Stanford MSTP

[badger03]

Does anyone know if there is a specific date by which Stanford intends to inform applicants of their MSTP decisions? The process is billed as "modified rolling" which would suggest that acceptances are granted over an extended period of time, with the end of March completing the cycle.

Right now Stanford is my dream school, and the wait is so difficult. Too bad it's probably one of the latest schools for making MSTP decisions.

By the way, I'd be curious to know everyone's opinion of Stanford's MSTP compared to other top tier programs. Advantages, disadvantages (if there are any ), etc...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ptiger]

I was just about to ask the same question. Here's what I know. I went to the second to last interview date at Stanford (Feb 3rd). They told me then that they had one more date, but might need to add another. My friend who went on the last (planned) date said that they had indeed scheduled another set of interviews sometime in mid-March. She predicts we will hear by late March.

Here are my thoughts on Stanford, as requested. I'd love feedback.

Pros:
The research is phenomenal, especially if you are interested in immunology (like I am). The campus is gorgeous and the town is cute, although not extremely student friendly. The weather is great. I think in overall quality of life, there isn't much lacking, unless you need to be closer to a big city. The 45 min trip to SF is fine for me.

Cons:
It seems like a pretty disorganized program. The secretary is nice, but known to be forgetful. You have a lot of independence, but that's because the advising probably isn't as good. You're more on your own here than at some of the bigger, better run programs, like WashU. They are also focusing on producing researchers, not doctors. Of course you are both, but the focus will be on your research. This means that they cut time from your clinical training, unlike Duke for example.

Summary -- In my opinion, go to Stanford if location and/or research is important to you. Don't go to become a great physician. If you want that, UCSF might be better.

What do you think?

 

[Mozart]

I interviewed at Stanford on 1/17/2003, and in 20 days, I received acceptance letters from MD and MSTP. I was late to the "debriefing" session in the end of the interview day, but others who were there told me that the AdCom "implied" that it would immediately rank all MSTP applicants into four categories (supposedly the MD AdCom does the same too): immediate acceptance, high priority, low priority, and immediate rejection. Apparently, it's hard to fall into the first and the last categories (given that they only interview ~58 students).

Also, maybe most of you know this already, Stanford MSTP has a pretty informative website at <http://mstp.stanford.edu>. In there, it encourages applicants to contact Marjorie about the status of your application - and yes, like ptiger has mentioned, she's nice (I don't know about her forgetfulness).

Stanford is a very innovative place. Given the strength of its engineering departments, the new bio-x initiative and the bioengineering department would certainly benefit those who intend to pursue the more quantitative basic sciences. I am currently a senior undergrad at Stanford, and I held no reservation about enrolling in Stanford's MSTP (even though that means eventually spending more than a decade at Stanford), until I (very unexpectedly) was also accepted by Harvard's MD/PhD program.

 

[badger03]

Thanks ptiger,

Your feedback agrees with some of the comments I've heard concerning the MSTP program at Stanford. My interviewers seemed to be fishing for the importance of the clinical practice aspect of the MD-PhD in my career plans. In my opinion, the research training is probably the most important aspect of the MSTP/MD-PhD programs, as for most people it constitutes preparation for a career in academic medicine. Most MD-PhD's will spend a majority of their time involved in bench/clinical research, leaving less time to worry about being the "best doctor". The real goal, as I see it, is to work towards being the best MD-PhD. That requires a unique set of skills and some sacrifices as well (including a degree of clinical proficiency).

But back to the issue. So, the research is great and the mentoring could be better. How does this compare to the programs at Harvard, Cornell or JHU, for instance?

Still interested in hearing more opinions on Stanford

 

[Atoms to Adam]

Hi,

I have heard a few things about Stanford's program in relation to the other programs that I thought I should communicate. I had the fortunate opportunity of meeting with Bert Shapiro, PhD, head of MSTP at the NIH. He gave me the lowdown on many of the programs.

