Graduate degree of some kind before MD

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
You have to be accepted to BOTH PhD and MD areas based on their own separate criteria and an interview for each to get into those programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No this is not true for all cases. Some MD/PhD programs run JOINT admissions processes in which the decision to admit you is based on the needs of the specific MD/PhD program. In other words, there is a separate admissions process dedicated solely to the MD/PhD applicants.</p>

<p>Probably the most prominent example is the Johns Hopkins MD/PhD program in which you are evaluated through an entirely separate committee. It is true that you do have to survive the standard Johns Hopkins first-round MD admissions, so in that sense the admissions are separate. But presuming you get past the first round, the decision to admit you into the MD/PhD program is made by a separate committee that is apart from the standard MD and PhD adcom.</p>

<p>You can read all about it here:</p>

<p>"When an application is complete with all credentials, it is forwarded to the MD-PhD Program Office. All combined-degree applications are reviewed by a separate MD-PhD Committee. A separate Graduate School application is not necessary. The MD-PhD Committee determines whether or not an interview is indicated. This assessment is based on the applicant's research experience, letters of recommendation, academic performance, and evidence for a commitment to medicine. The Committee considers standardized test scores only in the context of the applicant's other credentials. Neither test scores nor grades are used to establish an arbitrary admissions cut-off. If an interview is warranted, the applicant is notified by the MD-PhD Office and the interview date, schedule and overnight accommodations are arranged."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mdphd/admissions.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mdphd/admissions.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The point is, there are some people in the world who might get admitted to the Johns Hopkins MD/PhD program who might not have gotten into the regular Johns Hopkins MD program (and possibly not the regular Johns Hopkins PhD program either). Admissions are a fluky process and you will find that you get admitted to some programs that you think you have no chance, and you get rejected from some programs that you think are slam-dunks.</p>

[kihyle]

<p>i would think that getting another degree in advance to applying for med school is looked more favorably upon -- this is because you will have achieved something and med schools like achievers (the huge amount of money you pay as tuition covers only a fraction of the costs it takes to educate you so quitters waste school's money)</p>

<p>as far as I understand med schools take in a variety of students and they do not harbor particular dislike or like for people from other areas of study trying to get an MD -- i remember the local med school representative was bragging about how this year they got people as young as early 20s and as old as 40s ranging from professions such as a ballerina to priest from south africa -- what they do like to see is academic success (that you're not some plain average C+/B- student), community service, exposure to medical field in some shape or form, and achievement which may range from being a star in your local soccer team to having another degree, for example</p>

<p>however, if you think you will circumvent the troubles getting into medical school by the way of getting another degree, think again how much trouble it would be getting this other degree, paying for it, and then being that 27+ yrs freshman medical student, finishing your education when you are in mid-30s</p>

<p>MD/PhD programs take shorter (i hear 8 yrs?) and you forgo the trouble of going to 2 different schools -- it is a long commitment but as opposed to MD degree, i believe you are paid as if you're doing a PhD (read free but you'll be poor for 8 yrs) -- therefore, it is very hard to get in as you're not the only smart one to think of it in the first place -- however, MD/PhD programs set you up to do medical research -- as soon as you start doing research it does not matter what degree you hold, your (average) salary goes down -- so no you will not be earning as much as your fellow MD peers who work with patients in a hospital</p>

[DespSeekPhd]

<p>Yes, they have a joint admissions process/committee, but that process includes the caveat that you must qualify for both. When they discuss the needs of the program, they're referring to the needs of the PhD program, just like every PhD program has "needs." While a person that qualifies for the PhD program may get an edge in the Md admissions (just like any hook - and MD programs do like hooks far more than other grad programs do), you STILL have to meet the qualifications of the MD program.</p>

<p>I apparently wasn't clear. It's a COMBINED process, but you have to qualify for each SEPARATE program. Hopefully this clears it up.</p>

<p>Again, we and friends have gone through this process already. I can say from that experience, it's very competitive, and I'm not talking about the average undergrad/med student, I'm talking above average.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Yes, they have a joint admissions process/committee, but that process includes the caveat that you must qualify for both. When they discuss the needs of the program, they're referring to the needs of the PhD program, just like every PhD program has "needs." While a person that qualifies for the PhD program may get an edge in the Md admissions (just like any hook - and MD programs do like hooks far more than other grad programs do), you STILL have to meet the qualifications of the MD program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but the key word there is "qualify" - which is a tremendously loaded word, you must agree. The truth is, as we all know, most applicants who 'qualify' for a program will get rejected. For example, consider the case of undergraduate admissions. Harvard has freely admitted that the vast majority of rejectees to Harvard College are 'qualified' for the program in the sense that they would have almost certainly have successfully graduated if they had been admitted. But so what? At the end of the day, they were not admitted. </p>

<p>To 'qualify' for something generally only means that the program is confident that you have met the minimum standards necessary and that you will most likely complete the program successfully. But we all know that you have to do a lot better than simply 'qualify' for a program to get admitted to it. </p>

