PhD before MD? What are major disadvantages?

[FreeWillApparatus]

*please don't quote--using anonymous username*

tl;dr I'm in an MPhil program working on an anticancer project at the University of Cambridge under the Gates Cambridge scholarship, and I've been offered to stay for a PhD. My goal was always MD (strongly evident based on volunteering/involvement) so I'm trying to decide if it's wise to stay one year longer to obtain a PhD while applying to MD.

Longer version:
I'm a 27 y/o M who originally wanted to do an MD-PhD but I since decided against that because I'm "too old" (i.e., I wouldn't be happy with my life starting that late)--of this I'm certain. I'm currently in a 1 year, fully funded masters (graduate October 2018, age 28) and plan to matriculate to MD only the following year (August 2019 start med school, age 29).

I've been offered full funding to do a PhD, which is only three years at Cambridge (and Oxford) and I would plan to apply such that I would matriculate at age 30 (so apply after 2nd year, interviews during 3rd year PhD before actually graduating with PhD).

So, it's looking like matriculate at age 29 with MPhil vs age 30 with a PhD.

Major pro's:

• Only 1 year difference effectively (MD matriculation age 29 with Mphil vs age 30 for PhD) for an entire PhD degree
• Research is personally exciting, likely to result in multiple, high-impact papers (this is the standard for this research group; possibly Nature or Science level)
• Live out "MD-PhD dreams" without sinking another 5 years for PhD in a combined MD-PhD program
• More time to focus on research project and improve application

Major con's:

• Not a true MD-PhD--what's the point? There's not the research connections, free MD tuition, too much time between PhD research and research in residency
• USA PhD are gold standard (though OxBridge are now top 2 in world)
• Longer time out of USA away from family, friends etc
• AdComs doubting my true commitment (I will say, I have thousands of hours as scribe and many hundreds of hours volunteering in clinic and with the needy)
• Won't have PhD at time of applications, will be hectic with interviews and thesis write up

Some stats: 29-30 y/o M, 3.8-3.9 GPA, MCAT TBD (practice test are very high), 5-6 publications (4 are clinical research), 1-2 forthcoming publications, leadership and extensive volunteering, extensive clinical hours (>3000 scribing), multiple awards (most notable is Gates), some unique hardship/adversity, nontrad

Question: From the standpoint of applying to medical school, does it make sense to take on the effectively "1+ extra year" to obtain a PhD? Is it a good or bad idea to do a PhD just before applying to MD?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sat0ri]

A few things I would worry about. I can't really do much more than add a few con's to your list.

Whatever your field is, the state of the art might be totally different in the 4 years (MD school) plus residency (3-5 years if you don't pick up your research then).

I think science is fairly international, but having all of your network in Europe could be problematic.

Also, you will be incurring a ton of debt for the MD, meaning that, realistically, you'll be spending your time paying of debt ASAP without much chance to get involved with research. So I don't think there's much point unless you're just doing the PhD for fun, which is a sadistic sense of fun.

Your app might be marginally improved (I do know of a PhD at my state school who went to HMS right after their graduation, so that gives me the impression that heavy research is valued by the top tiers) but it doesn't seem like it will be quite worthwhile.

 

[gyngyn]

A PhD is a great accomplishment.
It will have relatively little effect on an MD application.
If the opportunity and timing are right for you, do it. Don't do it with the idea that it will compensate for any other deficiencies in an MD application.

 

[begoood95]

Well, from your post, it seems this line contains your biggest issue: "I'm a 27 y/o M who originally wanted to do an MD-PhD but I since decided against that because I'm "too old" (i.e., I wouldn't be happy with my life starting that late)--of this I'm certain."

Yet, the difference in time of matriculation is only one year. Like others have said, if this is something you personally want to pursue—if you want to obtain the PhD, quite the accomplishment—then go for it, I think. I don't know if that one year is going to make too much of a difference, and, arguably, having those publications will have an impact on the competitiveness of your app; you are already competitive however, and you might be getting close to the point of diminishing returns.

 

[longhaul3]

What field(s) of medicine are you interested in? Research is a big part of the applicant profile for certain specialties, and even though your PhD will have been some time in the past when you apply for residency, having the degree and having been published multiple times in Nature I'm sure is likely to draw some attention.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I'm trying to decide if it's wise to stay one year longer to obtain a PhD while applying to MD.

