MoeDaMan,
First of all, I think you need to take a step back, catch your breath, and look at the situation. Why are you applying MD/PhD? It sounds as though you have philosophical differences with the program as it exists today (i.e. in the MSTP-style). So why even apply at UCLA?
Here go my responses to your individual points:
Originally posted by MoeDaMan:
Vader: Don't worry I won't be taking any body else's "spot".
I did not mean to suggest that you will be taking anyone's "spot." The point was that you need to be fully committed to research to realistically pursue an MD/PhD. Don't want to be caught with your pants down!
😀
I have decided to apply to only my school's MD/PhD program, since I know the faculty, the funding, the amount of publication I can produce in a given year and the amount of resources available to me....
While that is your choice, you should know that you will be asked to what other programs you applied MD/PhD. You'll have to be prepared to explain why you chose to apply to only one.
However, I honestly, feel that the MD/Phd system is very flawed. A commitment of 7 years of a person's life has absolutely nothing to do with a person's dedication to research at all .....
With all due respect, this makes no sense. The point is that an average of 3.5 of the seven years will be spent doing research. In addition, the variability in program length is due to the PhD years. If one is not dedicated, I have no clue as to how he/she can expect to finish the program.
I love research enormously, and have awards from my school that no other student has in my school! Since, I represented my research along with another student to the california legislature 😀 So I can assure you and myself, I wouldn't be in it for the "free MD" ride. 😀
Congratulations on your awards. I think that can definitely help show your accomplishments in research.
😀 However, it does not necessarily convey your enthusiasm or motivation. More than the bells and whistles, admissions committees are looking for people who show a true passion for research.
My follow up is can you be a great researcher withouth pursuing a Phd? adn the answer is a RESOUNDING YES....look at
Dr. Salk from NYU, who created the polio vaccine and stopped the epidemic...Look at Mendel who failed his college entrance examination, and became a monk...how ironic that he is the father of genetics?!
You're absolutely right that a PhD is not a requirement for being a great researcher. But as I and others described, it will give you the tools you'll need to be a successful one. By the way, in Mendel and even in Salk's time, there was no MD/PhD option (the MSTP was created in the latter part of the 20th century). If you were interested in medically-related research, you most often would go to medical school.
😎
an Md/Phd program in my view fails on a number of fronts...
1) it is automatically assumed that a Phd will be extremely beneficial to your field of research....AGAIN so not true....as I reiterated in my post...I have done 3 years of neuroimaging resarch and two years of genetics research at my school dealing with various neuropscyhiatric disorders. In most labs as well, instead of imploying an interdisciplinary approach to these diseases by using genetics and neuroimaging to analyze the problem...pple still to this day get a PhD in neuroscience, and some a Phd in genetics.....most schools even fail to combine both fields and provide an interdisciplinary Phd such as neurogentics which very few schools!!! and it just shows how some Phd programs in some schools fail to keep up their curriculum with new discoveries, as well as new emerging fields.
I agree with you that the system of having separate academic departments is somewhat archaic. Much of modern basic biomedical research uses a variety of approaches to tackle a problem. Labs tend to either be technique-oriented or problem-oriented. Neuroscience happens to be a good example of a truly interdisciplinary subject (comprising anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, pathology, genetics, psychiatry, molecular & cell biology, biochemistry, etc). Moreover, the department in which you get your PhD is much less important than the lab you work in and type of research that you do. So many labs use cross-disciplinary approaches nowadays. In the graduate portion of your training, some programs will allow you to take various elective courses in subjects of interest to you. That way, you can tailor your education to your needs.