<p>Nobody is denying that the MD/PhD program is competitive. My point is that it is competitive in a different way, and using different metrics. Some people who would have gotten admitted to the MD/PhD program would not have gotten admitted to the regular MD program.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>
[quote]
Some people who would have gotten admitted to the MD/PhD program would not have gotten admitted to the regular MD program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is an awfully broad statement, don't you think? We could say that about almost any field with a similar pool. The point is, the admits to the MD/PhD programs seem to have both the stats that would get them into an MD program (high GPA, high MCAT) AS WELL AS the stats that would get them into a PhD program (research experience, high GPA.) The only thing that seems to be lacking for most of them is GRE scores, but I think we can agree that the MCAT is a fairly decent metric on its own.</p>

[sakky]

<p>That is HARDLY a broad statement. We all know that med-school admissions are based far more on just your stats. You can have killer stats and still not get in anywhere. Surely you've seen it happen. I know I have. </p>

<p>Med-school admissions, particularly at the top schools, also hinges on "well-roundedness" as well as clinical medical experience. However, MD/PhD admissions consider these things to be far less important, instead keying on people's research skills. </p>

<p>In short, those candidates who are "unrounded" will probably do better via MD/PhD admissions than in MD admissions.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>Again, just looking at median admit (on some of the FAQs), you find that most programs are saying that at least 2 years of serious research experience and some clinical experience is the norm.</p>

<p>Yes, I've met people with killer stats who haven't gotten into places, but you yourself say that med school is mostly a numbers game. And it is. </p>

<p>
[quote]

Med-school admissions, particularly at the top schools, also hinges on "well-roundedness" as well as clinical medical experience. However, MD/PhD admissions consider these things to be far less important, instead keying on people's research skills.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Besides, who says that clinical experience is more "well-rounded?" I know people who got into med school without the clinical experience, but had some killer research as an undergrad.</p>

[DespSeekPhd]

<p>Qualifying for a program means they would pass the first round of admissions (at least), which also hinges on well-roundedness. Then the med school people have to like you in an interview, in addition to the PhD people. It doesn't mean they have the scores and research ability, hence, they only need to qualify for a PhD program. I think you misunderstand what they mean, as it is deliberately vague for the same reason all grad and med school stuff is deliberately vague (so when they accept or reject you, you don't really know why). If they med school people don't like you in your interview, you're not gettin' in - period. If you have great scores but write a crappy personal statement - you're not gettin' in, either. Etc. etc.</p>

<p>Case in point - our friend, graduated from UCSF w/ high GPA, great MCAT and GRE scores, Fulbright scholar, tertiary author on a paper with important doctor - got into PhD, denied MD. Her certainly "qualified," by your definition, but not by theirs. Qualifying is a tricky, vague term, designed to keep out the heathens by any means necessary.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Yes, I've met people with killer stats who haven't gotten into places, but you yourself say that med school is mostly a numbers game. And it is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said that all of the process was mostly a numbers game. I said (or at least I meant) that the first initial screens (where most people get rejected) are a numbers game. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Besides, who says that clinical experience is more "well-rounded?" I know people who got into med school without the clinical experience, but had some killer research as an undergrad.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The med-schools say that. Like you have seen, there are people who have excellent grades and stats and research experience who nonetheless don't get into any MD schools. I suspect that they would have been more successful if they had applied to MD/PhD programs.</p>

<p>Again, take a look at molliebatmit. She herself admits that she would have great trouble getting into any top MD programs, mostly because she didn't play the "grade inflation game". But she probably could have gotten into some good MD/PhD programs. Her strong suit is research. Research matters far more for MD/PhD programs than for MD programs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Qualifying for a program means they would pass the first round of admissions (at least), which also hinges on well-roundedness.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely wrong. Perhaps you should look up how the process works.</p>

<p>The first round has NOTHING to do with well-roundedness. After all, how could it? In the first round, the only information that the schools receive are your grades, your MCAT score, and what school you went to. They get all of this data from the AMCAS clearinghouse. Only then, might they invite you to submit a secondary app, in which NOW they can assess your well-roundedness. It is in the secondary app (the "real" app) in which you submit a personal statement, you submit all your essay questions, your rec's. etc. etc. But if you haven't even been invited to submit that secondary app, then you've basically already been rejected. Hence, the first round is not a 'well-roundedness' screen by any means. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Then the med school people have to like you in an interview, in addition to the PhD people. It doesn't mean they have the scores and research ability, hence, they only need to qualify for a PhD program. I think you misunderstand what they mean, as it is deliberately vague for the same reason all grad and med school stuff is deliberately vague (so when they accept or reject you, you don't really know why). If they med school people don't like you in your interview, you're not gettin' in - period. If you have great scores but write a crappy personal statement - you're not gettin' in, either. Etc. etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, this depends from school to school. At Johns Hopkins, you only interview with the MD/PhD committee. Nobody else. In other words, the MD committee does not have an opportunity to ding you for a bad interview. Neither does anybody from the PhD committee. </p>

