the big hypothetical

[eightYrsPls]

---

Members do not see this ad.

In general, MD/PhD applicants are considered very "strong" MD applicants. I was wondering if anyone has thought about the following scenario/dilemma, as it seems like most or all of us will be facing it this year.

If you were accepted to an MST program of good standing, but not the best; not even close to your top choice... and you were also accepted to one of the best medical schools in the country (or the best medical school you applied to) ... which would you choose?

I'm applying MSTP because I really love medical research; but I admit I'd think real hard about that top school. Names mean so much today. Not getting your PhD doesn't mean you can't do research. But it would be harder to become an expert in something. You'd probably end up in a clinical research field instead of running a basic laboratory, which probably means giving up whatever research exposure you've had to date. But you have the 'wow' factor of attending the country's best medical school. Then again, going to an MD/PhD program anywhere is pretty prestigious in the first place...

What would you do?

 

[solitude]

Depending on your financial situation, you can always attend the prestigious medical school and either transfer into the MSTP or simply take a leave of absence from med school to do your PhD. That's what I would do, but my parents are willing to pay for med school in that event whereas most applicants' parents would not. If they weren't, I would go to the lower-ranked MSTP, assuming that it pays a full stipend, and work in the lab of one of their best researchers (e.g. an HHMI investigator). Even at mediocre schools there are a number of great faculty that do top-level research, but for some reason or another have not set up shop at a top-10. (Also, of course, there are a lot of mediocre faculty at great schools, particularly those tenured associate professors towards the tail end of their careers.) There comes a point where you have to stop worrying about prestige. I think my rule of thumb in this situation would be that if it is an NIH-funded MSTP, it's not below me.

In general, MD/PhD applicants are considered very "strong" MD applicants. I was wondering if anyone has thought about the following scenario/dilemma, as it seems like most or all of us will be facing it this year.

If you were accepted to an MST program of good standing, but not the best; not even close to your top choice... and you were also accepted to one of the best medical schools in the country (or the best medical school you applied to) ... which would you choose?

I'm applying MSTP because I really love medical research; but I admit I'd think real hard about that top school. Names mean so much today. Not getting your PhD doesn't mean you can't do research. But it would be harder to become an expert in something. You'd probably end up in a clinical research field instead of running a basic laboratory, which probably means giving up whatever research exposure you've had to date. But you have the 'wow' factor of attending the country's best medical school. Then again, going to an MD/PhD program anywhere is pretty prestigious in the first place...

What would you do?

 

[Neuronix]

If you were accepted to an MST program of good standing, but not the best; not even close to your top choice... and you were also accepted to one of the best medical schools in the country (or the best medical school you applied to) ... which would you choose?

The MSTP. But that really depends on how much you want to do a MD/PhD.

I'm applying MSTP because I really love medical research; but I admit I'd think real hard about that top school. Names mean so much today. Not getting your PhD doesn't mean you can't do research. But it would be harder to become an expert in something.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There are many many many experts in whatever field you want to research at schools that aren't known for having a strong medical school. You could train under all sorts of big names, just because you didn't get to a top-10.

You'd probably end up in a clinical research field instead of running a basic laboratory, which probably means giving up whatever research exposure you've had to date. But you have the 'wow' factor of attending the country's best medical school.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I went to the University of Delaware for my undergrad. You think when I apply to residency they're going to care at all about it? The same thing applies here. When you apply for faculty positions, do you think they're going to care where you did your MD/PhD? If anything, they're going to look to see who you trained under and your publication record, and believe me, you don't get more pubs just because you went to Harvard.

So who exactly are you going to "wow" with your country's best medical school? You're still going to be a top candidate for residency with an MD/PhD if you go into any of the traditional MD/PhD residencies (IM, peds, and path have been the top three for seemingly forever). From there you'll have to do fellowship and/or post-doc, and your residency is going to help you get those. You'll already be a top candidate for those just for being a MD/PhD.

It seems to me that you think the prestige of your medical counts a great deal for your future. I'm here to tell you it doesn't. Maybe a very tiny bit, but the MD/PhD far outweighs it.

 

[gbwillner]

If you were accepted to an MST program of good standing, but not the best; not even close to your top choice... and you were also accepted to one of the best medical schools in the country (or the best medical school you applied to) ... which would you choose?

a few things to consider.

1- how much do you really want to go to (insert school)? If you've dreamed your whole life of going to Harvard and you get in (but not MSTP), you may kick yourself for not going later... but hopefully you will wake up from this dilusional fantasy and realize the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

2- You get much more prestige from attending a reputable MSTP than any great MD program, hands down. Especially in research-heavy fields like Neurology, IM, Pedi, Path, and so on. So if you want to "pad" your resume, go MSTP. It shows you have maturity, expertise, and most of all, patience. Not to mention a real publication record.

