"Too old" for MSTP?

[tbo]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've been doing more research on some programs and came across this idea that you might be too old for MSTP (that is, at the time of matriculation). Specifically, a program director (whom I'll leave anonymous) told me that they push to get their students out of their program by the age of 30.

I was curious if any of the older applicants (and subsequently older MSTPers) who ran into this, with adcomms in their interviews, or came across friction with age. This is something that I never considered to be a problem, per se. Anyone ever come across age as a limiting factor in MSTP success?

 

[meowkat444]

is it possible that he was saying that to apply to the 22-year olds who enter, because if they didn't do that, then they would have been there for 8+ years? perhaps he only meant he pushes to get people out by 8 years after they matriculate.

as someone who will matriculate when 25.... 😛

 

[tbo]

is it possible that he was saying that to apply to the 22-year olds who enter, because if they didn't do that, then they would have been there for 8+ years? perhaps he only meant he pushes to get people out by 8 years after they matriculate.

as someone who will matriculate when 25.... 😛

Perhaps. But he knew my age, which is 28. I appreciate the sentiment though, meowkat 😉.

I'm not trying to freak anyone out, I just never factored age as a potentially negative aspect to MD/PhD admissions. At best, I thought it might be a good thing, the older students having (potentially) more conviction to the long haul of an MSTP and maturity to add to the class. This could also be just an outlier, or a really candid, honest-to-goodness truth that this bias exists.

 

[ClarinetGeek]

While I entered my program at the age of 22, I can think of several examples of individuals in my MSTP who entered 3-5 (perhaps more) years older than myself. So no, I don't think that at the age of 28 you should be completely ignored by adcoms. You may get some akward questions by a few interviews who may want to you to realize the ramifications of entering the program at the age of 28; however, I think they are just checking your response to be sure you understand the potential consequences and are still committed to the program. They just want to make sure that you won't drop out along the way. Actually I think of someone who I interviewd with at another program who was in his 30s and he did very well receiving a few acceptances at great programs. No worries. I am curious to see what others have to say with perhaps more direct experiences.

Good Luck.

 

[dl2dp2]

there are different lines of thoughts on this issue.

my personal belief is, though, that you should try to get into an MSTP as young as possible. Graduating med school after 35 is very painful. Tag on 4 yrs of residency and 2 yrs of fellowship/postdoc, you'll be assistant professor at the age of 42. That is a whole decade later than a regular MD graduate entering at 22.

PhD is, by and large, disorganized and very wasteful. (i'd refrain from my trademark "a waste of time".) Older folks simply don't have that much time to goof around. I caution against anyone entering MSTP who is over 25.

 

[1Path]

I was curious if any of the older applicants (and subsequently older MSTPers) who ran into this, with adcomms in their interviews, or came across friction with age. This is something that I never considered to be a problem, per se. Anyone ever come across age as a limiting factor in MSTP success?

I'm 40 and I've come across friction which I call pure ignorance, from a few schools, (UT-Houston immediately comes to mind). The overwhelming majority of the schools I've talked to, including the mid ranked school I currently attend for graduate school (non MSTP) are cool with my career plans and I consider myself lucky. Not because they have "ignored" my age, but because they recognize and support my talent irrespective of age.

Honestly, anytime I hear negative talk about why people at a certain age shouldn't doing anything academic, the first thing that comes to mind is that these folks are likely motivated to medicine by money since they seemd so focused on your earning potential as if it affects THEIR bottom line. 🙄

Well, I say if you've already acquired many of the "toys" your yonger classmates are STILL striving for, then doing what you love becomes less of a issue. And even if you haven't or those trivial things aren't important to you, do what you love anyway!

All the best!

Another ol' future MD/PhD

 

[jeniffer lopez]

I caution against anyone entering MSTP who is over 25.

I am 27 (going on 28 soon) and my age was NEVER a concern. Actually, pretty much every interviewer mentioned the pluses of being more mature when I brought up the fact that I felt everybody else was much younger than me. One program director even told me that he would accept me rather than a younger person because he knew I was in this because I knew what I was doing, and that "it is pretty impossible" to know you want an academic career when you are 21. Again, I WAS THE ONE bringing up the issue when I interviewed because I truly wanted to hear what other people had to say. One of my toughest interviewers, and the end of the interview, told me that she really liked the fact that I was older. I told her I saw it as a disadvantage (I was very honest during this process) and she told me that I had no idea how much stronger my age and my life experiences made me.

