<p>Would anyone know or could give me estimates of what stats one needs to have to get into an MD/PhD program? I know that it is very competitive and the applicant needs to have a ton of research experience and very high grades (GPA and MCAT). Do people in ivy league institutions have the advantage in applying over those from state schools? I am just curious b/c it seems to me that ivy students have the advantage in med school applications b/c of their high MCATs and GPAs and they are considered to be very bright since they made it into such competitive schools. (Note: I am not trying to debunk anyone but after reading previous posts by norcal and bmd, this is what I gathered). Thanks.</p>
<p>You don't need terribly high stats to get into a MD/PhD program. The issue is that, unlike MD programs, MD/PhD programs vary greatly in quality. Most applicants don't want to do MD/PhD at Boston University or Mercer. They want to go to Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, etc. because in the academic world name and prestige do carry weight. A 3.6/32 can probably get you into a no-name MSTP program. But obviously for the top programs, we're talking about 3.8+, 37+ scores, not all that different from the normal MD stats.</p>
<p>The reason that I think that it is so hard to get in is because of the limited # of spots open. Most schools from what I have seen have only like 20 spots open for this program. Hence if you take into account all of those who applied, most will probably not get in, even to a no-name school. </p>
<p>I do agree with you about the prestige aspect, but after a semester of college and looking deeply at myself, I would be just as happy going to a decent school for this program. I mean of course if you graduate from a top tier school, you have connections, respect, and most work places will look highly on you, but you cannot necessarily call someone who goes to a mediocre school incompetent. I have worked in labs with MD/PhDs and in the end, the fact that you have the title is enough. I mean from a research aspect of things, you are judged mroe on what discoveries your lab makes and how knowledgeable you truly are, than what college you graduated from. That is at least what I think.</p>
<p>I've talked with several MD/PhDs and the general consensus seems to be that one should go to the highest ranked program possible. This is because science is inherently political -- the people at the top of the scientific world respect the students that come out of the best programs in their field. The quality of research at top universities is virtually unparalleled, just compare funding for professors at the best programs compared to the mediocre programs.</p>
<p>I understand what you mean but there is a difference between learning from them and working there. Even if lets say you graduate from Harvard w/ an MD/PhD degree, that does not mean that Harvard will give you a job. You may wind up working at a small state university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
only like 20 spots open
[/quote]
A wild overestimate. The national average is probably closer to 2 or 3, although of course not all schools have MSTP programs. So among the schools that do, the average is probably around seven.</p>
<p>
[quote]
one should go to the highest ranked program possible
[/quote]
Yes, but don't forget that it's the prestige of the PhD, not the MD, that matters.</p>
<p>So the motto is apply if you truly want to and pray that you get into a top med school MD/PhD program for the prestige aspect of the PhD degree.</p>
<p>It's not just the prestige of the PhD degree. Top schools have more research funding, more well known and accomplished mentors, and better research resources.</p>
<p>I hope it's ok if I ask this question in here.. but what are the advantages of the MD/PhD programs?</p>
<p>I just have a hard time believing that PhD-only scientists are missing "clinical insight" that they could only get from being in the dual degree program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just have a hard time believing that PhD-only scientists are missing "clinical insight" that they could only get from being in the dual degree program.
[/quote]
... why? This seems pretty logical to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but you cannot necessarily call someone who goes to a mediocre school incompetent. I have worked in labs with MD/PhDs and in the end, the fact that you have the title is enough. I mean from a research aspect of things, you are judged mroe on what discoveries your lab makes and how knowledgeable you truly are, than what college you graduated from. That is at least what I think.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not that we're calling them 'incompetent'. Rather, as others here have pointed out, it's the scientific community that calls them incompetent (or values them less highly or whatever euphemism you want to use). As hoffman said, whether we like it or not, the world of academia is highly political and the quality of your papers will often times be (unfairly) judged by your prestige, of which where you went to school is a component. </p>
<p>Consider the following quotes in the classic paper "Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery" by Barber that appeared in Science:</p>
<p>"Niels Henrik Abel, early in the 19th
century, made important discoveries on
a classical mathematical problem, equations
of the fifth degree . Not only
was Abel himself unknown but there
was no one of any considerable professional
standing in his own country,
Norway (then part of Denmark), to
sponsor his work. He sent his paper to
various foreign mathematicians, the
great Gauss among them. But Gauss
merely filed the leaflet away unread,
and it was found uncut after his death,
among his papers. Ohm was another
whose work, in this case experimental,
was ignored partly because he was of
low professional standing. The researches
of an obscure teacher of
mathematics at the Jesuit Gymnasium
in Cologne made little impression upon
the more noted scientists of the German
universities."</p>
<p>"This can be illustrated
by an incident in the life of [Nobel Laureate] Lord
Rayleigh. For the British Association
meeting at Birmingham in 1886, Rayleigh
submitted a paper under the title,
"An Experiment to show that a Divided
Electric Current may be greater in both
Branches than in the Mains." "His
name," says his son and biographer,
"was either omitted or accidentally detached,
and the Committee 'turned it
down' as the work of one of those
curious persons called paradoxers. However,
when the authorship was discovered,
the paper was found to have
merits after all." </p>
<p>"Perhaps the classical instance of low
professional standing helping to create
resistance to a scientist's discoveries is
that of Mendel...Mendel sent
his paper to one of the distinguished
botanists of his time, Carl von Nageli
of Munich. Von Nageli
resisted Mendel's theories for a number
of reasons: because his own substantive
theories about inheritance were different
and because he was unsympathetic
to Mendel's use of mathematics. but
also because he looked down, from his
position of abthority, upon the unimportant
monk from Brunn. Mendel had
written deferentially to von Niigeli, in
letters that amounted to small monographs.
