Since most of you are in MD/PhD programs, and pretty prestigious ones if I may so, can you please explain to me what criteria one needs to possess to gain admittance into these programs? Does or did your undergrad play any role whatsoever (in terms of its name/prestige factor) in helping to attain admittance?
say the top 20 MD/PhD programs. You need >35 MCAT, >3.5 GPA. Solid 2-3 yrs of research experience, during the school year/summer/after undergrad. Papers preferred but not necessary. And a vision of what you want to do for your PhD. For the top 3-5 programs, you need a bit more, i.e. various awards, exceptional results from research, etc.
I do not mean to sound obsessed with the name, but the institution from where one attains their PhD plays a significant role in terms of where and how easily they can find a job, especially at the very beginning.
I disagree with the poster immediately above. Both in science and in medicine the institution matters greatly, though nobody would admit it. The chance of you getting a faculty at Harvard if you went to State U for PhD is very minimal. Whereas State U faculty is populated by Harvard PhDs. It's both correlative and causative. Famous schools have famous people, and in turn make them more famous. Medicine is the same actually. Sure if you do primary practice it doesn't matter where you went. But if you want to match in radiology at a top 5 program, who do you think the residency director is going to take? Two equivalent applicants with same USLME, the one from the name school will be preferred. If one gets into a school with more prestige, the question you might ask yourself is, why wouldn't you go there, if everything else's equivalent?
Besides research, GPA, and MCAT, what else helped you gain admittance? What are the main criteria being looked at because it seems to me that the more prestigious institutions accept very minute #'s of MD/PhD students, which leads me to believe that they are seeking specific criteria? So does the expression hold true that "it is better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond" in terms of where you are in the realm of your undergrad institution? From what I gather few ivy league undergrads attain admittance into MD/PhD programs because I really have not met many or any for that matter? Can anyone please comment and/or give me some stats on the matter? Thanks.
There's nothing else besides what you've listed. The quality of each, however, varies greatly amongst different applicant. Medical students @ top institutions represent a very selective small piece. They must have done well no matter where they are. "it is better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond" is a faulty because if you want to get into a top MD/PhD program you have to be a big fish in a big pound.
Most top programs are basically competing for the same pool of applicants. There are about 300 such students each year nation-wide. Most applicants apply to the same set of institutions with slight variations in terms of the strengths of the research programs. The application process is more of a matching process, fitting people/programs to the ones they have some small preference with regard to research/location. Everyone's looking for the same thing: excellence. I think even the URM status is becoming less relevant now. There are increasing number of excellent URM students applying as well.
We can do another kind of very simple math. 40000 students apply for med school each year. Top 20 schools get 3000 students. So you need to be roughly top 10% nation-wide to have a chance amongst the med school applicants. Now you might argue the applicants are self-selective in the first place. There are about 2 million college students each year. So 3000 out of 2 mil is about 0.1%. Suppose that 10 times as many people are as brilliant but go into different fields, like top grad schools, top literary firms, top law schools, top banks, etc. This means you have to be in the top 1% of all college grads.
Now there is a noticeable difference btw students from top 5 and from #15-20. This probably has to do with the rapid decay of the normal distribution. At the far end of the tail, people are so unbelievably amazing it's kind of easy to see the difference. But the difference of the quality of teaching is actually minimal btw top 5 and top 15-20.