --> MD/PhD AdCom (Very Rare)
4. MD/PhD Adcom/MD AdCom come to independent decisions.

Every school does it differently. Generally, grad school doesn't really have a say at all, other than that there are a few phd faculty on the MD/PhD adcom. The only exception I can think of is Loyola Stritch.

Depending on how things are handled, this can influence you ability to a straight MD or PhD spot. For instance, if the MD/PhD committee acts alone, you interview but get rejected. Well depending on when that happens, it can hurt chances with the MD committee, because they won't pass on your final until after the MD/PhD adcom rejects or you say please pass on my application. Just things to consider.

Refer to Reimat's suggestions for more detail.

 

[tennisguy896]

If you only have 1 year of research experience, you may want to spend a year after graduation doing research (like a Fulbright or equivalent) just to show that you know what you're getting yourself into. An MD/PhD applicant needs to have better stats in all categories (except maybe clinical experience) than MD applicants (what adcoms have told me).

 

[Neuronix]

What do you think it takes to get accepted to an MD/PhD program? What about strictly MSTP?

Will a year of solid research (with perhaps some abstracts and possibly, however unlikely, a publication) show an adequate commitment to a life in academia and research to render one an attractive admit to adcoms?

Define "solid". If it's full time, maybe, but depending on the rest of your app you're look at low tier MSTP (which is... 20s and 30s on US News rankings strangely enough). Part-time research on top of classes, probably not, especially not at the top-tier.

 

[Neuronix]

What do you think it takes to get accepted to an MD/PhD program? What about strictly MSTP?

Will a year of solid research (with perhaps some abstracts and possibly, however unlikely, a publication) show an adequate commitment to a life in academia and research to render one an attractive admit to adcoms?

Define "solid". If it's full time, maybe, but depending on the rest of your app you're looking at mid to low tier MSTP (which is... 20s and 30s on US News rankings strangely enough). Part-time research on top of classes, probably not, especially not at the top-tier.

 

[Snowboarder]

"Solid" means that the experiments you performed were part of a project with a big picture and storyline. i.e. you were not just working on bits and pieces of more senior people's projects, but had your own and a reason for taking step A to step B to C etc using each experiment to direct your decisions in designing the next one.

I think the earlier advice to know your project well and be prepared to explain it is good, but I've also heard from many of my PhD friends that very few of their interviewers actually asked about project detail. The majority of their interviewers (my sample size is Emory, U. Mich, Georgetown, UVA, and USC) just spent the 30 - 60 minutes having a friendly, general conversation.

 

[Neuronix]

"Solid" means that the experiments you performed were part of a project with a big picture and storyline. i.e. you were not just working on bits and pieces of more senior people's projects, but had your own and a reason for taking step A to step B to C etc using each experiment to direct your decisions in designing the next one.

Yes, I know. I'm curious what the op's definition of "solid" is. That being said, I've never seen an undergrad researcher who is this independent without being very well connected to the lab (i.e. the professor's son/daughter).

 

[Snowboarder]

Yes, I know. I'm curious what the op's definition of "solid" is. That being said, I've never seen an undergrad researcher who is this independent without being very well connected to the lab (i.e. the professor's son/daughter).

Sorry, misunderstood that you were asking the OP about "solid" research.

And there are undergrads like that in my lab at Georgetown (not me, I'm somewhere between trad and non-trad). I think it mostly has to do with our mentor who stays not only very involved in our day-to-day research but also does everything he can to support those of us who want to go to med school. He is also very selective about the undergrads he bring in though. I think the motivation of the students combined with his facilitation is what enables them to have real projects.

 

[PsyDStar]

I think the standing definition of "solid" on this thread is what I was thinking... self directed projects... I am really only beginning in the lab and can just tell I really enjoy it. Though I want to gain further understanding of my preferences over time, I expect I could be a happy academic/researcher for my life. What is so attractive about the MD/PhD is not only that it would seem to enable one to investigate the most interesting constructs within their research but also one can practice (albeit at a highly deminished rate).

Thanks for the thoughts, thanks for the link. Back to the cytokines!

 

[Neuronix]

I think the standing definition of "solid" on this thread is what I was thinking... self directed projects...

Full time or part time? Either way, you may want to tack on another full time year to what you're doing. That being said, I've been shown to be wrong (more and more so as I get further along in my own program), so you should e-mail some MD/PhD programs you're interested in and get their advice. Some of them will be really open and honest with you when it comes to making these decisions.