3- You can't really define a "best" MSTP. They are good at different things, especially if your are going by PhD. Perhaps Harvard has the best Biochemistry department in the country, but maybe Baylor has the best genetics, etc. If you're going only by MD rankings... well, you may need to reconsider your priorities.

4- You are right when you say you don't need the PhD for research, but it sure does help.

 

[RxnMan]

In general, MD/PhD applicants are considered very "strong" MD applicants. I was wondering if anyone has thought about the following scenario/dilemma, as it seems like most or all of us will be facing it this year.

If you were accepted to an MST program of good standing, but not the best; not even close to your top choice... and you were also accepted to one of the best medical schools in the country (or the best medical school you applied to) ... which would you choose?

The MD program. But my interests are different than others on this forum. I seriously considered going MD/PhD. Why didn't I do it? Since deciding on this career path, I knew I wanted to do research and clinical work. I want to be MD faculty at some point, but I never want the hassle of being a PI (writing/getting/managing grants and the lab). As it worked out, I got my masters degree before getting into a MD program (as opposed to earning a MHP or similar degree during a specialization fellowship).

At this point, a PhD may give me extra or enhanced career options (e.g. becoming a PI) at the cost of time and salary. These options aren't ones that I desire, so it doesn't make sense for me to pursue the extra degree. In my mind, I have the level of research training appropriate for the level of research I want to conduct in my career.

A common trend you will see in all of these responses is how program choice is a function of career choice. Think about what kind of doc you want to be - researcher, clinician, or some mix in between - and let that guide your decision. If you don't know where you want to go, then go for the path that gives you the most options. Also, nearly all MD schools also have MD-PhD programs that accept internal applicants, so you aren't determining the course of your life with this one choice.

 

[QofQuimica]

What would you do?

Are you asking me to decide in my case or yours? In mine, I've gone to state schools my entire life. Can't see any reason for me to start caring a lot about names now. 😉 In your case, go with the prestigious MD program. It obviously means a lot to you to attend a name brand school, and I don't think you're really posting here to have any of us try to change your mind. 🙂

 

[dr.z]

You can goto the top MD only program first. While you are there you can try to get into their MD/Ph.D program.

 

[eightYrsPls]

I guess a bunch of you missed the title of the post 😉 this is a hypothetical, and I didn't really espouse my own feelings on the subject. It's just a conversation subject--what would you do? This wasn't an invitation to criticize my post and/or opinion.

I'll tell you what I think at the end, but first I'll respond to some other's posts:

I have no idea what you're talking about. There are many many many experts in whatever field you want to research at schools that aren't known for having a strong medical school. You could train under all sorts of big names, just because you didn't get to a top-10.

I never said you couldn't train under a big name at a non-top 10. In fact, my argument in that comment was that it would be harder to be an expert going the MD route.. not the MSTP route. So I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I went to the University of Delaware for my undergrad. You think when I apply to residency they're going to care at all about it? The same thing applies here. When you apply for faculty positions, do you think they're going to care where you did your MD/PhD? If anything, they're going to look to see who you trained under and your publication record, and believe me, you don't get more pubs just because you went to Harvard.

More pubs? No, you still need to do the work.. but publications in better journals? Maybe. My evidence for that is purely anecdotal though.

It seems to me that you think the prestige of your medical counts a great deal for your future. I'm here to tell you it doesn't. Maybe a very tiny bit, but the MD/PhD far outweighs it.

It obviously means a lot to you to attend a name brand school, and I don't think you're really posting here to have any of us try to change your mind.

It appears you both misread me and my intentions here 🙂

I agree wholeheartedly that the MSTP is the better route. I'm holding one MSTP acceptance at a school "ranked" in the 30s, but not even close to my first choice. Two days ago I was rejected Yale MSTP, and today I was offered a Yale MD interview.

I respectfully declined, and withdrew my app from Yale.

 

[Neuronix]

In fact, my argument in that comment was that it would be harder to be an expert going the MD route.. not the MSTP route.

You're right; I thought you were arguing the other way, but that was my misread. I'd like to take that part of my post back.

 

[QofQuimica]

It appears you both misread me and my intentions here 🙂

I agree wholeheartedly that the MSTP is the better route. I'm holding one MSTP acceptance at a school "ranked" in the 30s, but not even close to my first choice. Two days ago I was rejected Yale MSTP, and today I was offered a Yale MD interview.

I respectfully declined, and withdrew my app from Yale.

If you really were just playing devil's advocate, then my apologies. In all fairness, however, you must understand that an awful lot of the "hypothetical" questions that we see here on SDN about someone's friend's brother's dog's cousin's application are really thinly veiled disguises for help with one's own concerns. 😉

Sorry to hear about the Yale MSTP. But if you already have an MSTP acceptance, and an MSTP is what you really want to do, then I think you did the sensible thing. 🙂

 

[vector07]

I am in an eerily similar situation as EightYrs... I feel mostly the same, though I think there are additional considerations. For example, you can apply MSTP after starting as a first year medical student (solitude mentioned this). Does anyone have information about how easy or hard it is to gain acceptance to an MST program after you're enrolled as a medical student at that school? I realize this is probably school dependent..

