what's the better path?

[Pandora's Box]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello,
I am a third year undergrad right now and am planning to apply to Medical school this Summer. I have started to debate with myself as to if I should apply to MSTP or a straight MD. I have good grades, good research experience and know faculty who would love to see me go into research, but still I don't know if I should choose that path. I do enjoy research, but four more years in grad school and an add-on post-doc in addition to a residence seems a little overwhelming. This would mean I won't be making even resident salaries until I'm 30. There is also the deliema of when am I going to have time to start a family, and not being a neglecting, work obsessed parent. I think my current goal is to work as a Neurologist for an academic hospital, because I do like research and teaching in addition to patient care. Can any of you give me any advice? Do any of you had similar thought when you were deciding to apply? If so, how did you come to a conclusion as to what's best for you?

thanks a bunch

PS> I'm taking the MCAT in April, and right now I'm just thinking to use my score as indicator of what I should apply for.
ie. <35 MD
>35 MSTP

 

[ready]

I wouldn?t use test scores as a guide. I mean I might be able to do quite well on the LSAT but I?m sure as hell not going to law school. Why? Because I have no interest in working as a lawyer.

I think the question you might want to ask yourself (and have already) is what type of physician you want to be and DO YOU LIKE RESEARCH ENOUGH TO DEVOTE THE EXTRA TIME TO A PhD?

From a tactical standpoint, I will tell you that if your stats are great but not extraordinary applying for the MSTP could hurt your app to MD programs. For example, I did very poorly my first few semesters of undergrad which has pulled down my cumulative GPA. (I have since gotten straight As for 4 yrs). This combined with a sub 35 MCAT and attendance at an unknown state school didn?t put me at the top of the MSTP app pool and I did get rejected from several schools. What you need to know is that MD programs generally don?t even get to consider your app until the MD/PhD program releases it. If your app gets released very late in the process (I have had it happen as late as March), you are at a distinct disadvantage of getting into the MD program. So, if your overall goal is to get into medical school than you might think twice.

I knew I wanted to do a MD/PhD so I didn?t let this keep me from applying. The result? I got turned down by some MD programs I MIGHT have otherwise gotten into, BUT I also got into a MD/PhD program.

I hope this helped.

 

[CRAZYLION]

Sounds like you have many of the same concerns as most students who end up applying MSTP, I know I had them. One thing you need to remember when thinking about "resident salary" is that MSTP's are fully funded and include a stipend and health insurance. That is HUGE! Think about it, most your med school classmates will be coming out of school 100,000+ in debt and you will be debt free. You will be coming out of school later than them but then again you will have a PhD which can really help when applying to top residencies or post-docs. You can definitely do research with "only an MD"(by the way never say that in an interview with a MD, not good, ha) but if you are gonna be doing research, a PhD will give you a stronger foundation. I say take advantage of NIH's generosity and stay out of the red. You put off your earning potential for several years but if you are going to be working in acadamia the PhD in addition to the MD will be key for getting a faculty position.

Your concern about having a functioning family is very real. I have not figured this one out yet either. I know this situation can also be very different between males and females. Being a male, I will not be bearing a child, let's hope not, so it would be easier for me than a female I could imagine I think that being there for your significant other and childern is truly an individual thing. People in all lines of work, from construction to medical doctor, can be neglecting or highly supportive parents. If you want to spend more time with your family, you will not be able to produce, research wise, like an individual who sleeps on a cot next to their rats. There might be career sacrifices you will have to make inorder to raise your childern the way you want them to be raised. That will be something we all must face and I hope that I can do the right thing when it comes down to it.

I would not use your MCAT scores, unless they are <30, as an indicator if you should apply MSTP. I had a 32 and still received interviews at many good schools and I am currently accepted at one, ya. You really don't need 35+ to get an MSTP position it helps but not a necessity.

When it comes down to it you need to do what is best for you(what a lame statement, but true). Be careful not to do things because others think they would be good for you, they are not going ot be the ones in school for 7-8 years! MSTP is a very big commitment and is not right for everyone. It was right for me(I say that now before entering school) when I thought about what I wanted to accomplish. One thing I have come to realize is that there are many, many different paths you can take to get to the same place. I knew I wanted to do clinical research. I thought the MSTP was good for me because of the structure it provided for my future education and the funding. Hope this helps, kinda rambling. Good luck.