I must say the only people that had issues with my age where the other applicants, particularly the younger girls. Some said "eeeww, you are old!" when they asked me how old I was...and I don't even look my age!!!🙁 I guess they think they are going to be 21 for the rest of their lives jejejejeje

I totally agree with the post that mentioned that people concerned about your age are more worried about the money you are losing, but if you do what you love, nothing else should matter🙂

 

[RxnMan]

I've been doing more research on some programs and came across this idea that you might be too old for MSTP (that is, at the time of matriculation). Specifically, a program director (whom I'll leave anonymous) told me that they push to get their students out of their program by the age of 30...

This is actually a good thing - the shorter the PhD, the better. One thing I've found fascinating is how much more support med students get when completing a PhD as compared to a non-med completing the same PhD.

...I was curious if any of the older applicants (and subsequently older MSTPers) who ran into this, with adcomms in their interviews, or came across friction with age...

There are many ways to get qualifications that will advance your research career that don't take 3-5 years to complete. Look around this forum (especially at the stickies) and see what other people have tried.

 

[QofQuimica]

Perhaps. But he knew my age, which is 28. I appreciate the sentiment though, meowkat 😉.

I'm not trying to freak anyone out, I just never factored age as a potentially negative aspect to MD/PhD admissions. At best, I thought it might be a good thing, the older students having (potentially) more conviction to the long haul of an MSTP and maturity to add to the class. This could also be just an outlier, or a really candid, honest-to-goodness truth that this bias exists.

I think as long as you're under age 30 when you apply, you will not have problems with most people questioning your age. Once you reach your 30s, it will get harder. I got some minor resistance at a couple of schools even as a very competitive 30-year-old applicant to MD-only programs. You can go over to the nontrad forum and read about the problems faced by applicants over age 35 (though to be fair, it's very hard to tease apart the possibility of age discrimination because of the significantly lower stats that older students tend to have on average versus younger students). I think that only the truly brave like 1path would even attempt to begin an MD/PhD program while in their 40s.

 

[tbo]

Much appreciated to all who responded. My general feeling is, I think there are some very practical issues that need a critical eye. Yes, the 7-8 year haul is long and occurs at a time in life where a number of detractors arise or unplanned events occur (marriage, kids, etc). Similarly, postponing any kind of residency or fellowship to 40 really limits productivity during your "prime", so it would be like investing $200,000 into a 1995 Toyota Camry. If I was program director, I could see the logic in investing in youth.

However, I think this sort of logic is incomplete. I'd be interested to see different attrition rates for younger med students vs older med students. While it's pure speculation, I bet the rate is higher in young MSTPers and MD onlys. As jenniferlopez stated, it's really challenging to know what you want to do for the next 40+ years at the age of 21. My suspicion with the 1path's and the non-trads of the world, they have likely gone through a series of professional experiences that brought about a very visceral reason(s) for the MD/PhD path. Those visceral motivations drive diligent and directed work, perhaps the most important ingredient of any form of research.

Clearly, everything I've said applies to all MSTPers, young and old alike..... which is precisely why I think the range of ages should really be -- at worst -- a non-issue and at best -- encouraged. Diversity in thought and experience leads to better science. This should include field of interest, undergraduate experience, research experience, and life experience, if you ask me.

 

[Maebea]

While it's pure speculation, I bet the rate is higher in young MSTPers and MD onlys.

This is true. We have found that precocity is not an indicator of success. Those 20 and younger are more likely to experience difficulty and/or drop out of the program than those 24 and older. The n is relatively small, but they are consistent. From what I can tell by annecdotes shared among programs, this is generally true across the country.

 

[1Path]

I think that only the truly brave like 1path would even attempt to begin an MD/PhD program while in their 40s.

Thanks Q, but I'm just trying to be like you, a future Dr. Qof Farmacología

 

[meowkat444]

re: the attrition rate for youngins, I do think that in some cases you can sell being out of college for a few years as a plus, as said before. i think it's generally suggested that you only do MSTP if you really can't imagine doing anything else, which is all the more convincing if you actually *did* try to do something else.

