mstp grant ranking

[Oct4]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Since MSTP money is awarded competitively, I thought by analyzing the amount of MSTP grant each institution receives, we can get a vague idea on how NIH ranks the different programs. I've been lurking on this board long enough to know that there are more important factors such as faculty, location, atmosphere, etc., but I thought this information might be helpful if for nothing other than entertainment value.

This is the award data released by NIGMS for the year 2004.

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyr...-AEF6F2A13AF6/0/2004_Training_Annual_Book.pdf

The "ranking" is below:

Institution # of Trainee Amount
UPenn 50 $2,431,288
Wash U 51 $2,302,332
Hopkins 50 $2,151,688
Harvard 45 $2,062,209
Yale 47 $2,054,547
Cornell 43 $2,014,755
Stanford 38 $1,996,435
U Chicago 36 $1,736,595
Albert Einstein 32 $1,583,576
Duke 36 $1,578,591
U Mich 36 $1,534,023
Case Western 29 $1,334,573
NYU 29 $1,279,879
UCSF 35 $1,193,142
UCLA 34 $1,176,426
U of Washington 29 $1,051,388
Vanderbilt 20 $960,215
UCSD 28 $947,709
Columbia 20 $945,535
Northwestern 18 $943,502
Mount Sinai 19 $837,629
Emory 19 $819,104
UTSW 23 $743,216
U of Iowa 17 $716,053
Baylor 19 $657,870
SUNY SB 16 $554,620
U of Rochester 11 $520,781
U Alabama 12 $501,621
U Colorodo 14 $480,659
UNC Chapel Hill 10 $439,958
U Pitt 9 $399,184
U of Virginia 9 $368,269
U Wisconsin 6 $250,625
UC Irvine 6 $199,739
Tufts 4 $190,143
MUSC 5 $169,554
U Cincinnati 4 $164,271
OHSU 3 $144,335
Mayo 3 $140,669
U of Conn. 4 $133,435
U Minnesota 2 $80,628

 

[dl2dp2]

# of trainee money per trainee
Stanford 38 $1,996,435 $52,537.76
Northwestern 18 $943,502 $52,416.78
Albert Einstein 32 $1,583,576 $49,486.75
UPenn 50 $2,431,288 $48,625.76
U Chicago 36 $1,736,595 $48,238.75
OHSU 3 $144,335 $48,111.67
Vanderbilt 20 $960,215 $48,010.75
Tufts 4 $190,143 $47,535.75
Rochester 11 $520,781 $47,343.73
Columbia 20 $945,535 $47,276.75
Mayo 3 $140,669 $46,889.67
Cornell 43 $2,014,755 $46,854.77
Case Western 29 $1,334,573 $46,019.76
Harvard 45 $2,062,209 $45,826.87
Wash U 51 $2,302,332 $45,143.76
Pitt 9 $399,184 $44,353.78
NYU 29 $1,279,879 $44,133.76
Mount Sinai 19 $837,629 $44,085.74
UNC 10 $439,958 $43,995.80
Duke 36 $1,578,591 $43,849.75
Yale 47 $2,054,547 $43,713.77
Emory 19 $819,104 $43,110.74
Hopkins 50 $2,151,688 $43,033.76
U Mich 36 $1,534,023 $42,611.75
U of Iowa 17 $716,053 $42,120.76
Alabama 12 $501,621 $41,801.75
Wisconsin 6 $250,625 $41,770.83
U Cincinnati 4 $164,271 $41,067.75
Virginia 9 $368,269 $40,918.78
Minnesota 2 $80,628 $40,314.00
U of Washington 29 $1,051,388 $36,254.76
SUNY SB 16 $554,620 $34,663.75
Baylor 19 $657,870 $34,624.74
UCLA 34 $1,176,426 $34,600.76
Colorado 14 $480,659 $34,332.79
UCSF 35 $1,193,142 $34,089.77
MUSC 5 $169,554 $33,910.80
UCSD 28 $947,709 $33,846.75
Uconn 4 $133,435 $33,358.75
UC Irvine 6 $199,739 $33,289.83
UTSW 23 $743,216 $32,313.74

 

[CaipirinhaQuinho]

well done. this is interesting.