Yes, absolutely and unequivocally. Your ability to obtain grants and pursue academic positions will be increased tenfold.

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

What field(s) of medicine are you interested in? Research is a big part of the applicant profile for certain specialties, and even though your PhD will have been some time in the past when you apply for residency, having the degree and having been published multiple times in Nature I'm sure is likely to draw some attention.

(First off, thanks to everyone for their input so far. I certainly appreciate the different opinions and insight.)

I've thought about hem/onc and neurology, the former because of the many chances to integrate research into a medical career and the later out of natural interest (though, fortunately, this field also has potential for research); EM was on the radar mostly because I have scribing experience and I do like some the perks (shift work, exciting, etc).

Nature would be quite a reach, but some of the Nature sub-journals will be likely first submissions for manuscripts. Those certainly aren't a guarantee either. But they do seem to par for course for this lab.

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

Cool. Lots of MD/PhDs in heme/onc obviously. Neurology less so in my experience; there is tons of research going on but most of it is clinical so I haven't met many MD/PhD neurologists.

Funny enough, a neurologist was one of the first MD-PhD's I met (surreptitious bump).

 

[Lucca]

I’m also confused. The timeline for both isn’t that different but you say timing is important for you.

Most people in the physical sciences at Cam (where I’m at) don’t finish in 3 but 4. MD/PhDs do their PhD on average in 4.5. It’s really not a big difference. What is different is the funding structure and having the integrated training. Do you want to see patients? Do you want the MD? Do you want to go all in on the research career instead? Nobody can answer these questions for you. But you can definitely know this: either way getting the MD is going to cost 4 years and 3-7 more on top of that in terms of training time counting residency (if you don’t go to residency, why even do the MD?).

If your primary goal is to become a researcher, then one of the things you should do is have a series of very honest conversations with your PI/postdocs/senior PhDs in your current lab about prospects in your field and starting a career. If you’re in a hot field, in a very productive lab, with a big-name PI and are producing good work, that can be a very healthy start to a research career and taking 4-8 years away from it can feel like a big step backwards. If you are in a saturated field and meh about your lab, then you would probably be better off turning down the PhD funding and getting the free integrated training as an MD/PhD and aim for better research opportunities during residency and beyond.

Nobody can answer these questions for you. It sounds like you love research. There’s no fast way to get there but if you want the MD as well then both paths will be of similar length.

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

I’m also confused. The timeline for both isn’t that different but you say timing is important for you.

Most people in the physical sciences at Cam (where I’m at) don’t finish in 3 but 4. MD/PhDs do their PhD on average in 4.5. It’s really not a big difference.

These figures are generally true (though Cam says 3 years for PhD online). For our lab, the PI said the typical is 3.5 years, 3 years for the research and 6 months to write up and defend the thesis.

My situation is a bit different. I explicitly confirmed with the PI and department that I can do mine in 3 years, in time to (hopefully) matriculate in August time, though I'd need to return in October to defend--so technically 2 years and 10 months... The department said they typically accept to the PhD if you already have a Masters but I had enough experience coming in that they were ok with me only doing 3 years.

The big difference is that, if I stop at a MPhil (so plus 2 years before I matriculate), I would have to start MD-PhD from scratch. So the PhD of the MD-PhD would be a another 4.5 years. With the PhD at Cam, I'm already 2 years committed it would be another plus one year.

So...
MPhil (2yr) + MD/PhD (4 + 4.5) = 10.5 year
PhD (3 year) + MD (4) = 7 years
Meaning it's a 3 or 4 (or 5 or 6) year difference.

What is different is the funding structure and having the integrated training. Do you want to see patients? Do you want the MD? Do you want to go all in on the research career instead? Nobody can answer these questions for you. But you can definitely know this: either way getting the MD is going to cost 4 years and 3-7 more on top of that in terms of training time counting residency (if you don’t go to residency, why even do the MD?).

If your primary goal is to become a researcher, then one of the things you should do is have a series of very honest conversations with your PI/postdocs/senior PhDs in your current lab about prospects in your field and starting a career. If you’re in a hot field, in a very productive lab, with a big-name PI and are producing good work, that can be a very healthy start to a research career and taking 4-8 years away from it can feel like a big step backwards. If you are in a saturated field and meh about your lab, then you would probably be better off turning down the PhD funding and getting the free integrated training as an MD/PhD and aim for better research opportunities during residency and beyond.

