Not sure what to at this point

[PanRoasted]

Hello everyone,

I'm applying this cycle (june 1st hopefully) and I was originally planning on applying to a lot of MSTPs, but after reading through a few of these threads + stickies, I'm not so sure...

My stats: 3.7/35, 4+ years research with authorship, weak clinical hours (probably 100-150 total, 250 by the end of my undergraduate), 3 strong research LoRs, 1 strong clinical research LoR, 3 extremely strong music related LoRs (these will be included in a committee letter).

After seeing that most applicants that had gotten multiple offers had 3.8+ 36+ and 4 years of research, I began to reconsider whether I would apply to as many MSTPs as I had originally planned. I know that being considered for the MD program after being rejected from the MD/PhD puts you at a disadvantage, but at the same time I don't want to shoot for only MD if MD/PhD is what I want. However, I would certainly rather be in an MD program than apply for MSTP and get nothing. I think I have a pretty strong PS as well, and my interview skills are fairly strong.

My next question is pertaining to how to structure my personal statement if I'm applying to a mix of MSTP and MD programs...should I gear it more towards research and hope that the MD programs appreciate this and ignore that there is less clinical on my application than most others? Should I just go for MD?

Thank you, everyone!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Neuronix]

My stats: 3.7/35, 4+ years research with authorship, weak clinical hours (probably 100-150 total, 250 by the end of my undergraduate), 3 strong research LoRs, 1 strong clinical research LoR, 3 extremely strong music related LoRs (these will be included in a committee letter).

You'll very likely be fine applying MD/PhD. Standard disclaimers apply: apply broadly, apply early, etc etc etc

 

[AGG]

I received multiple MSTP acceptances with a weaker MCAT and GPA than you and 0 publications, so as long as you stick to the high-yield application strategy recommended by Neuronix (early, broadly, not top heavy, etc) I imagine you'll do just fine applying to mainly MD/PhD programs. In my experience, clinical hrs don't matter nearly as much for MD/PhD applicants, as I wasn't asked about my clinical experiences in any of my interviews. The most important aspect, beyond your stats, is your ability to speak eloquently and enthusiastically about your research. (Plus 250 clinical hrs isn't bad!)

It's important to tell a cohesive story with your application. Based on your post, it seems your story should center on your research interest, so I'd emphasize that in your essays etc. When applying, the thing people often forget is that your research-based story may not fit with many of the mid-tier MD programs. I learned this the hard way, as I got many MSTP interviews from programs I'd applied to early in the game (late June), but didn't receive any MD-only interviews from programs I added "just in case" near the end (late Aug/early Sept).

Good luck, I'm sure you'll do fine.

 

[Kira]

First, stop paying attention to what you read on SDN. It will do you a world of hurt. Every applicant is different, and no two stories are the same.

My stats:
3.65GPA/3.5sGPA
MCAT-37
clinical hours- damn near close to 0
research time- none in undergrand, 2 years after college
Applied super late in the cycle... we're talking late September if I remember correctly. Didn't think I had a chance. But! I really wanted it. I had a story to prove I wanted it (packed my bags in Detroit and moved to Atlanta, GA to do research for 2 years without knowing a soul in the South). I communicated with the MSTP director at the school I wanted to attend and expressed my interest. The school I was accepted into actually let me apply after the MSTP deadline closed.

And you know what... I'm still an MD/PhD candidate. Even though I wasn't as flashy as my peers, I wanted this badly enough that I would take as many cycles as need be to get in. So what's gonna get you in in the end? Determination and not giving up. Take a deep breath! You'll make it if you work hard enough

 

[PanRoasted]

Thank you all for your replies. Unfortunately, I think I may be having second thoughts about MD-PhD regardless of whether I think I'm competitive for a program. I think it's really just a bit scary for me to decide whether or not I would want to commit 7-9 years to a program...I still need some time to consider which program I really want to apply to before I send in applications. I will be asking around and hopefully getting more opinions so I can really know what I want to do.

Thank you again!

I sent this as a PM to someone, but I wanted to open the question up to others because I'd like to get more opinions.

What kind of research experience did you have in undergraduate, and how did you go about talking about it in the interview? I did two years in an inorganic chemistry lab, understanding very little of the actual science (my understanding was superficial, and when it comes down to it, I was essentially just doing what I was told), but I got a publication for my efforts. I also did clinical research at a children's hospital, and will hopefully be able to assume control/responsibility for a project this coming semester.

My most meaningful experience, and probably the most brief, was at a medical school doing work under an MD/PhD PI whose work was related to insertion sites in the tibia. I was able to contribute as far as troubleshooting procedures, finding solutions or explanations for problems that came up during experiments; etc. However, I only spent a month in this lab, and I'm afraid that it would invalidate what I got out of the experience.

The other thing: I don't think I would ever want to do pure research for the rest of my life. I would almost certainly want to see patients or teach, and be able to do research as a secondary aspect of my career. However, I do think that the PhD would give me the training to think more scientifically, and therefore improve the way I would conduct research in the future. Is there something that I'm missing that would make the question of which program to apply for clearer? Thanks!

