I've been trying to determine how well the programs I've been accepted to will set me up for residency and beyond, but then I got thinking... isn't this what the reviewers of the MSTP grant application do? These applications contain info about graduate outcomes all the way to junior faculty positions, right? It seems the info on these applications and their evaluations would help applicants cut through the marketing and the vague language/stats on mdphd websites. Is this reasonable, and more importantly, is this information accessible anywhere? I thought it might be since NIH and NIGMS are public institutions?
MSTP Grant Scores?
- Thread starter jcm04
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 4,144
I can tell you my score, very proudly.... but some might want to keep theirs under cover. Please notice in the TWD dashboard that some programs are in NCE (no cost extension). This is a valid question that you can ask to your accepted PDs. Some might feel offended... others, might have excuses for theirs. Now, a surrogate marker for scores is ... (here is a small project) to calculate the DELTA of MSTP training slots (percent increase or # increase) in the last 5-7 years. That would give you a perspective regarding the recent reviews. Now, since 2016, the MSTP T32 FOA has indicated that they wanted to fund at 25% of program census. Thus, some well established institutions had cuts in their 2010-15 Awards as they renewed. In 2020, the MSTP FOA required programs to completely re-apply as a new program. At one point, some of the legacy programs were funded in excess of 40% of their training slots while others had 20%. At the 50th Anniversary of the MSTP mechanism in 2014, NIGMS presented their plan to re-adjust all programs at the 25% level. This is why, you really can't look at the DELTA of training slots as a surrogate indicator of MSTP quality beyond the past 5-7 years. Now, after doing site visits to a dozen programs or so in the last year and half, I can assure you that essentially all MSTPs can provide outstanding training. However, your road would be harder in some as compared to those vibrant MSTPs.
You can start your project by finding all grants in NIH reporter (advanced by opportunity number) funded by the MSTP T32 FOA - PAR-21-189: Medical Scientist Training Program (T32) Then, start looking at the line "This is a reissued of ....", and re-do the search again.
You can start your project by finding all grants in NIH reporter (advanced by opportunity number) funded by the MSTP T32 FOA - PAR-21-189: Medical Scientist Training Program (T32) Then, start looking at the line "This is a reissued of ....", and re-do the search again.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 420
Honestly, chasing grant scores is difficult to impossible, and relatively low-yield. I know it's more difficult to look up and compare outcomes individually between schools, so you're looking for a summary statistic, but you don't really need to do that to broadly gauge whether a program is a "good" program.
Long-running MSTPs (Northwestern, Duke, Einstein, NYU, Stanford, UW, etc.) tend to be well-structured and successful at supporting their students to great outcomes. Newer MSTPs still had to prove they support their students to obtain the competitive grant. You generally have a good choice regardless - I would chat with students at each school to gauge fit, and use your own preferences for location and professors you are interested in working with at each school to make your decision.
Long-running MSTPs (Northwestern, Duke, Einstein, NYU, Stanford, UW, etc.) tend to be well-structured and successful at supporting their students to great outcomes. Newer MSTPs still had to prove they support their students to obtain the competitive grant. You generally have a good choice regardless - I would chat with students at each school to gauge fit, and use your own preferences for location and professors you are interested in working with at each school to make your decision.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,861
It's a good question, and unfortunately the info is not publicly available to my knowledge.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 876
A group of graduates who started the program 10-25+ years ago may not be relevant to you. Someone who started at an MD/PhD program in 2005 may not reasonably get an R01 until 2025-2030. Go where you think you will succeed and can live/thrive for 7+ years during this formative period (at a better ranked program in your areas of interest if all other things are relatively equal).
Some top programs % graduates >70% research are much worse than you would expect. What matters is you and your goals and frankly not burning out.
Some top programs % graduates >70% research are much worse than you would expect. What matters is you and your goals and frankly not burning out.
Last edited:
How does one control this, and it is location dependent? I don't have the answer.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 1999
- Messages
- 2,497
- Reaction score
- 3,028
Right. As far as optimizing one's individual likelihood of long-term success, I think the microfactors (local lab, mentor, peers, scientific luck and timing) are vastly more important than macrofactors like institution.
Unfortunately the microfactors are pretty much impossible to foresee and control for in advance so you just have to optimize the macrofactors like expertise in your field, preferable location, etc., and hope for the best. But really, any MSTP is a great choice. I doubt whether information about their scores would really change your calculus much.