Nobody can answer these questions for you. It sounds like you love research. There’s no fast way to get there but if you want the MD as well then both paths will be of similar length.

This is something I'm very sadly aware of, especially what's in bold. Just given my age--especially thinking I'll be 40+ before starting any sort of career, I think I'll be so worn out by then to be a creative researcher... yikes--I'm fairly sure I'm going to stick to MD-only (or DO-only if that's what I get). However, the only possibility I'd consider is getting a PhD is by staying an extra year at Cam. So I 100% agree that doing PhD here then MD is far worse than MD-PhD, but I don't think MD-PhD is in the cards for me anymore, sadly. With that said, I don't think it's the best way to consider my situation, i.e., the decision is a matter of PhD then MD, or Mphil then MD (and consider MD-PhD off the table for me).

So, since the options for me are PhD-MD vs MD-only, do you think it's a good idea? Or is it a waste of time? Do you think my options as a PhD-MD vs MD-only would be a bit better, especially since it's only 1 extra year? Or should I just start my MD (or DO, hopefully something) ASAP and not loose another year of MD salary?

Also, I'm pretty excited about my research, though I found out we would probably submit to something higher but get into something like Cancer Research (a bit disappointing). I'm not in love with Cambridge/UK, which was surprising to myself.

 

[Endoxifen]

Apply for NIH's Oxcam program. If they accept you, in the third year of your PhD, apply to MD/PhD programs at medical schools. They will accept your PhD and fund your MD. You still risk not getting funding for your MD (if no one accepts you) and you would have to spend two years of your PhD at NIH (I think that would be awesome, but you may disagree), but this way maximizes your chance of getting everything funded on the timeline you want.

 

[pewpew95]

Funny enough, a neurologist was one of the first MD-PhD's I met (surreptitious bump).

Funny enough, the first MD/PhD I met is also a neurologist

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

Apply for NIH's Oxcam program. If they accept you, in the third year of your PhD, apply to MD/PhD programs at medical schools. They will accept your PhD and fund your MD. You still risk not getting funding for your MD (if no one accepts you) and you would have to spend two years of your PhD at NIH (I think that would be awesome, but you may disagree), but this way maximizes your chance of getting everything funded on the timeline you want.

Unfortunately I don't have MCAT scores and there's not enough time to take the GRE. This would definitely be an interesting choice if you can apply when you're in your 2nd year of PhD.

So it's likely going to be MD only or maybe come in with a PhD to MD. What do you think?

 

[Endoxifen]

Unfortunately I don't have MCAT scores and there's not enough time to take the GRE. This would definitely be an interesting choice if you can apply when you're in your 2nd year of PhD.

So it's likely going to be MD only or maybe come in with a PhD to MD. What do you think?

I'm in no place to give you advice. This is a decision that you have to make for yourself. If I were you though, I would talk to my PI about hiring you as a "research assistant" for a year. Then you could work toward your thesis, while also giving you another year to get your MCAT or GRE in order. The chances are slim, but maybe he could make it work.

Edit: Alternatively, if you can work something out with your PI and someone at the NIH, you could go into the NIH's IRTA program and do a 1 year postbac with your NIH mentor. That way, you'd still be working toward your PhD while preparing to apply.

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

I'm in no place to give you advice. This is a decision that you have to make for yourself. If I were you though, I would talk to my PI about hiring you as a "research assistant" for a year. Then you could work toward your thesis, while also giving you another year to get your MCAT or GRE in order. The chances are slim, but maybe he could make it work.

Edit: Alternatively, if you can work something out with your PI and someone at the NIH, you could go into the NIH's IRTA program and do a 1 year postbac with your NIH mentor. That way, you'd still be working toward your PhD while preparing to apply.

So the PI did offer to pay for me to stay, so that is not out of the cards; I'm mostly worried about my age though. I honestly was considering asking him, but it's a very awkward subject to bring up, especially at Cambridge where there's plenty of people to fill your place that come with their own funding...

The "Edited in" idea is, actually, quite brilliant. I'll need to do some research to see how feasible it is but that's definitely a possibility to shave off some of the phd time. Thank you

 

[Endoxifen]

So the PI did offer to pay for me to stay, so that is not out of the cards; I'm mostly worried about my age though. I honestly was considering asking him, but it's a very awkward subject to bring up, especially at Cambridge where there's plenty of people to fill your place that come with their own funding...

