MD/PhD less competitive than MD if you have research?

[MaybeDr]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Out of curiosity, if one's ECs are more geared toward clinical research/research (Chemical research in my case) in general than community service would it be easier to get admitted to an MD/PhD program versus a regular MD program?
I've read that when applying to medical school for an MD program that research is just a plus and doesn't hold the same weight community service and leadership does. MD/PhD programs seem to be weighted more towards research experience and clinical experience, leaving community service and leadership activities slightly on a back-burner (though still important).

I worked at a private practice that did clinical trials with some Allergan drugs, as well as see non-trial patients. This really appealed to me because the doctors did both clinical trials and saw patients. One of the docs said that an MD/PhD would be best going this route because it gives you more flexibility.

Also, if one decided they were no longer interested in the MD/PhD program would it be possible to switch to just a standard MD program one or two years in?

 

[Launcelot]

Not going to comment on whether MD/PhD programs are any easier or harder to get into given that situation, but to answer your second part, from what I understand MSTP programs secure full funding for you with no strings attached, even if you decide to drop out of the PhD part. This sometimes happens, and I'm sure you can get plenty examples of this in the Physician Scientist forums as well.

But to imagine jumping through all of the hoops, organizing all of the king's men, and riling up someone's ongoing lab work with your commitment to eventually enter the PhD portion only to say, "Nvrmind, k thx 4 monies, bye!" This can't be (or shouldn't be) so easy to do. Mind you, PIs in relatively organized labs sometimes delegate projects out to lab members as grants come through. In an especially nice lab, they may try to save or shelve a certain ready-made project for you if they think you're coming and you are totally interested in it. You could be stepping on a couple toes and burning some bridges with your change of heart.

 

[Reckoner]

1. Depending on just how research-focused your application is, it's possible that you'll have a better shot at MD/PhD. But it's still going to be extremely competitive. In 2013 there were 1937 applicants and 609 matriculants, roughly a 30% success rate

2. MD/PhD programs care a lot about research experience, a little about clinical experience, and not much about anything else. They look for extensive research experience (typically 2+ years), and seem to prefer basic science research to clinical. Which leads to the next point...

3. Every physician scientist I've ever talked to or read agreed that you don't need a PhD to do clinical trials. It's not worth the time and effort, when an MD will suffice.

4. Yes, students can (and sometimes do) drop out of the programs to go the MD-only route. Typically this happens after the student starts grad school, which is why these programs put so much effort into weeding out people who aren't truly committed to research. MSTP directors want as close to a guarantee as possible that the applicant sitting across the desk from them is going to stick with it all the way through. Thus the huge emphasis on long term commitment to research.

You should browse the physician scientist sub-forum, as a lot of these questions have already been answered there.

 

[Microglia]

1. Higher average GPA and MCAT overall than MD admissions.

2. They highly scrutinize what you plan on doing with the degree and why you are willing to spend an extra 4 years with basically no money.

3. Dropping the program happens, but burns a TON of bridges, because it reflects poorly on the MD/PhD program. If it's an MSTP they don't make you give back that money, but some non MSTP's require returning the money if you drop the PhD.

4. In the long run you lose a lot of money doing an MD/PhD compared to MD. (4 less years of doctor salary, lower starting salary, and professor salaries are lower across the board than MD only physicians by a lot (read: about half).

 

[Patros]

Is your research experience mainly in clinical trials? Realize that MD/PhD is not meant for clinical research, but for basic or translational laboratory research. This can be either wet-lab (cell bio, neuroscience, etc) or dry-lab (computational or genomics). If you're interested in clinical trials, MD is sufficient.

To answer your question, no it is not easier, at least in my experience. When I applied, I had 3 years of research experience, some shadowing experience, 3 years of paid clinical employment, and only 6 months of hospital volunteering. No leadership, no community service. I applied to 9 MD/PhD and 7 MD programs, and was offered 3 MD/PhD interviews and 4 MD interviews. Accepted to 2 and 3 respectively. The numbers may not be significant enough to say "MD-only is easier than MD/PhD", but I think you can easily conclude that I had no trouble getting interviews into MD-only programs even with zero leadership or community service.

Also realize that MD/PhD programs look for people with considerable lab research. If someone spend 3-5 years in a lab previously, it's not hard to imagine they're ready to do it again. So if your only experience is clinical trials, then I don't think you'll be getting much love from any programs.

One more thing, stats are more important for MD/PhD. Average GPA is about the same, but MCAT is ~35 whereas it is ~32 for MD-only. Most mid-tier programs expect 34-36, whereas most top-tier programs expect 37-39. So I think you'll get more mileage with your stats with an MD-only application, as long as you're willing to get some clinical experience along the way.