Good luck!

 

[Mr. Tee]

That being said, I've never seen an undergrad researcher who is this independent without being very well connected to the lab (i.e. the professor's son/daughter).

Is this true for the MSTP applicant pool as well, or are you just referring to undergraduate researchers in general?

 

[cadilakgrl]

Although I did not do this myself, a lot of applicants I met did a year of research at the NIH after graduating. MSTP committees seemed to really like people from this program. In general I would say you need at least 2 years of research in which you had an independent project or large contribution to a project. You will have to be able to explain in depth the science behind your research, which won't be too hard if you are really involved on an intellectual level not just doing the grunt work. Also you need to have at least two strong letters of rec from your research mentors.

As ClarinetGeek said, admissions varies depending on the program. For most programs that I applied to the MD/PhD committee made an independent decision first and if you were rejected from MD/PhD your application was send to the MD committee. This can put you at a disadvantage for MD admissions because they don't pass on the application until late in the cycle around Dec on Jan. Since at most schools the MD/PhD committee evaluates you rapplication independently, there is much more of an emphasis on your research compared to applying MD only.

I disagree with S_Talos about the MCAT score. MD/PhD admissions put a lot of weight on your research and recommendations. I got many top 10 interviews with a lower MCAT score and my score was only brought up at one of my interviews. Being a good test taker has nothing to do with being a good researcher and I think many adcom members who are PhDs don't care about MCAT scores.

My advice to you would be to decide if you feel like you have gotten enough experience from that year to really know what you are getting into. If you can effectively explain why you want to do MD/PhD and you have good letters of rec you may be ok. But I think taking a year off after graduating to do more research can never hurt. You will make yourself more competitive and give yourself time to decide if MD/PhD is really the way you want to go.

 

[S_Talos]

I disagree with S_Talos about the MCAT score. MD/PhD admissions put a lot of weight on your research and recommendations. I got many top 10 interviews with a lower MCAT score and my score was only brought up at one of my interviews. Being a good test taker has nothing to do with being a good researcher and I think many adcom members who are PhDs don't care about MCAT scores.

I suppose my comments are only representative of my own personal experience applying to an MD/PhD program at the school where I am employed in research. I have a very strong research background almost 3 years of research experience, several publications and abstracts, strong letters of recommendation from my PI and another PI we work closely with and the director of the department in which I work. I've worked independently on several projects. I know the director of the MD/PhD program through work.

My MCAT was ~3 points below the schools average for regular MD applicants and he met with me and told me point blank that my MCAT needed to be at least 2-3 points higher for a person of my background, a white male, to be considered. I was not interviewed for the MD/PhD. That was fine, I took the MCAT again and hopefully I'll have improved. But the moral of the story is that MCAT does carry weight. This particular program wants to attain MSTP status and the Dean is concerned about raising the MCAT average of the MD/PhD students.

The original poster asked what would make him an attractive admit. Having the solid MCAT and the research will do that.. which is what I stated.

 

[Hard24Get]

In addition to this, how many schools will consider a GRE score? I'm likely to take it anyways (PhD as a backup), so I doubt it would hurt if I sent it in assuming I do reasonably well.

Another question: how are the positions decided upon? Is it just the medschool ADCOMs or do the grad-school fellows have a say in things as well?

I took the GRE, and most places I applied had a place for it on the application (said "if taken"). I think it impressed some of my PhD interviewers, and definitely earned me early respect when I started grad school...

 

[Trojan-LY]

What about GPA? how high dose it have it be?

 

[thos]

In addition to this, how many schools will consider a GRE score? I'm likely to take it anyways (PhD as a backup), so I doubt it would hurt if I sent it in assuming I do reasonably well.

Another question: how are the positions decided upon? Is it just the medschool ADCOMs or do the grad-school fellows have a say in things as well?

Once I was accepted into my program, they said, "By the way, we need you to take the GRE for our records." I took it within in a couple of weeks, no studying. Fortunately for me, the score didn't matter.

In regards to other credentials, research is the most important. A solid year of research with a pub is great, but not everyone is lucky enough to be exposed to that environment. I did a number of small projects and worked with many profs in our department in some capacity. I think the most important part is a good exposure to what research is like and an understanding of your role in the project(s). Having said that, your scores probably need to be like any competitive med student. To the best of my knowledge, our program has few (if any) students below 30 MCAT. Not to say it doesn't happen, but you have to look relatively good on paper.