2) The program while its intents are very pure, is prolonged to an EXTENSIVE amount of time.....7 to 10 1/2 yrs....as a researcher, do you wish to spend most of your time in a lab, or taking classes....I do not at all wish to sound egotistical in any way...however, when i wworked under my graduate student advisor....I probably finished more "research work" as un undergraduate than she ever did...you know why? she was busy taking classes, filling grant applicatoins, and dealing with her "collaborators". That is the irony of the program! An undergraduate could theoretically devote more heart and soul into it....the irony was, that after 2 years, I had 6 publications, and she had 3 since I also worked for other pple in the lab...she was so occupied with senseless things....if you are an MD researcher, you are probably a collaborator with a phd person, and you let him take care of the paper work ****.... 😀
First of all, that is a very, very, very rare situation that an undergraduate would have more publications than a graduate student. Neuroimaging tends to enable researchers to publish more frequently because data can be generated fairly rapidly. As an undergraduate, I did an extensive amount of research, but always focused mostly on my classes (I also participated in lots of extra-curricular activities). I think that's great you've been so successful thus far. But realize that having 6 publications is very atypical. You'll definitely stand out on that front. As a graduate student, there are various requirements besides your thesis project (i.e. graduate courses, journal clubs, laboratory rotations, qualifying exam, etc). You are kind of comparing apples and oranges here. A graduate student and MD/PhD student are quite different, as I've noted before. The MD/PhD program (at least the modernized ones) tends to streamline the graduate training in several ways. First, you usually do some rotations, take some graduate courses, and attend journal clubs before you start the graduate years. How much you decide to tackle during your first two medical years is largely up to you. It is possible to take the qualifying exam and start your thesis work during your first year of graduate training (MD/PhD year 3). This expedites the whole process--basically the earlier you start your thesis, the faster you'll get through the program. It is reasonable to do an excellent thesis project in 2 years after taking the qualifying exam. If you have already done work toward the thesis, this will further reduce the time to graduation. In this day and age, there really should be no excuse for people staying 10 years in an MD/PhD program. This VERY rarely happens, and it is usually because the PI wants the student to tack on new experiments, the student changes labs midway through, or other major problems.
3) anybody whose devoted to reserach, plans to spend the rest of their life to the field....I wish to the same....but why should I lock myself into a 7 yr program with no prospects of a break in between? why can't I finish my med degree first, and then pursue the phd afterwords, and still be eligible for a good scholarship and funding!? I mean this Md/Phd program where ur taken out of one field and then placed in another is ridiculous...furthermore, I know some pple are going to say that if you spend 7 years getting ur medical degree and by the time you come back to reserch the world of research has changed...
Well, there are several problems with doing the MD and PhD separately. First, in general, you are not funded during the MD years (there ARE some scholarships available though, i.e. Howard Hughes). Second, doing it this way takes longer because you have all the grad school requirements (that I mentioned above) to do that you could have taken care of during the med years if you were in a combined degree program. Additionally, some MD/PhD programs waive some of the grad school requirements (or med school requirements). I think it would not be uncommon to take 9, 10, 11 years to do the MD and PhD separately.
😱 Compare that to the average of 7-8 years for MSTPs!
I personally, have seen some of the things that have happened to some students who were the brigthest of the brigth.....I personally think that NIH will lose a substantial amount of money for employing a program that not only wastes money(because some pple quit) but also burns out some really talented, hardworking and intelligent students....
First of all, no one said it would be a walk in the park. Thus, the programs look for students who are extremely motivated. Additionally, there is no evidence to support your claim that the NIH supports a failed, money-losing program. The mission of the MSTP is to train highly successful physician-scientists. So far, the evidence (i.e. publication track records, academic positions, funding, etc) has shown rather convincingly that MD/PhDs are very successful (http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/reports/mstpstudy/mstp-print.html).
...so I dont think even though some pple who are going through the program can speak for other students in other schools...because the program is different from school!!!
You should ask students at various MD/PhD programs what they think. Students in these programs went through the application process and had to decide between schools. They have talked with other students, interviewed and toured the schools, came back for revisits, etc. This makes them at least somewhat qualified to voice their opinions on different programs. But again, if you want to get into specifics at different programs, it is best to inquire at the source.
😀