<p>Look, I really don't understand why you don't see my basic point. Everything else is just quibbling. My basic point is that some people will have more success getting into an MD/PhD program than into a regular MD program. I'm not saying that there are a lot of people like this. But there are people like this. </p>

<p>I'll give you an analogy. I know one girl who got into Harvard for undergrad but not into any of the Ivies. Why? She admitted herself that it almost certainly had to do with field hockey. She was a star field hockey player and she applied in the year that the Harvard field hockey team was looking to replace their goalie, which was the position she played. Similarly, I know another person who got into the Harvard doctoral program in business (at Harvard Business School), but not into any of the other programs she applied to. Why? It's because she had been doing undergraduate research in economics and business that aligned exactly with what HBS was doing, but not with any of the other programs. </p>

<p>The point is, admissions are fickle and they all use different criteria. Whenever you have different adcoms, you are inevitably going to have differences in the weightings of various criteria. Some people who were denied by one adcom might have been admitted through a different adcom. Each program has different things it is trying to emphasize, and these emphases tend to vary from year to year. Hence, you may have the luck of having exactly the characteristics that one adcom happens to be looking for in a particular year. There is a lot of luck and randomness involved in admissions.</p>

[DespSeekPhd]

<p>I'm sorry, but you made me laugh when you told me I don't understand how the process works. I assure you I do, as my hunband is now finishing med school and we have actually been through the process for both MD and MD/PhD. And the first round isn't JUST a numbers game - you plenty of other information, such as personal statement AND apps. All medical schools use the AMCAT application, although many ask you to fill out a supplimentary application, which is also considered "first round" as you r application at each school will not be considered complete without it.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.medicalschooladmission.com/amcas.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.medicalschooladmission.com/amcas.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>When you apply for an MD/PhD program, you mark on the app that you are intersted in both. Your information much first be deemed acceptable for an interview by the med school, then the PhD program must decide the same. If only one of the programs finds you acceptable, you are invitied for an interview for just that program. If both find you an interesting candidate, you are invited to interview with both. Unlike grad schools, the med school interview is no guarantee of a spot, nor is the PhD portion. If both still find you attractive and have a spot for you after the interview, you are accepted. More often than not you are accepted to the MD but not the PhD, as there are very few spots and the people that apply for them self-select to a high degree (they already have killer stats, or they wouldn't have even gotten an interview). And just because it is a COMBINED committee does not mean the MD doesn't have a chance to ding you. It means that there are representatives from each program on one committee who interview together.</p>

<p>Everything else is NOT quibbling. You're describing a fantasyland of MD/PhD admissions that doesn't exist that you contrived from a paragraph on a website about a program you have no personal experience with. I'm correcting the misconception, as I've seen it in action.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>
[quote]
Again, take a look at molliebatmit. She herself admits that she would have great trouble getting into any top MD programs, mostly because she didn't play the "grade inflation game". But she probably could have gotten into some good MD/PhD programs. Her strong suit is research. Research matters far more for MD/PhD programs than for MD programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>This is insane. When the MD/PhD programs are themselves saying that their median GPA is 3.7+, why on earth should I believe otherwise? I mean, look, I have no problem believing that they look for different things, but when you say that the GPA doesn't matter as much (when the top programs say they do), you're just making stuff up here. </p>

<p>Everything that the MD/PhD programs say on their own sites indicates that you're looking at 3.7+ for the top 10 programs. How is that any different from MD? You also need a strong MCAT. AND you need strong experience.</p>

<p>It seems to me that what the FAQs on the sites and what you're saying are not lining up here.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
When the MD/PhD programs are themselves saying that their median GPA is 3.7+, why on earth should I believe otherwise? I mean, look, I have no problem believing that they look for different things, but when you say that the GPA doesn't matter as much (when the top programs say they do), you're just making stuff up here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the median GPA of the MD schools is high too, in fact, even higher than 3.7.</p>

<p>In fact, the point you've raised doesn't actually weaken my argument, it actually STRENGTHENS my argument. To wit: I suspect that the average GPA for the Johns Hopkins MD/PhD program is above 3.7 or above. But what's the average GPA for the regular Johns Hopkins MD program? It's a 3.84 (according to USNews). Hence, if any conclusion can be drawn from that, it's that it's actually EASIER for somebody with a lower GPA to get into a MD/PhD program than into the corresponding MD program. Hence, when you say that I don't have a point, I think it is you that is the one that is making stuff up. You know I have a point here. </p>