 

[dr.z]

Interesting.

 

[Oct4]

Since there is such a disparity when we look at it by amount per trainee, I am wondering if NIH does not fund "slots," but rather just give lump sum to each institution to spend it as they please. Prior to looking at these data, I was under the impression that each school had a certain number of funded "slots" or "seats." Can anybody clarify?

Also, these data only include NIH money, but not other private endowments pumped into MSTP (eg. Olin for WashU).

Crash was a mediocre movie, certainly NOT Oscar-worthy. 😡

 

[Habari]

this is interesting.

Sorta. First, the $ amount of training monies and monies per person is tied to the tuition of the school as well as the number of slots, as well as how the school shuffles about money knowing it will get a certain amount reimbursed. It's how situations like the following arise:

per trainee:
Northwestern 18 $943,502 $52,416.78 (private)
UCSF 35 $1,193,142 $34,089.77 (public)

Does this really say that much - I would argue not.

This does only include NIH money, and schools have highly variable amounts of private monies available for funding more slots, or supplementing each slot.

 

[Maebea]

Since there is such a disparity when we look at it by amount per trainee, I am wondering if NIH does not fund "slots," but rather just give lump sum to each institution to spend it as they please. Prior to looking at these data, I was under the impression that each school had a certain number of funded "slots" or "seats." Can anybody clarify?

Also, these data only include NIH money, but not other private endowments pumped into MSTP (eg. Olin for WashU).

Crash was a mediocre movie, certainly NOT Oscar-worthy. 😡

The NIH determines the number of training grant slots for each institution and awards money based on the number of slots. As Habari suggested, tution reimbursement plays a major role in the difference in per capita cost. Tuition reiumbursement is based on a formula devised by the NIH: 100% of the first $3k of tuition, plus 60% of tuition in excess of $3k. For each training slot stipend is set at $20,772, trainee expenses are $2,200, trainee travel is $300. Institutions are permitted to spend trainee expenses and trainee travel on activities related to the operation of the program, such as salaries, supplies, etc.

The data on slot distribution that Oct 4 gave are already out of date, as NIGMS cut the slots last year, and recently sent a notice to programs saying that they would be cutting slots again this year. The problem is that the NIH training budget is essentially flat, while the cost of tuition goes up every year. The NIH is faced with the choice of cutting training slots or changing the tuition reimbursement formula, which means that med schools will get less tuition revenue. So far, those favoring the preservation of the tuition formula have carried the battle, and the result is fewer NIH-funded slots available to MD-PhD programs (and PhD programs). If this trend continues, it will eventually force MSTPs to reduce the size of their entering classes. I'm no economist, but a rough guess is that without an increase in the NIH training budget, tuition increases of 5% a year would mean 3% less money available for stipend, trainee expenses and trainee travel. This would lead to a 1 to 2% decrease in slots each year. In 5 year's time, this would result in a significant reduction in the number of slots available in MSTPs. For example, program with 40 slots would be reduced to 36 slots. If this doomday scenario comes to pass, it will be interesting to see how the cuts play out. Will the NIH take from the rich (WashU, Hopkins, Penn, Yale, etc.) to preserve the poor (Minn, Mayo, OHSU, etc.), or will the smaller programs lose their funding to keep the rich in the style to which they are accustomed?

 

[blkprl]

Since MSTP money is awarded competitively, I thought by analyzing the amount of MSTP grant each institution receives, we can get a vague idea on how NIH ranks the different programs. I've been lurking on this board long enough to know that there are more important factors such as faculty, location, atmosphere, etc., but I thought this information might be helpful if for nothing other than entertainment value.

This is the award data released by NIGMS for the year 2004.

