MD/PhD Potentially Easier Route For Getting In?

[joshg]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi all,
I know that MD/PhD/MSTP's are very competitive and all, but I was thinking that it might actually be an easier way into medical school, considering my background. I am a Bioinformatics Master's student (thesis based) and I will have had my degree conferred in October 2011. I will have a few conferences and a paper under my belt. My clinical experience is slightly limited (a lot of hospital research, but not a lot of work with patients). I plan on devoting all of next year to clinical work. But, since my background is very heavy on academic work (but mediocre grades, uGPA 3.6 gradGPA 4.0) I was wondering if my application would be more appealing if I devoted my future to research and PhD etc. Even though there are typically less spots available for it, I feel like I would be a better fit for it than for a traditional MD program, especially because I am in a fairly unique field.

Setting aside for now whether or not I actually WANT to go this route, do you think this view has any truth to it?
Thanks.

 

[swamprat]

No def not.. mcat scores for MSTP programs are >>> than their strictly MD counterparts for most schools. Also your GPA is on the "lower" end for regular MD. It's easier to get more clinical experience trust me. Besides that.. I wouldn't go MD/PhD unless you want to be a researcher.

 

[cowme]

No. Your research experience will be in the top 5% of MD applicants, but par for the course for MSTP applicants

 

[Ok2Panic]

Hi all,
I know that MD/PhD/MSTP's are very competitive and all, but I was thinking that it might actually be an easier way into medical school, considering my background. I am a Bioinformatics Master's student (thesis based) and I will have had my degree conferred in October 2011. I will have a few conferences and a paper under my belt. My clinical experience is slightly limited (a lot of hospital research, but not a lot of work with patients). I plan on devoting all of next year to clinical work. But, since my background is very heavy on academic work (but mediocre grades, uGPA 3.6 gradGPA 4.0) I was wondering if my application would be more appealing if I devoted my future to research and PhD etc. Even though there are typically less spots available for it, I feel like I would be a better fit for it than for a traditional MD program, especially because I am in a fairly unique field.

Setting aside for now whether or not I actually WANT to go this route, do you think this view has any truth to it?
Thanks.

Nope. I'll skip over all the stuff about how arduous of a path it is and how committed you need to be to do it and go straight to practical aspects.

While it's true that you can generally get away with a little less clinical experience in an MD/PhD app, the MD/PhD applicant pool is fierce. GPAs and MCATs are higher, and though you definitely have research experience, it doesn't sound overwhelming enough to compensate you elsewhere.

It's a bad idea for a number of reasons. The abridged version: no.

 

[phatlineman]

what's your MCAT? If its really high (40+), you might be able to squeak by at some MSTPs that seem to care a lot about stats.

 

[tennismasta]

Hi all,
I know that MD/PhD/MSTP's are very competitive and all, but I was thinking that it might actually be an easier way into medical school, considering my background. I am a Bioinformatics Master's student (thesis based) and I will have had my degree conferred in October 2011. I will have a few conferences and a paper under my belt. My clinical experience is slightly limited (a lot of hospital research, but not a lot of work with patients). I plan on devoting all of next year to clinical work. But, since my background is very heavy on academic work (but mediocre grades, uGPA 3.6 gradGPA 4.0) I was wondering if my application would be more appealing if I devoted my future to research and PhD etc. Even though there are typically less spots available for it, I feel like I would be a better fit for it than for a traditional MD program, especially because I am in a fairly unique field.

Setting aside for now whether or not I actually WANT to go this route, do you think this view has any truth to it?
Thanks.

Applying MD/PhD could actually hurt your chances as well. When you apply, usually the MD/PhD committee views your application before they pass it on to the MD committee. I applied to a a few schools MD/PhD, and schools took anywhere from 2-6 months to pass my application on to the MD committee. Definitely does not help you when med school admissions are rolling, and your app is not reviewed by the MD committee until, say, December or January.

 

[Geneticist]

Yeah, M.D./Ph.D is certainly not the way to go in your situation. They oftentimes require higher raw stats and more significant research than just M.D. programs. Apply D.O. if your stats are that low.

 

[ACSurgeon]

No def not.. mcat scores for MSTP programs are >>> than their strictly MD counterparts for most schools. Also your GPA is on the "lower" end for regular MD. It's easier to get more clinical experience trust me. Besides that.. I wouldn't go MD/PhD unless you want to be a researcher.

I know someone who applied three years in a row to MD schools and got rejected. The third year he included MD/PhD programs, and got accepted...

