Originally posted by jedirampage
Also there are a significant number of MSTP-quality programs that choose not to become MSTPs becasue they loose some of the autonomy that they have in selecting their students.
While this is a good excuse for those schools who aren't yet MSTP schools, I'm not sure that I believe that this is the case. For what they're worth, we all know that USNews rankings rate the top "research" medical schools based on criterion of interest to MD/PhD students--such as research funding and reputation. The MSTP schools account for #1 - #32 (tie) on that list--from Harvard to Albert Einstein--and not many more. Somehow, both the NIGMS and USNews are doing a good job of identifying the top schools to train medical researchers.
Now, this does not mean that some of the other programs on that list are not competing for MSTP funding. I can't speak for many programs, but in my area at least U of Maryland and Jefferson have been reviewed and denied several times. Mayo was the glaring exception among top research schools, until last year when they were given the nod. So, it seems to me that the MSTP-quality schools, knowing that the MSTP can only fund certain schools, are MSTP.
Why would a program want MSTP funds? It's a good deal of money and prestige. The problem is of course that those funds are distributed on a competitive basis, and so programs seeking the MSTP funds must make a very significant contribution of their own. My observation is that this includes a good track record of full-funding for 6+ students per year for many years. I seriously doubt that any program that is not doing this will even come close to getting the MSTP money. Even the schools that are doing this are getting rejected for many years before they are competitive.
So what autonomy does a program lose in selecting students by becoming a MSTP? Well, one requirement is that the program recruits quality students from all over the country. That's been a stumbling block for several programs. Some, like UMaryland, offer extra money to try to attract students from around the country. Another thing that looks good is diversity as well, but I have a hard time believing that a program would not want to recruit diverse classes. So, I don't see what a program loses by recruiting widely, unless its focus is to train people from the area, and that's not what the MSTP is about. I can't imagine any other issues in selection autonomy by competing for or becoming a MSTP.
However, there are other autonomy issues as well. I'm sure that a program doesn't want to be told that if a student leaves their program after two years the program can't ask for its money back. But, forgiveness is required by the NIGMS and yet repayment is something all non-MSTPs require. I can imagine there are other issues, like graduation time, level of advisenment, level of integration, etc. that are very pro-student, yet require a great deal of investment, risk, and time on the part of the program. I can imagine why a program would not want to put up with these sorts of things, but if I had a choice, I would go to a program that does.
After all this, I want to go back to your first point, that many programs are now funded, as that improves their standing in rankings. I don't know of any rankings that detect how many MD/PhD students are fully-funded. Instead, full-funding attracts quality students and gets them closer to getting additional grant money, like the MSTP.