<p>Nobody is denying that you need a strong GPA and a strong MCAT to get into the MD/PhD program. But what I am saying is that you probably don't need AS STRONG of a MCAT and GPA as you would for just the regular MD program. Instead, weaknesses in your MCAT and GPA can be made up for through pure research accomplishments in a way that is not true for the regular MD program. For example, having already published a bunch of respected scientific papers will do more to make up for relatively weaker GPA/MCAT in MD/PhD admissions than it will in just MD admissions.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
I'm sorry, but you made me laugh when you told me I don't understand how the process works. I assure you I do, as my hunband is now finishing med school and we have actually been through the process for both MD and MD/PhD. And the first round isn't JUST a numbers game - you plenty of other information, such as personal statement AND apps. All medical schools use the AMCAT application, although many ask you to fill out a supplimentary application,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some do indeed do that. But that's my point - NOT ALL. You are the one making blanket statements that are not true in all cases. That's exactly what I am getting at - different programs have different rules. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Unlike grad schools, the med school interview is no guarantee of a spot, nor is the PhD portion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? I am not aware of any grad school interview that is a guarantee of anything. If it was a guarantee, then why even bother having the interview? Just admit the guy and stop wasting everybody's time. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And just because it is a COMBINED committee does not mean the MD doesn't have a chance to ding you. It means that there are representatives from each program on one committee who interview together.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now you really are quibbling. I'm sure you know that for many schools, the MD/PhD committee and the MD committee comprise different people. Yes, some people on the MD/PhD committee will come from the med-school, but the point is, these are different people with different desires and different opinions than the people who are sitting on just the MD committee. The point is, the med-school people on the MD/PhD committee may like you, but the people on the MD committee may not, especially in the marginal cases. </p>

<p>This is where luck and randomness come into play. The point is, you never really know where you are going to get admitted, and every single adcom in the world is different. Yes, every single one. They are all comprised of human beings each with their own opinions and goals. The MD/PhD committee is furthermore tasked with a different mission than the MD committee is. The former is tasked with finding the best future medical scientists in the world, whereas the latter is tasked with finding the best future practicing physicians. These are not the same goals, and in fact, in certain aspects, mutually exclusive. Just because somebody would make for an excellent medical scientist does not mean he would be a good physician and vice versa. That is why the MD/PhD committees emphasize different character attributes. Not to stereotype, but a brilliant researcher who has relatively weak social skills is more likely to get admitted by an MD/PhD committee than an MD committee. That's my point.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>3.7+ is about the median for UCLA med and the median for their MD/PhD program.</p>

<p>Johns Hopkins does not give their median GPA for their MD/PhD program, so it's speculatory on either or our parts to say what JHU's gap is.</p>

<p>However, it seems to me that the gap in GPA is small, if nonexistent. Again, neither of us can really argue firmly in either case, since we can't really do a serious stats analysis, but just looking at most med schools, 3.7+ doesn't seem too far off the mark for the median. JHU is of course an extreme, even amongst the top 10-15 med schools. Harvard is 3.76, UCSF is 3.79. So 3.7+ (which probably means a strong 3.7 at least), isn't that far off the mark from most of the top 10-15 schools.</p>

[sakky]

<p>Look, I never said that I could PROVE that MD/PhD's are getting in with lower GPA's. I too probably suspect that the gap is small. My point is that the data clearly does not disprove what I have been saying. </p>

<p>And even that is not the real issue, as that is all just quibbling. My point is that different adcoms apply different criteria to their candidates. There are people who will find it actually EASIER to get into an MD/PhD program than into an MD program. That's a point that I really don't think is disputable. Maybe there's not a lot of these people. I don't know. But I don't think anybody can seriously deny that this sometimes happens. That's what happens when you have different adcoms with different people on them, tasked with a different mission.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Yes, of course.</p>

<p>But you suggested, early on, a few things:</p>

<ol>
<li> That most are no-name programs (which is as true for these programs as it is for med schools)</li>
<li> That it may be easier (it may be, but certainly not GPA or MCAT wise for top programs)</li>
<li> That they're looking for different things (this I may be inclined to agree with you on. However, it seems to me that for most of these programs, you have to have everything a pre-med has AND research.)</li>
</ol>

[DespSeekPhd]

<p><some do="" indeed="" that.="" but="" that's="" my="" point="" -="" not="" all.="" you="" are="" the="" one="" making="" blanket="" statements="" that="" true="" in="" all="" cases.="" exactly="" what="" i="" am="" getting="" at="" different="" programs="" have="" rules.=""></some></p>

<p>Huh? I am making a statement that applies to all cases. ALL med schools use the same application. This application requires a personal statement, recommendations, and a summary of extracurriculars and research experience. If some schools choose to ask for more, that's fine, but your statement that the schools don't ask for recs/ECs/SOP until second round is patently false.</p>

<p><huh? i="" am="" not="" aware="" of="" any="" grad="" school="" interview="" that="" is="" a="" guarantee="" anything.="" if="" it="" was="" guarantee,="" then="" why="" even="" bother="" having="" the="" interview?="" just="" admit="" guy="" and="" stop="" wasting="" everybody's="" time.=""></huh?></p>

<p>It's generally understood that if you have applied to a grad school program and get an interview, it's usually yours to screw up. They just want to see if they can get along with you. For MD and MD/PhD, they are looking at a lot more, and they invite more people than they have spots for.</p>