 

[Bostonienses]

I totally agree with CRAZYLION. Also, you don't HAVE to do a post-doc after coming out with an MD/PhD: you can just do one or more years of research during your fellowship...

 

[DarkChild]

continuing from a point crazylion made, the one advantage the MD/PhD has over a PhD with regard to research is that you've got the medical training, if at any point in your career you realize you'd rather not "sleep in a cot next to your rats," you can focus on clinical work, get paid reasonably well and live a decent life.
its that flexibility to choose between research and clinical work that i find particularly appealing about the program.
as to the previous posters point about being careful where you apply to - i fully agree. i applied to a mix of MD/PhD and MD programs. its tough because you have to have be able to juggle two completely different song and dance routines.
i'm more pragmatic than most in that i wanted to get in to the best school i can... while i'm sure univ. of hawaii has a strong MDPhD program 😛 , if it came down to UofH and say JHU's MD program, I would go with JHU.
if you share that same opportunistic outlook, then you need to think carefully about the schools you apply to MD/PhD vs. MD. Lesson 1 for me - dont apply MD to any UCs schools. MD/PhD you might have a shot.
similarly Lesson 2 - find schools of a similar caliber and split them: i.e. i applied to columbia's MD/PhD program and Yale's MD program...
it takes a little bit of thought, but it works out nicely.
and btw - 3-4 years really isnt a long time, especially when you put it in the perspective of the overall lenght of your career.
the only caveat: make sure you've got the mental stamina and will to drag yourself through a PhD. dont BS yourself, you gotta know that no matter what you can hack it. in my book the worst possible outcome would be to spend 9-10 years trying to get through this program.

 

[Pandora's Box]

Thanks for all the great advice, I really appreciated.
I didn't even know you could apply for MD for some schools and MSTP for others. I thought that all the schools had the same online primary, where you choose the program. Can you elaborated on that DarkChild?
I thought the MD/PhD programs are super competitve and that lower score would mean I have no chance, that's why I was going to factor the MCAT score in my decision. But I see that is not always the case.
For those of you who were acccepted, was California school harder to get admitted to? Location is probably pretty important because you be spending 8 years there, and I would like to know what are the chance I can stay in Cal. I can't say much about anything else, but the weather here definitly can't be beat 🙂

 

[surge]

I agree with what the previous posters said, although my philosophy is a little different. I'll share it, but in the end, you have to take all our advice with a grain of salt, sit down, think really, really hard and decide what's best for yourself.

One thing's for sure, don't use your score as a sole indicator. I don't know what your research experience is, but I think that (all other things being 'adequate') that's what will make you or break you. Also, I couldn't overemphasize the importance of the interviews, which are an entirely different affair than their MDonly counterparts.
MD/PhD IS more competitive than MD only - however, factors are weighed differently. Primarily, as I said, they are looking for thinkers. Not test takers, not anal premeds, but people with the ability to ask questions and a passion to do so for the rest of their lives. Unlike MD only, dropping out is a serious problem in MSTP programs, and for the school, there is much more at stake (~$400,000 per applicant). Your dedication, passion, commitment - and your ability to portray it - will be a huge part of your application.
I am of the conviction - and I know many successful MSTP applicants will disagree - that the only good reason to go into an MD/PhD program is a passion for and burning desire to do basic or translational research. I feel that anything else is not fair to you as an applicant and the schools as your sponsors.
Now, don't get me wrong. Everything people have said is true, and it would be silly for me to claim that I wasn't aware of some of these things and that they didn't help solidify my decision. Being an MD/PhD gives you huge advantages in pretty much every way imaginable. You're debt free, you're more competitive for residencies, faculty positions, funding.
But the price you pay is too high to do it unless research is what you WANT to do. You are right - if you do the math, in the long run, you lose money by doing MD/PhD. Yes, you don't have the debt coming out, but even with debt, your clinical counterparts will start earning MD salaries 4 years earlier, and in the long run, have a larger earning potential than you as an academic physician. Don't do it because your professors would like to see you go into research. Do it because you can't help but do research.
Having said all this, if after considering all the sacrifices you will have to make, you still want to do research more than anything, do it. As others have said, you don't NEED a 35+, 3.9+. You need good numbers and a lot of passion. The school with the highest average MCAT score in the nation (WashU) has a person with a 29 in their MSTP program.
Whatever you decide, good luck, and we're here if you need any more advice.