The "Edited in" idea is, actually, quite brilliant. I'll need to do some research to see how feasible it is but that's definitely a possibility to shave off some of the phd time. Thank you

Thanks, but if your PI really did offer to pay you to stay and he would allow you to use your time there to contribute your thesis, then both the NIH and Cambridge plans should be roughly equivalent.

About your age concerns, there's nothing to really be done about that. Regardless of whether you optimize MD/PhD time or not, you're embarking on arguably the longest period of training for any career. That's something you're going to have to come to terms with because there's really no way around it. Good luck, I hope things work out for you!

 

[getdown]

Your biggest issue will be 3 years of lost salary as an MD that you'll never make back. Take the average physician income of 250k x 3 years is around 750k of possible income. If that doesn't matter to you than go for the PhD.

 

[Endoxifen]

Your biggest issue will be 3 years of lost salary as an MD that you'll never make back. Take the average physician income of 250k x 3 years is around 750k of possible income. If that doesn't matter to you than go for the PhD.

That argument is something I never understood. Maybe you can explain it to me. Though the lost salary is definitely an issue for retirement (though that can be mitigated with good financial planning), the money that one is supposedly losing isn't real money. The dilemma seems to me at least, to be whether you're ok living the same lifestyle for a few more years, rather than moving up. Am I missing something?

Edit: With a family, the pressure to move up is definitely stronger, but it the issue hasn't fundamentally changed.

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

Your biggest issue will be 3 years of lost salary as an MD that you'll never make back. Take the average physician income of 250k x 3 years is around 750k of possible income. If that doesn't matter to you than go for the PhD.

Well sunk two years in the hole, so that's partly why I feel "pot committed", though I know from the MCAT studying that this is the "sunken cost fallacy" lol. So partly the reasoning is I lost two years (to pursue a great scholarship, so lost isn't the best word) to get a masters which I don't think will carry much weight, but perhaps if I continue on to get the PhD for just 1 additional year of "salary" (so it would be a ~250K loss), I feel that could potentially help me to secure some more grants or funding in the future or even an academic position. This would be perks by their own virtue but could potentially offset some of the financial losses too. Maybe I'm idealistic, but the salary has never been a motivating factor to me to begin with.

 

[mistafab]

If you are set on MD and want to just be a clinician - then the PhD is pretty much a waste.

If you are trying to have a decent physician scientist mix, then the PhD now makes sense.

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

Thanks, but if your PI really did offer to pay you to stay and he would allow you to use your time there to contribute your thesis, then both the NIH and Cambridge plans should be roughly equivalent.

About your age concerns, there's nothing to really be done about that. Regardless of whether you optimize MD/PhD time or not, you're embarking on arguably the longest period of training for any career. That's something you're going to have to come to terms with because there's really no way around it. Good luck, I hope things work out for you!

Well the "research associate" position is anything but secure. The NIH seems like a much more likely possibility in fact. However, the idea I thought was particularly good was counting my research now towards a later degree as well as potentially getting MD-PhD tuition funding. Also the NIH might be better financially (as far as saving a bit of money). Also, I wouldn't need to fly from England to USA for interviews during my 3rd year PhD of an already abridged PhD. Also, there is family and a partner in the USA for me.

EDIT: the big problem is that right now, I have a potential for guaranteed funding, whereas the NIH postbacc is no guarantee. And I'd have to apply to NIH, find a professor, write a statement, etc

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

@Lucca I'd really appreciate your thoughts since your probably the only person accessible on the internet who knows both about MD-PhD and Cambridge

 

[getdown]

That argument is something I never understood. Maybe you can explain it to me. Though the lost salary is definitely an issue for retirement (though that can be mitigated with good financial planning), the money that one is supposedly losing isn't real money. The dilemma seems to me at least, to be whether you're ok living the same lifestyle for a few more years, rather than moving up. Am I missing something?

Edit: With a family, the pressure to move up is definitely stronger, but it the issue hasn't fundamentally changed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not real money". Your future earning potential is very much real money. The idea is that if you finished your MD training 3 years sooner, you're earning a salary instead of still undergoing training. Because the jump from a resident salary to an attending salary is quite significant (50k to roughly 250k or even more depending on specialty) you really never make up the differential in the lost years you're not working. If we take the average of 250k I mentioned earlier over 3 years that's 750k that could have gone towards retiring earlier or paying off student loans. The lifestyle isn't the issue really. As a brand new attending you shouldn't suddenly be buying million dollar houses and bugattis but to pay off loans and save for future large purchases (house, business, etc). You can even retire 3 years early if you want.

