Schools with good record of churning people out

[ghostfacekilla]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Anyone know if anyone has compiled or keep yearly records of how all the programs fare in getting their MD/Ph.D people out in 6-7 years and which programs conversely keep people in shackles for 8-9 years.

 

[Neuronix]

Yeah, the NIH keeps these sorts of records. We don't have access to them. The average is usually right around 7.5 years, with some schools slightly less (Duke is at 7.2) and a couple pretty well higher (URochester at 8.5).

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about this issue. My advice is to apply where you want, and consider this number if you're debating between programs that have accepted you.

 

[superdevil]

i've heard you can go through at baylor in six years...

 

[Neuronix]

It happens at every program, including Penn, but it is very rare. Baylor's average is closer to 8 years than it is to 7.

 

[Bad Mojo]

Baylor must depend alot on the grad department. I was there this weekend and talked to the genetics grad program director who said that the requirements for PhD aren't shortened for MSTP students. They do the same amount of work and have the same expectations (publications). I'm not sure, though, if this is the same among all grad programs (I think they have quite a few).

 

[superdevil]

the reason i cited baylor was because of what i read on their website: "After successfully defending their thesis and receiving their PhD, students return to medical school to complete the final year of the curriculum. It consists of eight to ten months of clinical rotations."

assuming one completes the PhD work in 3 years, then the sum would be six (MS1 and MS2 + 3yrs grad + 1 year clinical). eight to ten months of clinicals is less than what i've seen at most schools that have the traditional 2-3-2 format. oh well. i know its not common, it just seems more attainable at baylor, i guess.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Baylor actuallly has 1.5 years of basic sciences instead of 2 years.

Yours,

 

[Naphtali]

Two schools that are pretty good are UT-Houston (7.2) and SUNY Upstate (7.3). Neither are MSTP-- but does it matter?

It should definetly be a factor in deciding where you end up. The difference may not seem like much now, but when you're already 30 and are eager to move on (to 3+ years of residency, no less!)... it will matter. Another question to ask is if you can get elective credit for dissertation work. Many schools will, but I don't think it's universal.

Naphtali

 

[Neuronix]

Penn also has a 1.5 year basic science cirriculum. I second looked at both Baylor and Penn and I remember Baylor's average being something like 7.6. Penn's is 7.52. Hardly a difference worth mentioning. Still, both programs shorten the time to go clinically when you return to medical school. That length of clinical post-PhD time can also depend on whether or not you know what residency you want.

This leads one to wonder, if the med school has been shortened to more like 3 years, why are the majority of the MD/PhD students still going for 8 years total? Because more frequently, the graduate portion is lasting 5 years. I think there's a couple reasons for this that I don't want to get into. Nevertheless, the next person who tells me that MD/PhDs don't get "real" PhDs *insert random threat here*.

 

[ghostfacekilla]

Thanks for your responses everyone. Wouldnt the median be a better measure of how good the program is geared to getting people out in a reasonable amount of time. Seems like theirs always the rare case of some oddball getting out in 5 years or some slacker finishing in 9 years that skew the averages.

 

[Habari]

a much more important indicator of a program is how people fare 10-20years down the line, rather than a mere 1/2 year diff in when they get out. the alumni track record speaks volumes about a program and should definately be considered when you are choosing a program. this was certainly a factor in choosing the Cornell Tri-I program, where on average all graduates have tenure track positions at great institutions, with many great alumn. hopkins also has a fantastic record. i asked each program i was choosing between for a compilation of their alumn, which they invariably have for record keeping purposes - you can ask for the same.

 

[superdevil]

This leads one to wonder, if the med school has been shortened to more like 3 years, why are the majority of the MD/PhD students still going for 8 years total? Because more frequently, the graduate portion is lasting 5 years. I think there's a couple reasons for this that I don't want to get into.

what are the reasons? could you please elaborate or pm me?

 

[Neuronix]

I should not have said that I didn't want to discuss the issues. The truth is, I don't really understand them myself. I think the reasons for graduation time vary by individual, but the reasons that the averages vary is because of the philosophies at different schools. Without going into much detail I think it has to do with three factors: strength of advising, requirements (TAing, rotations, courses, etc), and integration of MD and PhD cirriculum to get around requirements on both the graduate and medical school sides.

 

[Primate]

... hits the nail on the head.

Bravo!

P

 

[superdevil]

I should not have said that I didn't want to discuss the issues. The truth is, I don't really understand them myself. I think the reasons for graduation time vary by individual, but the reasons that the averages vary is because of the philosophies at different schools. Without going into much detail I think it has to do with three factors: strength of advising, requirements (TAing, rotations, courses, etc), and integration of MD and PhD cirriculum to get around requirements on both the graduate and medical school sides.

yeah, i have to agree. i guess if you go to a school that waives half of your classes due to med school, doesn't make you TA, and hands you a ready-made project the first day in lab, you'll probably get out sooner than others. thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by superdevil
hands you a ready-made project the first day in lab,

That of course has to do with the lab more than the school. Some PhD students also get away with this. If you look for that sort of thing, you might find it. Though on the no-TAing and no overlapping classes, that's a good thing. Still, quality of advising helps keep you from languishing in a bad lab or on a dead project. Sometimes you need a helping hand to help you recognize and move on from that kind of problem. I think it some places this is more likely to happen than at others.

 

[adesua]

Hmm...
This is interesting Neuronix. I hadn't even thought about how quality of advising could affect the quality of the MD/PhD program and on the fact that this varies from school to school.

Does anyone have anything particularly good or bad to say about any school's advising?

Or may be I should start a new thread to address this question.

Cheers

 

[pathdr2b]

There's also the issue of being "ready" for this process when you start. In my case I feel I'll be much better able to "handle" the combined program with an earned MS that I would feel without it. There's something unique about having experience dealing with the highly subjective nature (ie personalitties of your committee, differing ideas on a projects' direction) of graduate programs which I feel causes many of the delays in completing the program in a timely fashion.

 

[bsfreefalllt]

As mentioned in most of the threads, the number of years it takes to finish the MD/PhD has lots of variables. Many I think are within your control...others are not. I'm at the Medical College of Georgia in the third year clerkship now. I took 3 years to finish my Ph.D. Two of my colleagues also finished in 3 years. The final colleague is still in the lab and may have to spend yet another year. In other classes near mine, I've seen several finish in 3 and others spend 5. The MD/PhD director when I came into the program was a big proponent of getting people out in 3 years. He was very good at expediating course work, etc. to help us move quickly into the lab. So I think the director's clout and feelings about how long the phd should last is very important. THat sets up a good environment for 3 yr phd. So, how come many of the students are also taking 4 or 5 years you may ask? Two answers. One, they chose PIs who were not "friendly" to getting Md/PhDs out in less time then a regular PhD. There are many PIs like that and you have to choose you lab wisely by talking to former grad students. Second, they didn't get their @#$% together. You have to be aggressive in getting what you want. Any PhD project you do could drag on for 10 years, and while it's good to have advisors to help you out, in the end you have to look after yourself. IMHO