NIH GPP Program?

[erraticVibe]

Hi Guys, me again.

I had few questions about NIH's graduate partnerships program (GPP) where individuals can do their PhD research at the NIH (http://gpp.nih.gov/Applicants/ProspectiveStudents/MSTPatNIH/). I think its fairly new (2005) but some of you may know some info about it.

1. Since the research is NIH funded, what is the main issues with getting an MSTP acceptance? For example, there is one of the options that you enter medical school and do your 2 years there, but then apply to the NIH program & associate with the MSTP. How competitive would be the latter operation? I have this feeling (correct me here if I'm wrong) that many programs turn down applicants because of the steep competition - only so many funded slots for so many students. However, since the NIH is funding the PhD portion from their intramural coffers and you basically paid for your first 2 years, what obstacles would there be from your institute's MSTP committee?

2. How does this affect the MSTP programs when you apply directly from undergraduate studies? For example, I was under the impression that you apply to MSTP programs generally because (1) the medical school and (2) the research both fit your criteria. However, in this case here, you do your graduate training at the NIH...doesn't that make the research conducted at the host institution irrelevant to your own interests? How does that affect the admissions/selections process and what schools you choose to apply to?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Maebea]

The problem with this program is that the funds it provides do not cover the costs of training a student. The NIH provides tuition reimbursement that is up to $20,000 less than a school's tuition level and up to $7,000 lower than some schools' stipends. Since programs are expected to treat all students the same with regards to tuition and stipend, programs are forced to come up with money to cover these costs for individuals who did no research at their school, and did not enrich their research community. So, some programs see this as a bad deal and are not too keen on participating.

 

[Neuronix]

Is the amount of funding the medical school receives for the GPP student different than the amount a MSTP student would receive from the NIGMS?

 

[totalcommand]

The problem with this program is that the funds it provides do not cover the costs of training a student. The NIH provides tuition reimbursement that is up to $20,000 less than a school's tuition level and up to $7,000 lower than some schools' stipends. Since programs are expected to treat all students the same with regards to tuition and stipend, programs are forced to come up with money to cover these costs for individuals who did no research at their school, and did not enrich their research community. So, some programs see this as a bad deal and are not too keen on participating.

Maybe we can make a list of MSTP that do participate if you know of any? Here are the ones I know of:

Harvard
Mount Sinai

 

[MasonPrehealth]

I am not the authority on this topic, but I did invite the program directors of the NIH program in to talk with my students last semester about it. The previous issue was being able to support an MSTP student to do research at NIH and the "compensation" for doing this for the medical school that had the MSTP grant. As it stands, I think what happens is that NIH will support an additional slot for every MSTP student how is selected to do some research at NIH. Again, don't quote me on this, but that was one big issue that this program "finally" resolves.

 

[Maebea]

Is the amount of funding the medical school receives for the GPP student different than the amount a MSTP student would receive from the NIGMS?

The funding is the same as that NIGMS provides for other MSTP students, $20,772 for stipend, 60% of the school's tuition (up to $21,000), and $4,200 for training related expenses (this pays for health insurance and running the MSTP's operations). Under the GPP, a school with a stipend of $25K and tuition of $35K would have $17,228 per year in uncovered expenses for a student that is presumably only taking MD classes, and is not participating in research at that institution.

The GPP is a great deal for students and for the NIH (they gain access to top-notch students), but the benefits to individual medical schools are less clear. The GPP does, however, advance the goal of training more physician-scientists, and transfers training money from the categorical institutes to NIGMS, so it is a good thing overall.

 

[erraticVibe]

Maebae, so schools are likely to look unfavorably on the student that applies for it? Either because of costs or because of the loss of talent? I can understand that, especially if its not in the interest of the school financially, but that sounds alot like playing hardball...rejecting the student because you want him/her to stay?

 

[Maebea]

Maebae, so schools are likely to look unfavorably on the student that applies for it? Either because of costs or because of the loss of talent? I can understand that, especially if its not in the interest of the school financially, but that sounds alot like playing hardball...rejecting the student because you want him/her to stay?

It is hard to say how a program might view an applicant who proposed to do the GPP. I imagine it may vary from school to school.

This is a situation that can be viewed from a number of different perspectives. Here's how one program director views a student wanting to do the GPP: It is sort of like finding out that your fiance plans to split time between you and another woman, with the other woman getting the nights out on the town and all the conjugal benefits, while you stay at home keeping house. Your fiance is [expletive] this other woman, but you are the one who is really getting [expletive].