In these letters, Mendel addressed
von Nageli most respectfully,
as an acknowledged master of the subject
in which they were both interested.
But von Nageli was the victim of his
own position as a scientific pundit.
Mendel seemed to him a mere amateur
expressing fantastic notions, or at least
notions contrary to his own..."</p>
<p>Or consider what the eminent sociologist Robert Merton had to say about it in his article in Science. </p>
<p>"We start by noting a theme that runs
through the interviews with the Nobel
laureates. They repeatedly observe that
eminent scientists get disproportionately
great credit for their contributions
to science while relatively unknown
scientists tend to get disproportionately
little credit for comparable contributions.
As one laureate in physics put
it: “The world is peculiar in this
matter of how it gives credit. It tends
to give the credit to already famous
people?</p>
<p>As we examine the experiences reported
by eminent scientists we find
that this pattern of recognition, skewed
in favor of the established scientist, appears
principally (i) in cases of collaboration and (ii) in cases of independent
multiple discoveries made by
scientists of distinctly different rank papers coauthored by men of decidedly
unequal reputation, another
laureate in physics reports, “the man
who’s best known gets more credit, an
inordinate amount of credit. In the
words of a laureate in chemistry:
“When people see my name on a paper,
they are apt to remember it and not to
remember the other names.”</p>
<p>Then of course there was the infamous Peters & Ceci 1982 paper in which researchers took papers that had been written by famous researchers from top universities and that had already been published in psychology journals, and resubmitted those very same *papers to the *same journals, but with the purported authors' names changed to unknown people from low-ranked universities. A small percentage of those papers were caught as resubmissions. But over 90% were not. And of those that were not caught, the vast majority were rejected for publication. Again, keep in mind, the journals had originally published these papers before when they were known to have been written by highly prestigious authors. But now that the authors were unprestigious, their "papers" were rejected. </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, whether we like it or not, the scientific community is sociologically driven and is therefore subject to the forces of status and prestige just like any other community is. In fact, there is a whole field of sociology deemed the 'sociology of science' that studies the impact of social forces that impinge science, and in particular, the role of gatekeepers in both furthering and hindering the progress of science. Science progress does not occur cleanly or steadily. Often times, new scientific ideas are heavily resisted by other scientists themselves.</p>
<p>The case of Mendel proves the point: Mendel was unable to popularize his ideas largely because he lacked prestige in the field. He was considered to be an uncredentialed outsider and his ideas were heavily criticized and rejected at the time of publication. Only years after his death were his ideas rediscovered. Similarly, Alfred Wegener's theories on continental drift and plate tectonics were widely discredited by the scientific community and remained so until he died. Only decades after his death were they rediscovered and embraced as the core model of modern geophysics. One of his problems seemed to be that he was not considered to be a "real" geologist (his background was in astronomy and meteorology).</p>
<p>Hence, the problem of trying to become a scientist while coming from a low-ranked school is that, whether we like it or not, the quality of your ideas will be "colored" by the school you came from. That's because "quality" is often times a very slippery concept and it is hence often times not easy to know which ideas or papers are really "good" (and indeed some papers which have later gone on to become Nobel Prize winning work were initially rejected by the peer review process). Hence, by coming from a top school, you will tend to receive the benefit of the doubt as to whether your idea is really "good".</p>
<p>You will also be able to protect yourself from the 'Matthew Effect': that is, the phenomenon where the credit for an idea will tend to be bestowed upon whoever happens to have the most prestige, regardless of who actually originated the idea. For example, sometimes an unknown scientist will come up with a good idea that is ignored, only to watch a famous researcher state the very same idea and receive all the credit. </p>
<p>I leave you with another quote in Merton regarding one scientist expressing the frustrations he felt when he was young and unknown in the field:</p>
<p>"When you’re not recognized, he recalls,
it’s a little bit irritating to have somebody
come along and figure out the obvious
which you’ve also figured out, and everybody
gives him credit just because he’s a
famous physicist or a famous man in his
field."</p>
<p>i also think that, to a certain extent, researchers at top programs work on more interesting and original topics than the largely derived research conducted at lesser known programs.</p>
<p>however, sakky is correct -- science is political and i believe that it is only becoming more so. you can become a well-versed doctor from any school but it's much more of a struggle to prove yourself in science.</p>
<p>I think it's important to note general trends and individual events. There is a difference. Particularly as science becomes ever more specialized, there are highly respected individuals all over the place. If you know that you wish to pursue a specific topic of research, the politics could mean that you'd be in a better position if you went to work with that individual, even if the school itself is lesser known. Not every school can be phenomenal in every area. I don't know enough about the politics of research to make any sort of recommendation but it just seems that it's not so cut and dry. From my own experience as an undergrad sociology major, I know that Wisconsin - Madison has a highly ranked sociology program, but I also know that my alma mater was much more highly thought of when it came to Sociology of Marriage and Family. If you were a grad student who was most interested in those fields, it actually made more sense to go to Nebraska, even though Wisconsin was the much bigger name.</p>