 

[debateg]

I did two years in an inorganic chemistry lab, understanding very little of the actual science (my understanding was superficial, and when it comes down to it, I was essentially just doing what I was told), but I got a publication for my efforts.

I think that's a fairly commonplace occurrence. Research is complicated and confusing even for experienced researchers. You often start off not understanding what you're doing, just following the protocol, etc. Heck, half the time my PI didn't understand what I was doing until I wrote it up all nice and explained it to him multiple times. What the interviewers want to see is that you've advanced beyond that, that you NOW understand it. Don't tell them that you were just doing what you were told. Pretend that you knew what you were doing; that's quite a bit of being successful in science anyhow. If you can talk about the hypothesis, experiments, results, conclusions, and future directions with ease, you will be fine.

My most meaningful experience, and probably the most brief, was at a medical school doing work under an MD/PhD PI whose work was related to insertion sites in the tibia. I was able to contribute as far as troubleshooting procedures, finding solutions or explanations for problems that came up during experiments; etc. However, I only spent a month in this lab, and I'm afraid that it would invalidate what I got out of the experience.

You can talk about this great opportunity you had to work with an MD/PhD, who in just one month inspired you to do more than inorganic chemistry. If this really was a career-defining experience, it's probably important you discuss it because it will reveal your passion.

The other thing: I don't think I would ever want to do pure research for the rest of my life. I would almost certainly want to see patients or teach, and be able to do research as a secondary aspect of my career. However, I do think that the PhD would give me the training to think more scientifically, and therefore improve the way I would conduct research in the future. Is there something that I'm missing that would make the question of which program to apply for clearer?

Most MD/PhDs do research as the primary aspect of their career. Typically about 80% research, 20% clinical, which boils down to full-time research and one month attending clinical wards, sometimes a half day of outpatient clinic a week. If you want to do research as a secondary aspect, then doing basic science research is probably not feasible and an MD/PhD may not be for you. I really don't think it should be called an MD/PhD because it suggests that you're an MD first. You're really a PhD/MD, which I never felt was adequately communicated during the interview process.

 

[Neuronix]

What kind of research experience did you have in undergraduate, and how did you go about talking about it in the interview?

Three years of sensory (animal), computational, and molecular (cell line) neuroscience. A second author publication was accepted too late for it to matter. I was rarely the lead on a project, and frankly I was a lousy scientist, but I tried to understand everything very thoroughly. This is most important. When I started giving my interviewers suggestions on their experiments, acceptances started happening.

I did two years in an inorganic chemistry lab, understanding very little of the actual science (my understanding was superficial, and when it comes down to it, I was essentially just doing what I was told), but I got a publication for my efforts. I also did clinical research at a children's hospital, and will hopefully be able to assume control/responsibility for a project this coming semester.

You will shoot yourself in the foot coming to an MD/PhD interview like that. If you are serious about applying, when the time comes try to understand things. Especially whatever paper you're on. You need to know it cold. Why it was done, what was your role, what is the broader scope, what is the next step, and what are other similar labs doing.

My most meaningful experience, and probably the most brief, was at a medical school doing work under an MD/PhD PI whose work was related to insertion sites in the tibia. I was able to contribute as far as troubleshooting procedures, finding solutions or explanations for problems that came up during experiments; etc. However, I only spent a month in this lab, and I'm afraid that it would invalidate what I got out of the experience.

Was this in an animal or cadaver model? It sounds more like clinical research. It's not the kind of stuff that makes interviewers excited. MD/PhD is generally about producing basic science researchers. If that's the kind of research you're interested in, and not the chemistry experiments, MD-only does seem like a good idea for you.

The other thing: I don't think I would ever want to do pure research for the rest of my life. I would almost certainly want to see patients or teach, and be able to do research as a secondary aspect of my career. However, I do think that the PhD would give me the training to think more scientifically, and therefore improve the way I would conduct research in the future. Is there something that I'm missing that would make the question of which program to apply for clearer? Thanks!

The model for MD/PhD is to produce a majority researcher. You have to spend a majority of your time performing research to be competitive for grants with the glut of PhDs who are full time and struggling to survive. If you are not bringing in revenue through grants, you have to bring in revenue by seeing patients. It's much easier to perform clinical research (generally trials or reviews of patient outcomes) part time.

However, thinking scientifically does not help you to conduct or run clinical trials or perform other types of clincial research. The skills you do need for that do not require a PhD. PhD programs are almost always set up to produce basic science researchers. So I would not recommend MD/PhD for you based on what you're saying.

 

[PanRoasted]

Thank you, everyone, for your input! I think I am leaning towards an MD-only oriented application. As a practical question now, I was wondering whether my chances at MD-only programs would be jeopardized by the fact that my LoRs are written with the assumption that I am applying to MD/PhD programs, and whether the fact that my LoRs are research heavy (3 out of 7 letters are research-based). Also, the lack of clinical time as compared to other MD applicants seems to be an issue as well. I know that most or all of you are/have been in an MD/PhD program and probably don't know the other side of applications. How might you suggest I proceed, and would I have a shot despite letters that may be biased toward research? Thank you!