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyr...-AEF6F2A13AF6/0/2004_Training_Annual_Book.pdf

The "ranking" is below:

Institution # of Trainee Amount
UPenn 50 $2,431,288
Wash U 51 $2,302,332
Hopkins 50 $2,151,688
Harvard 45 $2,062,209
Yale 47 $2,054,547
Cornell 43 $2,014,755
Stanford 38 $1,996,435
U Chicago 36 $1,736,595
Albert Einstein 32 $1,583,576
Duke 36 $1,578,591
U Mich 36 $1,534,023
Case Western 29 $1,334,573
NYU 29 $1,279,879
UCSF 35 $1,193,142
UCLA 34 $1,176,426
U of Washington 29 $1,051,388
Vanderbilt 20 $960,215
UCSD 28 $947,709
Columbia 20 $945,535
Northwestern 18 $943,502
Mount Sinai 19 $837,629
Emory 19 $819,104
UTSW 23 $743,216
U of Iowa 17 $716,053
Baylor 19 $657,870
SUNY SB 16 $554,620
U of Rochester 11 $520,781
U Alabama 12 $501,621
U Colorodo 14 $480,659
UNC Chapel Hill 10 $439,958
U Pitt 9 $399,184
U of Virginia 9 $368,269
U Wisconsin 6 $250,625
UC Irvine 6 $199,739
Tufts 4 $190,143
MUSC 5 $169,554
U Cincinnati 4 $164,271
OHSU 3 $144,335
Mayo 3 $140,669
U of Conn. 4 $133,435
U Minnesota 2 $80,628

there is no ranking in that document from the NIH...
or I may have missed something. please enlighten me...

 

[blkprl]

Crash was a mediocre movie, certainly NOT Oscar-worthy. 😡[/QUOTE]

very true!!!

 

[Hurricane]

I honestly don't know if the amount of $$ from the NIH has anything to do with a program's "ranking" or not.

But I do know that programs differ in how much they depend on the money. I'm at University of Cincinnati, and I started here shortly before we got MSTP funding. Even so all of our slots came with full tuition for all years + stipend + health insurance. From a financial standpoint, it was just like an MSTP slot at any other school, but paid for by our dean's office instead of the NIH. When we got MSTP funding (which as you can see isn't a whole lot of $$) nothing really changed from the students' standpoint. For our program, it was more like a "seal of approval" which helps in recruiting and bragging rights, rather than money that was necessary to keep us afloat, since the medical school was committed to funding us already.

But it seems that other schools depend more heavily on the MSTP funding to fund their slots. And some schools have funded and non-funded slots, such that the "lesser" students end up in a non-funded slot and may not get as much tuition/stipend.

I'm not saying any method is better than the others, just that the schools use the money differently, so this list may not be the best indicator of how MSTP programs are ranked. If you could get ahold of the scores from each of the schools' training grants, that would probably be more accurate, but those are probably not made public...

And yeah, 👎 on Crash.

 

[gizzard]

Will the NIH take from the rich (WashU, Hopkins, Penn, Yale, etc.) to preserve the poor (Minn, Mayo, OHSU, etc.), or will the smaller programs lose their funding to keep the rich in the style to which they are accustomed?

Excellent point.

It's hardly true that the entire "pot" of MSTP money to every school is up for grabs at each application cycle. Rather, the study section probably decides whether a) the program gets a ~10% increase in slots, b) the program loses ~10% of the slots, or c) no change. I'm inclined to think that "c" is by far the most frequent decision, since many of the top programs listed have influential people who can call Shapiro and convey their displeasure if their funding is threatened. There is significant inertia that favors the older programs.

Also, in addition to private monies, many of the public schools have a sizeable investment in the MSTP from the Dean's office. Some of the amply-funded programs appear to have much less investment, by the Dean, in their own programs, given the number of NIH funded slots / total number of students in the program. Penn and WashU may be exceptions, given their giant programs. I bring this point up because the "the level of institutional commitment" is criteria for successful T32 awards, according to the NIH.

 

[Maebea]

Excellent point.

It's hardly true that the entire "pot" of MSTP money to every school is up for grabs at each application cycle. Rather, the study section probably decides whether a) the program gets a ~10% increase in slots, b) the program loses ~10% of the slots, or c) no change. I'm inclined to think that "c" is by far the most frequent decision, since many of the top programs listed have influential people who can call Shapiro and convey their displeasure if their funding is threatened. There is significant inertia that favors the older programs.

