mdphdinfo.com : Website Compiling National MST Program Data

[p01t43]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Used the downtime with everything being virtual to put together a program with a bunch of data about all MSTPs. Included in the data is summary info on application/matriculant numbers, reported GPA/MCAT, stipend, residency match lists, etc.

I hope to continuously update the information and ideally would receive new info in a crowdsourced manner/from programs directly. If you are considering applying, check out the resources section and trainees may want to look at the funding opportunities section.

Asking your program to send me the data I'm missing would be a great help!

Feel free to DM or email me at [email protected] if you have questions/suggestions. I know it does not look pretty on mobile, I'll work on that.

Thank you and hope everybody is staying safe!

MSTP Information

edit) Thanks to @Lucca and @Fencer for looking it over!

 

[Seihai]

This is a great resource. I'll see if my own program director can contribute.

EDIT: I will say that a lot of the stipend information seems a bit off. I was accepted to many of those programs and received slightly different offers.

 

[p01t43]

@Seihai Thanks so much! Thats unfortunate about the stipends, its always possible that I made an error but I just did simple rounding to the thousand based on what I found on program websites. Hopefully I get the updated data, it would be great if you could DM me those numbers just so I can see how off the site is but I get if you don't want to for privacy. I don't think I should post data that doesn't come from the programs either way

 

[Lucca]

Stipend amount can vary from year to year and it’s tough to know how updates websites are. It would also be beneficial to have %F30 funded rate although I think institutions may be loathe to share this number as it can vary a lot in particular for smaller programs.

that said, some time ago I tried to get around this by using NIH reporter to look at active F30s by institution. I suppose one could try to look at active F30s / program size.

Data: F30s and MD/PhD programs, program size

Hey All, 3 years ago @Fencer posted some data on NIH F30 NRSA awards and the size of MD/PhD programs. Because I've been playing around with ggplot2 in R and was interested to see if anything had changed since, I followed his methodology and used the NIH RePORTER system to search for active...

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[p01t43]

@Lucca I saw that, I thought about redoing it and it seems like it'd be a good addition. I'll try to write a quick script to take care of it, thanks for the suggestion!

 

[reveries]

@Lucca I saw that, I thought about redoing it and it seems like it'd be a good addition. I'll try to write a quick script to take care of it, thanks for the suggestion!

Just as a heads up, if you want to get more accurate numbers, you'll need to do a little manual work, e.g. sorting out the DVM/PhD+DDS/PhD people and taking into account partner organizations (F30s from CHOP are for Penn, Rockefeller F30s for Tri-I, etc.).

I did some of it when I updated things for 2018, but was too lazy to be very thorough.

I would also suggest waiting till July 1st, so that MSTP designations will be most up-to-date.

 

[p01t43]

sorting out the DVM/PhD+DDS/PhD people

I looked into doing the analysis a few weeks back and saw this when I was validating some of the data. Do you have any advice on sorting these out?

 

[reveries]

I looked into doing the analysis a few weeks back and saw this when I was validating some of the data. Do you have any advice on sorting these out?

If I remember right, I would just google the name to check. Sometimes the project itself would be a giveaway too. I wouldn't mind going through the list if you'd like.

 

[p01t43]

@reveries @Lucca I updated the site with F30 numbers. If anyone wants it I can send them the data I used. I checked for people at allied institutions for their PhD but I did not check for other types of dual degree students

 

[Lucca]

@reveries @Lucca I updated the site with F30 numbers. If anyone wants it I can send them the data I used. I checked for people at allied institutions for their PhD but I did not check for other types of dual degree students

I’m surprised by these numbers! Does this include folks with F31s?

 

[Lampstrike]

@Lucca I found the numbers quite surprising as well. I don't believe it includes F31 data since it matches perfectly with the F30 data. I imagine that it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to tease out which F31s belong to MSTPs and which belong to regular PhD students. Still, I was curious as to whether F31s actually made up a notable percentage of the grants awarded to MSTP students relative to the number of F30s awarded. If they did, these numbers are mostly useless. However, if F31s really didn't account for much of the MSTP grant pool, then I feel as though these numbers can be taken as representative.