 

[bottles999]

I'm 40 and I've come across friction which I call pure ignorance, from a few schools, (UT-Houston immediately comes to mind). The overwhelming majority of the schools I've talked to, including the mid ranked school I currently attend for graduate school (non MSTP) are cool with my career plans and I consider myself lucky. Not because they have "ignored" my age, but because they recognize and support my talent irrespective of age.

Another ol' future MD/PhD

I have to agree with 1path and Q. Once you get in your 30s there will be questions about yourage and motivations. At even higher ages I believe will limit yourself, suc as to Non-MSTP funded programs - IMHO. I mean there are certainly enough qualified candidates in their 20s and 30s/40s for the 4-5, certainly <10, slots available in most MSTP schools. The thinking is probably more on potential output. Why invest such a huge amount on someone that has 10 fewer years or more to contribute as MD-PhD. That might be the 'official' thoughts. Atleast that was part of the conclusions I came too after going through the interviewing process.

I am pretty much the same age as 1path and will be starting a non-MSTP MD-PhD program in the fall. On one hand its a shame since the there is a wealth of expereince thse ppl have from previous careers and life experiences they have to offer. Certainly, have a unique perspective then going from college--> MD/PhD directly. However, I do see their point relative to return on investment, measured by the amount of time available to do future science.

Good luck to you

 

[ChildNeuro]

I don't think that you can measure the benefit to society of physician scientists solely in terms of years worked as physician scientist. For example, what about that med student in Australia ( I think), who discovered that H. pylori lives in the hostile world of the GI tract, there have been *alot* of decreased morbidity and mortality because of that discovery. Now, what about an MD-PhD who worked their whole life, maybe even churned out alot of papers, but didn't really push the science forward? What are their accomplishments? sitting on committees? Also, some physician scientists work into their 70s, 80s, and beyond, personally I want to work into my 90s, so someone who enters the field late may actually work longer/more productively than someone who enters it at an early age. I would think that older applicants have more focused goals as physician scientists than the average someone who went into it early on. Sure you can measure years as a productive physician in years, but the quality/productiveness of PhDs and research scientists varies widely, so I think that 40 years versus 45 years is a minor/nonsignifican point.

 

[1Path]

I would think that older applicants have more focused goals as physician scientists than the average someone who went into it early on.

In my case I've decided on a medical speciality pathology, which I don't believe is all that unusual among nontrads. I started reading slides in 2003. By the time I finish my residency/fellowship in ~2019, I will have been reading slides for 14 years obviously some years more than others. Compared to my younger counterparts, who maybe decided on path as an MS-4 because they couldn't get into derm or perhaps as an after thought to a low board score, I'm not at all worried about my age in 2019 (53) or not being able to "contribute" to science. As Dr. Carson says, what you do most, is what you do best.


On top of that, I associate the word retirement with apoptosis of neurons ie plaques and tangles, and I ain't all that interested in that.😛

 

[tbo]

This is true. We have found that precocity is not an indicator of success.

Only because this is the research forum, what precisely was the definition of success? Tenure 30-40 years later? # of publications? # of high quality publications? Graduation rates? I'm pretty stunned we have someone in the forum who's actually researched this. Right on!

As for all the other responses, thanks again. There's no doubt I will still be applying MD/PhD this summer, but a lot of good points were raised.

Just as bottles999 and 1path have noted, there is tremendous wealth of experience and competency that is had in the years preceding MD/PhD. Again, this could be true with any applicant, young or old. I've spent much of my last 5 years doing the kind of research that I would love to do after training is through (hopefully with a bit more personal insight and autonomy 😉). I suspect it will be easier for the likes of 1path and anyone else in the same boat to "hit the ground running" after training ends and a career recommences. Good discussion, good luck to all.