<p><now you="" really="" are="" quibbling.="" i'm="" sure="" know="" that="" for="" many="" schools,="" the="" md="" phd="" committee="" and="" comprise="" different="" people.="" yes,="" some="" people="" on="" will="" come="" from="" med-school,="" but="" point="" is,="" these="" with="" desires="" opinions="" than="" who="" sitting="" just="" committee.=""></now></p>

<p>You're not making any sense. If your point is that different people will see things differently, I suppose that's true. I'd also point out that even for two people interviewing for just the med school, they may be interviewed by different people. But you're not even going to get before the committee unless your stats are plenty high. The fact that they are different people is rather irrelevant - the people may be different, but I assure you they are all looking out for the same things. The med school people are looking out for the med school, and if you think that they're going to let in a substandard candidate, think again. Combined program or not, the med school's name goes on that person's degree, and they're not going to give a free pass to someone just because they would make a great PhD candidate.</p>

<p><to wit:="" i="" suspect="" that="" the="" average="" gpa="" for="" johns="" hopkins="" md="" phd="" program="" is="" above="" 3.7="" or="" above.="" but="" what's="" regular="" program?="" it's="" a="" 3.84="" (according="" to="" usnews).="" hence,="" if="" any="" conclusion="" can="" be="" drawn="" from="" that,...=""></to></p>

<p>Pure speculation, based on the fact that you speculated the median GPA for the MD/PhD program. How can you use that as an argument?</p>

<p><there are="" people="" who="" will="" find="" it="" actually="" easier="" to="" get="" into="" an="" md="" phd="" program="" than="" program.="" that's="" a="" point="" that="" i="" really="" don't="" think="" is="" disputable.=""></there></p>

<p>I believe it's absolutely disputable, and I think making a statement like that with arguments that haven't been substantiated on your part at all is silly. My husband, who himself is a soon-to-be graduate of a highly ranked med school and again has experience with all of this, says that there is no way a person would get into a combined program unless the med school accepted you first - in all cases, the med school comes first. This makes absolute sense when you think about it - why would a program that has very few spaces and many applicants accept substandard people to the med school based on their research when there are plenty of people that apply that have research AND great stats? It's nonsensical.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Huh? I am making a statement that applies to all cases. ALL med schools use the same application. This application requires a personal statement, recommendations, and a summary of extracurriculars and research experience. If some schools choose to ask for more, that's fine, but your statement that the schools don't ask for recs/ECs/SOP until second round is patently false.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is NOT the point. This is not about what is required, this is about the WEIGHTINGS of the various criteria. Whenever you have different adcoms, you are inevitably going to get different weightings. Different adcom officers are going to want different things. Is that really so hard to understand? </p>

<p>Let me give you an example. Think about how grading works for subjects like English. I think we all know that 2 English profs can demand the exact same assignments, yet if you submit the same paper to both profs, you may get 2 entirely different grades. One prof may love your paper and give you an A. The other prof may hate it and give you a C. But it's the EXACT SAME PAPER. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the different standards as far as how the profs go about deciding what is a good paper or not. In fact, one of the 'games' you have to play as a college student is to figure out what kinds of style your prof likes, and then submit papers in that style.</p>

<p>That's exactly what happens with adcoms too. A personal statement that one adcom officer thinks is the greatest thing since sliced bread, another officer might think is total crap. It's the inherent arbitrariness of what different people think is good and not good. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's generally understood that if you have applied to a grad school program and get an interview, it's usually yours to screw up. They just want to see if they can get along with you. For MD and MD/PhD, they are looking at a lot more, and they invite more people than they have spots for.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know about that. Take a look at the mdapplicants website. Plenty of people get dinged after the MD interview. I would say that it's about 25-50% of those who get an interview do not get admitted. Again, look at the website yourself and you can convince yourself of this. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You're not making any sense. If your point is that different people will see things differently, I suppose that's true. I'd also point out that even for two people interviewing for just the med school, they may be interviewed by different people. But you're not even going to get before the committee unless your stats are plenty high. The fact that they are different people is rather irrelevant - the people may be different, but I assure you they are all looking out for the same things. The med school people are looking out for the med school, and if you think that they're going to let in a substandard candidate, think again. Combined program or not, the med school's name goes on that person's degree, and they're not going to give a free pass to someone just because they would make a great PhD candidate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But they are NOT really out looking for the same thing. I am not talking about giving anybody a 'free pass'. I agree with you that the MD representatives are there to make sure that only qualified people for the MD program are admitted. But just because you're qualified doesn't mean that you are going to get admitted.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example. Let's say that you are a rep from the MD school on a MD/PhD adcom. A candidate file is being reviewed. The PhD reps on the committee see the file and strongly endorse him because they see some sort of research brilliance in the candidate. To you, the candidate is acceptable to you (in that you are pretty sure that he is a worthy MD candidate), but he wouldn't exactly be one of your first choices. Still, you're probably not going to ding him simply because he passes your most important test, which is whether he is good enough for the MD program. You're probably thinking to yourself that, well, he is good enough to pass my qualifications, and if the PhD reps think this strongly of him, then, fine, let's admit him. Let's face it. You are going to ding a guy who the PhD reps endorse strongly only if you have a strong reason to do so. In this scenario, you do not.</p>

