Switch to MD/PhD after applying MD?

[Haybrant]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi is it possible to switch to be in the MD/PhD applicant pool after indicating you wish to do MD? I have really good research exper with multiple papers and Im worried that it is not carrying enough weight in the MD application process as it might in the MD/PhD. Anyone know if this is possible? Ive been pretty torn about not applying MD/PhD initially; I am researching this year and like it alot and can see myself getting into research in the future, so I dont think my motivations are misplaced. thanks for the info!


edit: would I be competative in this pool with a 3.7, 32Q? I have a first auth abstract, poster pres at AACR, 3 co-authors (last author tho) and a first auth in revision (oncogene). Do they even care about papers on which you are last author?

 

[tr]

Hi is it possible to switch to be in the MD/PhD applicant pool after indicating you wish to do MD?

Usually the MD-PhD secondary is longer and more detailed than the MD-only secondary. You'd have to resubmit your secondary, and that might cause problems this late in the game.

I have really good research exper with multiple papers and Im worried that it is not carrying enough weight in the MD application process as it might in the MD/PhD. Anyone know if this is possible?

It's probably true that these would carry more weight in the MD/PhD, but I'm sure they'll help you plenty for MD only. In any case your numbers seem competitive, so what are you so worried about?

Ive been pretty torn about not applying MD/PhD initially; I am researching this year and like it alot and can see myself getting into research in the future, so I dont think my motivations are misplaced. thanks for the info!

MD-PhD is a big commitment; don't undertake it unless you are sure you want a research career. If you do decide that, it should be possible for you to switch into the MD-PhD program at your school after 1 year of medicine.

edit: would I be competitive in this pool with a 3.7, 32Q? I have a first auth abstract, poster pres at AACR, 3 co-authors (last author tho) and a first auth in revision (oncogene). Do they even care about papers on which you are last author?

Your numbers sound fine for an MD-PhD applicant. The MCAT might keep you out of the most selective programs; then again it might not, depending on how well you come across in your interviews.

Regarding last-author papers, as far as I know in basic research the convention is for the PI to be listed as the last author. Were you doing clinical research? If so, be aware that MD-PhD programs usually want to see some experience with basic research. (Although if you're publishing in Oncogene, that certainly sounds basic enough; the last author thing is confusing me, though.)

In any case, I think after second author, a paper is really just a tangible indication that you've spent some time in a lab, which they'll know from the rest of your CV anyway. I suppose it's helpful, but not really a big deal.

 

[Haybrant]

Usually the MD-PhD secondary is longer and more detailed than the MD-only secondary. You'd have to resubmit your secondary, and that might cause problems this late in the game.



It's probably true that these would carry more weight in the MD/PhD, but I'm sure they'll help you plenty for MD only. In any case your numbers seem competitive, so what are you so worried about?



MD-PhD is a big commitment; don't undertake it unless you are sure you want a research career. If you do decide that, it should be possible for you to switch into the MD-PhD program at your school after 1 year of medicine.



Your numbers sound fine for an MD-PhD applicant. The MCAT might keep you out of the most selective programs; then again it might not, depending on how well you come across in your interviews.

Regarding last-author papers, as far as I know in basic research the convention is for the PI to be listed as the last author. Were you doing clinical research? If so, be aware that MD-PhD programs usually want to see some experience with basic research. (Although if you're publishing in Oncogene, that certainly sounds basic enough; the last author thing is confusing me, though.)

In any case, I think after second author, a paper is really just a tangible indication that you've spent some time in a lab, which they'll know from the rest of your CV anyway. I suppose it's helpful, but not really a big deal.

thanks for the info; excellent stuff! yah by last author i meant last or second to last author before PI; it's all basic sci research