MD/PhD without a gap year?

[telomere2018]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey guys,

I was wondering if there are any real disadvantages to not having done gap year(s) when applying to MD/PhD programs. A lot of applicants I personally know seem to have done gap years of full-time research as lab techs or in postbac programs like the NIH IRTA. I know that more research is looked upon favorably, and it seems difficult to compete with these sorts of applicants as they simply have more experience in research (and have more opportunities to bolster their applications with publications and the like).

How can it be an 'even playing field', so to speak, beyond GPA/MCAT especially considering that a majority of MD/PhD matriculants actually don't do a gap year? Assuming that a student is involved in research during all 4 years of undergrad, it can still be difficult to have something to show for it beyond an outstanding rec letter from the PI. Is then demonstrated potential or interest a huge factor when it comes to admissions? And how would it be gauged in this regard (is it shown through PS/interview)? I feel like I'm missing something here.

Thanks in advance for any insight!

 

[Fencer]

If you attended a R1 institution (Carnegie classification) for your undergraduate studies, you are able to do at least one year and 2 summers prior to apply in your junior year. Your academic benchmarks need to be strong, essays consistent, and LORs supportive. At least a third of all MD/PhD matriculants fit this profile. In my particular program, only about 1/3 of applicants were at the beginning of their senior year of college when submitted their application. A solid 45% of applicants were in their 2nd year of postbac.

Concordance between essays, quality of the experiences sought (clinical and research aligned if possible), LOR, and interview are critical for applicants that are still in college. Quantity of research will be less than someone that was a NIH post-bac. Publications would not be expected from college students, but at least presentations are somewhat expected for post-bacs.

 

[Neuronix]

From my standpoint, undergraduates are typically low priority to publish. Undergraduates and post-baccs are assistants in labs, typically helping someone more senior to generate publications and grants. Such is the academic pecking order.

Nobody expects undergrads to have publications. I pretty much ignore anything on a CV that isn't first author (or last author for PIs) unless it's a multi-institutional collaboration (multiple PIs), though different people feel differently about this. There is so much variability in who gets authorship and why.

If you can generate first author publications and abstracts in real journals/conferences (not something institutional or with undergraduate in the title), that's amazing. But those opportunities are rare, even with a year or two out of the lab, and are often reserved for people with family members or their close friends running the labs.

Therefore, what we expect from undergraduates is time served in the lab. You essay reflects that you have significant experience and you worked on real projects for years. Your letters reflect that you are intelligent, interested, and diligent. Your interviews demonstrate your understanding of the material and its relevance. You understand what MD/PhD is about and why that meshes with your goals.

If you got involved in research early in undergrad you don't need a post-bacc year. Four years of research is more than enough. If you decided on this pathway late or couldn't get involved in research until say junior year, a post-bacc can be a good idea.

 

[zuleika-d]

I pretty much ignore anything on a CV that isn't first author (or last author for PIs) unless it's a multi-institutional collaboration (multiple PIs), though different people feel differently about this. There is so much variability in who gets authorship and why.

Maybe it depends on your field, sorry, but this is crazy. I also disagree about first-author undergrad publications only being nepotism. It's much more likely to depend on the scope of the project and the size/structure of the lab.

Anyway, OP, I think you might think about why having a post-bac is "favorable" -- MD/PhD programs are approximately a million years long, and expensive on the institutional end. If you can do things that demonstrate convincingly that you know what day-to-day life in a lab in your field is like, that you actually like whatever that is, and that you are good at it without a post-bac, then I think you will be in good shape. This might mean sustained work in 1 (or 2) labs. If it really is meaningful research, you will probably get something out of it. If it's just glass washing, you might, for your own sake, want to do a productive post-bac to convince yourself of the same things you'll be trying to convince program directors later. Good luck!

 

[Neuronix]

If you can generate first author publications and abstracts in real journals/conferences (not something institutional or with undergraduate in the title), that's amazing. But those opportunities are rare, even with a year or two out of the lab, and are often reserved for people with family members or their close friends running the labs.

I also disagree about first-author undergrad publications only being nepotism.

As per the above, I wrote "often", not "only".

In my personal experience, I have seen first author publications much more frequently from applicants who have parents running the labs or in close connection to the people running the labs. Is that an indicator of future potential? This is again in the eye of the beholder.

In labs I've worked in I've seen the rules bent or broken for nepotistic reasons numerous times. For middle author publications students are often not given authorship on papers they deserve authorship on. I've also seen people basically do all the work for a paper then have it snatched away by a grad student or post-doc with middle or even no authorship. Meanwhile, I've seen undergrads who deserve no credit being put on papers because "they need it to get into MD/PhD". As always, your mileage my vary.

I personally have seen so much politics go into this that I tell undergrads to try to produce independent work, but not to worry about it when they don't manage to produce it. A large percentage of MD/PhD applicants have no publications, and many of them will go to "top tier" MD/PhD programs. Publications are not something that you should spend extra years in the lab trying to get. They're not something that you should burn bridges over--as many undergrads who get screwed on authorship seem to want to do. Lack of publications isn't something that's particularly going to hurt you when you apply for MD/PhD given that the rest of your application is strong (GPA, MCAT, years in the lab).

I'm sure there are some of you out there who have managed to accomplish amazing things as undergrads without family members in science or medicine. It's incredibly uncommon and you deserve credit for that. Still, the strength of your application will be reflected in your high GPA, high MCAT score, and years spent in the lab.

 

[telomere2018]

@Fencer @Neuronix I see. Thank you for all your insight and advice!