<p>Now, if this same file was admitted to the MD adcom, he probably wouldn't be admitted because there are no PhD reps there to endorse him. And that's exactly my point - some people will be more successful in the MD/PhD admissions procedure than the regular MD admissions. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Pure speculation, based on the fact that you speculated the median GPA for the MD/PhD program. How can you use that as an argument?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, it's pure speculation. But so is UCLAri's. And, in fact, so is yours. We are ALL basing our opinions on speculation. None of us have ever actually been on an MD/PhD adcom. </p>

<p>So if my opinions are invalid because they are speculation, then so are yours, and so are UCLAri's. What you are basing things on are what you have seen others undergo, like your husband. For me, the same (I know people who have gone through the process). So we are using the same standards of proof. If you say that mine aren't good enough, then neither are yours. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe it's absolutely disputable, and I think making a statement like that with arguments that haven't been substantiated on your part at all is silly. My husband, who himself is a soon-to-be graduate of a highly ranked med school and again has experience with all of this, says that there is no way a person would get into a combined program unless the med school accepted you first - in all cases, the med school comes first. This makes absolute sense when you think about it - why would a program that has very few spaces and many applicants accept substandard people to the med school based on their research when there are plenty of people that apply that have research AND great stats? It's nonsensical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He can say it's as nonsensical as he wants, but, again, look at the Johns Hopkins procedure. JHU specifically states that they have a special admissions procedure dedicated just to the MD/PhD's. JHU does not admit you into the MD program first. It does not. Nor is JHU the only one. Many other schools ((i.e. some of the lower UC's) do the same.</p>

<p>Now, if you and your husband want to take it up with these schools and ask them why they are doing things this way, feel free. But don't blame me. I didn't create the rules. They did. I'm just telling you what the rules are. Don't shoot the messenger. </p>

<p>Nobody is saying that these people who are admitted are "substandard". Obivously they are all good enough. But my point is, just being good enough is not enough to get you in. Lots of people who apply to MD programs are good enough for the program, but most of them don't get in. Again, if you happen to be a brilliant researcher, that fact may be clear to a MD/PhD adcom, but not to a MD adcom. You may be "good enough" for the MD program, but not admitted to the MD program because there are other candidates who are better. On the other hand, you may be admitted to the MD/PhD program because your research potential puts you over the top. That's the point.</p>

<p>Again, I would reiterate the example of the girl I know who only got into Harvard of all of the Ivies because Harvard needed a goalie. It's not like she didn't get into those other Ivies because she was "substandard". She got on the wait lists of several other Ivies. So clearly she was good enough for those Ivies. But being good enough was not enough to get her in. In her case, her one star attribute (hockey skills) were highly prized by one specific adcom. The other Ivy adcoms obviously didn't really care about that trait.</p>

<p>Similarly, if you are a star researcher, that fact will help you more in MD/PhD admissions than it will in just regular MD admissions. It's like if you have an English prof who really likes a certain style of writing, and you happen to be very good at that style, then you will probably get a better grade than if you had a different prof who doesn't like that style.</p>

[DespSeekPhd]

<p><that is="" not="" the="" point.="" this="" about="" what="" required,="" weightings="" of="" various="" criteria.="" whenever="" you="" have="" different="" adcoms,="" are="" inevitably="" going="" to="" get="" weightings.="" adcom="" officers="" want="" things.="" that="" really="" so="" hard="" understand?=""></that></p>

<p>Wrong. Adcom people with the same criteria for their respective programs representing those prospective programs. Is that so hard to understand?</p>

<p><oh, i="" don't="" know="" about="" that.="" take="" a="" look="" at="" the="" mdapplicants="" website.="" plenty="" of="" people="" get="" dinged="" after="" md="" interview.="" would="" say="" that="" it's="" 25-50%="" those="" who="" an="" interview="" do="" not="" admitted.="" again,="" website="" yourself="" and="" you="" can="" convince="" this.=""></oh,></p>

<p>Um, you just proved my point, my point being that many more applicants get invited than they have spots for. Hence, 25-50% of them get dinged. And that's JUST for straight MD. Far more applicants for MD/PhD for fewer spots compared to MD, so more applicant dings. It's the whole supply/demand concept.</p>

<p><but they="" are="" not="" really="" out="" looking="" for="" the="" same="" thing.="" i="" am="" talking="" about="" giving="" anybody="" a="" 'free="" pass'.="" agree="" with="" you="" that="" md="" representatives="" there="" to="" make="" sure="" only="" qualified="" people="" program="" admitted.="" but="" just="" because="" you're="" doesn't="" mean="" going="" get=""></but></p>

<p>I believe you left out the salient point in my post, which was that the MD admissions come FIRST (as in, most important). If the MD program doesn't want you, the combined program won't take you. Period. You can define the word "qualified" in any way you please for your own personal use, but in the realm of MD/PhD admissions, that's what it means. How do I know? Because I know people who have been through the process personally (which I believe holds a lot more weight than your speculation on a sentence in a website and personal opinions).</p>