 

[SilverBvllet]

No offense, just giving a realistic view on things based on people I've met on the MDPhD interview trail this year. Your research is not unique in any way and definitely not in the upper echelon of research done by applicants. I've met kids with no masters and 4 papers so basically they did more than you in less time. Your GPA (3.6...no body cares about grad GPA) is lower than MD/PhD average. Not sure about your MCAT, but it better be upper 30s.

Finally, it doesn't seem like you're serious about the MD/PhD and just want an "easier" way into med school. This is a terrible reason and a pretty ****ty reason to apply MD/PhD. You need to figure out if you really wnat MD/PhD or not, if not, don't apply. Simple.

 

[blehm98]

average stats for UCSF's MSTP admissions last year were 3.86 cGPA, about the same sGPA, and 37 on the mcat. With tons of research under your belt you still gotta match up to that to be average
granted, many schools are easier to get into, but across the board mstp programs are not and your 3.6 gpa pretty much leaves you out of the running unless you distinguish yourself on both the mcat and have some special achievement in research

 

[Geneticist]

I know someone who applied three years in a row to MD schools and got rejected. The third year he included MD/PhD programs, and got accepted...

n=1

 

[soundnin]

i know everyone is fixated on numbers, but i am applying this cycle to dual degree programs without great stats (lower gpa than OP, lower MCAT than the 36 standard people have for dual degree) but extensive research. i've emailed the directors of many mstp or top md/phd programs to ask if i should even bother applying (along with my full cv listing all my pubs and research experiences), if my stats will preclude me from being considered for interview. the ones who took the time to respond all said that they encourage me to apply as my stats will not be an automatic turn off.

so, just saying, although the accepted averages for dual degree programs are higher than your regular allo programs, i strongly believe it is less of a numbers game, as long as your numbers are not ridiculously low. what is ridiculously low? i don't know

 

[LizzyM]

Keep in mind that the MD/PhD programs are looking at the research experience and asking "will this one fit into one of our labs?" If you have done research with specific procedures that are commonly used at that med school/university, then you might sound like a good fit. If most of your research is in bioinformtics, you might be a good fit at schools that offer PhD in bioinformatics but not at a school where most of the research is immunology and cancer biology.

 

[Quix]

Keep in mind that the MD/PhD programs are looking at the research experience and asking "will this one fit into one of our labs?" If you have done research with specific procedures that are commonly used at that med school/university, then you might sound like a good fit. If most of your research is in bioinformtics, you might be a good fit at schools that offer PhD in bioinformatics but not at a school where most of the research is immunology and cancer biology.

To Lizzy you listen. And "PhD" and "easier" don't really belong in the same sentence.

 

[swamprat]

I know someone who applied three years in a row to MD schools and got rejected. The third year he included MD/PhD programs, and got accepted...

That's strange and prob rare unless he retook the mcat and bumped it up to like a 36 or something, but cool good for him..

I would hate to be MD/PhD.. esp after 4th year when your stuck in a lab and everyone else got their MD and is starting residency..👎

 

[Kaustikos]

Keep in mind that the MD/PhD programs are looking at the research experience and asking "will this one fit into one of our labs?" If you have done research with specific procedures that are commonly used at that med school/university, then you might sound like a good fit. If most of your research is in bioinformtics, you might be a good fit at schools that offer PhD in bioinformatics but not at a school where most of the research is immunology and cancer biology.

/agreed

And we only need Neuronix to chime in here to tell it how it is. I've heard the stories and it's irrelevant to consider how easy/difficult it is to get in, but whether or not you have the devotion/committment of doing a PhD and MD together. You're not exactly letting yourself go down an easy path....

 

[Neuronix]

A 3.6 undergrad GPA isn't bad for med school or MD/PhD programs. It's on the lower side for MD/PhD programs, for which most spots average on the order of 3.8, but there are some mid to low tier spots in funded programs that average on the order of 3.6. That being said, 3.8 is an average, and a 3.6 is not at all going to disqualify you if your MCAT is up to snuff.

So, the MCAT is a bit of a deciding factor here. The average for MD/PhD programs is on the order of 34-37, while it can be much lower for allopathic medical schools, particularly state schools. Honestly if your MCAT is a 30, I would advise a re-take for MD/PhD programs. But a 30 would make you would be a viable candidate for medical school with some volunteering/shadowing.

I think you need to make a decision which you actually want to do and shoot for that. If you want to do MD/PhD, I would advise you to keep doing research and do some volunteering on the side.

