Research evaluation for PhD is effectively the same for MSTP, right?

[deleted728364]

So my understanding of getting into a competitive PhD program is that rec letters (not publications, or “hours”) from known/famous faculty mean the most.


Is this effectively the same for the research evaluation for MSTP? Meaning if you could have 0 publications and <<4000hrs of research, but still gain the committee’s approval if you have a few letters from the biggest names in your field.


edit: words

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SoberPony]

Are you talking about actually "getting" the PhD or being accepted into a PhD program?

 

[deleted728364]

Are you talking about actually "getting" the PhD or being accepted into a PhD program?

whoops, mistyped. I meant to say "getting into" a PhD program

 

[Maebea]

A letter from a big name may cause an admissions committee member to pay a little more attention to your application, but it usually will not get you an interview, much less lead to an acceptance. What we often see is that the big name research did not have frequent interactions with the student, and the student tended to be a cog in the lab machinery. The letters the big names write tend to be fairly generic, and do not offer much insight to help the admissions committee make a decision.

 

[deleted728364]

A letter from a big name may cause an admissions committee member to pay a little more attention to your application, but it usually will not get you an interview, much less lead to an acceptance. What we often see is that the big name research did not have frequent interactions with the student, and the student tended to be a cog in the lab machinery. The letters the big names write tend to be fairly generic, and do not offer much insight to help the admissions committee make a decision.

That’s comforting to know - I was worried that I might be at a set back since I may not have the chance to intern at a top lab. I’m confident that I’ll get a strong letter, but I come from a no-name university. Might have the chance to go to ranked uni for my gap year rsrch, but it won’t be a top lab.

Does the same applies to T10 programs? I know that for top PhD progs it’s effectively mandatory to get a strong letter from a top researcher.

Separate q: if I have 5000+ hrs in rsrch, and very strong letters, but no posters/presentations etc, I shouldn’t worry about it, right? I know what publications are only marginally helpful unless from a high IF journal and 1st/2nd author, but I may not present any posters or go to any conferences.

 

[Maebea]

In the period 2014-2018, the MD-PhD programs at the so-called Top 10 medical schools (actually 11, since 3 are tied for the 9 spot) matriculated 844 students. These individuals came from 161 different undergraduate institutions. Harvard (75) Yale (55), Hopkins (41) MIT (35), Princeton (33), all sent a ton of students to MD-PhD programs, but there were students from places like Appalachian State, Calvin, Oklahoma Baptist, Grand Valley State, Pittsburgh State (in Kansas), Gustavus Adolphus, Drew, Gordon, etc., as well. Individuals at those smaller schools almost always spent significant time at a larger research-intensive university or the NIH honing their research skills. They did not necessarily work with a Paul Greengard, Jack Szostak, or a Joan Steitz, but they typically did work with an established investigator who had previously mentored students who ended up in a PhD or MD-PhD program.

Regarding the question about presentations/posters, this is not a requirement, but nearly everyone our program interviews has presented their work at some sort of research forum. Beside the obvious cv-boosting aspect, presenting your work is good practice to prepare you for interviewing. It gives you the opportunity to describe your work and answer questions from a bunch of smart people who are not intimately familiar with what you are doing. Another valuable experience you will gain by going to a research forum is to learn how to ask others about their work. Often applicants are evaluated both on their ability to describe their work and on their ability to understand the work of others and ask insightful question.

 

[grizzly1093]

I’m the MSTP trainee from one of the obscure colleges named above by Maebea, and two of my classmates are from other colleges on that list. So I feel compelled to comment. Lol.

Everyone in my program spent a significant amount of time (2+ years) doing research at “top” institutions, whether they graduated from one or not. Visiting other programs, I’ve gotten the impression that this trend generally holds in all “top” MSTPs. Connections, names, friends in high places—these things help a great deal in any case, but I’d argue, unfortunately, that such connections are essential to get into “top” MSTPs. People like to mince words talking about whether or not prestige really matters, but I’ve had my suspicions validated by more than one MSTP coordinator.

It’s not that research elsewhere isn’t respected. It’s that adcoms would rather bet on a known quantity when evaluating an applicant’s research training. What do they know about the quality of my training if they’ve never heard of my institution and I have no papers? Or what if my only paper is in a 0.1 impact factor journal that the adcom has never heard of? Ultimately, institution or lab prestige is one of the “crutch” heuristics for evaluating me. It’s even better if they know my PI.

It’s not sufficient, however.