On a more pragmatic note, when you fill out your AMCAS application, you will have to choose what program you are applying to for every school you select. In other words, you can split your MDs and MD/PhDs.

P.S. U of Hawaii doesn't have an MD/PhD program. How do I know? I wanted to apply just so I could go out there for an interview 😀

 

[DarkChild]

oh... just wanted to clarify my statement about UC schools; i meant dont bother with UC MD programs if you're an out of stater...
and as surge mentioned, you can totally apply to a combination of MD and MD/PhD programs. the only thing is you have to pay special attention to your essay, its a little tricky to write your essay such that it doesnt overtly tell MD programs that you're applying to MD/PhD programs and vice versa.. 😉

 

[neofight]

Originally posted by DarkChild
oh... just wanted to clarify my statement about UC schools; i meant dont bother with UC MD programs if you're an out of stater...
and as surge mentioned, you can totally apply to a combination of MD and MD/PhD programs. the only thing is you have to pay special attention to your essay, its a little tricky to write your essay such that it doesnt overtly tell MD programs that you're applying to MD/PhD programs and vice versa.. 😉

Darkchild,

Would you clarify why you think the chances of getting into a UC med school is higher when applying as MD/Phd versus MD only (even as a Cal resident)?

Also, does anyone know if med schools know if you applied to other med schools as an Md/Phd applicant?

Thanks!

 

[surge]

Originally posted by neofight
Darkchild,

Would you clarify why you think the chances of getting into a UC med school is higher when applying as MD/Phd versus MD only (even as a Cal resident)?

Also, does anyone know if med schools know if you applied to other med schools as an Md/Phd applicant?

Thanks!

Chances of getting into a UC school as an MD/PhD are NOT greater if you ARE a California resident - as a rule, MD/PhD admission is always more competitive than MD only, all other things being equal (you misunderstood DarkChild). The reason he said it's easier to get into MD/PhD than MD only if you are NOT a California resident is because residency is not a factor in MD/PhD admissions. Therefore, if you are not a Cali resident and you're going for MD only, it works against you because you are competing for a very limited number of out-of-state spots with a large number of other out-of-staters, whereas as an MD/PhD that doesn't count and you have the same chance as anyone else.

Also, to answer your second question: yes, contrary to a pretty common popular belief, medschools always know where else you applied and whether you applied MD or MD/PhD. It's standard info on your AMCAS application that gets sent to every school you apply to.

 

[DarkChild]

Originally posted by surge
Chances of getting into a UC school as an MD/PhD are NOT greater if you ARE a California resident - as a rule, MD/PhD admission is always more competitive than MD only, all other things being equal (you misunderstood DarkChild). The reason he said it's easier to get into MD/PhD than MD only if you are NOT a California resident is because residency is not a factor in MD/PhD admissions. Therefore, if you are not a Cali resident and you're going for MD only, it works against you because you are competing for a very limited number of out-of-state spots with a large number of other out-of-staters, whereas as an MD/PhD that doesn't count and you have the same chance as anyone else.

thats it exactly... for instance, i applied to UCSF MD - and was rejected before receiving a secondary - i got interviews at every other UCSF caliber school i applied to MD (Penn, JHU)
but i got an interview for UCSDs MD/PhD program


Also, to answer your second question: yes, contrary to a pretty common popular belief, medschools always know where else you applied and whether you applied MD or MD/PhD. It's standard info on your AMCAS application that gets sent to every school you apply to.

surge are you sure about this?
because a number of schools flat out asked me where I was applying to - it came up at Yale and the guy at MSSM wanted like specific names and things... and i vaguely remember a statement on the AMCAS app that said schools will not be able to see which other schools you were applying to...
i thought it was once you got accepted and after May 15th or some other such date that schools can see everywhere you got accepted too.
i'd be interested to hear what makes you think schools know..