So, I went and manually cross-referenced the list of active F31s against the list of current MSTP trainees at Harvard and Hopkins (two programs that I thought had a surprisingly low number of F30 grants given their size, prestige, and the success rate that those two programs claim for their students in terms of F30/F31 grants).

I found that Harvard only has 4 active F31s (compared to 19 F30s) and Hopkins actually has 0 active F31s (compared to 7 F30s). These numbers are low enough that they are likely within the range of the year-to-year variation in how many active grants a program has (i.e. the # of F31s doesn't significantly impact the numbers presented when looking at just the # of F30s)

Overall, albeit based on a very small sample size, it appears that the strong majority of grants awarded to MSTP students are F30s (not F31s). Therefore, for the most part, I think we can take the stats presented here on F30 numbers as fairly representative of each program's ability to win F30/F31 grants, despite not accounting for the F31s specifically.

 

[Lucca]

@Lucca I found the numbers quite surprising as well. I don't believe it includes F31 data since it matches perfectly with the F30 data. I imagine that it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to tease out which F31s belong to MSTPs and which belong to regular PhD students. Still, I was curious as to whether F31s actually made up a notable percentage of the grants awarded to MSTP students relative to the number of F30s awarded. If they did, these numbers are mostly useless. However, if F31s really didn't account for much of the MSTP grant pool, then I feel as though these numbers can be taken as representative.

So, I went and manually cross-referenced the list of active F31s against the list of current MSTP trainees at Harvard and Hopkins (two programs that I thought had a surprisingly low number of F30 grants given their size, prestige, and the success rate that those two programs claim for their students in terms of F30/F31 grants).

I found that Harvard only has 4 active F31s (compared to 19 F30s) and Hopkins actually has 0 active F31s (compared to 7 F30s). These numbers are low enough that they are likely within the range of the year-to-year variation in how many active grants a program has (i.e. the # of F31s doesn't significantly impact the numbers presented when looking at just the # of F30s)

Overall, albeit based on a very small sample size, it appears that the strong majority of grants awarded to MSTP students are F30s (not F31s). Therefore, for the most part, I think we can take the stats presented here on F30 numbers as fairly representative of each program's ability to win F30/F31 grants, despite not accounting for the F31s specifically.

it's interesting because it suggests that most MSTP students are likely not even attempting to submit an F30. Would be interested in hearing if this reflects what PDs see in their programs

 

[turtle114]

At UNC's interview they presented the same info showing them at or near the top of F30s on a per student basis. I wonder what underlies the differences in success rate between programs? Seems like there are 3 groups, those >=20%, between 10 and 20% and less than 10%. Are the students who get F30s the ones with high impact papers?

 

[p01t43]

I’m surprised by these numbers! Does this include folks with F31s?

Nope, just F30s as indicated in the "caveats" drop down. There are many institutions with an unexpected number of F30s and may be a result of @Neuronix's points in Fencer's post NIH F30 NRSA awards and Size of MD/PhD Programs

It seems like trying to figure out what F30 data indicates about a program is less straightforward than I would have expected, as noted in the thread above.

@Lampstrike thanks for double checking me! I don't know reporter and NIH grants too well but it seems useful if it was listed with a different identifier from the parent F31

 

[Lucca]

At UNC's interview they presented the same info showing them at or near the top of F30s on a per student basis. I wonder what underlies the differences in success rate between programs? Seems like there are 3 groups, those >=20%, between 10 and 20% and less than 10%. Are the students who get F30s the ones with high impact papers?

most students will not have any papers by the time they submit the F30, would be quite rare. The best marker would be acceptance rate for F30s, because I know for a fact that the acceptance rate for some of these programs showing 10-20% holding F30s is 60% or better. Hence, why I said it suggests most md/phd students are not submitting f30s.

 

[Fencer]

I disagree. You made a cogent argument for the negative proposition, which is "LOW F30 rate doesn't necessarily mean LOW program quality". I can agree with that statement...

High F30 number and ratio indicate that a MD/PhD program provides the environment for career development for MD/PhD students.
Other indicators include Institutional overall research funding, NIH funding, CTSA, T32 training awards (such as MSTP), etc.

