MSTP Funding

[premedCarl]

I was wondering if anyone thinks its a possibility that the MSTP program funding (mainly for the living stipend) will be cut out completely due to the sequestration budget cuts? Thanks in advance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sakata8242]

When the sky starts falling, I'd start worrying.

I doubt they will suddenly shut the tap off on MSTP grants that have already been awarded. It might mean fewer offers and difficulty in renewing grants down the road though.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

I've been curious about this too. I don't know if the NIH put MSTP funding on the chopping block with everything else, but assuming they did then the most likely result is going to be schools get less money for MSTP, which means they'll decrease the amount of students they accept. That is, of course, unless schools decide to fill in the gap with their own money like non-MSTP MD/PhD programs do, but I don't think that's very likely to happen for a number of reasons.

That said, I think it's safe to say that the NIH isn't going to kill all MSTP funding completely. They'll just decrease the amount of funding. I think this is probably going to affect aspiring MSTP students more than current ones though (ignoring grant funding which is another issue and one I'm sure everyone here is already painfully aware of); the admissions game for these programs is intense enough as it is; god only knows what will happen if all MSTPs reduce their open spots.

 

[premedCarl]

Well i'm only a college freshmen, so does anyone think funding problem will turn around by 2016?

 

[pomona012]

I know that at the three MSTPs I interviewed at this cycle, every single program director said during their spiel that funding was "guaranteed." I think that for schools with MSTP designation, they will cover whatever the NIH falls short on if something like a budget cut were to happen. Not to mention that newer MSTPs are only 10-20% funded by the NIH in the first place (the oldest are funded 30-40%). I don't think institutions would drop the ball unless they were literally running out of money to keep the lights on, even if the NIH did cut funding. First, it would be kicking future academic people in the teeth (and almost guaranteeing that the grads would never return to their alma mater or do it a good turn), second, it would kill the school's rep instantly and permanently.

I am more concerned about going to a school with some really awesome PIs I want to work with and then finding out that their money is going away or that they are moving for funding reasons. Even though MSTPs pay stipends during PhD when the PI can't, it seems like any lab that couldn't afford PhDs would have trouble affording the science. This kind of stuff has always happened in the past, but I am worried about it happening at greater rates in the next 7-9 years.

 

[Maebea]

For most programs, new and old, the MSTP grant covers 15-20% of expenses. We have been told that training grants will be funded @ 90% of the award; this is fairly standard when Congress diddles over the budget. In the past, once the budget was approved, everyone was restored to full funding. We have no idea what will happen this time, but if the sequestration sticks, I see no reason to assume that the NIH will restore full funding to the MSTP.

Several years ago, NIGMS cut the number of MSTP slots across the board. This was due to the convergence of a flat training budget with rising stipend & tuition levels. Overall, the number of slots was cut by 7%. When this happened, schools did not contract their programs, but devoted more institution resources to keep the programs at the same size. Most universities have less flexibility to offset NIH cutbacks now, so I would not be surprised if more than a few programs shrink a little bit. That may not happend this year, but if grants are renewed at lower funding levels there will be a gradual and moderate contraction in the number of MD-PhD's trained nationwide.

 

[plumazul]

Oh great, one more free parameter to consider as I create an application list.

Does anyone think it's possible that if the situation is not resolved by the end of summer, that programs might overreact? IOW, could drastic(number of positions?) cuts be made for this upcoming application cycle because of the uncertainties? If so, since I am applying mostly to MSTPs, this would require an adjustment to my application strategy.

 

[uniqenam]

Oh great, one more free parameter to consider as I create an application list.

Does anyone think it's possible that if the situation is not resolved by the end of summer, that programs might overreact? IOW, could drastic(number of positions?) cuts be made for this upcoming application cycle because of the uncertainties? If so, since I am applying mostly to MSTPs, this would require an adjustment to my application strategy.