Well sunk two years in the hole, so that's partly why I feel "pot committed", though I know from the MCAT studying that this is the "sunken cost fallacy" lol. So partly the reasoning is I lost two years (to pursue a great scholarship, so lost isn't the best word) to get a masters which I don't think will carry much weight, but perhaps if I continue on to get the PhD for just 1 additional year of "salary" (so it would be a ~250K loss), I feel that could potentially help me to secure some more grants or funding in the future or even an academic position. This would be perks by their own virtue but could potentially offset some of the financial losses too. Maybe I'm idealistic, but the salary has never been a motivating factor to me to begin with.

Well, if you're already 2 years in it seems like the best thing to do is just finish it off. The masters degree in itself, like you said, is pretty worthless in terms of leveraging it in the future. To be honest, the PhD itself is useless if you're primary goal is to be a clinician. However, if your intention is to have a lab and do research and some clinical stuff on the side than maybe it would be worth it. Ultimately, the MD is what will open doors for you since that is what gives you credibility and value with companies, biotech firms, administrators. Again, I don't know what your intentions are but I'm just speaking from experience. It seems to me that you're actually genuinely interested in this stuff so it's not a loss but if you're doing this with the hope that you could parlay it to a larger salary in the future probably not the most efficient way of doing it.

Also, I hope you didn't take this the wrong way. This is the same advice I give anesthesia residents who are about to graduate and deciding between taking a fellowship vs just practicing since most everyone is heavily in debt and earning money and paying off those debts is a big concern. The money you make as a fellowship trained anesthesiologist isn't going to be significantly more than a general anesthesiologist.

 

[Lucca]

@Lucca I'd really appreciate your thoughts since your probably the only person accessible on the internet who knows both about MD-PhD and Cambridge

My thoughts that haven’t been already said better by other users are as follows; if you are 100% sure you want to be a physician scientist then don’t pay for your MD. If you are not 100% sure then consider doing an MD +postdoc/loan forgiveness route alongside also considering MD/PhD. If you don’t want to see patients, skip the MD and get a PhD instead.

With respect to the OxCam NIH MD/PhD I am somewhat skeptical of the program myself. I love the NIH, and I’m really enjoying Cambridge, but doing a PhD split between the two places sounds more challenging than a PhD need be. That doesn’t mean it isn’t the right choice for you, because depending on the project it might be. But the problem is only compounded by having a partner in the US. Will they be understanding of you picking up and moving every 2 years? Even being away from my partner for a year is difficult enough.

Like I said originally, I don’t think these are questions anyone can really answer for you. Ultimately, I am at the same stage as you, facing a very similar dilemma. I haven’t figured out what the best path to take might be, but I know I want to see patients and continue doing science, and even though the prospects for biomedical science are generally poor, I am willing to forego several prime earning years for fully funded training (probably wasn’t wired correctly at birth, or something).

 

[FreeWillApparatus]

My thoughts that haven’t been already said better by other users are as follows; if you are 100% sure you want to be a physician scientist then don’t pay for your MD. If you are not 100% sure then consider doing an MD +postdoc/loan forgiveness route alongside also considering MD/PhD. If you don’t want to see patients, skip the MD and get a PhD instead.

With respect to the OxCam NIH MD/PhD I am somewhat skeptical of the program myself. I love the NIH, and I’m really enjoying Cambridge, but doing a PhD split between the two places sounds more challenging than a PhD need be. That doesn’t mean it isn’t the right choice for you, because depending on the project it might be. But the problem is only compounded by having a partner in the US. Will they be understanding of you picking up and moving every 2 years? Even being away from my partner for a year is difficult enough.

Like I said originally, I don’t think these are questions anyone can really answer for you. Ultimately, I am at the same stage as you, facing a very similar dilemma. I haven’t figured out what the best path to take might be, but I know I want to see patients and continue doing science, and even though the prospects for biomedical science are generally poor, I am willing to forego several prime earning years for fully funded training (probably wasn’t wired correctly at birth, or something).

Sorry to hear about the malwiring... I think your Kierkegaard quote sums up my dilemma succinctly. Thanks so much for your input.

 

[Lucca]

Sorry to hear about the malwiring... I think your Kierkegaard quote sums up my dilemma succinctly. Thanks so much for your input.