Some PDs feel that the hardballing is actually being done by the NIH; they inferred from their interactions with NIH officials that, while a school does not have to participate in GPP, their participation would be looked upon favorably at training grant renewal time. Perhaps this is not quite a Roger Clemmons purpose pitch, but it does give one pause.

My program will participate in the GPP. We do not see a great deal of direct benefit to our institution, but we support the idea that there multiple appropriate models for training clinician-scientists. However, our liberality does not extend to us allowing our students to do the PhD portion of their training at another MD-PhD institution.

 

[totalcommand]

It is hard to say how a program might view an applicant who proposed to do the GPP. I imagine it may vary from school to school.

This is a situation that can be viewed from a number of different perspectives. Here's how one program director views a student wanting to do the GPP: It is sort of like finding out that your fiance plans to split time between you and another woman, with the other woman getting the nights out on the town and all the conjugal benefits, while you stay at home keeping house. Your fiance is [expletive] this other woman, but you are the one who is really getting [expletive].

Some PDs feel that the hardballing is actually being done by the NIH; they inferred from their interactions with NIH officials that, while a school does not have to participate in GPP, their participation would be looked upon favorably at training grant renewal time. Perhaps this is not quite a Roger Clemmons purpose pitch, but it does give one pause.

My program will participate in the GPP. We do not see a great deal of direct benefit to our institution, but we support the idea that there multiple appropriate models for training clinician-scientists. However, our liberality does not extend to us allowing our students to do the PhD portion of their training at another MD-PhD institution.

How can you participate in the GPP without allowing PhD training at another institution? I don't think any GPP/MSTP programs are like this...or am I wrong?

 

[1Path]

Some PDs feel that the hardballing is actually being done by the NIH; they inferred from their interactions with NIH officials that, while a school does not have to participate in GPP, their participation would be looked upon favorably at training grant renewal time. .

It's called politics and I suspect that anyone interested in a career in academia had better get used to it.😎

In my experience the ONLY schools who "unofficially" don't want their students at the NIH are the ones whose research programs aren't that strong. They want to keep their talent in house to build up their programs reputation and that makes sense to me. So my former associate at the NIH from Howard has horror stories about trying to keep both Howard AND the NIH "happy" with discussions about everything from whose institution should be listed first on a paper to which meeting to present your work.

OTOH, saying you have a doctoral student at the NIH the best research institution in the world, is a statement I'm sure EVERY PI happily shares with her collegues.

My take on whether or not it's worth it to come to the NIH to do research is this. Take a long, hard look at leaders in ANY research area. The majority of them will have NIH somewhere on their CV ie postdoc, predoc, fellowship, ect and I found this to be true from academia to industry.

 

[1Path]

However, our liberality does not extend to us allowing our students to do the PhD portion of their training at another MD-PhD institution.

This is the advantage of NOT doing an MSTP program. A close MD/PhD friend of mine was able to do her PhD at the institution where she earned her Masters' years earlier, while a medical student at not only a different school, but in a different part of the country.

 

[GraC_undr_PrsR]

Hi there OP,

I'm currently in the NIH GPP program and I love it (I'm in the US now and boy am I happy to be back). I'm gearing up to apply to med school and learned that the NIH MSTP will allow me to continue receiving a stipend through medical school.
There are different partnerships with institutions that comprise the NIH GPP and I'm in a foreign-affiliated program. My program is large and well-funded and supported through the home institution. Other programs are smaller and this does alter the experience somewhat.
I'll try to reread your questions and PM further details to anyone interested.

~GraC

 

[GraC_undr_PrsR]

On the issue of money,

My stipend is higher than that given through NIGMS and my NIH PI/Department are paying for my tuition so there is no burden *at all* to my home institution. I do think this varies from program to program. I would suggest applying to one of the formal partnerships highlighted on the GPP website. These issues have already been resolved and these are excellent programs.

 

[waiting3309]

I just finished MSTP interviews - and unfortuneately, none of the ones I went to were willing to participate... some of the directors got quite upset about it. Is there a list somewhere of participating schools?

 

[move2west]

I just finished MSTP interviews - and unfortuneately, none of the ones I went to were willing to participate... some of the directors got quite upset about it. Is there a list somewhere of participating schools?

I would not recommend telling the schools at the interview! I am currently doing research at NIH before I apply to MSTP programs next year. Accordingly, I have attended a lot of spills by the GPP staff. There were only three schools that did not agree to participate in the GPP -- UCSF, Penn (only in immunology department), and one other. I would contact GPP for all the info. I would also keep in mind that you can really only do this at a NIH funded MSTP program, or they will not pay for med school according to the people I have talked to running the program. Its also easier to set up if you go to a school with a graduate partnership already sat up, or you have to set it up your self. This really sucks if you are interested in certain areas of research. If neuroscience is your thing, you need to go to Swedon or Brown for the PhD program. Brown does not have MSTP funding, so that is not an option. Thus it is really hard to do a domestic neuroscience program. This is the case for a lot of the programs since a lot of the grad school partnership are with not MSTP schools.