I posted this in 2013 and I still agree with that:

High F30 number and ratio indicate that a MD/PhD program provides the environment for career development for MD/PhD students.
Other indicators include Institutional overall research funding, NIH funding, CTSA, T32 training awards (such as MSTP), etc.

I also agree with @Neuronix statement:
"LOW F30 rate doesn't necessarily mean LOW program quality".

 

[Neuronix]

Some programs strongly encourage or require F30 submissions. Some, including some very strong top tier programs, are happy with you writing an F30 but don't really push it. So the rates do vary.

 

[jjame]

I have a question!

"W apps and W matric"--what does the W stand for? Waitlist? Women? Similarly, in the "Woman or URM director" category (nice category!), the options are No/F/U. It takes a split second to realize what these mean.

Perhaps a little legend box--preferably right above the whole chart, since I believe upon opening the site, the instinct is to read top-down--might do the trick And keeping the legends consistent between categories, if possible, would make this absolutely platinum-mine of a website even more wonderful (e.g. if the "W" is women, the "F" in the director-type category should also be W--ez pz reading!).

Further small-change design notes for ez pz reading (this is coming from my design brain to improve the flow of the website--I don't mean to offend in any way!!!!!!):

On the home page, move the title! There's that red splotch where it says NIH--I love the concept of the blurred scientist doing lab work background, but I can't stop staring at the red and the fact that in THAT specific spot where it says "NIH" the black color is like 5-20% blending in, which contrasts with how perfect the rest of it looks...but then the blue might be in the way, which you avoided for the other pages...I see that not eclipsing the header translucently, which normally would have been the fix, is technically the better design choice because it provides necessary contrast to the secondary headers. Clearly you picked up on this. Maybe just move it somewhat to the right and below like you did for the other pages, that's a good placement. In an ideal world, I would want them in the middle, but given that shade of slightly-over-medium blue glove...we can't have black text there, can we...eugh. Maybe just change the background image to one that doesn't provide so many issues LOL

Unbalanced white space--this is just for the home page where you provide links to data, caveats, and voting information. I see that you're trying to balance these headers with the textbox information below--maybe just center everything. That way, even if there's lots of white space, it's balanced, and isn't so jarring to the eye.

Ensure the headers are a consistent font-size and color, perhaps excepting the home page due to its significance in the site. Otherwise, strange design-heads like me go for a mental loop-de-loop! Actually, make sure everything in the same "page-element-type" group is consistent across pages.

The blue tab-box is white for the match-list page with different (probably prior-version) font sizes. This is likely a very quick fix. Also, on this page, the white textboxes are no longer translucent! In fact, your %-transparency is different for each page!

Finally, the home page and feedback page's secondary headers respect edges of the textbox and give them some breathing room. The match list and resources page's secondary headers do not provide breathing room. Give them some, like you did for the other pages, and suddenly beautiful, consistent, breathable harmony has been regained...ooh la la...

Again, thank you for providing such an amazing resource. I'm a current applicant and this is awesome.

P.S. if you want me to make these fixes myself, I humbly volunteer to do so...

 

[p01t43]

@jjame You're the second person to ask about the W Apps/Matric so I'll definitely add something in to clear that up! Its supposed to be Women applicants and matriculants and thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in the director column!

Great pick ups on the design elements, especially the padding on the text in the residency match page. That page is using a different style sheet than the rest and sometimes I just rush to ship changes and say its fine lol. I ran into a problem making the collapsing accordion elements with bootstrap searchable and found a workaround built on an older bootstrap version (3.3.7 I think) but it of course changes the navbar and footer. I can look through the docs to to at least match the navbar or if you would like to check on that, I'd be happy to use your fix! I'm sure you know but just in case, you can download the compiled page by inspect element --> right click on the top html element and click edit as HTML.

I'll DM you about the other changes, it would be great to bounce ideas and edits around with you and thanks for the thorough assessment!

 

[jjame]

@p01t43 dammit you're so awesome! i'll check everything out and provide suggestions.

yes, DM me for design stuff any time--if not, I'll be trawling through retro SDN (2007 was a weird year...but 2002 was adorable) as I procrastinate on necessary pre-writing...the former is much better xD