Which of These Research Options is Better for MD/PhD

[Ebha]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi,

I'm hoping to apply for MD/PhD programs either next year or the one after. Some specs:

Biochemistry undergrad
4.0 undergrad GPA
520 MCAT
6 semesters leadership in collegiate athletics
3 years of work experience in private labs at the research assistant level
"eh" ECs (I'll be improving them this year and next)

Right now I could:

1) Take a formulation scientist role at NIH. I understand there are lots of development opportunities offered internally, and I intend to engage in those too.

2) Do a biochem master's at the University of Toronto in Canada, where you do original research, write a thesis, and do an oral defense at the end.

Which one would be seen more favorably by MD/PhD adcoms?

I have to make this decision very soon, so any advice at all is greatly appreciated!

 

[Lucca]

Is the biochemistry masters free? I might choose that if it was free. If not, is choose the position where I could still do research but be paid

 

[DKMA]

Congrats on the stats. I think you'll do very well which ever path you choose

 

[Ebha]

Thanks for the advice, Lucca! There is a stipend for the masters which fully covers tuition and all living expenses. All expenses accounted for, I'd be making a great deal more at NIH, but neither option would have me spending more money than I would be making.

NIH is definitely a more attractive option from a savings perspective, but if a masters (complete with thesis, oral defense and original research at that) is much stronger for an MD/PhD application, then the money is less important to me.

Thank you DKMA!

 

[Weirdy]

You've got very nice stats. Either one you choose would be research related and get you in. Stop focusing on what looks better and ask yourself this instead:

Which one do you like better?

 

[Lucca]

Thanks for the advice, Lucca! There is a stipend for the masters which fully covers tuition and all living expenses. All expenses accounted for, I'd be making a great deal more at NIH, but neither option would have me spending more money than I would be making.

NIH is definitely a more attractive option from a savings perspective, but if a masters (complete with thesis, oral defense and original research at that) is much stronger for an MD/PhD application, then the money is less important to me.

Thank you DKMA!

I'd say go with the opportunity where the science you will do excites you the most then. In general I think scientists shouldn't go into debt so that was my concern. Masters will probably "simulate" graduate school better and might give you the best possible grounding in whether u want to go full PhD or not for your training!

Disclaimer, just a pre-MD/PhD saying what I would do

 

[Ebha]

Thanks for all the advice! What I want to do is the U of T masters, but my current lab colleagues are telling me not to discount NIH, since it's an absolutely massive name in the science field. My main holdups come from already having applied to some MD/PhDs, and only getting 1 interview and no acceptances. I think ontop of poor ECs, the two years (at time of application) of "research assistant" experience wasn't enough, so I really want to make sure my next 1-2 years count.

 

[neurotroph]

I think doing an original thesis and defense would make for a more significant research experience. Not sure how the NIH gig would differ from your previous experiences. Plus Toronto>Bethesda. The NIH money sounds nice though.