I wouldn't worry too much yet. There's still a lot of political maneuvering left to do by a lot of the different players here before a "solution" to our economic troubles is given. Also, as Maebea said, most MSTP and MD/PhD programs are still largely funded by institutional funding and other non-NIH sources; just doing some really rough math, if all 15-20% of MD/PhD program funding is cut (i.e. the NIH no longer supports MSTPs), then maybe it's safe to assume that they would give out 15-20% less spots per year...which would be ~2 spots per program. So it would result in a more competitive application process, but probably not to the point where you have big name schools suddenly only taking 4 students in a class.

I could be wrong here, and maybe others further in the know of MSTP funding could step in.

 

[solitude]

There's nothing you can do about this. Once you start, your funding is almost certainly guaranteed. Just do your best, get into a program (may be even more competitive), and go from there.

 

[Fencer]

As noted by Maebea, most funding that supports MD/PhD programs comes from institutional sources. In particular, endowments is one of the major sources of MD/PhD funding. Endowments are typically conservatively invested, in our case, by our parent institution with a variable but healthy return even during the bad recent years (only 2009 was negative). Perhaps, MD/PhD applicants also need to track the stock market. Typically, endowments distribute funds to the program at 4% of the principal.

If the number of annual MD/PhD entry positions contract due to lack of NIH budget growth (i.e.: inflationary loss) or sequestration (i.e.: 5-7% decrease), they are likely to stay at current levels (590-630 range) or tend to gravitate to closer to the lower limit (590). See: https://www.aamc.org/download/321542/data/2012factstable32.pdf

I just don't see the return to 2004 levels...

Here is a list of endowments: http://chronicle.com/article/CollegeUniversity/136933/

 

[plumazul]

As noted by Maebea, most funding that supports MD/PhD programs comes from institutional sources. In particular, endowments is one of the major sources of MD/PhD funding. Endowments are typically conservatively invested, in our case, by our parent institution with a variable but healthy return even during the bad recent years (only 2009 was negative). Perhaps, MD/PhD applicants also need to track the stock market. Typically, endowments distribute funds to the program at 4% of the principal.

If the number of annual MD/PhD entry positions contract due to lack of NIH budget growth (i.e.: inflationary loss) or sequestration (i.e.: 5-7% decrease), they are likely to stay at current levels (590-630 range) or tend to gravitate to closer to the lower limit (590). See: https://www.aamc.org/download/321542/data/2012factstable32.pdf

I just don't see the return to 2004 levels...

Here is a list of endowments: http://chronicle.com/article/CollegeUniversity/136933/

I haven't looked at that facts-table since it was updated with 2012 data. It appears that apart from any funding issues, women are in full reverse. With percentages back to 2002 levels, it looks like a lost decade.

And this table is even more depressing,

https://www.aamc.org/download/321534/data/2012factstable28.pdf

 

[Fencer]

I haven't looked at that facts-table since it was updated with 2012 data. It appears that apart from any funding issues, women are in full reverse. With percentages back to 2002 levels, it looks like a lost decade.

And this table is even more depressing,

https://www.aamc.org/download/321534/data/2012factstable28.pdf

You quoted table 28, which is MD enrollment. Table 36 comes in 2 parts with MD/PhD enrollment. It is not depressing, but clearly as compared to the 50/50 balance of MD, we need to work on this issue as well as to helping all MD/PhD graduates have research opportunities during residency and early faculty time.

TOTAL MD/PhD ENROLLMENT
Year -- Women --- Men ----- Total
2003 --- 1,265 ---- 2,529 ---- 3,794
2004 --- 1,427 ---- 2,648 ---- 4,075
2005 --- 1,608 ---- 2,746 ---- 4,354
2006 --- 1,701 ---- 2,793 ---- 4,494
2007 --- 1,767 ---- 2,835 ---- 4,602
2008 --- 1,851 ---- 2,921 ---- 4,772
2009 --- 1,925 ---- 2,958 ---- 4,883
2010 --- 1,960 ---- 3,021 ---- 4,981
2011 --- 1,936 ---- 3,095 ---- 5,031
2012 --- 1,933 ---- 3,164 ---- 5,097

Table 36 has the trends on the bottom of page 4 of each of these links:
2003-07
https://www.aamc.org/download/321554/data/2012factstable36-1.pdf
2008-12
https://www.aamc.org/download/321554/data/2012factstable36-2.pdf

 

[plumazul]

You quoted table 28, which is MD enrollment. Table 36 comes in 2 parts with MD/PhD enrollment. It is not depressing, but clearly as compared to the 50/50 balance of MD, we need to work on this issue as well as to helping all MD/PhD graduates have research opportunities during residency and early faculty time.

