UCSF MSTP v. Emory MSTP

[gerbix]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi, I'm looking for a little input and help on an upcoming decision about which MSTP to attend - UCSF v. Emory.

For a little background...Originally from Austin, TX, I went to Stanford (03), BS/MS in Biological Science (focus in Micro and Immuno) and BA in International Relations. I'm currently studying for a taught MPhil in Epidemiology at the University of Cambridge, and will be studying for a Masters in Management Science next year at University College Dublin.

I am generally interested in vaccinology and immunology, infectious disease, and epidemiology, and hope to combine any 2 of the 3 in whatever PhD I do through the MSTP. I'm also interested in international medicine and global public health, but they're sometimes difficult to include in an MSTP. Both UCSF and Emory are, of course, very strong in these areas.

The main tension I'm feeling is attending an excellent medical school in a real city (SF) for 8-9 years where many of my friends from undergrad still live versus Emory's ability to do translational work that combines vaccinology/immunology, ID, and epi in multiple labs at the Emory Vaccine Center at Yerkes and the CDC. SF's immunology research seems to be geared more toward basic cell biology, while Emory's work could be considered a tad more translational. I'd say I'm more interested in the latter, but I'm still open.

Important things to keep in mind that I don't know how balance include, 1) The importance of doing more basic research to learn science in the PhD that would allow me to be a better vaccinologist after the MSTP, and 2) I won't be doing my PhD for another 3.5 years and SF is expanding like mad at Mission Bay, so who knows what PIs will come in during that time (at either school).

Any help or distinctions you can offer would be hugely appreciated!

Alex

 

[fyli260]

SF's immunology research seems to be geared more toward basic cell biology, while Emory's work could be considered a tad more translational. I'd say I'm more interested in the latter, but I'm still open.

Although I haven't looked at Emory, I actually went away with the impression that there was a lot of disease-oriented, translational research going on at UCSF...much more so than at a lot of the major universities. Maybe you meant there's more empidemiological stuff going on at Emory. Personally, I would choose base on location in this case. I think you'll find excellent opportunities at both schools to work in all the areas that you mentioned. There may just be a slight difference in quality between the two schools from one area to another. 8-9 years is a long time, and you should really consider where you would be more comfortable and happier during that period of time, especially considering the two environments are so different.

 

[Vader]

I agree with fyli260's comments. Location was very important for me in deciding which program to attend. The quality of the medical school and research were also up there among top factors. For me, UCSF really had the best of all worlds in terms of a top-notch medical school with an innovative curriculum, excellence in both basic and clinical research, and a fun, energetic city in which to live.

An important thing to consider is that your research interests may change over time after exposure to the wide array of material during the first two years of medical school. So you might want to choose a place where you would have a variety of excellent graduate programs.

Hopefully you revisited both places to help make your decision. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about UCSF.

Congratulations on the excellent options!

 

[abeanatrice]

Hopefully you revisited both places to help make your decision. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about UCSF.

Congratulations on the excellent options!

The OP mentions he won't be starting the PhD for 3.5 years...thus I am wondering if they have even applied yet...so gerbix, is this upcoming decision upcoming in the next month, or the next year?

 

[ninebillion]

The OP mentions he won't be starting the PhD for 3.5 years...thus I am wondering if they have even applied yet...so gerbix, is this upcoming decision upcoming in the next month, or the next year?

I think gerbix is deferring one year to do a master's in Ireland in 2005-6.

 

[jjmack]

If you can find people who you think you would be happy working with now at UCSF I'd go to UCSF. Who knows your interests may change and I think that UCSF has better options in more areas. I also love SF a lot more than ATL. If you are still really interested in your areas that you are in now then Emory/CDC would be the best place for a residency/post doc. Good luck and those are some awesome choices.

 

[spinman]

Don't get caught up in this whole "translational medicine" phrase. It's a really cool buzzword but the reality is that even the NIH thinks translational research is a load of garbage and really does not like funding training programs that hang their hat on this term.

Sorry to be so hard on this, but translational research is largely a pipe dream for a Ph.D. candidate also getting an M.D. Your job, as a graduate student, is to learn how to become an excellent independent thinker and problem solver as it relates to science in general. That entails learning how to ask the proper questions, learning how to answer these questions, and to develop the skills needed to criticially evaluate these hypotheses. While not 100% true, many "translational" labs do not focus enough on good training (trust me there are many labs that are horrible environments for graduate student training) as they focus more on moving the science to the bedside which is not hypothesis-driven science.

Bottom line, be careful, translation research is nice and terrific when it works but it presents many more challenges to students with a false perceptions that they will be able to to take a self developed idea and see it through to maturation in the clinic as this rarely happens. People do get Ph.D.s from these labs but they are often poorly trained and cannot compete with well trained scientists. science is far more brutal than medicine - there are good and bad docs (skills) but they all still have jobs in this country, not so in science. Poorly trained scientists however have a hard time hacking it on their own.

Translational science is a nice fantasy and is obtainable but much later in your career, your job now is to get good training. A good mentor is far more important than your Ph.D. thesis topic. Trust me.

 

[Vader]

I do generally agree with spinman's thoughts on the focus of PhD training, as it is unlikely that you will be able to see through a whole truly translational project during the PhD, unless you plan on spending a very long time. However, there may be instances in which a "translational" project during research training is indeed possible, and epidemiology might be a field amenable to something like this.

