Picking programs to apply to

[OCDOCDOCD]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm in the process of picking out which schools I want to apply to and I'm curious how others have gone about doing this. Currently I'm really only picking out schools that a significant number of faculty doing research in a topic I'm interested in. However, a lot of school websites don't make it easy to find faculty (either because they're vague on which faculty an MD/PhD candidate is eligible to work with without going through some special petition process, they don't sort faculty by research area, or they don't even have profiles) and even when they do it takes forever to go through them all with even just a cursory overview.

Meanwhile from what I've read it seems almost as if many applicants don't really pick their schools this way but instead go off other various criteria like location, course structure, prestige, etc. although obviously some attention is still paid to what the school generally researches (ie if they want a PhD in computational biology and the school doesn't offer that, then they don't apply).

So how would you guys suggest going about it? How did you go about it? Also, when it comes to research focus, how specific do schools want you to be with your interests? As specific as possible? Somewhat specific (eg: "prefrontal DA system in schizophrenia"), general ("schizophrenia"), or really general ("neuroscience")?

 

[goodkarma]

Location was really important for me (bc of my SO). My stats were below average, so I applied broadly to about 20 schools + some safety MD-onlys. I'd say how many programs and which ones you apply to depends on your stats. After seeing where I got IIs to, I could be more selective and chose based on the "fit" (ex. I liked the larger, more diverse, urban MSTP). As for research, I went with the "general" to "really general" range. I like X now, but that could change as I explore what the school has to offer. It's probably safe to say that the MSTPs probably have labs in almost any field you're interested in, although some may be more well-known for certain things. Oh, and I also mostly eliminated programs that weren't fully-funded.

 

[erutha95]

Research interests change, you don't need to do your phd in the exact research area that you want to study for the rest of your career, and it only takes 1 PI. Having 50 people doing research in the exact thing you want to study isn't necessarily better than 1 or 2.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

Research interests change, you don't need to do your phd in the exact research area that you want to study for the rest of your career, and it only takes 1 PI. Having 50 people doing research in the exact thing you want to study isn't necessarily better than 1 or 2.

My main concern was that if I went to a school and said "I'm interested in studying X" and they have only one guy there that studies X and are instead known for focusing on Y, Z, and A, their next thought is going to be "why is this guy applying here?" Another concern was that if I get there and that one PI ends up moving to another institution, dying, or won't take on anymore students, then I'm SOL.

 

[erutha95]

My main concern was that if I went to a school and said "I'm interested in studying X" and they have only one guy there that studies X and are instead known for focusing on Y, Z, and A, their next thought is going to be "why is this guy applying here?" Another concern was that if I get there and that one PI ends up moving to another institution, dying, or won't take on anymore students, then I'm SOL.

Those are definitely valid concerns, but:

1) At admission time, I don't think most places screen for research interest unless what you want to do is completely unsupported there... like if you want to do BME and they don't have a BME grad program. If you say "I want to do X" their most likely question, if they follow up at all, will be "Is there anyone here that works on that?" and as long as you mention the one guy that does that, you should be fine.

2) All the stuff about the guy leaving or dying or whatever is worth thinking about, but you can consider it after you get in. That's when I would talk to that person at second look and try to figure out their long term goals. If it seems like they're going to stick around and you like everything else about the school better, go for it. If it's a close race between two schools and one has 50 people studying in your area and one has 1, then probably go with the school with 50.

The main take-home point is that while it is necessary to have at least 1 PI studying something that you would be willing to do your PhD project on, increasing quantity of research in your field has diminishing returns.

OTOH, if one school has a rock star Nobel laureate in your field who also happens to be a really nice guy who loves teaching grad students, maybe that should sway you. All in all, research is one factor out of many that you should base your decision on, and its relative importance can vary.