 

[whodenie]

I had similar experiences to DarkChild but I think that schools have access to where you have applied but I am not sure. Also a director at one of the schools mentioned that some time march to April, after all the schools have made all their first round choices, then schools can see who has been admitted where. I am not sure as to the details.

On the topic of the OP?. I agree with what many of the posters above had to say. However, the issue of funding was less important to me. When I did the math it all works about to be about the same (MD w/loans vs MSTP) because of the earlier higher pay. While I was considering which path I wanted to take I received a lot of advice that suggested that I do only one of the degrees. There are many MDs that do very successful basic research. There is also grant money for MD to transition to research as well.
If you want to do clinical research then you may be better off just pursuing the MD since many MSTP programs do not allow you do clinical research for you PhD. I don?t feel that not going through both closes door to you. The postponement of certain aspects of life is valid concern to consider. Good luck
a

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by whodenie
If you want to do clinical research then you may be better off just pursuing the MD since many MSTP programs do not allow you do clinical research for you PhD. I don?t feel that not going through both closes door to you. The postponement of certain aspects of life is valid concern to consider. Good luck
a

I'm not sure that many MSTP programs will not allow a PhD in a clinical area. All of the schools on my list have pretty flexible options for MSTP applicants as I'm also interested in clinial research. Also keep in mind that MSTP isn't the only way to do an MD/PhD program.

Some of the schools on my list for the class entering in Fall 2004 are:

UPenn
UT-Houston
Morehouse
Meharry
Harvard
UCSF

Just check out each program for yourself. Tha'ts really the only way to know for sure.

 

[Habari]

ucsf harvard and penn will not allow you to pursue a phd in a clinical department. i don't know about the others, but if they are nih funded programs, i'm 95% sure they won't let you. mstp programs were not designed to produce clinical researchers - there are other well established programs for that.

mstp programs do know where else you have applied - not becuase of amcas but because they keep a national database on applicants (don't lie!), your interviewer, however, may not for some reason or the other. they do not share information about acceptances until later in the season.

it is, in fact, slightly easier to get into uc mstp's if you are in-state. though mstp is meant to be residency independent - if a uc school screens for secondaries (ucsd/ucla/ucsf i know off) one may not end up getting one period because they are out of state and not deemed competitive in the md committees eyes. since there are so few slots in these programs, this gives in-state people a slight advantage.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Habari
ucsf harvard and penn will not allow you to pursue a phd in a clinical department.

To Habari:
My information is based on conversations with individuals in the program offices at these schools. How can you refute that?

As for NIH funded programs its pretty obivious you're not aware of the plethora of funding NIH provides for MD/PhD programs.

To the OP, once again check into each school for yourself. If you'd like more info about my expereinces in this process, PM me.

Good luck!

 

[Habari]

fair enough ... goodluck.

 

[surge]

It is my understanding also that the great majority of MSTP (notice MSTP, not MD/PhD) programs will not let you get a PhD in clinical research. I know that WashU will not for sure (see here ). It does, however appear (they don't state it, but imply it) that UPenn will.
Either way, you need to find out for yourself.

The reason I said I'm sure about the fact that they know where you applied is because I saw a list in my file at a particular school. It may be that a specific interviewer doesn't know, although I had some ask me even though it was clear they knew. This was actually one of the most common questions I got. Sometimes they're just curious, sometimes they want to see if you're telling the truth. Just to remove your worries, I never lied, but did often omit schools (wasn't too hard as I applied to 15 schools).

And it's also true that after April 15, the schools share ACCEPTANCE information.

 

[Vader]

MSTPs were designed with basic research in mind, rather than clinical research. Most programs feel that the Ph.D. should be earned in a basic science department or graduate program. That is not to say that doing clinically-related research is out of the question, but it will certainly be a tougher sell.

