So....grades are not that important in MSTP applications?

[Chris Benoit]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey guys,

I've been reading through a lot of the threads here for a while and have been getting really apprehensive, because a lot of the time, I see statements like "grades aren't really important anyway" etc.

Now, I'm not trying to brag or anything, I'm just concerned, but my selling point is my transcript. I do have research experience, but so do other applicants (I have about a little over a year of neuroanatomy research, I will have two years when I apply). I have pretty good extracurriculars as well. But the thing I stand out in is grades, not research. I mean reading here, a lot of you guys have great research experience that I simply do not have. I do not know if I will have a publication at the time of my application.

So, yeah, I guess my questions boils down to this: I basically have A+s in pretty much all my classes, including all the premed prequisites but one, which is an A, every upper division science course, and several humanities (19 A+, 4 A). That is the only thing about my application that stands out (haven't taken MCAT yet). Does this not matter at all? By that, I mean, if someone with a much worse transcript has better research experience, am I toast?

Thanks for any advice/input.

 

[dr.z]

MSTP programs cares a lot about your GPA and MCAT scores with research experiences. Your A+s will be converted to A for the purpose of application though.

 

[Maebea]

When programs say that grades do not matter much, we come from the perspective of seeing hundreds of applications every year with GPAs of 3.8 or better. The average GPA of applicants to our program last year was 3.77. If your GPA is "below average" (i.e. 3.40), you might have some trouble getting accepted to a program. It is not impossible, as there are many individuals with sub-3.5 GPAs at top MD-PhD programs; but a lower GPA is usually a negative. Similarly, with average GPAs being so high, the value of a 4.0 versus a 3.8 is fairly negligible. Any GPA above 3.4 will get you past the first cut, but beyond that, your application will be judged primarily by your talents as a researcher. Individuals with the highest grades and/or MCATs will not necessarily be the best researchers; success as a researcher goes far beyond getting straight A's and gaudy MCAT scores. Your goal over the next year is to develop your skills as a scientist. If you can demonstrate a lot of potential as an independent researcher, then you should have no worries. If not, then you may be disappointed in your quest to join a MD-PhD program, and have to settle for MD training.

Good luck.

 

[Chris Benoit]

Thanks for the responses.

But, how does one display this capacity to do independent research over anyone else? There are a lot of people who have their names on papers just because they ran gels or something, whereas my name isn't on any paper, yet I have been working on my own project for quite some time. Is this just something that comes out in the interview, where it will become evident who actually knows what they are doing?

 

[xanthines]

This comes out in both the essays and in the interview. Emphasize your role in the project as well as your understanding of the background, methods, results, and implications of those results. Some do this better than others.

-X

Thanks for the responses.

But, how does one display this capacity to do independent research over anyone else? There are a lot of people who have their names on papers just because they ran gels or something, whereas my name isn't on any paper, yet I have been working on my own project for quite some time. Is this just something that comes out in the interview, where it will become evident who actually knows what they are doing?

 

[Maebea]

Xanthines is right on the money. Your essays and the letters from your research supervisors will provide admissions committees with evidence of your abilities as a researcher. Publications are great to have, but they are not necessary. If you got an authorship fjust or running some gels for someone like Harvey Lodish (not to suggest that he hands out authorships like Halloween candy), it would become very clear in your interview that you were not making an intellectual contribution to the project. Your interviewers will probe your basic fund of knowledge, the specifics of your experiments, your awareness of related work in your field, etc. You need to be able to think on your feet, so you should take advantage of opportunities to present your research at lab meetings, poster sessions, and so on. Interviewers will often tell you about their research and evaluate you on your ability to understand their work and ask good questions. To help prepare yourself for this, you can talk with others about their research and ask them questions.

 

[dave613]

Xanthines is right on the money. Your essays and the letters from your research supervisors will provide admissions committees with evidence of your abilities as a researcher. Publications are great to have, but they are not necessary. If you got an authorship fjust or running some gels for someone like Harvey Lodish (not to suggest that he hands out authorships like Halloween candy), it would become very clear in your interview that you were not making an intellectual contribution to the project. Your interviewers will probe your basic fund of knowledge, the specifics of your experiments, your awareness of related work in your field, etc. You need to be able to think on your feet, so you should take advantage of opportunities to present your research at lab meetings, poster sessions, and so on. Interviewers will often tell you about their research and evaluate you on your ability to understand their work and ask good questions. To help prepare yourself for this, you can talk with others about their research and ask them questions.

Do you think they ask such difficult questions to only PhD applicants? Probably not. I wonder why?

 

[Chris Benoit]

Alright guys...thanks for the responses.

 

[xanthines]

Probably because PhD candidates they don't spend an extra 4 years in med school. Programs need to make sure you can handle the workload in a timely manner. Otherwise the typical 7-8 MD/PhD program would be more like 10-14 years.

-X

Do you think they ask such difficult questions to only PhD applicants? Probably not. I wonder why?

 

[pseudoknot]

Do you think they ask such difficult questions to only PhD applicants? Probably not. I wonder why?

Well, yes, often they do.

Also, why would you "wonder why" given that you yourself postulated this in the first place?

 

[dave613]

Well, yes, often they do.

Also, why would you "wonder why" given that you yourself postulated this in the first place?

xanthines understood my question.

 

[pseudoknot]

I'm pretty sure I did too, and I still take exception to it.