<p><sure, it's="" pure="" speculation.="" but="" so="" is="" uclari's.="" and,="" in="" fact,="" yours.="" we="" are="" all="" basing="" our="" opinions="" on="" none="" of="" us="" have="" ever="" actually="" been="" an="" md="" phd="" adcom.=""></sure,></p>

<p>Um, actually, my husband has been through this process, and now that he has been in med school for 4 years has become good friends with some adcoms, and he has read this thread, and laughed his butt off. So no, I'm not speculating. I'm trying to keep you from giving these poor people misinformation based on your speculation that you insist is fact (you stated it was fact in an earlier post, so which is it again?)</p>

<p><he can="" say="" it's="" as="" nonsensical="" he="" wants,="" but,="" again,="" look="" at="" the="" johns="" hopkins="" procedure.="" jhu="" specifically="" states="" that="" they="" have="" a="" special="" admissions="" procedure="" dedicated="" just="" to="" md="" phd's.="" does="" not="" admit="" you="" into="" program="" first.="" it="" not.="" nor="" is="" only="" one.="" many="" other="" schools="" ((i.e.="" some="" of="" lower="" uc's)="" do="" same.=""></he></p>

<p>Again, you are drawing incorrect information from a few sentences. I have already explained how it works. A combined process does not mean what you think it means. Let me be clear: you misunderstood.</p>

<p><now, if="" you="" and="" your="" husband="" want="" to="" take="" it="" up="" with="" these="" schools="" ask="" them="" why="" they="" are="" doing="" things="" this="" way,="" feel="" free.="" but="" don't="" blame="" me.="" i="" didn't="" create="" the="" rules.="" did.="" i'm="" just="" telling="" what="" rules="" are.="" shoot="" messenger.=""></now,></p>

<p>I wasn't aware you were personally representing these schools and their programs. I bet they would be surprised to hear it too. You're not the messenger. We don't have to take it up with them, because that's not how it works.</p>

<p><again, i="" would="" reiterate="" the="" example="" of="" girl="" know="" who="" only="" got="" into="" harvard="" all="" ivies="" because="" needed="" a="" goalie.="" it's="" not="" like="" she="" didn't="" get="" those="" other="" was="" "substandard".="" on="" wait="" lists="" several="" ivies.="" so="" clearly="" good="" enough="" for="" but="" being="" to="" her="" in.="" in="" case,="" one="" star="" attribute="" (hockey="" skills)="" were="" highly="" prized="" by="" specific="" adcom.="" ivy="" adcoms="" obviously="" really="" care="" about="" that="" trait.=""></again,></p>

<p>This has no relation to anything, and is extrapolating something that is true in an entirely different situation to another. Undergrad admissions are NOT the same as MD admissions in any respect, save that you are going to a campus.</p>

<p><similarly, if="" you="" are="" a="" star="" researcher,="" that="" fact="" will="" help="" more="" in="" md="" phd="" admissions="" than="" it="" just="" regular="" admissions.=""></similarly,></p>

<p>Not true. being a researcher is highly valued in straight MD admissions, as you do not need to be a PhD to do medical research. There are many doctors who finish their MD and go straight into research. And pretty much every med student completes some kind of grad level research while in med school. My husband, for example, has published two papers with another doctor that have received a wide audence (they've actually been in the most viewed in Yahoo news, etc, one very recently). He will publish another, with himself as first author, this summer. Research is prized just as highly in MD admissions as PhD admissions. The difference is, for the PhD, you need to articulate more a specific research plan and have a reason for needing that PhD. That's it. And you still need to make the cut for the MD program - again, your PhD angle is a hook, but no more.his is another thread I refuse to continue arguing. Pure speculation is not an argument, and as I know how the MD-MD/PhD process works, I don't feel the need to argue it with you, who seem to love arguing for the sake of arguing.</p>

<p>For those who are considering an MD/PhD - go for it, but be aware that it is very competitive and you have to have good, often great MCATS and GPA, just as you would with a top med school. Also, be able to articulate your research interests and your future plans - this is important. Reasearch experience is important to a degree, as for any PhD program. If you can do these things, by all means apply. But apply to some straight MD programs too. Meet with your advisor and they'll give you the lowdown, and you should also speak to some admissions counselors at the programs you're interested in. If you are intersted in a future as a medical researcher, an MD/PhD will give you a leg up, but ultimately it's not absolutely necessary. To the OP - if you major in engineering and then get an MD, you can use both your undergrad and MD to do work that combines those two without even having to do an additional grad degree, if you market yourself well. You have lots of opportunities to do research in med school, and you can choose something to which you can apply your engineering knowledge. Good luck!</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Wrong. Adcom people with the same criteria for their respective programs representing those prospective programs. Is that so hard to understand?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong again. You put them in the same committee and the aggregate decision of the committee is inevitably going to be different than if you had them in separate committees. Committees, by their very nature, always make decisions that are different from what individual members of the committee might want to do. Why is that so hard to understand? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe you left out the salient point in my post, which was that the MD admissions come FIRST (as in, most important). If the MD program doesn't want you, the combined program won't take you. Period. You can define the word "qualified" in any way you please for your own personal use, but in the realm of MD/PhD admissions, that's what it means. How do I know? Because I know people who have been through the process personally (which I believe holds a lot more weight than your speculation on a sentence in a website and personal opinions).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, because I too know people who have been through the process and it actually depends.</p>