My PI’s name or institution might get my foot in the door for an interview, but it won’t earn me a spot in the program. I need to prove that I can banter knowledgeably about my field, the big labs, new papers; that I can speak clearly and passionately about my research; that I know what I’m getting myself into. Aside from having substantial research experience, these are the most important things. But you have to get noticed first, and connections are an essential part of the game, especially at “top” programs. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[Neuronix]

but there were students from places like Appalachian State, Calvin, Oklahoma Baptist, Grand Valley State, Pittsburgh State (in Kansas), Gustavus Adolphus, Drew, Gordon, etc., as well. Individuals at those smaller schools almost always spent significant time at a larger research-intensive university or the NIH honing their research skills.

As someone from a very disadvantaged background, it has always bothered me that this is the advice to MD/PhD applicants. I'm glad I never listened to that sort of advice. The idea that you need to come from an elite undergrad or have spent time at one to be successful in matriculating to a quality MSTP likely discourages qualified candidates from lesser known institutions with limited resources from applying.

 

[sourpatch fetish]

As someone from a very disadvantaged background, it has always bothered me that this is the advice to MD/PhD applicants. I'm glad I never listened to that sort of advice. The idea that you need to come from an elite undergrad or have spent time at one to be successful in matriculating to a quality MSTP likely discourages qualified candidates from lesser known institutions with limited resources from applying.

Ditto. As an applicant from a no-name school, it's really disheartening to see that my co-interviewees already knew the current students since they attended the same high-echelon college.
That being said, I am sure without having done research at a top institution, I wouldn't have been at those interviews to even be disheartened lol. Academia is plenty elitist, and something needs to be done about this.

 

[dl2dp2]

As someone from a very disadvantaged background, it has always bothered me that this is the advice to MD/PhD applicants. I'm glad I never listened to that sort of advice. The idea that you need to come from an elite undergrad or have spent time at one to be successful in matriculating to a quality MSTP likely discourages qualified candidates from lesser known institutions with limited resources from applying.

LOL, isn't this a feature not a bug? With the number of qualified applicants vastly exceeding the number of slots at every stage of the game, the sooner you get eliminated, the better, in many ways. If people really want this career, I suspect they won't be "discouraged from applying", but are more likely to be discouraged when their applications are rejected.

 

[Maebea]

As someone from a very disadvantaged background, it has always bothered me that this is the advice to MD/PhD applicants. I'm glad I never listened to that sort of advice. The idea that you need to come from an elite undergrad or have spent time at one to be successful in matriculating to a quality MSTP likely discourages qualified candidates from lesser known institutions with limited resources from applying.

I'm afraid the world has changed somewhat since you applied. Twenty years ago, 4 of 5 MD-PhD applicants to my program applied during their final year of college. Last year, less than 1 in 3 candidates were applying as a college senior. Even students from elite undergrad institutions are taking a gap year (or two). Certainly there are individuals from non-research schools who are admitted without having had research experiences outside their home institutions. Individuals can take or leave my advice and make a decision which best fits their circumstances.

 

[mdphd_applicant]

I'm afraid the world has changed somewhat since you applied. Twenty years ago, 4 of 5 MD-PhD applicants to my program applied during their final year of college. Last year, less than 1 in 3 candidates were applying as a college senior. Even students from elite undergrad institutions are taking a gap year (or two). Certainly there are individuals from non-research schools who are admitted without having had research experiences outside their home institutions. Individuals can take or leave my advice and make a decision which best fits their circumstances.

I hope there's a movement to change this. I'm meeting people who are routinely 26+ in my interviews and it's amazing that the system is encouraging it.

 

[Maebea]

I hope there's a movement to change this. I'm meeting people who are routinely 26+ in my interviews and it's amazing that the system is encouraging it.

This movement towards postbac experiences seems to have arisen of the applicant side, rather than the adcom side. I first noticed 15 years ago that students at the Ivies were starting to take gap years. (Before that time gap-yearers were late bloomers or students from small colleges with limited research opportunities.) It is not that they needed additional research time to make themselves competitive; as a rule they had all started working in a lab as a freshman or sophomore. My supposition is that they wanted to do everything they could to insure that they would be admitted to the most desirable programs. Over time, this practice spread to other cohorts of students, and while we have not reached the point where a gap year is absolutely necessary, it is more common to have one than not.

MD-PhD program directors have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the additional research experience makes it easier to differentiate among applicants, which aids in the selection of individuals who are likely to persist and be successful. (Some programs have reported that their attrition rate has declined by two-thirds since the gap year trend started.) On the other hand, directors are concerned that starting an 8-year program later and later will have a negative impact on other life choices, and will contribute to higher post-program attrition, i.e., alumni who abandon research for private practice.

 

[sourpatch fetish]

This movement towards postbac experiences seems to have arisen of the applicant side, rather than the adcom side. I first noticed 15 years ago that students at the Ivies were starting to take gap years. (Before that time gap-yearers were late bloomers or students from small colleges with limited research opportunities.) It is not that they needed additional research time to make themselves competitive; as a rule they had all started working in a lab as a freshman or sophomore. My supposition is that they wanted to do everything they could to insure that they would be admitted to the most desirable programs. Over time, this practice spread to other cohorts of students, and while we have not reached the point where a gap year is absolutely necessary, it is more common to have one than not.