Also, in addition to private monies, many of the public schools have a sizeable investment in the MSTP from the Dean's office. Some of the amply-funded programs appear to have much less investment, by the Dean, in their own programs, given the number of NIH funded slots / total number of students in the program. Penn and WashU may be exceptions, given their giant programs. I bring this point up because the "the level of institutional commitment" is criteria for successful T32 awards, according to the NIH.

Good points, both. Politics, personal and regional, do play a role in the awarding of MSTP funds. Shapiro once said that NIGMS is aware of regional imbalances in MSTP funding. All things being equal, it is more likely that future new MSTP funding would go to an institution in an area seen as underserved with a large voting block (say, U. of Miami or UC-Davis) than an area that already has a lot of MSTP funding (somewhere in the Northeast or upper Midwest).

A survey done by Clayton Wiley at Pittsburgh suggests that NIH MSTP funds cover around 25% of the cost of running an MD-PhD program. The rest of the cost is covered by NIH research grants, institutional funds, other NIH training grants, and individual fellowships received by trainees. A more complete study needs to be done to determine whether MSTP monies merely replace institutional funds, or whether they stimulate additional investment by the institutions that receive them. The two examples you cite, Penn & WashU would seem to provide evidence for the latter. My hunch is that you would see a similar situation among many MSTP institutions.

 

[tbo]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have FY2005 data?

 

[xanthines]

I think the thing to keep in mind is that MSTP T32 grants are competitive. That means they tend to give awards (I don't know about the size of awards) to more competitive institutions. Part of being competitive is already having a well-funded MD/PhD program. It's almost like the preliminary data section of a research grant. The NIH isn't likely to give a school that would depend too heavily on the MSTP grant, since it's pretty obvious that you couldn't fund an entire MSTP from a T32. The MSTP grants supposedly improve existing training programs.

-X

I honestly don't know if the amount of $$ from the NIH has anything to do with a program's "ranking" or not.

But I do know that programs differ in how much they depend on the money. I'm at University of Cincinnati, and I started here shortly before we got MSTP funding. Even so all of our slots came with full tuition for all years + stipend + health insurance. From a financial standpoint, it was just like an MSTP slot at any other school, but paid for by our dean's office instead of the NIH. When we got MSTP funding (which as you can see isn't a whole lot of $$) nothing really changed from the students' standpoint. For our program, it was more like a "seal of approval" which helps in recruiting and bragging rights, rather than money that was necessary to keep us afloat, since the medical school was committed to funding us already.

But it seems that other schools depend more heavily on the MSTP funding to fund their slots. And some schools have funded and non-funded slots, such that the "lesser" students end up in a non-funded slot and may not get as much tuition/stipend.

I'm not saying any method is better than the others, just that the schools use the money differently, so this list may not be the best indicator of how MSTP programs are ranked. If you could get ahold of the scores from each of the schools' training grants, that would probably be more accurate, but those are probably not made public...

And yeah, 👎 on Crash.

 

[linuxizer]

per trainee:
Northwestern 18 $943,502 $52,416.78 (private)
UCSF 35 $1,193,142 $34,089.77 (public)

Does this really say that much - I would argue not.

Agreed that they don't really say much. If someone wants to make serious stab at this, though, there is fortunately a good metric of the relative costs of education at different schools--namely the school budget. Just need to collect and divide.

Ari

 

[hawkeey]

UTSW is half funded from non-NIH money (state, private, etc.)

 

[Sinfekl]

Do you think this funding changes from year to year? How often are they re-evaluated?

It's a shame the NIH doesn't release this stuff. I know it would be annoying to have another set of rankings for everyone to get all huffy about, but some of the things the NIH looks at, like how fast applicants get out and what sorts of careers they move on to, would be really great information for applicants to have. It would be nice if the NIH essentially mandated public disclosure of these facts by publishing the program reviews so that applicants don't have to rely on hearsay and wonder whether programs are telling the truth on re-visit day.