Sorry, I was in a hurry and wasn't very clear. My first comment was to the table you posted (table 32) which shows 2001-12 MD/PhD matriculants. Women in 2012 (35.9%) was the lowest percentage since 2001 (32.3). I assume that if this becomes a trend (or the status quo) that it will soon be reflected in the total enrollment data.

My second reference was (table 28) about the apparent free-fall of Mexican Americans as a percentage of total enrollment in U.S. medical schools. As an Hispanic female, I found both of these trends disturbing.

 

[StIGMA]

Sorry, I was in a hurry and wasn't very clear. My first comment was to the table you posted (table 32) which shows 2001-12 MD/PhD matriculants. Women in 2012 (35.9%) was the lowest percentage since 2001 (32.3). I assume that if this becomes a trend (or the status quo) that it will soon be reflected in the total enrollment data.

My second reference was (table 28) about the apparent free-fall of Mexican Americans as a percentage of total enrollment in U.S. medical schools. As an Hispanic female, I found both of these trends disturbing.

There is an increase since 2003 in Mexican-American enrollment (~2.46% in 2012 vs 2.41% in 2003, with an total gain of 328 persons (net relative gain of ~40 students)).

Also, and not directed at you, who gives a hoot the percentage of women MD/PhD students. We shouldn't try to recruit people who are uncommitted/have legitimate reservations about the length of training/career who may later become displeased with their decision. The time from MD/PhD application to "early faculty time" is often 13-15 or more years. Fencer, do you really think changes in research opportunities during this early faculty time will significantly affect the percentage of female MD/PhD enrollees? System-wide change may help retain MD/PhD students in research, but the length of training is not going to change- and I think this is the main hold-up for many women considering MD vs MD/PhD vs PhD.

How much influence do you think this forum has in discouraging women applicants?

 

[plumazul]

Are you trolling? There is an increase since 2003 in Mexican-American enrollment (~2.46% in 2012 vs 2.41% in 2003, with an total gain of 328 persons (net relative gain of ~40 students)).

Thank you for your in-depth analysis. It certainly is easier to just call someone a "troll" than it is to actually punch in the numbers and look at them a minute or two. But since I have already done that, I'll share with you:

2003 - 2.41%
2004 - 2.39%
2005 - 2.47%
2006 - 2.56%
2007 - 2.60%
2008 - 2.67%
2009 - 2.70%
2010 - 2.60%
2011 - 2.51%
2012 - 2.46%

It makes an interesting histogram.

 

[StIGMA]

It makes an interesting histogram.

How is this a "free-fall"? It looks like status-quo, not an increase but certainly not a decrease.

 

[vitalamine]

How is this a "free-fall"? It looks like status-quo, not an increase but certainly not a decrease. Go somewhere else. This thread is to discuss MSTP funding issues, not your social qualms.

I enjoy reading this forum partly because it tends to be friendlier than others.

Your point is fine, but please be more sensitive

 

[Neuronix]

How is this a "free-fall"? It looks like status-quo, not an increase but certainly not a decrease. Go somewhere else. This thread is to discuss MSTP funding issues, not your social qualms.

Woah woah woah. Please keep it civil. We often meander in our threads on SDN. That meandering is just fine by me. You could have easily made your point by simply saying "How is this a "free-fall"? It looks like status-quo, not an increase but certainly not a decrease."