MD-PhD program directors have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the additional research experience makes it easier to differentiate among applicants, which aids in the selection of individuals who are likely to persist and be successful. (Some programs have reported that their attrition rate has declined by two-thirds since the gap year trend started.) On the other hand, directors are concerned that starting an 8-year program later and later will have a negative impact on other life choices, and will contribute to higher post-program attrition, i.e., alumni who abandon research for private practice.

This is a tricky topic for sure. I think the fact that some programs look differently at applicants with publications contribute significantly to pushing people towards gap years.
My take is 1-2 gap years max would be helpful, especially for figuring out whether one wants to commit to what is essentially an extra decade of training for less pay. Seeing some applicants come in with 3+ first author papers after their 5 gap years makes me wonder if additional research training would be beneficial for them anymore, considering they already have a research portfolio of a PhD graduate...
I think one way for Adcoms to discourage extended gap years is by lowering the “point of diminishing returns” in terms of research hours reported on AMCAS (i.e by considering applicants with 6k hours of research no differently from one with, say 3k hours). I’d love to hear what adcoms here think about this.

 

[Maebea]

This is a tricky topic for sure. I think the fact that some programs look differently at applicants with publications contribute significantly to pushing people towards gap years.
My take is 1-2 gap years max would be helpful, especially for figuring out whether one wants to commit to what is essentially an extra decade of training for less pay. Seeing some applicants come in with 3+ first author papers after their 5 gap years makes me wonder if additional research training would be beneficial for them anymore, considering they already have a research portfolio of a PhD graduate...
I think one way for Adcoms to discourage extended gap years is by lowering the “point of diminishing returns” in terms of research hours reported on AMCAS (i.e by considering applicants with 6k hours of research no differently from one with, say 3k hours). I’d love to hear what adcoms here think about this.

I haven't seen an applicant with 3 first-author publications, but I would agree that the value of PhD might be questionable.

Regarding the additional hours of research, MD-PhD adcoms know that more is not necessarily better. Here is "research hours" data for my program for the past 4 applicant cycles: <2,000 hours, 17% interviewed; 2,000-3,999, 24%; 4,000-5,999, 21%; 6,000+, 12%. This is an n of one, but other programs would almost certainly report similar statistics. The argument can be made that the research hours inflation is primarily the result of applicant decisions rather than ever-increasing expectations by adcoms.

 

[mdphd_applicant]

This movement towards postbac experiences seems to have arisen of the applicant side, rather than the adcom side. I first noticed 15 years ago that students at the Ivies were starting to take gap years. (Before that time gap-yearers were late bloomers or students from small colleges with limited research opportunities.) It is not that they needed additional research time to make themselves competitive; as a rule they had all started working in a lab as a freshman or sophomore. My supposition is that they wanted to do everything they could to insure that they would be admitted to the most desirable programs. Over time, this practice spread to other cohorts of students, and while we have not reached the point where a gap year is absolutely necessary, it is more common to have one than not.

MD-PhD program directors have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the additional research experience makes it easier to differentiate among applicants, which aids in the selection of individuals who are likely to persist and be successful. (Some programs have reported that their attrition rate has declined by two-thirds since the gap year trend started.) On the other hand, directors are concerned that starting an 8-year program later and later will have a negative impact on other life choices, and will contribute to higher post-program attrition, i.e., alumni who abandon research for private practice.

More MD-PhDs are already going into private practice so I think this is already bearing itself out. NIH outcomes data will have to hit a crisis point before this gets reformed I guess.

 

[sourpatch fetish]

More MD-PhDs are already going into private practice so I think this is already bearing itself out. NIH outcomes data will have to hit a crisis point before this gets reformed I guess.

Meh, I think research needs to be done to determine if there's a relationship between amount of gap years taken and type of career. I think difficulty securing grants and lack of positions that facilitates the 80/20 model (in certain specialties) contribute more to said decline than gap years.
If you haven't done so, I suggest giving the thread "how to fix MD/PhD" a look. To me it was quite an informative read.

 

[mdphd_applicant]

Meh, I think research needs to be done to determine if there's a relationship between amount of gap years taken and type of career. I think difficulty securing grants and lack of positions that facilitates the 80/20 model (in certain specialties) contribute more to said decline than gap years.
If you haven't done so, I suggest giving the thread "how to fix MD/PhD" a look. To me it was quite an informative read.

Yeah I think that is fair. We need some real research on this. Thank you for the thread suggestion - I'll give it a look.