Stanford is apparently, the fastest program in the country. Apparently, ALL of their students get out in 7.0 years, rarely a day longer. We began to discuss why, and Dr. Shapiro told me that Stanford actively pushes their students out. They can do this because of the nature of a lot of biomedical research going on at Stanford. As someone correctly alluded to, Stanford is a very cutting-edge type of school, where very technological/ quantitative work is done. Because of this, any amount of work done will be fairly ground-breaking, publishable, the type of work that one can build a thesis around. This is not to say the work is EASIER, it only implies that if one gets something to work, their isn't a substantial body of literature that needs to be traversed for the findings to be significant. This is different than some fields of say....Cancer research, where one has to be tremendously inventive and creative to even think of a worthy QUESTION worth asking; in fields like Gene-Chip technology(Huge at Stanford), the technology is ground-breaking in and of itself, so the ingenuity comes in at the level of what questions to apply expression chip technology too, what disease states might most benefit from knowledge of differential gene expression etc etc.

I remember during my MSTP interviews, most of the students I met interested in gene-chip technology, Bioinformatics, these kind of fields, listed Stanford at or near their top choices. This is of course, because Stanford is the place where most of these technologies were created and/or blossomed. As we all know, Pat Brown, largely credited with the explosion of chip technology is on faculty at Stanford.

So, overall, its a very good school, but is particularly good for those interested in very cutting-edge work, utilizing the technological advantages offered by campus. For those interested in more old-school style thinking, more traditional practice, like for example, those interested in clinical research, or tropical medicine, more hands-on type of fields, I would venture to say UCSF would be the better choice, as well as several schools out east.

For those interested in cutting-edge medicine, utilizing technology, and those with a strong mathematical/physical bent towards biomedical research, it seems like Stanford is as good a place to receive training as your going to find in the country.

Hope I've helped. Good luck.

 

[MacGyver]

First off, if it is true that Stanford graduates all their people in 7 years, then I dont think its because their research is somehow better than all the other 100 or so MD/PhD programs. If thats true, I think its because they push people thru more. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but to imply that they somehow get better publications and put out better research than everywhere else just doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

At any rate, I think Duke has the shortest MD/PhD program in teh country. The MD program is actually only 3 years long, with 1 year devoted to research.

 

[Atoms to Adam]

......I just looked through my post and tried to find a single sentence where I pointed out anything about Stanford having 'Better' research than anyone else. What I commented on was the NATURE of the research at Stanford, which is very high-technology/cutting-edge, and that this is a strength of the school and a reason why their combined degree time might be a bit faster. In the end, none of us know why the program is faster, as there are likely several reasons. Furthermore, never did I imply that 'cutting-edge' means better, or that 'faster' means better. I simply made the well-known connection that it easier to publish in younger fields, simply because they are young. This says nothing about the how good the work being done is. A decade ago people were coughing up papers by the dozens on Gene Therapy, because it was a new field, now, half these people work on other things.

In regards to the shortest program, its a debate I don't want to have, didn't intend to start, and quite honestly don't care about; I'm busy trying to finish my own program in a timely fashion. what I will say is that I got my information from Dr. Bert Shapiro himself, in a conversation, not from SDN, not from word of mouth and not from speculation. I am well aware of Duke's curriculum, Thank you.

Someone started the thread for information about Stanford, and I replied with information that I had, one piece being that it is the shortest program in the country. I don't go to Stanford, didn't apply to Stanford, and so I don't have any reason to embellish on its behalf. I was merely relaying information that I had been TOLD.

Just re-read what I wrote. I stated it clearly. Thanks.

 

[badger03]

Thanks everyone for your input so far.