 

[bottles999]

I don't think that you can measure the benefit to society of physician scientists solely in terms of years worked as physician scientist. For example, what about that med student in Australia ( I think), who discovered that H. pylori lives in the hostile world of the GI tract, there have been *alot* of decreased morbidity and mortality because of that discovery. Now, what about an MD-PhD who worked their whole life, maybe even churned out alot of papers, but didn't really push the science forward? What are their accomplishments? sitting on committees? Also, some physician scientists work into their 70s, 80s, and beyond, personally I want to work into my 90s, so someone who enters the field late may actually work longer/more productively than someone who enters it at an early age. I would think that older applicants have more focused goals as physician scientists than the average someone who went into it early on. Sure you can measure years as a productive physician in years, but the quality/productiveness of PhDs and research scientists varies widely, so I think that 40 years versus 45 years is a minor/nonsignifican point.

I fully agree with you. However, when your trying to guage whom you most like think would contribute most over time. Someone that is young will win out everytime vs. someone in the upper 30s/40s. There is just more opportunity, realized or not. They unfortunately do not have the hindsight to see what accomplishments a particular individual has made or a crystal ball to predict what one will do. So they can only judge that by the merits of the individual and the time/opportunity to make those significant contributions. So that is one factor I am sure they consider when deciding where to invest for their limited scholarship Dollars.

That is all I am saying.

 

[mdphd2b]

Perhaps. But he knew my age, which is 28. I appreciate the sentiment though, meowkat 😉.

I'm not trying to freak anyone out, I just never factored age as a potentially negative aspect to MD/PhD admissions. At best, I thought it might be a good thing, the older students having (potentially) more conviction to the long haul of an MSTP and maturity to add to the class. This could also be just an outlier, or a really candid, honest-to-goodness truth that this bias exists.

Hey there,

I started MSTP back in 2000 when I was 28 (I'm 35 now). I know several ppl who startted at 25-30. I agree it gets harder if you're 30+. Even if they don't question your age, after a few years you begin to question yourself. Like right now I'm on my trauma surgery rotation, and being older than some of my residents (and even junior attendings) is just weird! I definitely miss my sleep, and want to be in bed by 9pm while the youngsters can't miss "Idol".

Geritol, anyone 😴

 

[1Path]

However, when your trying to guage whom you most like think would contribute most over time. Someone that is young will win out everytime vs. someone in the upper 30s/40s. There is just more opportunity, realized or not.

This may be true for young MEN but I definitely don't think this is true for young women.

What I see happening in numbers which I think are "dangerous" careerwise for ALL women especially those is academia, is that a lot of these young women are quiting working altogether when they realize how difficulut it is to have 2 kids in diapers while balancing a career.

A very good thing about an applicant in thier mid to late 30's is that they have very likely already had children, so there's a better chance that they will complete the degrees and WORK. Perhaps adcoms should think about this too when considering age.

Finally, everyone talks about how much "harder" medicine is when you're older. And it's almost impossible for me not to think that if nontrads took better care of themselves as they aged especially as it relates to regular excersise weight gain, perhaps they'd feel better. Now that I think about it, maybe EVERYONE would feel better if they did these things.

 

[QofQuimica]

When I said it's harder to apply over age 30, I'm talking about how others perceive you, not how you perceive yourself. I got interviewed at one school by an attending who was around my age. He asked me such profound questions like how I felt about being older than all of my classmates, how I felt about being older than the residents, how I felt about finishing residency at age 40, etc. I thought, wow, he's right. I really *am* older than a lot of the residents already.

 

[1Path]

When I said it's harder to apply over age 30, I'm talking about how others perceive you, not how you perceive yourself.

To be perfectly honest as a black woman, I've been dealing with how others perceive me ALL of my life so much so, that you get to a point where the preceptions of others simply don't mean jack s&*t. Of course it wasn't always this way and I when I was in my 20's, I let a LOT of other people's perceptions cause me to feel discouraged, but I quickly got over that and you have to in order to survive academically.

The way I see it, self-doubt at the Physician/Scientist level of the game whether you're older, a racial minority, or both, will get you "eaten alive" quickly! Still I wouldn't describe that as hard, I describe that as "life" but an interesting piont, nontheless.

 

[cadilakgrl]

The way I see it, self-doubt at the Physician/Scientist level of the game whether you're older, a racial minority, or both, will get you "eaten alive" quickly! Still I wouldn't describe that as hard, I describe that as "life" but an interesting piont, nontheless.