 

[lynnier79]

I agree with a lot of what has already been said -- but I will add a couple of things:

Most important, at least in my situation, seems to be research that is independent, relatively self directed and actually important in the big picture of the group you are working with. that said, not every project will be "the best project" but if you can talk about what you did and why you think it was worthwhile in the scheme of medical science, then that is helpful. no phd or md committee can easily admit a candidate who they feel either doesnt understand what he or she is doing, or doesnt believe that it is important.

for me, the MCAT was probably helpful, but not super mportant. having gone to a good, well known undergrad institution but having only gotten average grades, a good MCAT allowed me to back my claim that my undergrad school was really challenging in general, and not that i was some sort of slacker. i think that it can be frustrating to realize that it might have been easier to go to a less competative undergrad and done outstanding there, than to have gone to a great undergrad that doesnt believe in grade inflation. the MCAT helped me to level the field, i guess.

thirdly, i know people have mentioned that clinical experience is not as important. this might be true -- but if you want to wow the PhD and the MD committee both, you'll have at least a little more than the usual EMT or CNA or ambulance work that most MD applicants have. It really sets you apart to be able to talk articulately about how you have seen science and medicine integrate ALREADY, and how you plan to do it yourself as a physician/scientist, what you think we can do better, and what you plan to contribute.

and finally, i think maturity plays a role. i dont think that its an accident that the average age of entering MD/PhD students in my program is around 26 every year. it helps to make the decision to enter such a demanding program, and lifestyle, as a mature adult. sometimes we just move along to med school from undergrad because it seems like a "natural progression," and a lot of schools who are investing in you (aka funding you!) want to make sure that you are absolutely sure that this is what you want to do.

good luck!

 

[tbo]

Depending on the school, admissions can be based on:

1. MD/PhD AdCom Alone (Common)
2. MD/PhD AdCom --> MD AdCom (Common)
3. MD AdCom --> MD/PhD AdCom (Very Rare)
4. MD/PhD Adcom/MD AdCom come to independent decisions.

Every school does it differently. Generally, grad school doesn't really have a say at all, other than that there are a few phd faculty on the MD/PhD adcom. The only exception I can think of is Loyola Stritch.

This might be a newbie question. How do you know which school uses which processl? After a prelim review of a few schools' websites, I don't see much disclosure of the process.

 

[SeventhSon]

I disagree with S_Talos about the MCAT score. MD/PhD admissions put a lot of weight on your research and recommendations. I got many top 10 interviews with a lower MCAT score and my score was only brought up at one of my interviews.

Cadilak, you are an exception because you have extensive amount of time out of undergrad proving that you can handle research. 95% of the time applicants, even the best ones, won't take off as much time as you, so they will have less research and hence will need other ways to prove that they can 'hack it'. The MCAT is a great way to see whether people can 'hack it' but is an inclusive way to prove it.

Being a good test taker has nothing to do with being a good researcher and I think many adcom members who are PhDs don't care about MCAT scores.

This is a dangerous position to hold. I think it's commonly held that the better and faster you are at processing information, and the better and faster you can just "figure stuff out", the greater potential you have as a researcher. The MCAT tests your mastery of basic science and ability to think critically and logically when presented with a situation that is not immediately familiar. It's pretty safe to say that having this skill and having potential as a researcher correlate fairly well.

 

[ClarinetGeek]

This might be a newbie question. How do you know which school uses which processl? After a prelim review of a few schools' websites, I don't see much disclosure of the process.

In a few cases, it will be clear from the beginning; however, in most cases, you just have to figure things out as go along. Often you find out when you interview or you may not ever really know...

 

[Neuronix]

Is this true for the MSTP applicant pool as well, or are you just referring to undergraduate researchers in general?

I'll go ahead and put my spin on a few questions asked here.

First, with regard to the GRE, do not take it if you are serious about a MD/PhD. It would be a waste of your time. Most applicants have not taken it, and a good score probably won't make a bit of difference for you.