Just to settle the tangential debate concerning the reason(s) why Stanford's MSTP is one of the shorter programs in the nation... At my interview, the directors and students all drew attention to the fact that in contrast to most other MSTP programs, Stanford does not require (and actually discourages) the idea of lab rotations before choosing a PhD lab. Students are encouraged to explore their options during the first year by weekly meetings with department heads as well as through personal initiative to seek out and meet faculty with similar research interests. As a consequence, students in the MSTP program can begin "thesis" research as early as the summer following the first year of med school. I believe that this contributes significantly to the reduced time for earning the dual degree.

Anyone care to comment on what student life might be like in Cali? I'm from the Midwest, so it's sure to be quite different.

Thanks

 

[Vader]

So, overall, its a very good school, but is particularly good for those interested in very cutting-edge work, utilizing the technological advantages offered by campus. For those interested in more old-school style thinking, more traditional practice, like for example, those interested in clinical research, or tropical medicine, more hands-on type of fields, I would venture to say UCSF would be the better choice, as well as several schools out east.

I agree Stanford is a good medical school with a great research program.

However, I don't know where you heard this stereotype of UCSF. When I was applying, I was looking for an MD/PhD program that provided both excellent clinical training and exceptional research opportunities. Stanford was one of the programs I was considering, but I felt that the program heavily emphasized research, while letting the medicine fall a little short. For me, I was interested in becoming a basic biomedical researcher with a clinical practice. Therefore, I wanted to find a place where I could optimize both interests.

The great thing about UCSF is that it is a place that has the best of both worlds: an extremely strong medical school and a powerhouse in research. Plus, it has the advantage of being in a beautiful world-class city full of fun and interesting things to do (everything from walking across the Golden Gate Bridge to going to the symphony or opera near the Civic Center). The curriculum offers considerable time to explore other interests, take graduate classes early, etc, and there is a general atmosphere of collegiality and collaboration.

Sorry about the detour from the Stanford MSTP topic, but I wanted to clear up any misconceptions about UCSF's MSTP. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.

Good luck to all in applying!

 

[ptiger]

Since this post has become a comparison of UCSF and Stanford, I thought I'd add my two cents

I must say that I agree with Vader. Stanford is focused on their research, not medical school. Wherever I went to interview I tried to ask a question along the lines of "which do you focus on more, the MD or PhD aspect of the training?" The director of the Stanford program responded, "We're trying to produce good researchers here." In contrast, Duke responded, "You're a doctor, first and foremost." This is one of the big factors that I will be using to make my final decision -- I want to get a top-quality medical education that isn't overshadowed by my research.

So, I would recommend going to UCSF if you want a better medical education. As UCSF pointed out to me, they are located in a big city and have a variety of hospitals. You will see everything from the diseases associated with lower income lifestyles to the strange and exotic. Stanford probably won't have this diversity, mostly because of their location. It's like Cornell versus Columbia -- they have a different hospital populations. On the other hand, if you want cutting-edge biotech research, Stanford is your place. You have to decide which is the most important to you.

Does anyone think that one has a more impressive name than the other?

 

[Vader]

It is probably better to start a separate thread for a UCSF versus Stanford comparison...

I'll just add here though that UCSF has recently opened the new Mission Bay campus, which will house a large number of basic research labs and new programs, including the Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research (QB3). I recommend checking out the web site at:
http://pub.ucsf.edu/missionbay/

 

[jmed]

Originally posted by ptiger
I was just about to ask the same question. Here's what I know. I went to the second to last interview date at Stanford (Feb 3rd). They told me then that they had one more date, but might need to add another. My friend who went on the last (planned) date said that they had indeed scheduled another set of interviews sometime in mid-March. She predicts we will hear by late March.

Just when I had almost given up hope, I got an interview invite yesterday for the most recently declared 'last' interview date, April 8th.

Would anybody be kind enough to relate the nature of the interviews at Stanford? Is the med school interview of the rubber stamp variety, or can a grilling on bioethics, health care reform, etc. be expected? What's the best way to spend a 1/2 day outside of the interviews on the Stanford campus/in the P.A. area? Does the MSTP arrange student hosts? Thanks for any suggestions!