Tri-I MD/PHD Admissions

[polyploidy516]

Hey guys, I was wondering how feasible it is for an individual with a 3.6 (strong upward trend) and a 36 mcat to have a realistic shot at this program and those of similiar caliber. I have low grades during the first 2 yrs (3 C+s and 1 C retaken for an A-), but worked hard enough to secure that 3.6 gpa. Is my gpa just too low for these programs?

Additionally, I was reading into their admissions criteria and they stated that they strongly encourage disadvantaged/minority students to apply. As I will be applying disadvantaged, will this factor play a strong role in increasing my chances in securing admission to this university? Furthermore, what does an individual need to increase his chances at MD/PHD programs? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[solitude]

Hey guys, I was wondering how feasible it is for an individual with a 3.6 (strong upward trend) and a 36 mcat to have a realistic shot at this program and those of similiar caliber. I have low grades during the first 2 yrs (3 C+s and 1 C retaken for an A-), but worked hard enough to secure that 3.6 gpa. Is my gpa just too low for these programs?

Additionally, I was reading into their admissions criteria and they stated that they strongly encourage disadvantaged/minority students to apply. As I will be applying disadvantaged, will this factor play a strong role in increasing my chances in securing admission to this university? Furthermore, what does an individual need to increase his chances at MD/PHD programs? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!

Your grades and MCAT are certainly within the range of top-caliber MSTP programs. There are numerous posters on the board that can attest to gaining admission to various programs with similar numbers. So, no, your GPA is not too low, especially with your upward trend.

I have no idea exactly how much of an advantage it can be to apply disadvantaged/minority, but it's safe to say that it will provide at least some boost.

To increase your chances to MD-PhD programs, probably the most important thing is RESEARCH. You can have a 3.6 and a 36, but without great research experience, you're mostly screwed. The general consensus is that an applicant should have at least 2 years of quality lab research prior to matriculation, but it always helps to have more if you can.

Finally, I would encourage you NOT to set your sights on a particular school (e.g., Tri-I), especially before you've even interviewed. This process appears to be a total crapshoot from the applicant's perspective: some people get into schools that are arguably "better" or more difficult, statistically, to get accepted to than many others that reject them. Just look at the mdapps links on various profiles and you will see that anecdotally, you really can't predict which schools are going to accept a given applicant, so for your sanity, it's best to not put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[j-weezy]

Finally, I would encourage you NOT to set your sights on a particular school (e.g., Tri-I), especially before you've even interviewed. This process appears to be a total crapshoot from the applicant's perspective: some people get into schools that are arguably "better" or more difficult, statistically, to get accepted to than many others that reject them. Just look at the mdapps links on various profiles and you will see that anecdotally, you really can't predict which schools are going to accept a given applicant, so for your sanity, it's best to not put all your eggs in one basket.

I wholeheartedly agree. QFT^n

 

[chirpingmobiles]

Hey guys, I was wondering how feasible it is for an individual with a 3.6 (strong upward trend) and a 36 mcat to have a realistic shot at this program and those of similiar caliber. I have low grades during the first 2 yrs (3 C+s and 1 C retaken for an A-), but worked hard enough to secure that 3.6 gpa. Is my gpa just too low for these programs?

Additionally, I was reading into their admissions criteria and they stated that they strongly encourage disadvantaged/minority students to apply. As I will be applying disadvantaged, will this factor play a strong role in increasing my chances in securing admission to this university? Furthermore, what does an individual need to increase his chances at MD/PHD programs? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!

I don't know the initial selection criteria at any given school, but it's certainly possible to get into those type of programs with your stats. You probably do need to pass certain cutoffs for different schools, but once you get by that, it's all about developing a compelling and cohesive narrative about why you're particularly well-suited/prepared for these particular programs given all your experiences (most importantly your research, but also future interests, obstacles you overcame, disadvantaged background, etc). Then you have to deliver that narrative through your secondaries and interviews; it's all about convincing your interviewers to advocate your case strongly to their respective committees. Oh, and it helps if all the main points in your narrative are backed up by your letters of recommendation.

As for Cornell in particular, someone told me they filter people out who haven't published. I have NO idea if this is true, however, so take this with a grain of salt. I hope all this is somewhat helpful.

 

[Celeritus]

As for Cornell in particular, someone told me they filter people out who haven't published.

Almost certain that this is not true at this program. As with most programs, publication looked upon favorably, but is not an unexamined accomplishment, not a proxy for research success/experience, and certainly not a necessity for admission.

 

[MedRower]

No, it's definitely true for this program.

I was told so myself by a faculty member who screens apps for the program. (I met him when I interviewed MD-only.)

You really ought to be published if you're going to apply.