 

[Mozart]

Hi,

Some of you mention about MSTP for UC schools. I just thought to add the following:

Applying MSTP to UCSF and UCSD would not affect your MD admission (rejection from the MSTP would not preclude you from being considered for the MD). This is not the case for UCLA (so I was told during my interview there). Among those who are rejected by UCLA's MSTP, only a couple applicants would be recommended by the MSTP AdCom to the MD AdCom for reconsideration there.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The strength of a grizzly bear, yet the heart of a teddy bear...

 

[MacGyver]

I agree with the others. MSTP is not for clinical research. Getting a PhD with the intention of doing clinical research is a waste of time and unnecessary.

If you tell your MSTP interviewers that you are only interested in clinical research, most programs will look unfavorably at that.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by MacGyver
Getting a PhD with the intention of doing clinical research is a waste of time and unnecessary.

This is an inherently ignorant statement. Why ? Because at the NIH I see plenty of uses of clinical research in action and plenty of folks with MD/PhD's doing clinical research inluding my mentor who is an alumnae of U Penn's MD/PhD program (she did her PhD in Physiology, a clinical area).

There's is no such thing wasteful and unnecessary research especially when it addresses critical health issues like cancer and some of the research I see at the clinical center of NIH does. I think some of you need to get your as$es off those high MSTP horses you find yourselves perched on and realize that there are other games in town where research and MD/PhD is concerned.

My question is that if you're not interested in clinical issues, why get an MD in the first place? The last time I checked, the MD does involve clinical training. Now I have to wonder about the motivations of some of you that are interested in the combined porgram. Looks like money and prestige may be topping that list.

 

[neofight]

Why do most of you say that mstp programs were not designed to produce clinical researchers? What are the other well-established programs for producing clinical researchers?

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by pathdr2b
This is an inherently ignorant statement. Why ? Because at the NIH I see plenty of uses of clinical research in action and plenty of folks with MD/PhD's doing clinical research inluding my mentor who is an alumnae of U Penn's MD/PhD program (she did her PhD in Physiology, a clinical area).

I am arguing that for purely clinical research, the PhD is not needed. I'm not saying that you CANT do clinical research with an MD/PhD. If your mentor is really doing purely clinical research with no basic/transitional component, I doubt she needs a PhD to do that.

There's is no such thing wasteful and unnecessary research especially when it addresses critical health issues like cancer and some of the research I see at the clinical center of NIH does.

I never said wasteful and unnecessary research, I was referring to PhD training. You dont need it to do clinical reseach and it will give you no additional advantage over just having an MD. For basic science, having a PhD gives you an advantage. This advantage disappears for purely clinical research.

I think some of you need to get your as$es off those high MSTP horses you find yourselves perched on and realize that there are other games in town where research and MD/PhD is concerned.

Oh thats a brilliant remark coming from someone who keeps barking about how they're going to get a 40 MCAT (or was it 42, I cant remember).

My question is that if you're not interested in clinical issues, why get an MD in the first place? The last time I checked, the MD does involve clinical training. Now I have to wonder about the motivations of some of you that are interested in the combined porgram. Looks like money and prestige may be topping that list.

objection, assumes facts not in evidence. I dont understand the logic you used here. Clinical research is different than clinical training. Treating patients day to day is NOT research. Having an MD by itself does not mean you are going to be doing clinical research, although you certainly have that option and will be on equal footing as an MD/PhD.

Look, I'm not saying you CANT do clinical research with an MD/PhD, what I am saying is that you have no additional advantage by getting both degrees. There's a definite advantage to having an MD/PhD for basic science/transitional research, but you lose that advantage if you do solely clinical work.

An MD can do clinical research just as well as an MD/PhD (which is not as easy for basic science research) so that makes the PhD superfluous to someone with direct career goals of purely clinical research.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by neofight
Why do most of you say that mstp programs were not designed to produce clinical researchers? What are the other well-established programs for producing clinical researchers?