Onto the topic of women MD/PhDs and how they relate to funding. The worse funding is, the higher the competition is for research positions. The harder it can be to get projects completed due to lack of resources. This makes the PhD longer, the path to professor longer, and women seem to be more sensitive to these issues than men due to childbearing concerns (see our recent discussion: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=988170). Though this issue weighs heavily on both genders, it is still far easier for a man to find a woman to dedicate herself to childrearing than it is for a woman to find a man to dedicate himself to childrearing.

As for URM, there is still a tremendous recruitment effort among MD programs for well qualified URM applicants, often the types who would be competitive for MD/PhD programs. I think that as long as there are URM specific full scholarships for MD only programs, there is less financial incentive for URMs to attend MD/PhD programs, and we thus may have an even harder time recruiting. If MSTP funding is in jeopardy or the career seems even more unstable than it did before, then URMs may avoid MD/PhD even further.

 

[dl2dp2]

I kind of think that 590 is still too high anyway. Let's make it extremely competitive to get in, so that everyone who gets in automatically gets an R01.

 

[Watson104]

I kind of think that 590 is still too high anyway. Let's make it extremely competitive to get in, so that everyone who gets in automatically gets an R01.

I'm still on board with cutting PhD-only slots. There are way too many, and at least from what I've seen, it's not competitive to get into a PhD program except at maybe the top 5ish institutions. Most admits wouldn't stand a chance at med or law school (there are exceptions of course). That thread resurgence of 'dont get a PhD' really made the point.

 

[gbwillner]

I kind of think that 590 is still too high anyway. Let's make it extremely competitive to get in, so that everyone who gets in automatically gets an R01.

Given that grant funding has been plummeting, it makes no sense to keep increasing the number of positions.

I stick by initial argument: cut all new positions by 1/2, give that money as bridge funding to those who have completed residency and seek to start their own labs (like me right now).

 

[grant doc]

Given that grant funding has been plummeting, it makes no sense to keep increasing the number of positions.

I stick by initial argument: cut all new positions by 1/2, give that money as bridge funding to those who have completed residency and seek to start their own labs (like me right now).

This discussion from back in March focused on possible cuts in MSTP slots due to budgetary constraints. However, there is another reason slots could be cut (in the longer term): because questions are being raised about the effectiveness of the program. Francis Collins (the NIH director) is aware of these questions, and there was a brief discussion at a recent meeting of his advisory board. I posted about this here (part 1) and here (part 2). Dr. Collins mentions "folks" raising questions; I kind of wonder who these are.

 

[Fencer]

I talked to FC about MD/PhD workforce a few months ago. The main questions been raised are with supporting PhD training in R01 grants, where the training plan is not described or considered. The MD/PhD workforce task force was formed and will provide recommendations, I suspect, within a year or so. If you look at the workforce documents for PhD training, only 39% of NIH training awardees are doing research years later. That also raised a lot of questions about the size of the PhD workforce. For MSTP supported students, they haven't published the same data with the same methodology. Skip Brass and a group of MD/PhD directors published a very supportive outcome data paper for MD/PhD students from a small group of MD/PhD programs including MSTP and few large non-MSTP, but outcomes were not segregated as to whether they had received NIH Training support (i.e.: MSTP T32, or F-30/31). In several outlets, they have indicated they will continue supporting the MSTP support at around 940 positions, but NIGMS/MSTP is planning to re-distribute some positions to a few additional non-MSTPs and to some MSTPs with less than 15 positions. I suspect that their expectation is to fund no more than 20% of size of each MSTP with the T32 mechanism. As disclosure bias, these might be my perceptions with my color glass (PD of large non-MSTP soon to be ready for MSTP).

 

[solitude]

This isn't directly relevant to the discussion at hand, but is for the general thread. NIH DID cut a number of slots at MSTPs this year due to sequestration. Some programs lost two slots per year, others more. Whether institutions will pick up the slack or programs will consequently contract, I do not know.

 

[solitude]

Given that grant funding has been plummeting, it makes no sense to keep increasing the number of positions.

I stick by initial argument: cut all new positions by 1/2, give that money as bridge funding to those who have completed residency and seek to start their own labs (like me right now).