<p>In fact, again, to invoke JHU, JHU specifically says that they might consider you for regular MD admissions AFTER they have considered you for MD/PhD admissions. But why would that be necessary if the MD committee decision had come first? </p>

<p>"A new policy, instituted several years ago, is that outstanding applicants who are not accepted into the MD-PhD Program may, upon recommendation of the MD-PhD Committee and consent of the student, be considered by the regular MD Admissions Committee. In these instances, the application is forwarded to the Medical School Admissions Office, and the applicant is notified."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mdphd/admissions.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mdphd/admissions.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Um, actually, my husband has been through this process, and now that he has been in med school for 4 years has become good friends with some adcoms, and he has read this thread, and laughed his butt off. So no, I'm not speculating. I'm trying to keep you from giving these poor people misinformation based on your speculation that you insist is fact (you stated it was fact in an earlier post, so which is it again?)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then I think it is fair for you to state what med-school you are talking about and then state that what you are saying is only true for the SPECIFIC med-school that he is at, but not ALL med-schools. Again, take a look at JHU. Otherwise, by implying that your experiences are true for all med-schools, it is you that is spreading bad information around. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, you are drawing incorrect information from a few sentences. I have already explained how it works. A combined process does not mean what you think it means. Let me be clear: you misunderstood.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I think it is you that is misunderstanding me, or maybe it's because you don't WANT to understand. I am saying that different adcoms are going to arrive at different conclusions about different candidates. That has to do with the inherent subjectivity of the admissions process. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I wasn't aware you were personally representing these schools and their programs. I bet they would be surprised to hear it too. You're not the messenger. We don't have to take it up with them, because that's not how it works.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not personally representing any schools. But neither are you. That's the point. I am not impugning the fact that you have some information about certain schools. But I also have some information about certain other schools. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This has no relation to anything, and is extrapolating something that is true in an entirely different situation to another. Undergrad admissions are NOT the same as MD admissions in any respect, save that you are going to a campus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But the ANALOGY is the same in that different adcoms are going to arrive at different conclusions because they weigh things differently. It is entirely possible to get into Harvard Medical School and yet not get into a no-name med-school. By the same token, it is possible to get into a MD/PhD program of one school, and yet, if that person had applied only to the MD program of the same school, to not get in. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Not true. being a researcher is highly valued in straight MD admissions, as you do not need to be a PhD to do medical research.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice try. Did I say that being a researcher was not highly valued in straight MD admissions? I said it was MORE valued in the MD/PhD realm. It's like saying that because Bill Gates is richer than Warren Buffett, that doesn't mean that Buffett doesn't have any money. It's that Gates has MORE money. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Research is prized just as highly in MD admissions as PhD admissions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is where we part company. Even many the MD/PhD adcoms themselves say that they value research more so than the MD adcoms do. As a case in point, you can get into MD school with no research ability. Many people do. In fact, I know several people in the Harvard MD program who have done that. But very few people get into MD/PhD programs with no research experience. Every Harvard MD/PhD student I know came in with extensive research experience. </p>

<p>But fine, how about this. I propose we break the logjam. Let's email some of the MD/PhD adcoms of the top schools and ask them whether they would value research experience more than would their regular MD adcom, and then we'll come back here and print their responses. If you're so sure about what you are saying, then surely the adcoms will back you up, right? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Pure speculation is not an argument, and as I know how the MD-MD/PhD process works,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Pure speculation? How so? You have your people that you know. And I have mine. And they have told me what they have seen. I don't think my people are any less valid than yours. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't feel the need to argue it with you, who seem to love arguing for the sake of arguing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet, you keep coming back. What's up with that? If you don't like arguing, then why do you keep coming back here? You know what they say about those who live in glass houses. </p>

<p>Look, you like arguing just as much as I do. Don't pretend otherwise. If you didn't, you wouldn't be coming back. </p>

<p>
[quote]
For those who are considering an MD/PhD - go for it, but be aware that it is very competitive and you have to have good, often great MCATS and GPA, just as you would with a top med school. Also, be able to articulate your research interests and your future plans - this is important

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right there, you just managed to contradict yourself. Regular MD applicants don't need to articulate a research interest. If they can, then good for them, but they don't NEED to do it. But you have admitted that MD/PhD applicants need to articulate a research interest. I agree. But what that means is that research capabilities must be more important for MD/Phd applicants than for MD applicants. You can get into MD without a research interest. With the MD/PhD process, not so much. Hence, that means that the weightings are different, which has been my point all along.</p>