I think this is a myth that hurt me enormously. I believed that it would be ok not to have publications. But it isn't. You really should be published if you want to do well in top MD/PhD program admissions. Someone needs to start a thread about this for broader discussion and so future applicants can find it easily.

 

[pdb]

-

 

[Neuronix]

You really ought to be published if you're going to apply.

Of course it helps to be published. Of course adcoms are going to prefer people who have publications. But, it's the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Well over half of my class, including myself, came in with no publications. I think MD/PhD is getting more competitive each year, but I think the quoted statement is far too strong.

 

[MedRower]

Of course it helps to be published. Of course adcoms are going to prefer people who have publications. But, it's the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Well over half of my class, including myself, came in with no publications. I think MD/PhD is getting more competitive each year, but I think the quoted statement is far too strong.

I'm just reporting from the front lines.

My only concern is that, if being published is becoming more of an ingredient in the cake than icing, people should know. Again, I'm really just speaking about these top programs.

All the caveats of a small sample size apply. Perhaps I sounded too certain than I should have when speaking generally. Which is why I am interested in hearing from others' experiences with top tier MSTPs.

 

[pdb]

ok, well, not top tier as in harvard/hopkins (didn't apply, not being stupid), but i think you can still get pretty far w/o pubs. this year's app cycle, i have offers at penn and yale and washu and am 1st alternate at ucsf with...no pubs, no experience in specifically biomed research (all microbio), no clinical experience, only 35 MCAT (was actually convinced i should wait another year to apply, but took my chances).

 

[j-weezy]

No, it's definitely true for this program.

I was told so myself by a faculty member who screens apps for the program. (I met him when I interviewed MD-only.)

You really ought to be published if you're going to apply.

I think this is a myth that hurt me enormously. I believed that it would be ok not to have publications. But it isn't. You really should be published if you want to do well in top MD/PhD program admissions. Someone needs to start a thread about this for broader discussion and so future applicants can find it easily.

I'm not published and I interviewed at Tri-I. I know people who aren't published who got accepted to Tri-I....

uhm...I think I did okay in this process (okay may vary based on the individual) and I'm not published so the publication myth is just that, a myth

 

[Celeritus]

No, it's definitely true for this program.

I was told so myself by a faculty member who screens apps for the program. (I met him when I interviewed MD-only.)

Interesting. However, you'll have to trust me when I say my assertion is based on information from authorities higher than who you've mentioned.

Just trying to set the record straight so as to avoid discouraging future applicants who may come across this thread.

 

[Ziggy08]

You really ought to be published if you're going to apply.

I think this is a myth that hurt me enormously. I believed that it would be ok not to have publications. But it isn't. You really should be published if you want to do well in top MD/PhD program admissions. Someone needs to start a thread about this for broader discussion and so future applicants can find it easily.

Well, I got into Hopkins (and Penn, Washu, etc.) this year without being published. I know someone else who also didn't publish and got into Hopkins this year. So, yes, it's ok not to have publications.

Didn't get an interview at Tri-I though...

 

[j-weezy]

Well, I got into Hopkins (and Penn, Washu, etc.) this year without being published. So, yes, it's ok not to have publications.

Didn't get an interview at Tri-I though...

Will you be at Penn Preview?

 

[Ziggy08]

Will you be at Penn Preview?

It conflicts with Hopkins revisit... so I'll be revisiting Penn before then!

 

[j-weezy]

It conflicts with Hopkins revisit... so I'll be revisiting Penn before then!

Darn...I can't try and convince you to go to Penn!

 

[solitude]

just another anecdotal vote for this being a myth: I've yet to publish but got multiple offers at "top" schools. Over this process I have gotten to know literally dozens of other students accepted at top schools that had no publications. There were also some that had garbage publications (I'm sorry, but 6th author on a paper should not even qualify as a publication in my book) who didn't get in, and some with those garbage publications that did. There is just SO much that goes into an admissions decision that to claim that a binary Y/N on publications can serve as a reliable touchstone is utter bunk.

 

[seraph524]

undergrad publications? bleh. not always a useful indicator of research potential in undergrads. sure, i know a couple of amazing undergrads who do great work and get published, but thats few and far in between. most just happen to join a lab right near the end of a project, run a few gels, and get a 8th author pub.

 

[MedRower]

Interesting. However, you'll have to trust me when I say my assertion is based on information from authorities higher than who you've mentioned.

Just trying to set the record straight so as to avoid discouraging future applicants who may come across this thread.

Well, since I didn't talk to anyone higher up, I can only tell you what the screener said. And that was while he looks for deep involvement in research, he also wants to know the applicant has the ability to "take a project to completion", as evidenced by being published.

So, no, I don't want to discourage future applicants. However, future applicants may get this guy as their screener, so I think it is worth putting this information out there. Again, perhaps it is just a reason not to set your sights on a single school.