I agree with you, but I would go further: I would cut ALL MSTP funding. Completely eliminate the programs altogether, then re-direct that money to pay off loans and startup grants/soft money salary for MDs doing postdocs and starting labs. To discourage people from pursuing research only until their loans were paid off, you could stretch the loan repayment out over 10-15 years. This is essentially what we are doing now: loan pre-payment, over a 15 year period with MSTP+PSTP funding. It would be more expensive per trainee, but fewer trainees, and less attrition.

 

[StIGMA]

I agree with you, but I would go further: I would cut ALL MSTP funding. Completely eliminate the programs altogether, then re-direct that money to pay off loans and startup grants/soft money salary for MDs doing postdocs and starting labs. To discourage people from pursuing research only until their loans were paid off, you could stretch the loan repayment out over 10-15 years. This is essentially what we are doing now: loan pre-payment, over a 15 year period with MSTP+PSTP funding. It would be more expensive per trainee, but fewer trainees, and less attrition.

There issues with this, primarily, many people wouldn't want NIH money going straight to Sallie Mae. Would offering to pay back only government loans be enough of a stimulus to keep people in research? Should the NIH supplement salaries to a significant extent? Should reasonable salary requirements be mandated by the NIH for different post-doc, fellow, and professor levels for persons with MDs vs PhDs? I'd imagine higher salaries/guaranteed salaries would be a similarly strong impetus to keep people in research as a loan repayment option.

 

[grant doc]

I agree with you, but I would go further: I would cut ALL MSTP funding. Completely eliminate the programs altogether, then re-direct that money to pay off loans and startup grants/soft money salary for MDs doing postdocs and starting labs. To discourage people from pursuing research only until their loans were paid off, you could stretch the loan repayment out over 10-15 years. This is essentially what we are doing now: loan pre-payment, over a 15 year period with MSTP+PSTP funding. It would be more expensive per trainee, but fewer trainees, and less attrition.

In the video referenced in my post, the representative of the Physician Scientist Workforce Working Group notes that the working group has been receiving unsolicited input from the research community. She welcomed further input. While there is always a chance that they may, in reality, pay little attention to the comments they are receiving, if you have ideas about how the supply of clinician-scientist should be maintained and nurtured going forward, you could consider sending them along to the working group. Couldn't hurt.

 

[grant doc]

I talked to FC about MD/PhD workforce a few months ago. The main questions been raised are with supporting PhD training in R01 grants, where the training plan is not described or considered. The MD/PhD workforce task force was formed and will provide recommendations, I suspect, within a year or so. If you look at the workforce documents for PhD training, only 39% of NIH training awardees are doing research years later. That also raised a lot of questions about the size of the PhD workforce. For MSTP supported students, they haven't published the same data with the same methodology. Skip Brass and a group of MD/PhD directors published a very supportive outcome data paper for MD/PhD students from a small group of MD/PhD programs including MSTP and few large non-MSTP, but outcomes were not segregated as to whether they had received NIH Training support (i.e.: MSTP T32, or F-30/31). In several outlets, they have indicated they will continue supporting the MSTP support at around 940 positions, but NIGMS/MSTP is planning to re-distribute some positions to a few additional non-MSTPs and to some MSTPs with less than 15 positions. I suspect that their expectation is to fund no more than 20% of size of each MSTP with the T32 mechanism. As disclosure bias, these might be my perceptions with my color glass (PD of large non-MSTP soon to be ready for MSTP).

Fencer, thanks for the information.
At the meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, Francis Collins noted that the question has been raised as to whether it was a mistake to make MD/PhD training the "centerpiece of our effort to train physician researchers." It sounded like he wanted a broad evaluation of, as he put it, "the whole question about MD/PhD training programs." (Incidentally. back before he was famous or even, for that matter, well-known, he was one of my interviewers when I applied to the Michigan MSTP. My vague recollection is that, in addition to being an impressive scientist, he was a genuinely nice person, or at least nice to a young, somewhat overwhelmed applicant,)

I have seen data regarding MD/PhD program outcomes, often generated by not totally disinterested individuals. One thing I would note is that these analyses (the ones I have seen) tend to look at who the employers of the alumni are (universities? private practices? etc) and not what the alumni have actually done or are doing. I honestly think that if the Working Group collects enough detailed data, they may find that a surprisingly large fraction of MD/Ph.D. graduates end up in careers in which the time and cost of obtaining the Ph.D. comes nowhere close to the benefit the Ph.D. training provides.