Still, I agree with EightYrs, Neuronix, etc--it seems like the MSTP is a much better choice. In one case, you go to your MSTP and you're done. In the other, you elect to follow a path you're not completely satisfied with, and hope to gain admission in the 2nd year. That probably means you have to kick ass in M1, plus continuing research, etc. Then you apply (again) and interview (again).. too much stress.

In any case, it's interesting to hear these arguments.

 

[Circumflex]

Ask yourself why you want a PhD and be honest. If it is for prestige, "wow" factor, or to make yourself more competitive for residency, I would not do the MSTP. But, if you want to have protected time to really learn how to be a scientist in every aspect, then do the MSTP - success will follow.

 

[Neuronix]

In all fairness, however, you must understand that an awful lot of the "hypothetical" questions that we see here on SDN about someone's friend's brother's dog's cousin's application are really thinly veiled disguises for help with one's own concerns. 😉

Similarly, every year without fail there is a thread about MSTP vs. Harvard MD-only. Alot of people faced with that decision will take the Harvard MD, even when given the option of another big name MSTP. I think it boils down to how much you want to do the MD/PhD. You could potentially get the MD/PhD at Harvard, this is true, though not many will switch.

 

[QofQuimica]

Similarly, every year without fail there is a thread about MSTP vs. Harvard MD-only. Alot of people faced with that decision will take the Harvard MD, even when given the option of another big name MSTP. I think it boils down to how much you want to do the MD/PhD. You could potentially get the MD/PhD at Harvard, this is true, though not many will switch.

How easy is it to switch from MD to MD/PhD, Neuro (or anyone else who wants to chime in)? Since I am doing separate degrees, I have no experience with this. My experience was that it is next to impossible to start a PhD program and then transfer into the MSTP. Hence I had to finish the whole PhD first, and then start the MD. But my impression is that it is easier to do it the other way around (i.e., MD to MD/PhD). Anyone know how MUCH easier?

 

[Neuronix]

How easy is it to switch from MD to MD/PhD, Neuro (or anyone else who wants to chime in)? Anyone know how MUCH easier?

It depends on the program. Some programs (like Penn and I think WashU) encourage their MD students to apply for the MD/PhD program and a high proportion of them will get in. Some programs don't actively encourage it, but will take a good proportion of applicants. Then other programs it's very rare or pretty much forbidden. In general though it's much easier than PhDs switching to MD/PhD which ranges from forbidden to very rare.

 

[RxnMan]

How easy is it to switch from MD to MD/PhD, Neuro (or anyone else who wants to chime in)? Since I am doing separate degrees, I have no experience with this. My experience was that it is next to impossible to start a PhD program and then transfer into the MSTP. Hence I had to finish the whole PhD first, and then start the MD. But my impression is that it is easier to do it the other way around (i.e., MD to MD/PhD). Anyone know how MUCH easier?

If I wanted to switch from MD to a MD/PhD, I could do so by saying a much loudly. It's that easy at my school.

Granted there's paperwork and a formal application, but I don't think any MD student who honestly likes doing research and wants to continue a project would have any problems.

Now, to go from MD to MSTP, that's different. That requires NIH participation and NIH $$$, which to my recollection, my school does not provide. In a school that had MD/PhD and MSTP programs, I'd guess that it would depend on how many MSTP slots they had available. If the school used up their MSTP spots, then you'd be be a candidate for a MD/PhD (as above).

 

[Neuronix]

Now, to go from MD to MSTP, that's different. That requires NIH participation and NIH $$$, which to my recollection, my school does not provide. In a school that had MD/PhD and MSTP programs, I'd guess that it would depend on how many MSTP slots they had available. If the school used up their MSTP spots, then you'd be be a candidate for a MD/PhD (as above).

The real question is whether or not you're getting full funding for the MD/PhD. If that's the case, who cares if you're MD/PhD or MSTP (i.e. where the money comes from)? Some will give you funding starting your second year of med school and then throughout, others will give you funding starting in your PhD years and fund your last years of med school.

There are some programs that won't want to fund you, but I wasn't really including them when I was talking. You could always be a med student and take a few years off to get a PhD. Any biomedical PhD program is going to include full funding. So, no medical school is going to stop you if you want to take some time off for a PhD. I don't really consider that a MD/PhD program, however.

 

[RxnMan]

Neuronix, while I apprecitate the differences you're pointing out, it is moot - I had my fill of being a lackey in academia (i.e., grad student, see post above), and I'm not going back to academia without a doctorate!