 

[solitude]

and wonder whether programs are telling the truth on re-visit day.

ain't that the truth. It's not like it actually matters, but 3 (out of 8!) programs I interviewed at claimed that their program had the highest grant rating by NIH.

 

[xanthines]

I really don't know anything about this, but could one file a Freedom of Information Act request?

-X

It would be nice if the NIH essentially mandated public disclosure of these facts by publishing the program reviews so that applicants don't have to rely on hearsay and wonder whether programs are telling the truth on re-visit day.

 

[Neuronix]

I really don't know anything about this, but could one file a Freedom of Information Act request?

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part5.htm

That's a good question. I'm sure a great deal of the info that does exist is in the deal of summary statements.

NIH generally will withhold the following types of records or information in response to a FOIA request:

Evaluative portions of site visit reports and peer review summary statements, including priority scores

However, maybe there's a loophole...

NIH generally will release the following types of records pursuant to a FOIA request:

Final reports that have been transmitted to the grantee organization of any audit, survey, review, or evaluation of grantee performance.

Who wants to try this? 😀 I can almost guarantee tremendous resistance. The page goes on to state:

If, after receiving a FOIA request, NIH has substantial reason to believe that information in its records could reasonably be considered exempt from release, the appropriate NIH FOI office will notify the applicant or grantee, through the PI, before the information is released. The PI will be given an opportunity to identify potentially patentable or commercially valuable information that the PI believes should not be disclosed. After NIH consideration of the response, the PI and grantee will be informed if NIH does not agree with the PI's position. If a document contains both disclosable and nondisclosable information, the nondisclosable information will be deleted and the balance of the document will be disclosed.

I'm willing to bet even if the NINDS was willing, programs would not want this information released. My guess is that most would stall however possible to prevent any objective outside reviews from getting out.

 

[Maebea]

Do you think this funding changes from year to year? How often are they re-evaluated?

It's a shame the NIH doesn't release this stuff. I know it would be annoying to have another set of rankings for everyone to get all huffy about, but some of the things the NIH looks at, like how fast applicants get out and what sorts of careers they move on to, would be really great information for applicants to have. It would be nice if the NIH essentially mandated public disclosure of these facts by publishing the program reviews so that applicants don't have to rely on hearsay and wonder whether programs are telling the truth on re-visit day.

ain't that the truth. It's not like it actually matters, but 3 (out of 8!) programs I interviewed at claimed that their program had the highest grant rating by NIH.

The NIH does not rank programs. Any program that tells you that they had the "highest grant rating by the NIH" is simply not telling the truth. (Comparing grant priority scores is not valid because grants are reviewed by different groups of scientists at different times.)

There are only 5 truthful things programs can say about their NIH funding:

1) We have NIH fUnding which expires in XXXX
2) We have XX slots on our grant
3) We have more training grant slots than any other program
4) We have the highest dollar amount training grant (not the same as #3, above)
5) We have been placed on probation and had our funding cut by the NIH

Funding decisions are made at the quintennial training grant review. The only reason funding is adjusted in mid-award is because the NIH has a shortage or surplus of funds. When mid-award adjustments are made, it is usually minor, one or two training grant slots, and is distributed across most grants.

Even the number of training grant slots awarded is not a good measure. There seems to be a correlation between the number of slots awarded and the amount of institutional dollars a program brings to the table. Schools with large institutional commitment of funds tend to have large MSTP grants. The MSTP grant typically provides 20-25% of the money required to run a program.

Even if the NIH released information on MSTPs, what would applicants do with it? In the past decade, the two MD-PhD programs most coveted by applicants were put on probation and had their funding cut due to chronic problems identified by the NIH. Because scientists are such gossips, this information was known by every MSTP program director in the country. I am certain that most program directors gleefully told recruits, "You say that you are also considering the MSTP at Xxxxxxx, you do know that their program funding has been cut by the NIH because of x,y, and z, don't you?" In fact, applicants ignored the NIH's funding cuts, and these two programs did not see any difference in their ability to recruit students.