 

[kellbell12]

Something you really should think about is whether you are truly only interested in that one research area. Halfway through this application cycle, I was pretty much set on a single school because they had the research I wanted (cancer nanotechnology stuff). A month later, though, I interviewed at a school that was not strong in this area and ended up falling in love with them. I met with some people from their radiation biology program and got really excited about what they were doing even though they weren't using cool nanoparticles to cure cancer.

So be careful about locking yourself into a specific field. You never know how your interests might change throughout time, and you want to make sure you choose a school for the whole package, not just one specific detail.

 

[debateg]

1) Do not apply to a school because of that one mentor. I know plenty of people who chose a school because of that one guy, and that one guy promptly left, died, refused to take them as a grad student, or was a complete jerk. Ask yourself this question: if my #1, #2, and #3 labs all died off suddenly, would there be something at the institution left for me? If not, then either the institution is weak in your area (e.g. the BME department is #1 - #3) or you're being too picky about your focus.

2) Realize that what the department website says about someone's research is 5 years behind. Even if you find out what they're doing currently, you're joining the lab in 2 years, and the entire lab could have changed its focus while you're in med school

3) Choose a school that offers you a wealth of opportunities in your general field of interest. They do not have to have the specific thing you want to do with your life. Your PhD work is unlikely to be focused on what you end up researching long term. Remember, the goal of a PhD is to get training and beef up your publication resume. Unlike a postdoc (who may take reagents, grants, etc), you cannot take anything other than knowledge away from your PhD lab; it all belongs to that lab. In that sense, it's not so important what you do your PhD work on as long as you get good mentorship, graduate in a reasonable time, and get some publications.

4) The MD/PhD isn't just about research. You have to get into residency if you want to pursue the physician-scientist thing. In fact, your PhD will likely plan very little role in that process; your clinical training and transitions to and from lab will be the major bottlenecks. Look to see what fields and what schools people match into. That is probably a far greater benchmark for "success" than publications anyhow because if the MD/PhDs match poorly, their careers (and general life plans) will be hurt in the immediate short term. They should be mostly matching in top tier academic programs, and most of them should be matching elsewhere other than their home institution. If they're all staying at their home institution (despite career recommendations that they should broaden their horizons), they either love their program / city or their home program was a backup, and they were not competitive to match elsewhere. If they're all matching into only preliminary programs or to small community programs, that's a huge red flag that the transition from PhD years to MD years is poorly managed, and honestly, that transition is about 100 times more important than your PhD. If you go on revisits, hunt down the graduating MD/PhDs and ask them how they felt prepared for the match. If you aren't revisiting, just e-mail them cold. If my class is representative, you hear will lot of harsh truths about the program that none of the bright-eyed first years will tell you.

 

[FactorX]

If they're all matching into only preliminary programs or to small community programs, that's a huge red flag that the transition from PhD years to MD years is poorly managed, and honestly, that transition is about 100 times more important than your PhD.

I apologize for my naivette but can you elaborate more on what the preliminary programs mean ? I have seen on some match lists that certain students are interns at abc institutions. Does being an intern mean they are in preliminary program ? Also, some match lists show that certain students are interns at one institution in one specialty (say internal medicine) and then residents at another institution in a different specialty(say dermatology). Can you elaborate more on how this works ? Again, I apologize for my naivette.

 

[Neuronix]

Lastly, I've heard again and again from Neuronix that it's important to see the PhD --> last two years transition is done nicely. But HOW do you know that it is done nicely?

You'll honestly never be able to sort that out as an applicant. It's too situation and program specific. The chasm between you as a pre-med and you as a CD6 is too wide for you to ever know what questions to ask. Frankly, programs aren't going to like going into detail about their processes, and are going to tell you whatever they do is the right way, which is going to leave you even more confused. Plus, how you structure your final 1.5-2 years of med school depends on the specialty you choose.

When you get towards the end of grad school, see my guide (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=762097) on how to make the transition.