Second, as for extracirriculars to look good to the MD program, since most MD/PhD programs don't care very much about volunteering and they will make most of the decisions, focus on your research and then look at extra stuff to please MD committees. I have several classmates at this MD/PhD program who had 0 shadowing/volunteering/etc. Even schools whose MD committees have a say give breaks to MD/PhD students in this regard. At Baylor for example, I saw their interview form for MD interviewers and it specifically said to give MD/PhDs a break on a few things like volunteering/shadowing/clinical experience. The few times I've heard of a MD program blocking a student's entrance it's because they were a major freakazoid in their MD interview. My experience on SDN tells me that UCSF might be the only major exception to what I'm saying here. In summary, I'm not saying NOT to get involved in clinical activities, but the research aspect is far more important for the MD/PhD applicant and even having 0 clinical experience may not hurt you.

As for the matter I spoke about before.

I've never seen another MD/PhD when they were an undergrad, only MD and PhD bound students, so I can only speak for myself. That being said, when I was an undergrad, I had to make money in order to survive (maybe I'm in a small minority here?). I got started on research late in undergrad because I couldn't find a position that would pay me and it was not until my Junior year that I could get enough financial aid to devote so many hours to an EC. I was pretty independent at this point, but I needed alot of guidance. I'd say it takes a good year for someone to really get good enough in a lab to be indepedent, and I was only in that lab 1 year and 1/2, so no pubs there. After I graduated, I again had to find a job to support myself. I worked as a tech in a lab for a year. Do you think as a tech I got to have my own project? Of course not. I was helping a grad student on his project. This is the norm for undergrads. You're assigned a project and you try to make yourself helpful to your lab. What helped me when I came to interview for MD/PhD programs was the fact that I understood what I was doing, why I was doing it, and where the research fit into the grand scheme, and where the research was going.

This is what I meant when I said you have to have major connections to end up being independent in a lab as an undergrad. I've seen it, but it's quite rare. It's usually the son or some family member of the professor who got started in the lab as a high school student. This won't apply to the vast majority of us MD/PhD bound people, and that's ok!

This is why lots of undergrads don't have publications. How many PhDs do you see with a first authored pub on their own project after a year or two of grad school? Not very many. Besides, they have more training and their own independent projects, as opposed to undergrads who don't have the time, training, or position to take their own independent projects most of the time. Many undergrads who do get publications often just sort of luck into them (in the lab for a month and the project they were casually involved in works out. Sometimes they end up with first author on these!). This is why MD/PhD programs don't really care about how many pubs you have. Most are looking for you to understand your research, think critically about science, and have experience in science that leads you to believe you want a scientific career.

 

[troszic]

The only thing MCAT scores can do is get you rejected (if they are bad); they won't get you into any schools, even if they are stellar. (I only applied to six schools, all of them top tier, so I don't know about the less competitive schools, maybe they are more WOW-ed by numbers.)

Regardless, at the top schools, my MCAT score did jack **** for me. Interviewers still focused on the flaws in my application (clinical exposure/volunteering).

Here is the best advice anyone can ever give MSTP applicants:

Don't have a weak spot. You don't need to be stellar in everything. In fact, I really think that you can get into a top-tier program without being stellar in ANY category. Just don't suck at any one thing.
All you need is a COMPLETE, and reasonably solid, package.

People with the following routinely get into the very top programs:
GPA: ~ 3.5
MCAT: ~ 34-35
Adequate amounts of research, volunteering, clinical experience, interesting life experiences


my two cents

 

[SeventhSon]

The only thing MCAT scores can do is get you rejected (if they are bad); they won't get you into any schools, even if they are stellar. (I only applied to six schools, all of them top tier, so I don't know about the less competitive schools, maybe they are more WOW-ed by numbers.)

Regardless, at the top schools, my MCAT score did jack **** for me. Interviewers still focused on the flaws in my application (clinical exposure/volunteering).

Here is the best advice anyone can ever give MSTP applicants:

Don't have a weak spot. You don't need to be stellar in everything. In fact, I really think that you can get into a top-tier program without being stellar in ANY category. Just don't suck at any one thing.
All you need is a COMPLETE, and reasonably solid, package.

People with the following routinely get into the very top programs:
GPA: ~ 3.5
MCAT: ~ 34-35
Adequate amounts of research, volunteering, clinical experience, interesting life experiences


my two cents

troszic, i think you just got really unlucky. I will agree 34-35 mcat will not get you rejected but a 3.5 gpa will get you rejected a lot of places. I think kind of the canonical numbers you hear are 3.7/33 to get your foot in the door, and from there the research, if truly good, can carry you to the top programs.

also, your GPA probably would have been even better if you didnt go to a school notorious for grade deflation