We certainly need more high-quality translational researchers. The purpose of the Medical Scientist Training Program is to train people who conduct basic disease research and apply these discoveries to clinical medicine. Unfortunately, doing a very basic science PhD, does not necessarily prepare trainees for how they might translate these discoveries into clinical applications. I believe there may need to be a separate "translational research" training pathway that specifically trains individuals to conduct high-quality translational work. It would be of benefit to train people early on rather than waiting until later in their careers to delve into these new areas. Only with formalization of a specific training pathway will this be possible.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Don't get caught up in this whole "translational medicine" phrase. It's a really cool buzzword but the reality is that even the NIH thinks translational research is a load of garbage and really does not like funding training programs that hang their hat on this term.

Sorry to be so hard on this, but translational research is largely a pipe dream for a Ph.D. candidate also getting an M.D. Your job, as a graduate student, is to learn how to become an excellent independent thinker and problem solver as it relates to science in general. That entails learning how to ask the proper questions, learning how to answer these questions, and to develop the skills needed to criticially evaluate these hypotheses. While not 100% true, many "translational" labs do not focus enough on good training (trust me there are many labs that are horrible environments for graduate student training) as they focus more on moving the science to the bedside which is not hypothesis-driven science.

Bottom line, be careful, translation research is nice and terrific when it works but it presents many more challenges to students with a false perceptions that they will be able to to take a self developed idea and see it through to maturation in the clinic as this rarely happens. People do get Ph.D.s from these labs but they are often poorly trained and cannot compete with well trained scientists. science is far more brutal than medicine - there are good and bad docs (skills) but they all still have jobs in this country, not so in science. Poorly trained scientists however have a hard time hacking it on their own.

Translational science is a nice fantasy and is obtainable but much later in your career, your job now is to get good training. A good mentor is far more important than your Ph.D. thesis topic. Trust me.

So you think that research in a translational lab is useless? But isn't it precisely the point of medicine to use science to treat people? If I was interested in basic science biology (i.e biology for its own sake), then I would go for a PhD in biology. It seems to me that the whole point of an MSTP is to provide a rigorous scientific training combined with training into applying basic science to medical problems.

 

[Habari]

So you think that research in a translational lab is useless? But isn't it precisely the point of medicine to use science to treat people? If I was interested in basic science biology (i.e biology for its own sake), then I would go for a PhD in biology. It seems to me that the whole point of an MSTP is to provide a rigorous scientific training combined with training into applying basic science to medical problems.

i don't subscribe to spinman's paternalism, the ethos of his point rings true. though the phrase "translational research" may earn derision in some circles because it is often represented by a corpus of work that is marked by sloppy, unimaginative science with oversold promises, this certainly isn't inherently the case. there are excellent examples of exemplary translational work, and these are the apotheoses of the medical-scientist paradigm. but i would agree with being cautious about running to a "translational lab" - it seems much more important to learn what good science is first - something that many who tout "translational" work seem to have missed the memo on. if you can get all of these things in one package- great.

as per the original poster choice - i usually don't weigh in on these things, but i would strongly suggest a second look at the options available at ucsf in micro/viro/immuno. the options are plenty, and of high quality - don't forget the biotech connections many faculty have, as it may directly relate to vaccine work.

 

[Maebea]

Be a rebel and go with the less obvious choice. Besides, the Giants are going to be awful this year and the 49ers are worse than the Arizona Cardinals.

 

[Vader]

Be a rebel and go with the less obvious choice. Besides, the Giants are going to be awful this year and the 49ers are worse than the Arizona Cardinals.

Ouch!

 

[dr.z]

Ucsf

 

[N-Surge]

My fiance and I, who are both MD/PhD freaks, have been discussing your question. It pretty much came down to asking, "Are you seriously interested in tropical diseases?" If so, Emory.

Other questions that come to mind... Are board scores and match %'s comparible for the two schools? Is *cost of living* an issue?

Furthermore, the term *translational medicine* is not just a buzz word. If it weren't for this concept there would be no MD/PhD programs, anywhere. The whole notion that the PhD is simply there to teach you how to think is an ignorant one. It is true that not all MD/PhD students will be working on projects at the clinical trial level. However, ones research should point towards this very thing, IMHO.

CIP: I did my PhD work in protein crystallography, solving some structures. Was this work directly translated to the clinic? No! However, others are now using such information in the discovery/development of new medicines.

 

[spinman]

N-Surge,

I have to respectfully disagree. I am not at all opposed to the idea of getting a good solid science foundation in a lab that has "translational" potential or experience, but it is the quality of training that comes before the subject of the research. The MD PhD training is a beginning, albeit a lengthly one, into a career that hopefully spans many decades. Too often students lose sight of this and have unrealistic expecations with regard to what they will get out of their training - they expect to solve a problem/project and generate dozens of publications - both are remotely possible but highly unlikely. In addition, many students false assume thweir PhD thesis project somehow ties them down to that field, not so... The lifetime of most graduate students is long enough for them to make a dent (some small some big) into a problem, nothing more, but it is learning how to make the dent that is the key! Any trained monkey can physically perform the science in graduate school, it is learning how to ask the proper questions that, IMO, will generate a quality future scientist.

 

[Butch]

My 2 cents ...

1. I agree with both of Spinman's threads above. The most important goal of a PhD in the combined degree program is for you to learn how to design and conduct experiments (wet or dry) and how to critically analyze data.

2. Three words regarding your selection. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. You will be in the MD-PhD program for almost a decade during your 20s (important years for personal development / maturity). Location matters far more than almost anything else.

3. Choose the insitution as a whole. The proposed mentor may leave and your interests may evolve as time goes on. I applied as a neuroscientist/physiologist and ultimately did basic cell biology and cancer research.

Both Emory and UCSF are great programs. UCSF is better as both a medical school and as a basic science institution. There have always been rumors, though, that UCSF MD-PhDs take a long time to finish. Check that out first.