In the meantime, you can look at program match lists to see how their graduates do. Though honestly, how people do in the match is much more individual dependent than it is program dependent. I'm looking at the rank list this year, and the MD/PhD from Dartmouth who matched MSKCC for rad onc. Strong work. I didn't even get an interview there, and arguably my MSTP was a much higher ranked program. But in the end who cares. My med school/step score performance was about average for the specialty and so I didn't match to a top program. If you want the top programs in competitive specialties, do very well in med school. Things will sort themselves out no matter where you go assuming you follow my advice and make the right preparation to match well in your specialty per your clinical advisors and SDN.

The things to focus on when picking a program are your own happiness and development. That is, is it a location I want to live in, does it have the resarch I want, is the program well-integrated/supportive (most well established/larger MSTPs are), and is it setup so that I might graduate in a timely fashion.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

Thanks for the advice so far guys, guess I'll focus on things other than the exact kind of research people are doing at a school.

The things to focus on when picking a program are your own happiness and development. That is, is it a location I want to live in, does it have the resarch I want, is the program well-integrated/supportive (most well established/larger MSTPs are), and is it setup so that I might graduate in a timely fashion.

How do you go about figuring that out? I was always under the impression that the biggest factor in how quickly you graduate is your PhD years, and those in turn are most heavily influenced by how good your mentor is and how (un)lucky you get with your project.

 

[erutha95]

I was always under the impression that the biggest factor in how quickly you graduate is your PhD years, and those in turn are most heavily influenced by how good your mentor is and how (un)lucky you get with your project.

You can ask about it, but most programs will tell you their students graduate in 6-8 years, regardless of whether it's true. What I would do is assess 2 things about the MSTP administration: 1) How organized are they? If everything seems to be falling apart and disorganized when you visit, the director is unavailable, etc, those are all bad signs. A program running like a well-oiled machine is going to help facilitate your success. 2) Find out how "strong" the MSTP program is within the institutional structure. IE, is the institution committed to the goals of the MSTP program? You can have a well-administered MSTP, but if they get overruled frequently by the MD or grad programs, then they're not going to be able to help you much. Things that I would count as red flags are having to apply separately for grad school (outside of MSTP application), having to deal separately with MD and MSTP administrators when applying, things like that. You want a one-stop shop MSTP program, where you go to them with problems and they fix them for you.

 

[Neuronix]

If you go on revisits, hunt down the graduating MD/PhDs and ask them how they felt prepared for the match.

This a good point. MD/PhD admissions are dominated by chipper, naive first years who barely started the program themselves. The ones who continue admissions tend to be the bright, shiny people who are not going to be honest about negatives. The seniors, if they are interested in talking to you at all, tend to be more real about things. Though you still might end up only with the political "blow smoke up your butt" type, generally the seniors are going to be more knowledgeable and experienced.

You can ask about it, but most programs will tell you their students graduate in 6-8 years, regardless of whether it's true.

You have to ask for hard facts. What is the average graduation time among graduates over the past 5 years. How many graduated in 6 years (probably 0-1). How many graduated in 9+ years (probably several). The reality is 8 +/- 1 year to graduation at basically all programs, and anyone who is vague about it or deviates from this significantly is not to be trusted. I still recommend staying away from any program or department that averages 8.5 years or more OR does not view 7 years as a viable option. I wrote a long blog entry about all of this previously. See:

http://www.neuronix.org/2011/09/meeting-about-return-this-past-week-i.html

You want a one-stop shop MSTP program, where you go to them with problems and they fix them for you.

This is true too. Having to apply separately to the PhD program or having a completely separate PhD experience (with certain exceptions, like OxCam) is a red flag. When it comes to how well the program seems to be run, note it when you interview, not when the red carpet rolls out at second looks.

I was always under the impression that the biggest factor in how quickly you graduate is your PhD years, and those in turn are most heavily influenced by how good your mentor is and how (un)lucky you get with your project.

See my blog post above. Main point:

Averages are averages for a reason. Some departments are better for graduation times than others due to general departmental mentality and/or requirements (coursework, teaching, publications, etc). These things vary among institutions.