If you can find one that will work, it would be great since there probably is no better place to do research than NIH. There are also lots of clinical opportunities, in addition.

 

[Maebea]

I would not recommend telling the schools at the interview!

I can understand the reason for this sentiment, but I cannot endorse following this advice. I am not an ethicist, but it does not seem right to me that an applicant would withhold this information from a program. Certainly an applicant would feel themselves ill-used if they accepted a position at a program only to discover on matriculation that the program neglected to inform them that they would have to serve as a full-time TA for 2 years to cover their tuition remission, or that stipend support would cease after 6 years. Just as programs should not withhold information that applicants may find important, so too should applicants be honest with programs.

As I mentioned in previous posts, the GPP is not viewed as an unalloyed godsend by MD-PhD programs. At some schools, the financial support provided by the NIH will cover only 75% of the stipend, and little more than 50% of the tuition. MD-PhD programs are happy to make up that difference for their students because they receive the tangible benefit of the student working in their labs (and presumably producing results that bring in RO1 grant dollars). No such benefits are realized for GPP students. That being said, some MD-PhD programs do participate in the MSTP branch of the GPP, despite the financial disincentives of doing so.

 

[move2west]

I can understand the reason for this sentiment, but I cannot endorse following this advice. I am not an ethicist, but it does not seem right to me that an applicant would withhold this information from a program. Certainly an applicant would feel themselves ill-used if they accepted a position at a program only to discover on matriculation that the program neglected to inform them that they would have to serve as a full-time TA for 2 years to cover their tuition remission, or that stipend support would cease after 6 years. Just as programs should not withhold information that applicants may find important, so too should applicants be honest with programs.

Good point, but I do not think admin committees would take it well. Even the directors of the GPP program advise not mentioning this until you have been accepted to both the GPP and the other program. After getting an acceptance to both, you can ask about doing the GPP. If they are opposed to this, they still have control and can say no. If you really want to do the GPP you can accept that offer and do it through another MSTP program. All schools expect some people to turn down their acceptance . If you wait to ask the question until after the acceptance, you still have the acceptance to the MSTP program which may not be the case if you ask the question before getting the acceptance.

 

[jeniffer lopez]

If neuroscience is your thing, you need to go to Swedon or Brown for the PhD program. Brown does not have MSTP funding, so that is not an option. Thus it is really hard to do a domestic neuroscience program. This is the case for a lot of the programs since a lot of the grad school partnership are with not MSTP schools.

I am also at NIH, and a previous co-worker is doing neuroscience through the GPP partnership with Cambridge (her MD will be from Columbia in NYC). She really likes it, but I can tell you a couple of weaknesses of the program from her experience:
1. You have to pick your lab/area of interest the summer before MS1. That gives you little room for rotations (this could be good if you are really focused and know exactly where you want to work AND that lab has a collaboration with the GPP institution)
2. You have to really work hard to communicate with both parties (MD and PhD offices) since they will be geographically separate

Other than that, if you like to travel and want to see other places, go for it. I am not doing GPP, but here at NIH you will have enough money to do your research (every PI I interviewed with mentioned how hard it is nowadays to secure funding).

 

[erraticVibe]

jennifer lopez or whomever else knows, the breaking question then would be: does your friend get her PhD degree from Columbia or Cambridge? So if you planned on doing GPP, then why would the research at any school matter to you? How would you go about choosing schools (i.e. based on their medical schools only?)?

 

[jeniffer lopez]

jennifer lopez or whomever else knows, the breaking question then would be: does your friend get her PhD degree from Columbia or Cambridge? So if you planned on doing GPP, then why would the research at any school matter to you? How would you go about choosing schools (i.e. based on their medical schools only?)?

She will get her MD from Columbia and her PhD from Cambridge. You are right, the research at the MD institution does not matter, only the one at NIH and at the GPP institution (Cambridge in this case). You just have to make sure you can find a lab at NIH that has a working relationship with one at the GPP institution so you can collaborate and spend 1/2 of your time there and 1/2 of your training time at NIH. I would choose schools that have previous arrangements with GPP and have GPP students. The GPP people claim that they have students in Columbia, Harvard, Duke, Hopkins, Mt Sinai, Cincinnati. You should contact the NIH Md/phd director, Dr. Richard Siegel, so that he can give you more information. He is really nice and enthusiastic about it.