I hope you figure it out! Either way, you should be happy that you have this many options when choosing how to continue your career. Most people don’t even get that!

 

[DokterMom]

So the PI did offer to pay for me to stay, so that is not out of the cards; I'm mostly worried about my age though.

About your age concerns, there's nothing to really be done about that. Regardless of whether you optimize MD/PhD time or not, you're embarking on arguably the longest period of training for any career. That's something you're going to have to come to terms with because there's really no way around it. Good luck, I hope things work out for you!

OK - Speaking as someone who is considerably older, let me assure you that this age thing is absolute bu!!****. You are not "waiting to start your life" -- you're already living your life. You're smack dab in the middle of it already! Are you enjoying it? Stimulated by your research? Your learning? You have a decent place to live and enough to eat. Good friends? This is life, and it sounds like a really good one with a bright future.

Sure, the big paycheck will improve your life in some ways. But in other ways you probably can't foresee, having a "real job" and a mortgage will diminish the quality of your life. With an MD and a PhD, however and whenever acquired, paying the bills is unlikely to be a huge problem, provided your expectations don't require a multi-million dollar house and a pair of matching Lambos.

So go forth and live your life! Take the longer road or the shorter one -- they both look great. And remember this cliche -- (It's cliche because it's true) -- Life is not the destination, but the journey.

 

[MyOdyssey]

@Lucca
@FreeWillApparatus
@Endoxifen
@gonnif

Questions about "Track 3" of the NIH Oxcam MD/PhD program in which one first applies PhD/DPhil to Cambridge or Oxford, then applies in year 3 to U.S. medical schools for the MD.

1. How readily do U.S. medical schools accept a PhD/DPhil acquired from Cambridge/Oxford under these circumstances?

2. How does this impact the validity of premed prerequisites previously taken? (Isn't there a finite shelf life for these prerequisites?)

3. Generally, how has "Track 3" worked out for people who've gone down that path?

4. Is NIH funding readily available for the MD portion of such programs?

Thanks.

 

[Endoxifen]

@Lucca
@FreeWillApparatus
@Endoxifen
@gonnif

Questions about "Track 3" of the NIH Oxcam MD/PhD program in which one first applies PhD/DPhil to Cambridge or Oxford, then applies in year 3 to U.S. medical schools for the MD.

1. How readily do U.S. medical schools accept a PhD/DPhil acquired from Cambridge/Oxford under these circumstances?

2. How does this impact the validity of premed prerequisites previously taken? (Isn't there a finite shelf life for these prerequisites?)

3. Generally, how has "Track 3" worked out for people who've gone down that path?

4. Is NIH funding readily available for the MD portion of such programs?

Thanks.

1. Med schools will happily accept the PhD, but they may be more hesitant to supplement MSTP funding. Harvard has track 3 students apply as normal medical students and will not provide any supplemental funds. This means that students are left to foot a significant portion of the bill. In contrast, Hopkins will accepts track 3 students as normal MD/PhD students and supply full funding. I haven't been able to find acceptance rates for students in this track, but considering the caliber of student, if you get into the OxCam, that won't be a problem.

2. The prereqs aren't an issue, but the MCAT score is. Luckily, PhDs at Cambridge (I can't speak for Oxford) only last 3 years, which puts students well within the 3 year expiration date for the MCAT, should they take it just before admission. This assumes the PhD goes incredibly smoothly, but if you go in knowing the risk and are willing to accept the possibility of retaking, then it remains a valid path.

3. There aren't many people who actually do track 3, considering the risk. Students usually only take this path if they've had a change in heart during their PhD or they have very specific reasons for choosing it beforehand. There's far more risk involved in track 3, as funding is not guaranteed. Consider track 3 very carefully before moving further.

4. Funding is available, but, as mentioned above, it is not guaranteed. You will have to apply for MSTP funding within the NIH in the year you plan on applying. The number of spots available for track 3 varies by institute and there is no standard number of applicants. In the National Cancer Institute, I've been told that there are between 0 and 8 applicants in any given year, with the average being around 3 (take those numbers with a heap of salt). Even if there are more spots available than applicants in a given year, there is still no guarantee that you will be awarded the funding. The committee will only award the funding if they think you have a substantial chance of being accepted to an MSTP program.

Please let me know if you have any more questions, though a better resource for information is the OxCam itself. They accept calls during regular office hours and are willing to answer any and all questions related to the program or the application process. Good luck!