A link to my post about the ADC meeting is here.

 

[Fencer]

Like many MD/PhD directors, I did listen to the relevant portions of the last 2 NIH ACD's because there were important comments about workforce, training, and specifically, MSTP funding/redistribution. The AAMC GREAT sends frequent emails with news regarding this and related topics. FC seems interested in improving the training system. Another idea out there is to shift some of the T32 funding towards individual F30 awards. There are 940 T32 MSTP positions and about 414 F30 trainees. The problem as indicated earlier is not enough data to say that one mechanism was superior than the other. At least with the F30, the trainee gets to succeed on their first grant. Is that a better predictor of future R01? Honestly, we need data about the T32, F30 and F31 trainees as well as those not supported by these mechanisms. The late bloomer path (MD, with postdoc getting credit for PhD) is considerably more expensive at the individual level (higher cost for training + NIH loan repayment), but in the preliminary rounds more effective in generating faculty. It is unclear if it is better for R01s, or because of the older age (and greater personal responsibilities), whether trainees take less risky approaches or choose areas closer to their comfort level. Bottom line, we need more data as well as it is likely that one solution does not fit everybody. The question is whether the MSTP should be the preferred funding path as it is now. That is up for re-examination.

Like you, I have had several personal interactions with FC, and I agree that he was kind, thoughtful, and very nice despite of his intellect, achievements, experience, or position of power. He was very approachable particularly for the MD/PhD students.
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JdORRUv9nw
Later that night, he provided the 2 hr concert for students including classic renditions of Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc. There are several dozens of other FC performances in youtube... FC sings

 

[grant doc]

Like many MD/PhD directors, I did listen to the relevant portions of the last 2 NIH ACD's because there were important comments about workforce, training, and specifically, MSTP funding/redistribution. The AAMC GREAT sends frequent emails with news regarding this and related topics. FC seems interested in improving the training system. Another idea out there is to shift some of the T32 funding towards individual F30 awards. There are 940 T32 MSTP positions and about 414 F30 trainees. The problem as indicated earlier is not enough data to say that one mechanism was superior than the other. At least with the F30, the trainee gets to succeed on their first grant. Is that a better predictor of future R01? Honestly, we need data about the T32, F30 and F31 trainees as well as those not supported by these mechanisms. The late bloomer path (MD, with postdoc getting credit for PhD) is considerably more expensive at the individual level (higher cost for training + NIH loan repayment), but in the preliminary rounds more effective in generating faculty. It is unclear if it is better for R01s, or because of the older age (and greater personal responsibilities), whether trainees take less risky approaches or choose areas closer to their comfort level. Bottom line, we need more data as well as it is likely that one solution does not fit everybody. The question is whether the MSTP should be the preferred funding path as it is now. That is up for re-examination.

Like you, I have had several personal interactions with FC, and I agree that he was kind, thoughtful, and very nice despite of his intellect, achievements, experience, or position of power. He was very approachable particularly for the MD/PhD students.
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JdORRUv9nw
Later that night, he provided the 2 hr concert for students including classic renditions of Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc. There are several dozens of other FC performances in youtube... FC sings

Interesting. Thanks for the additional informaion.

 

[grant doc]

I've mostly interacted with MD/PhD who became professors, but what are the other paths that people take where the PhD isn't worth it? I've only heard rumours about investment banking and consulting, but those options sounded unappealing to me and my friends who are applying/have applied. Did the people who got rerouted originally want the faculty path?