I don't know what else to say. I went to several schools to interview MD-only after I had been rejected MD/PhD. At 4 of the top programs, when I asked what they generally look for, I was told me a similar story. So, all I am saying is that some people on admissions committees look for publications. And, for the record, I think it is a ridiculous metric.

Edit: oh, and to respond to data about half of classes being filled with kids without pubs, that doesn't say much about what screeners were looking for. the admissions process at a school is made up of many people with different views. You could imagine if half of faculty who are involved in this process care about publications, while the other half doesn't, this could easily lead to such a class makeup. It is practically necessary that some people will have their interview trail enriched with faculty who care about publications, and some applicants won't. If you are gunning for these top tier programs, why leave it to chance?

 

[j-weezy]

If you are gunning for these top tier programs, why leave it to chance?

What's your definition of top-tier? USNews? Ivy?

 

[MedRower]

What's your definition of top-tier? USNews? Ivy?

This is what I heard at Hopkins, Michigan, Stanford, and, as I've already mentioned, most explicitly at the Tri-I MSTP. Call them whatever you will. (Edit: My assumption is that if I heard this at these schools, then for any group of schools you consider to be at the "top", it seems likely to apply to them as well.)

To be honest, I'm very uncomfortable labeling schools as "top tier". All that exists is faculty at individual schools who look at applications. And somehow, given the competitiveness of this process (c.f. supply and demand), some of these individuals have the luxury of putting a lot of weight on the publications (or lack thereof) of applicants.

Again, seriously, I am such a small sample size. It would be great if I had more data regarding this process, but I don't. Perhaps I was extremely "unlucky" in the faculty members whom I asked what they look for. But since I don't know, it seemed like the valid thing to do was to share my experience. If we can produce data to show that my case is very rare, I would be very happy.

Edit: I think a good way to look at this is that applying to an MSTP is likely the first taste of NIH grantsmanship.

 

[j-weezy]

This is what I heard at Hopkins, Michigan, Stanford, and, as I've already mentioned, most explicitly at the Tri-I MSTP.

So are you going to UW?

 

[MedRower]

So are you going to UW?

I haven't made a decision, but I would be crazy not to consider it, eh? I also have a few MD-only acceptances which I could consider depending on whether any money is thrown at me.

Why do you ask?

 

[JHopRevisit]

This is what I heard at Hopkins, Michigan, Stanford, and, as I've already mentioned, most explicitly at the Tri-I MSTP. Call them whatever you will. (Edit: My assumption is that if I heard this at these schools, then for any group of schools you consider to be at the "top", it seems likely to apply to them as well.)

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have heard that at Hopkins. Our PD is pretty passionate about making the case that letters of reccomendation (however flawed) and your ability to describe your research during the interview are a better assesment of research "talent" than publication record. You can run into a faculty member with their own criteria anywhere but our committee certainly doesn't use it as a litmus test. About half of our 2007 entering class was published, and about half wasn't.l

Not to mention, a first authorship certainly means something, a fourth or fifth may or may not mean anything, so yoy have to define what you mean by publication.

 

[Picklesali]

I haven't made a decision, but I would be crazy not to consider it, eh? I also have a few MD-only acceptances which I could consider depending on whether any money is thrown at me.

Why do you ask?

I'm probably going to come off sounding like an *** for suggesting this... Perhaps some of the feedback you received and the experiences you had during this application process were also affected by the fact that you are also considering MD-only??


Edit: Ah...nevermind. That really has nothing to do with what program directors and screeners have told you that they look for in their applicants... If it ever came up, it could really only have an effect from the interview onward. Sorry, I temporarily had "I applied solely for MD/PhD program snob syndrome" UW is an AMAZING school - you must be waiting to hear about free money from some pretty sweet places...

 

[MedRower]

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have heard that at Hopkins. Our PD is pretty passionate about making the case that letters of reccomendation (however flawed) and your ability to describe your research during the interview are a better assesment of research "talent" than publication record. You can run into a faculty member with their own criteria anywhere but our committee certainly doesn't use it as a litmus test. About half of our 2007 entering class was published, and about half wasn't.l

Not to mention, a first authorship certainly means something, a fourth or fifth may or may not mean anything, so yoy have to define what you mean by publication.

Right, it certainly wasn't the PD I was talking to (he's an awesome guy), it was just a faculty member. I'm not attributing what I heard to institutional biases; I am only trying to let people know that there is a spectrum of opinions amongst faculty regarding the worth of publishing as an undergraduate. Perhaps this is obvious, but I heard before I applied that I "definitely didn't need to be published to become an MD/PhD," and while that is certainly true, I wanted to put forth a slightly more nuanced explanation that encompasses this spectrum Neuronix did an excellent job describing.