-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Non-trad and MD/Phd
Started by wholeheartedly
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Anecdotally (I have no data to back this up), people who start the program more than 2 years out of college are more likely to drop out, and much more likely to not continue with basic research upon completing residency/fellowship. This is usually for obvious reasons that have been discussed by others in recent posts on other threads. In fact, at the margin, even those 2 years makes a big difference, and I wouldn't be surprised if the MSTPs who stay in research and end up getting R01 funding, etc. is heavily skewed towards those traditional students who come straight out of undergrad.
I have seen program specific data (ie from a few MSTP programs) that suggests exactly the opposite of the above. There is data to suggest that those with more years of research experience under their belt are more likely to know what they are getting into and survive to work in research. I think without data being published there isn't much else to say.
I believe the opinion expressed by the poster herein is one that is held, though less commonly than I originally thought, in certain circles. There is nothing to buttress the above claim beyond individual observation (which the poster admits honestly)......and several tip-top programs nationally would disagree with those sentiments based on their data.
Some would argue that a student can be successful at ANY age, as long as they are truly accepting of the harsh realities that the program and an academic life will bring. I am happy to speak with applicants facing this discussion.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
If you start a program at 30, you will finish residency/fellowship in your early to mid 40s. If you continue being an active scientist, you will work another several years to even get close to 200k/year. That sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't when your career starts at 45, especially if you have children you want to put through college (who will get no financial aid because TA DA you make $200k/year!).
The question becomes, do you ever want to retire? If you plan on working until around 50 before even being eligible for tenure and into your late 60s before you can save enough for retirement, then it's reasonable. If physical ailments pop up or you can't keep things gong mentally/careerwise until you're 70, you may end up living on public assistance or working until death.
So for me, this is why I consider 30 to be the upper limit of feasibility.
I don't think one person can say what is or isn't "feasible" for another person.
I am 31. And I am applying MD/PhD in June. My path is a different one than most, but I know that I am fully dedicated to this journey.
I am 31. And I am applying MD/PhD in June. My path is a different one than most, but I know that I am fully dedicated to this journey.
Neuronix, you're argument presupposes that those entering MD/PhD later in age do not have years of work experience which means they have had years of salary. Some people enter programs with money already in the bank. Thus, already saving for retirement.
Some MSTP programs also have pretty decent savings capacity....some of us really factor that in when deciding where to go (I did, because I didn't want to be a pauper at 35). This is one of the harsh realities applicants forget to consider when making decisions.
Lower earning potential in general is one of those harsh realities older folks need to accept.....and I think they accept it more readily than younger applicants who think the rewards are going to be higher than they end up being.
Anything is feasible if one is willing to accept the consequences of a choice. Some people are not....and they should make (or should have made) a different choice.
It's not necessarily ideal to start late, but in my case, my kids have college funds that will see them through at least the first 4 years, and I own a house with a relatively small mortgage and significant equity. Not a lot of other assets, but at least those are taken care of. At 41, this is a second career, not a first one. I think that a great many non-traditional students are also looking at second careers after a successful first career, which changes the landscape considerably. I won't finish my PhD until I'm ~48, but that leaves me 20 solid years of work if I plan to work until I'm 68-70, which is completely within the bounds of reason given my family longevity.
It's just my opinion. However, adcoms get to decide what is feasible for a person at their program all the time. Some agree with me and some agree with you. Apply broadly and good luck to you.
I had not considered this. That is reasonable. You could also have a sugar daddy/mamma or family money and finances are not a concern for you. Thus, what I'm writing about financial independence would not apply. Also, financial independence and the idea of retiring may also not be important to you. If financial security is not important to you by age 30, maybe it won't be at 40, 50, or 60. I have a hard time believing that and a lot can change in 10 years, but everyone is different.
If you are single, living on on high $20k in many parts of the country is not bad. You could save some of your money. Unfortunately, you are not eligible for any tax-favorable accounts such as Roth IRA or 403(b), which makes it difficult to do any significant savings for those 8 years.
That is highly dependent on the person. I think it is difficult to go from making $100k+ back to $30k. It is possible and it does happen, but I was assuming the person applying to MD/PhD had been working in research or something else through their 20s for much less than $100k.
I ski with my share of NYC wall street types who by the age of 30 are making well over $200k/year. They think I am crazy. But that's a different discussion.
Could you expand on this, to help those of us trying to choose between programs? Do you mean that some programs' stipends are enough to live on as well as save part of? How did you go about judging this?
Thanks for the insights, folks.
The stipends between programs do not vary all that much. But cost of living can vary greatly. So if you go to a program with very low cost of living, your stipend in the mid to high 20s/year can support your living expenses and retirement savings if you're frugal.
This is what I meant. Particularly when you consider purchasing a home and still being able to save meaning that you are putting more into "savings" each month via mortgage or other. In some locations it is possible for a very large portion of your stipend to go to places that you will get them back (ie savings, home).
Just as a side note....there are programs in the low 20s and programs in the high 30s (and this does NOT always correlate with cost of living in a given location)....That's a third more or less at a program so I would say they do vary significantly! So think about including this in your choice.
I can testify that taking a pay cut to go back to school (and then being in a program with people with much less experience) is very challenging at times, but I'd say it is a testament to desire. Everyone has a different idea of "financial independence" and a different desire for other forms of independence.
Everyone must decide what is most important to them and do what must be done to get that (whether it be choosing a particular program where you can come out financially better off, or deciding to have no/fewer children because you chose to make less money....or change your mind at some point?) The most important thing is that decisions are really made by thinking through options.
Last edited:
Congrats to you on entering the upcoming application cycle. I'm a little younger and will be applying MD/PhD this cycle at 27. I would like to believe that although we are a bit older what has taken us to this point is a definite perception that this is the path for us and that our resolve to apply at our "old" age translates to dedication to serving as physician-scientists. Good luck to you this upcoming year.
This is an interesting discussion. I still have my college fund (since I didn't use it for UG) but I had always thought that I will be spending it down during my MD/PhD years. The idea that someone could live on the stipend without supplemental income of some kind (loans, savings, family help, etc.) never occurred to me. Could this possibly be true? If so, how? Won't we have other expenses? (books, supplies, equipment, etc.) And buying a home? In this post bubble environment, who would give a mortgage to a student making a little over 200% of poverty? 😕
As someone with zero family support, I find this post kind of funny. I lived just fine on the MD/PhD stipend in Center City Philadelphia. I had a decent apartment, backpacker style vacations, frequent cheap day trips, and ate out (cheaply) regularly.
Why buy a home at all anyway? Before the bubble burst, everyone told me that I just had to buy something because look at home prices going up and you're at the MD/PhD program for 7-8 years so it just makes sense. So I didn't. I couldn't, but I really didn't want the risk/responsibility anyway. And now most are stuck with a house or condo they're underwater on with renters after going to a city far away. The ones who didn't have this happen, in reality their parents who funded the whole thing just took a loss on the property. Meanwhile, I just moved on without a worry.
In any case, at a very minimum, scope out rents and potential property values/expenses and do the math through the NYTimes Buy vs. Rent calculator (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0) before thinking seriously about buying. You do tend to break even after 4-5 years in a lot of markets, though this is assuming that your property appreciates in value. In my current market, even post-bubble a lot of things are still declining in value.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
