<p>
</p>
<p>I plan to take both, what’s the problem? In my case, programs that want the GRE have timelines that are considerably offset from the MD/PhD timelines. There is no conflict. </p>
<p>Did you really mean to ask about applying to PA and MD schools during the same cycle?</p>
<p>plumazul</p>
<p>what are you taking the GRE for, PhD only programs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That to. I’ll be taking the GRE for PA school.</p>
<p>@iwbB,
</p>
<p>Exactly, I don’t want to waste any time. If my MSTP dream doesn’t work out, I’ll just move on with my life. No looking back, no second try.</p>
<p>The process starts this fall when we must create our online application folders. If you have any “I wish I’d had known that before I applied” advice, feel free to send it to me. :)</p>
<p>don’t apply to any PhD programs where you’re also applying MD/PhD. Nothing says “I’m not committed to clinical medicine” like applying to a program where you’re forbidden from being in the clinic. I was always told the answer to “what if you don’t get in” was always MD only, not PhD only.</p>
<p>I’ve taken the GRE but not the MCAT, and the GRE is easy, especially if you did well on the SAT. You can get by with a couple weeks of review. The math is easier and the verbal harder than the SAT’s imo. The percentiles are sort of skewed though since pretty much every engineer/math/science person rocks the quant section. To even have a shot at getting into some decent science programs, you need a 750+ quantitative score. The vast majority of engineers (something like 80% I’ve heard) get a 700+ quant score. I don’t know what PA school requirements are, so you should check their stats. They may have lower quant requirements. Buy used books and study on your own. I haven’t taken the MCAT, but I’ve heard you need to put in 1-2 months for the MCAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One thing you probably ought to do in the not too distant future is contact the pre-health advising at PSU and ask if they will support your applying to both programs at the same time.</p>
<p>Since PSU uses a committee letter, the health professions committee may only agree to write a letter for one or the other, but not both during the same cycle.</p>
<p>@iwbB,
</p>
<p>Oh my, there seems to be no consensus on this. I’ve been told just the opposite several times. Once in a mock interview at NYU, they were very emphatic about it. They said: “Always say PhD only, since otherwise you might not be seen as serious about being a scientist”.
It’s all so random.</p>
<p>I was told if asked “what will you do if you don’t get into med school” to say I will attend grad school and reapply. To me if you don’t get in once why bother a second time? Go to a nursing or a P.A school.</p>
<p>^^^IF you really don’t care whether you go MD, DO, PA or DNP–why don’t you just choose the easiest path. (HINT: it’s not med school.)</p>
<p>well an MD can still be a physician scientist by doing a formal post doc or research fellowship after residency, a PhD can’t ever find their way into the clinic to treat a patient. Don’t really see how anyone can argue PhD only can be the answer. You are the first person I’ve heard say the opposite. I’ve seen several candidates discussed in the MD/PhD adcom as “obviously being fit for a PhD, but are they fit for an MD/PhD?” haven’t seen the opposite. Reapply once after waiting a year or two then MD only because I could still be a physician scientist was my answer.</p>
<p>@iwbB,
Do you know of any such cases? This scenario was discussed at a talk last summer and the speaker said this was a thing of the past. Post Doc appointments will go to those that are properly trained, not anyone off the street. The director of a top MSTP made it very clear to the audience that the days of MD only “scientist” were over (he should know, since he is an MD only scientist) and that there was no funding for non PhDs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not my opinion, It’s what I was told. (at the very institutions I am planning to apply)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve been told that the MSTP will get the people they want and that the MSs will ok them as a courtesy and that their overriding concern is finding people who will be dedicated to the science component. That’s where they lose people, not in the MD part.</p>
<p>First thing’s first: I do think that an MD only is an inferior scientific training and I do think that the questions asked by physician-scientists are more interesting than straight PhDs, but if your goal is purely research than a PhD is the best option.</p>
<p>FWIW, the MSTP director has a COI to overplay the necessity of MSTP training. Do you remember what data they were citing to say that there is no money for MDs? The only thing I have been told is that there is no money for anyone, doesn’t really matter what their training is. This paper from 5 years ago said that MD only success rates had remained steady over the previous 40 years: [JAMA</a> Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | New Physician-Investigators Receiving National Institutes of Health Research Project GrantsA Historical Perspective on the ?Endangered Species?](<a href=“http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=207455]JAMA”>http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=207455)</p>
<p>I’m assuming people old enough to be faculty are not what you want to hear about because there are tons of MD only research faculty. My summer rotation project last summer was given to a fellow (i.e. MD only post residency). You are right that a research fellowship is far more likely for an MD than a post doc but that’s probably more so because the pay is higher than because MDs are underqualified.</p>
<p>The fact remains that while the MD only route to a physician scientist is very difficult, the PhD only route to a physician scientist literally does not exist. The way admissions committees think may also vary a lot from program to program. At one top 10 program I interviewed at, I was told that the program emphasizes keeping your MD and PhD training separate because you have the rest of your life to integrate them. I fundamentally disagree with this and chose a program that believes that we should already be working on integrating our two degrees from day 1.</p>
<p>Maybe PhD backup plan isn’t such a bad idea to publicize, but depending on your reasons why MD/PhD, it can conflict with your message about why you need the dual training in the first place.</p>
<p>FYI, there are certain biomedical science PhD programs that allow you to take med school classes, have a physician mentor, etc… if you are interested in performing translational research but do not want to get an MD. </p>
<p>Stanford:
[Masters</a> of Medicine - Stanford University School of Medicine](<a href=“http://msm.stanford.edu/]Masters”>http://msm.stanford.edu/)</p>
<p>UPenn:
[HHMI</a> Med into Grad Scholars Program at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine](<a href=“http://www.med.upenn.edu/hmgs/]HHMI”>Welcome to the Penn Graduate Training in Medical Science (GTMS) Certificate Program | Graduate Training in Medical Science (GTMS) | Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania)</p>
<p>I’m sure there are others too.</p>
<p>The Penn program is very interesting, and while the Stanford masters in medicine is for people already in the PhD program, most masters in medicine programs are fluff programs for students who need to beef up their app for medical school.</p>