I'll give four brief examples based on MD-PhD graduates who went thought the program the same time I did and I knew personally:
1. A colleague who went into dermatology private practice
2. A colleague who works for a commercial pathology laboratory analyzing clinical pathological samples.
3. A colleague who went to a faculty position at a medical school but does strictly clinical work.
4. My good friend from college who went through the Harvard-MIT MSTP program, had a highly successful graduate project in a world-renowned molecular biology/immunology laboratory and, afterwards, never again got anywhere near a wet lab bench nor directed preclinical research nor applied for a grant. He is a medical school faculty memeber, He is in clinic 3 to 4 days per week (most often a non-teaching clinic), teaches, does ward service in his speciality, plays an important role in the large clinical outcome trials that are characteristic of oncology and--since he is considered a top expert in his field--flies around the world giving CME courses. I think it's a great job, but he tells me he sometimes regrets having lost all connection to more basic science.

 

[gutonc]

I've mostly interacted with MD/PhD who became professors, but what are the other paths that people take where the PhD isn't worth it? I've only heard rumours about investment banking and consulting, but those options sounded unappealing to me and my friends who are applying/have applied. Did the people who got rerouted originally want the faculty path?

In the spirit of grant doc's response, here's what happened to my (small) MD/PhD class:

1. Research pathway residency/fellowship in IM/Onc - Currently transitioning out of the lab into a .75 Clinical/.25 Clinical research position.
2. AP/NP at Columbia - Currently on faculty at Columbia, has a basic science lab studying neurodegenerative disorders
3. Derm at our program - Initially went fancy PP but after a couple of years of "all botox all the time" went back to academics and is now 50/50 teaching faculty/clinical research
4. Derm at our program - PP derm in NYC
5. Community radiology program - PP Rads
6. Ophto followed by neuro-optho fellowship - No idea what happened to this person
7. Neurosurg @ CCF followed by (IIRC) a peds neurosurg fellowship - No idea what happened to this person either...probably still in training even though he finished a couple of years ahead of me

 

[Neuronix]

4. My good friend from college who went through the Harvard-MIT MSTP program, had a highly successful graduate project in a world-renowned molecular biology/immunology laboratory and, afterwards, never again got anywhere near a wet lab bench nor directed preclinical research nor applied for a grant.

This story perfectly describes one of my faculty members. If it is him, I'd just add that a 13 year MD/PhD program seems to dissuade people from continuing in science...

Did the people who got rerouted originally want the faculty path?

It's about 50/50 for staying in academics and of that about 50% continue doing serious research. Most of us did want the faculty path at least at the beginning. See: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=900721

 

[gbwillner]

In the spirit of grant doc's response, here's what happened to my (small) MD/PhD class:

1. Research pathway residency/fellowship in IM/Onc - Currently transitioning out of the lab into a .75 Clinical/.25 Clinical research position.
2. AP/NP at Columbia - Currently on faculty at Columbia, has a basic science lab studying neurodegenerative disorders
3. Derm at our program - Initially went fancy PP but after a couple of years of "all botox all the time" went back to academics and is now 50/50 teaching faculty/clinical research
4. Derm at our program - PP derm in NYC
5. Community radiology program - PP Rads
6. Ophto followed by neuro-optho fellowship - No idea what happened to this person
7. Neurosurg @ CCF followed by (IIRC) a peds neurosurg fellowship - No idea what happened to this person either...probably still in training even though he finished a couple of years ahead of me

I guess I can add some more. My program had almost a hundred MSTP students, so I'll limit this to my class, which was small for our program.

1 (me). PSTP residency, fellowship, post-doc. Currently Jr. Faculty at premier institution, doing research.

2. best friend in program- quit after 2 years of the PhD, did surgery residency and a MPH. Interested in clinical research, works at the VA.

3. protracted PhD, now in a pathology residency program. Still wants to do research (as far as I know).

4. protracted PhD (same lab as #3), now in psychiatry residency. Not certain about her intent on a research career.

5. Went into Orthopedic surgery. In private practice.

6. protracted PhD (included fellowship at another institution). Went into Rads. Still in training.

7. Quit program

8. I forget who this was. It's been a while.