Bottom line: do not worry about "rankings" Pick the school that meets your personal and professional needs.

 

[Neuronix]

In fact, applicants ignored the NIH's funding cuts, and these two programs did not see any difference in their ability to recruit students.

That's the response I absolutely expected from someone in your shoes and exactly the response I would expect if I actually tried a FOI request.

The truth is that this information you're saying is widely known, is NOT among applicants. I have a good idea which programs you're referring to, but am not certain, and I am convinced the vast majority of applicants have no idea. This is why we would like to know this information. Would it really affect program admissions in any way? I don't know. I think it would, because again, I assume most applicants do not know about these issues whereas you assume many do. If programs had to air their dirty laundry, I think it would be a major conduit for programs to change the problems that they do have, rather than to sweep them under the rug.

 

[solitude]

The truth is that this information you're saying is widely known, is NOT among applicants.

I agree. Even the basics that Maebea generously outlined were a total mystery to me until his post. I was most struck by the cost of running the MSTP that the grant covers--only 20-25%? That seems pretty paltry to me.

 

[Maebea]

I could be more specific, but MSTP program directors hew to the omerta, and I would be rewarded with two in the back of the head if I publically divulged names. (However, if you happen to ask at the applicant revisit weekend...) In the case I mentioned, the NIH sanctions had the desired effect: the programs made changes that were beneficial to students and the lost slots were restored.

I understand that you feel like you are missing some information that will be important to your decision. I believe that you can gain all the information you need from students like Neuonix (I'm glad he did not come to my program, he seems like a pain in the a$$ - jk). Students who have been in a program a couple of years know its strengths and weaknesses, and are not so addicted to the MSTP kool-aid that they withhold their opinions from applicants. Ask students if the administration is responsive, what the real time to degree is, what their lives are like, and so on. They will tell you the truth (they sure let me know when they disagree with a decision).

So, now you have information on the program from a student's perspective, you've determined how well your research interests will be served by the faculty, and you've made some judgement whether you can be comfortable living in a particular city; so what is left to know? Outcomes? Though programs are eager to trumpet their residency match lists as being superior to others, the fact is that they are surprisingly similar. Every program sends grads to UCSF, WashU, Duke, Hopkins, Penn, CHOP, NY Pres, Mass Gen, Brigham, etc. If you graduate from an MSTP there is a good likelihood that you will do your residency at institutions in that tier (unless you choose to do something like RadOnc, Derm, Ortho, etc.).

The bottom-bottom line is that you will do fine no matter where you go. It is a big decision, but it is like choosing between a New York Strip Steak and Lobster Thermidor: you can't go wrong. That is, unless you select a program that does not feel right to you, but others tell you that you would be nuts not to pick.

Good luck.

 

[Neuronix]

I believe that you can gain all the information you need from students like Neuonix (I'm glad he did not come to my program, he seems like a pain in the a$$ - jk).

You didn't interview me so I didn't have a choice

Still, I'm very happy with where I ended up. Beach every weekend in the summer, skiing every weekend in the winter, trek up to NYC whenever I feel like it for $20 round trip...

 

[xanthines]

Jeez, rub it in, why don't ya? 😉

-X

/It's cold and lonely in the Mid-West.
//Not sure why I used slashies... gotta stop reading Fark...

Still, I'm very happy with where I ended up. Beach every weekend in the summer, skiing every weekend in the winter, trek up to NYC whenever I feel like it for $20 round trip...

 

[Sinfekl]

I still think it would be very easy and beneficial to publish data on how long the average MSTP student takes at a particular school, and where they end up (residency, straight to post-doc, etc. and then, if possible, whether they're getting positions at academic institutions five to seven years out) Everyone gives you some sort of info about this, but its scattered, I lost half the sheets, and its tough to compare different sets of data. It would be nice to have it all on one official, government web page.

I'm not actually as concerned with how much funding they get, most of the MSTP institutions are research powerhouses, and the funding will be available, and there will be more than enough strong faculty to work with.