Here's a quote from the MD/PhD program guide at UPenn.
Programs Offered

"Applicants may apply for the PhD in any field related to medicine. Approximately 95% of Penn?s MD/PhD students are in the basic biomedical sciences. The remainder are pursuing graduate studies in many other areas, such as health care policy, history and sociology of science and philosophy/bioethics. In addition, Penn has a variety of other joint programs including MD/MBA, MD/Masters in Bioethics, MD/MS in Clinical Epidemiolgy (which can lead to the MD/PhD) and VMD/PhD, further broadening and enriching the community of scholars pursing dual degrees. "

Maybe it would be a good idea to define clinical research. I think some people on this board may think clinical research involves only clinical trials type of work. Clinical research which I would characterize with translational research is far more than that although clinical trials work is included.

I believe Isedella touched on this in another thread but it's obvious that there are some who feel that you can't be a "real" Physician/Scientist unless you get a PhD in an area of basic science like biochemistry, genetics, or biophysics as an MSTP student. This type of elitist thinking is just plain wrong.

Get a PhD in an area you enjoy and if UPenn is any example, there's plenty of choices out there.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by MacGyver
Oh thats a brilliant remark coming from someone who keeps barking about how they're going to get a 40 MCAT (or was it 42, I cant remember).

One of the best things about the MD/PhD thread is that there are rarely any blatant examples of immaturity around. So why don't you do all of us a big favor and take you immature as$ back to the MD only thread.

 

[dmowen]

I think pathdr2b was on the right track in defining what is meant by clinical research. While it is true that you do not need a PhD to be hired to run someone else's drug trials, my understanding is that MSTP programs were established to "bridge the gap" between benchtop research and the practice of medicine. This would include a wide variety of aspects which could be called clinical including translational research and collecting samples from patients for study. I would also agree that pursuing an MD degree is an unnecessary burden if you have no desire to be a physician and/or do research in areas that have pretty direct (or potentially direct) relevance to patient care.

 

[Naphtali]

MacGyver seems to be laboring under a misapprehension, I think.

"I never said wasteful and unnecessary research, I was referring to PhD training. You dont need it to do clinical reseach and it will give you no additional advantage over just having an MD. For basic science, having a PhD gives you an advantage. This advantage disappears for purely clinical research."

I disagree. You act like a PhD for a clinical researcher is some useless appendage. I think PhD training is a great learning tool for anyone who will be doing research. Though not strictly required, it's a rigorous way to perfect research technique. The MD is NOT a research degree.

-Naphtali

 

[Neuronix]

The op indeed opened a "pandora's box" with their question.

I'm beginning to think that "What is the MD/PhD for?" is like a holy war. You have a couple different viewpoints on it, and these viewpoints are reflected in the directors of different programs. Some directors think MD/PhDs should go out to become 90%-100% researchers, and some think that the MD/PhD is great for almost anything you want to do.

These attitudes are reflected by the people we have here as well. I remember another thread by a guy who wanted to do clinical research in psychology and become a psychiatrist. I was the only one in the group saying "That's not what the MD/PhD is for", while now we have a different group of posters who are against the clinical research.

My personal opinion is that if you're not planning to do some basic science research, doing the MD/PhD gives you a free MD. There are other ways to get experience in clinical research. Sure you can go from MD/PhD to clinical research, but that's not what it was meant for.

The debate rages on...

 

[nooreen]

Originally posted by Pandora's Box

<35 MD
>35 MSTP

What if you get a 35?

Pandora,

I think that an MD/PhD will help me down the road in carrying out translational research. Not because of the PhD piece of paper, but because of the scientific training behind it. Having said that, I don't think that a career goal to do translational research is a substantial reason for pursuing the dual degree.

In my opinion, the best reasons I have heard are the following:

*financial reasons. (you won't have med school debt, whereas doing MD+Cloister, etc. you will)

*if you are not sure what area you want to get a PhD in, the pre-clinical years give you time to explore more of biomedical research and find out what the important questions are.

*flexibility career-wise.

Good luck!

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Pandora's Box
<35 MD >35 MSTP

I've set this as my MD/PhD applicant "bar" as well. However, I've also decided that I'm going to do MD/PhD even if I'm NOT admitted to the formal training program. Here are some other options I'm considering for getting the MD/PhD:

1) Take a leave of absence after my second year of medical school to get the PhD(I have a friend doing this at GWU). In this case, I'd spend my summers doing research in the area I plan to pursue for the PhD.