<p>Of course the bigger issue is, what's more important to you - getting your MD/PhD at a highly ranked school, or getting it at all in the first place? Higher ranking certainly has some importance, but if you only get into one MD/PhD program are you going to turn it down?</p>
<p>I don't know what to tell you brm. What would you do if you were pursuing this type of degree? What would be the optimal choice?</p>
<p>BY: The answer is that while prestige matters, the floor on an MSTP is very, very high. Any school that offers an MSTP is going to have plenty of prestige to it. Unlike an MD-only, there is some reason to try to push higher. But like an MD-only, there is still a very high floor.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. There are some PhD's out there that wouldn't serve the purpose you would need. But they wouldn't be affiliated with an MSTP program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any school that offers an MSTP is going to have plenty of prestige to it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought we were talking about MD/PhD programs in general, not the MSTP specifically. I can think of several MD/PhD programs whose PhD programs are not exactly the most highly regarded. For example, is completing your PhD at, say, the University of South Alabama prestigious? I find that hard to believe. Or how about a PhD at East Carolina University? As a case in point, I note that the NRC rankings rate the various biology PhD programs at East Carolina (and I would assume that most MD/PhD's would complete bio PhD's) anywhere from #86 to #137. </p>
<p>Even if we're talking about the MSTP program, I would hesitate to call the program at, say, the Medical University of South Carolina, as being highly prestigious. Or, say, the one at the SUNY-Stony Brook.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that they're bad. The MD portions, in particular, are all decent. After all, any US-accredited med school is going to be pretty good. I am just talking about the PhD part of the program. In other words, I suspect that somebody who is sporting a PhD from East Carolina University may not match up well in the sociological status hierarchy of the scientific community.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's important to note general trends and individual events. There is a difference. Particularly as science becomes ever more specialized, there are highly respected individuals all over the place. If you know that you wish to pursue a specific topic of research, the politics could mean that you'd be in a better position if you went to work with that individual, even if the school itself is lesser known. Not every school can be phenomenal in every area. I don't know enough about the politics of research to make any sort of recommendation but it just seems that it's not so cut and dry. From my own experience as an undergrad sociology major, I know that Wisconsin - Madison has a highly ranked sociology program, but I also know that my alma mater was much more highly thought of when it came to Sociology of Marriage and Family. If you were a grad student who was most interested in those fields, it actually made more sense to go to Nebraska, even though Wisconsin was the much bigger name.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but then the question comes down to a matter of risk and information. After all, how do you know that you really want to work in those specific subfields in which a particular program specializes. A lot of grad students switch research topics. This happens for a number of reasons. Many grad students, after becoming familiar with the literature, find that what they thought they wanted to study is actually less interesting and they now find something else to be more interesting. Or perhaps the professor that they want to work with on a particular topic doesn't want to work with them, so they have to find some other topic. Sometimes, changes occur even more abruptly. For example, in one sad story, I know one PhD student at Harvard whose intended advisor actually died, so he had to scramble to find a different topic with a different advisor. </p>
<p>So, sure, I agree that if you happen to know exactly what you want to study and you know for sure that you will not change, and you also know that your intended advisor will be there to work with you (i.e. he won't die or retire or decide that he already has too many students), then sure, you can choose a lower ranked program with a highly regarded subfield. But it's pretty risky.</p>
<p>I assumed the OP was asking specifically about MSTP programs. If I'm wrong, he's certainly free to correct me.</p>
<hr>
<p>Actually, I would find an MSTP out of MUSC or Stony Brook to both be fairly career-advancing, relative to an MD-only out of those schools. There are hypothetical PhD's that wouldn't do that, but not at MSTP programs.</p>
<p>Current MSTP schools
<a href="http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/InstPredoc/PredocInst-MSTP.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/InstPredoc/PredocInst-MSTP.htm</a></p>
<p>I'm going to admit that I'm out of my element here. </p>
<p>Given that most (obviously not all) medical schools are affiliated with major universities, is this as big as a concern as it's being made out to be? I mean, if you go to Missouri, or Tulane, or Nebraska, or Arizona, or Indiana, or any medical school affiliated with a school the general public recognizes, are you really going to be at that big of a disadvantage? Certainly the SUNY's are a little obscure to many people outside the Northeast, and certainly going to an independent medical school like MC of Wisconsin is a little sketch, but at your big land-grant institutions? It's not like you're getting them from North South Central Podunk U...</p>
<p>I'm going to go a little less far than BRM here and suggest that if a school doesn't offer an MSTP, there's probably a reason. But those that do (~42, by my count) should have a pretty high floor.</p>