I totally agree with 1Path. Especially as an woman in science people already make up their mind that you aren't as capable, then being older on top of that leads to a lot of strange misconceptions from younger peers. I really don't give a crap anymore what people think about me. I try to be friendly, but I say what I mean, and if people still have some weird notion about older women MSTP students that is their problem. You have to not care about how people perceive you, or as 1Path said you won't survive and the self-doubt will hurt you in the long run.

 

[RxnMan]

...Especially as an woman in science people already make up their mind that you aren't as capable, then being older on top of that leads to a lot of strange misconceptions from younger peers...

The funny thing is, from watching my female classmates and their advisors, and from my female classmates telling me directly, it's usually women in science telling women in science that they aren't as capable. There's still the old boys and all that, but thankfully most of those guys are dying out and taking their viewpoint. with them Yet some of these women in science (pioneers, really) feel that those in training are either not skilled enough, not dedicated enough (read: unwilling to put career before having a family), or not smart enough. Or, if you are driven, capable, and smart, then you're a threat. (There's nothing wrong with putting career before family, if that's what you choose, but wanting to have kids doesn't make you a poor scientist (or other trained professional)).

//Random tangential comment on something I think is crazy, please continue with your regularly scheduled posting//

 

[cadilakgrl]

The funny thing is, from watching my female classmates and their advisors, and from my female classmates telling me directly, it's usually women in science telling women in science that they aren't as capable. There's still the old boys and all that, but thankfully most of those guys are dying out and taking their viewpoint. with them Yet some of these women in science (pioneers, really) feel that those in training are either not skilled enough, not dedicated enough (read: unwilling to put career before having a family), or not smart enough. Or, if you are driven, capable, and smart, then you're a threat. (There's nothing wrong with putting career before family, if that's what you choose, but wanting to have kids doesn't make you a poor scientist (or other trained professional)).

//Random tangential comment on something I think is crazy, please continue with your regularly scheduled posting//

Totally agree. Sometimes we are our worst enemy that is for sure. But there are still a lot of men out there who feel like women aren't as capable and it often comes out in subtle, or not so subtle ways. I couple of years ago it was the dean of Harvard or some such person who said that women were scientifically and mentally inferior. It's still very much out there, although probably exponentially less than 20 or 30 years ago.

I don't really want to turn this into a gender debate but just point out that unfortunately there is still discrimination out there against women scientists coming from both men and women.

 

[jjmack]

Totally agree. Sometimes we are our worst enemy that is for sure. But there are still a lot of men out there who feel like women aren't as capable and it often comes out in subtle, or not so subtle ways. I couple of years ago it was the dean of Harvard or some such person who said that women were scientifically and mentally inferior. It's still very much out there, although probably exponentially less than 20 or 30 years ago.

I don't really want to turn this into a gender debate but just point out that unfortunately there is still discrimination out there against women scientists coming from both men and women.

it was the ex-president of harvard. and he didn't say he thought women were inferior personally he was paraphrasing something that a committe he was on with other ivy league presidents. The president of princeton confirmed that one theory the committee was discussing was whether or not females had an innate difference. and the president of princeton is female with a PhD in molecular bio who happens to be a member of the national academy.

 

[RxnMan]

...I couple of years ago it was the dean of Harvard or some such person who said that women were scientifically and mentally inferior...

...he was paraphrasing something that a committe he was on with other ivy league presidents. The president of princeton confirmed that one theory the committee was discussing was whether or not females had an innate difference...

Adding names to the losing end of a debate, no matter how prestigious they are, just adds losers.

 

[1Path]

Or, if you are driven, capable, and smart, then you're a threat.

Don't forget half way decent looking with a desire to look feminine ie wear makeup or dress nicely.🙄

I agree with your post as well, women are their own worst enemies. So much so that I try my hardest to avoid women PI's, especially single, childless, PI's and to say more would require another thread, so I'll leave it at that. I know it's hypocritical to feel this way but it's all about survival, MY survival and I've been not burned, but scrotched too many times to feel differently.

I don't really want to turn this into a gender debate but just point out that unfortunately there is still discrimination out there against women scientists coming from both men and women.

I say it all the time, I've experienced far more gender discrimination than racial discrimination in academia.