 

[Lil Mick]

There are several schools with biostatistics/bioinformatics/computational neuroscience PhD options; however, most of the admission process for MD/PhD programs involves your passion for research and a career in academic medicine. If this is what you hope to do in the medical field, I'd suggest continuing your research with some medically-related service work on the side (check-list for MD/PhD programs). Grades and MCAT score are important in the process, though I have met people on the interview trail who have the 3.6 and 32 with good research experience. However, most programs do expect higher scores and GPAs. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk more about MD/PhD with that particular area of research (mine is quantitative/biomath).

 

[ACSurgeon]

n=1

I actually included my n=1 excatly as an n=1. My post never suggested MD/PhD is easier to get into... just that it happens in certain situations where someone does not get interviewed for normal MD admissions yet gets interviewed and accepted at an MD/PhD program that same cycle.

I just wanted my n=1 to become general knowledge and for people to draw their own conclusions...

 

[skiing]

I think MD/PhD is an easier route for getting in, for those who have the qualifications. I talked to a program asst director himself, and he said that MD/PhD is really for people who are specialized a certain way, not necessarily those who are superior. There's a completely different standard used to measure an MD-only and MD/PhD applicant. I had a friend who was told that she would not be a strong MD applicant with a certain MCAT score, and would have a better shot as an MD/PhD applicant. Also, the same director told me that above a (surprisingly low number) nobody cares what your GPA is. He also told me I was wasting my time with ec's that aren't research-related. People who are research heavy and clinical/leadership-light, even with great stats, often have a hard time in their MD application. These experiences lead me to conclude that after a certain cutoff score, MSTP-MD admissions are different ballgames.

My feeling is that with higher numbers, committees will take a more interested look at your research. Out of people with equally well-qualified research, programs choose the best GPAs and MCATs, leading to higher numbers, leading to the high MSTP stats. But I think research is emphasized first.

I've had some experience with this decision making myself. I run a student-run research program at school, and I've seen 100s of resumes from our school's top science kids who apply to our program. After a while, we get tired of reading everyone's fine print (it all becomes meaningless in the broader scheme of things), so we screen by numbers, pick the ones with awards, pubs, and more diverse and in depth research experiences, then we admit the ones who don't come off as super shy pushovers or otherwise unconscious during their interview. At the end of the day the average GPA of our program is above a 3.8, and all of our students have won major awards. We don't really care about GPA, and our cutoff is much much lower than the 3.8-3.9 average we have, but at the end of the day our averages just end up high. It's not that we try to make them high, but by screening out the bottom end of the stack, we get the high numbers. When it comes to decision-making time, absent red flags (stats lower than 3.65, people who have 10000 things going on and we know won't do work, etc) its research that matters.

 

[chuck84]

I believe it was easier for me. I applied 3 years to MD and could not get in. I had a low GPA 3.2 and a 30N MCAT and during those years, I accumulated three publications. I then felt that with the pubs, I was more qualified to apply MD/PhD. I did this year and four weeks after my interview, I was accepted MD and put on hold for the PhD part. So I guess you can interpret that how you want to.

 

[chuck84]

I believe it was easier for me. I applied 3 years to MD and could not get in. I had a low GPA 3.2 and a 30N MCAT and during those years, I accumulated three publications. I then felt that with the pubs, I was more qualified to apply MD/PhD. I did this year and four weeks after my interview, I was accepted MD and put on hold for the PhD part. So I guess you can interpret that how you want to.

Ah, just checked the above posts

n=2!

 

[URHere]

I believe it was easier for me. I applied 3 years to MD and could not get in. I had a low GPA 3.2 and a 30N MCAT and during those years, I accumulated three publications. I then felt that with the pubs, I was more qualified to apply MD/PhD. I did this year and four weeks after my interview, I was accepted MD and put on hold for the PhD part. So I guess you can interpret that how you want to.

Keep in mind that the school you've been accepted to works differently than most programs in two ways:

1) This school is notorious for caring very little about numbers. Most MD/PhD programs would not look twice at an applicant with a 30N. I applied with a 32S and the schools that ultimately did not accept me all cited my MCAT score as the main reason.

2) This school requires all MD/PhD applicants to be passed through the MD review process first. Very, very few other schools work like this - most other programs will review applicants MD/PhD only, and may or may not decide to pass on the applications to the MD committee a few months later. In that respect, applying MD/PhD can put an applicant at a strong disadvantage for the MD-only pool.

To the OP, I don't think that a 3.6 is horrible (or even bad, really) when it comes to MD or MD/PhD admissions. Similarly, your research sounds like it would be competitive for either program - but there are other factors. To be truly competitive for MD/PhD you will need a 35+ MCAT score. To be competitive for MD programs, you will need a good deal more clinical experience. Figure out how to make one or both of those things happen.