2) Get the PhD as part of a residency program. This is a pretty popular option at the NIH. I plan to pursue a career in pathology and pathology residencies require 1 or 2 years of research anyway. I'd add extra year and get the PhD. From what people have told me, a PhD in residency can usually be completed in about 3 years.

3) Transfer into the MD/PhD program after my first year of medical school.


So no matter which way I get it done, I'd be happy because in the end my goal of MD/PhD will be achieved.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by Pandora's Box
Hello,
I am a third year undergrad right now and am planning to apply to Medical school this Summer. I have started to debate with myself as to if I should apply to MSTP or a straight MD. I have good grades, good research experience and know faculty who would love to see me go into research, but still I don't know if I should choose that path. I do enjoy research, but four more years in grad school and an add-on post-doc in addition to a residence seems a little overwhelming. This would mean I won't be making even resident salaries until I'm 30. There is also the deliema of when am I going to have time to start a family, and not being a neglecting, work obsessed parent. I think my current goal is to work as a Neurologist for an academic hospital, because I do like research and teaching in addition to patient care. Can any of you give me any advice? Do any of you had similar thought when you were deciding to apply? If so, how did you come to a conclusion as to what's best for you?

thanks a bunch

PS> I'm taking the MCAT in April, and right now I'm just thinking to use my score as indicator of what I should apply for.
ie. <35 MD
>35 MSTP

Pandora,

I don't have time to read through the numerous replies, but here is my opinion and advice.

First, don't let your MCAT scores deter you from applying to MSTPs. I know many who were accepted with scores lower than 35, including myself.

Second, you don't have to decide before you apply whether you'll be strictly a basic scientist, clinical researcher, clinical professor, physician-scientist, or even academics. The goal of the MSTP is to train future researchers (BOTH clinical and basic scientists) and academicians. However, how you mold your career will ultimately depend on you. I have many friends and colleagues with MD-PhDs. One is a basic researcher and completed a post-doc. Most completed residencies/fellowships where research was included. For instance, two pursued neurosurg residencies where 1-2 years of research were already incorporated into the training program (i.e., both MD and MD-PhD graduates had to complete research during residency. Imagine what you could do if you had previous training in neuroscience.) Most of my colleagues combine both clinical medicine and research. However, the amount dedicated to each area varies greatly. For instance, one has dedicated 80% to genetics research and 20% to clinical medicine. In contrast, another does 80% clinical medicine and 20% clinical research. I'm not sure where my allotment of time will go just yet. I'm planning to complete a fellowship in ocular pathology. I know that I will commit to at least 30% clinical/surgical ophthalmology and the rest for pathology/research. Pathology is a highly convenient speciality for those interested in bench research.

Third, there's no good time to start a family. You just have to find a partner and go for it. My wife and I started having kids in my second year of PhD work. I think grad school is the best time to have kids because your schedule is highly flexible. If money is a problem, then take out a student loan. 🙂

Finally, MD-PhD candidates do great in academic neurology; but don't disregard other specialities like ophthalmology, dermatology, cardiology, immunology, heme-onc, and pathology. Two of my friends have entered dermatology where they plan to be involved in both research and clinical dermatology.

One last note, if you're fairly certain that academics is where you're heading, then I strongly advise the MD-PhD route. If you sit down and calculate the time involved in obtaining a MD+Residency/Fellowship+Post-Doc versus MD-PhD+Residency/Fellowship, you'll find that both routes take comparable years of dedication and work. Most MD-PhDs are able to shave off the Post-Doc and combine research with their Fellowship training; whereas MDs who desire to do basic science research will need to complete 3-4 years of post-doctoral training.

If none of the above work out, then you still can hang a single and work in rural Montana if you so desire.

Good luck. It's a long road, but your final destination is flexible. The options are numerous.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by MacGyver
I agree with the others. MSTP is not for clinical research. Getting a PhD with the intention of doing clinical research is a waste of time and unnecessary.

If you tell your MSTP interviewers that you are only interested in clinical research, most programs will look unfavorably at that.

Please read my reply in this new thread:

http://www.studentdoctor.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61643