MD/PhD Stats

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
21

<p>Ok this may seem like a stupid question, but what is the difference between MD/PhD and MSTP? I thought that they were the same thing and the benefits of each are the same, such as free tuition.</p>

<p>Also if lets say that I want to do an MD/PhD, I am hoping for a private school that is decent. However, my problem is that if I don't get in to MD/PhD and I just do MD, I will need to take out loans b/c I can't afford med school. I mean research is a passion of mine, but either way I'll try to incorporate it into my career. I'm prayin for the best though.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I think that's a pretty low bar to hurdle. After all, a PhD from any school is far better than no PhD at all. </p>

<p>What I was referring to is the relative competition one would have to face as a future academic for job placement and tenure, particularly when faced with the guys with PhD's from the Harvard's and Stanford's of the world, particularly in light of the social and political biases of the scientific community that I discussed previously. When faced with that kind of competition, is it better to have a MD/PhD SUNY-Stony Brook rather than just an MD from SUNY-Stony Brook? Of course! But I don't know that it's going to do a whole lot for you in terms of earning you the benefit of the doubt when you're trying to get a paper published, as per the political biases of the academic process (i.e. the 1982 Peters & Ceci study that showed that previously published papers that were resubmitted under fake unknown author names from unprominent schools were likely to be rejected). Or when you're trying to be get academic job placement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But what you said in parentheses is precisely what I'm talking about. Sure, most med schools are indeed affiliated with major universities. But not all. That's where the issue is. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me stop you right there. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter what the general public thinks. It only matters what the scientific community thinks. After all, if you're getting an MD/PhD, then presumably you are shooting for an academic/research job. After all, why else would you be getting an MD/PhD? If you just wanted to serve the general public, then you should just get a regular MD. I don't think anybody would dispute that. </p>

<p>Hence, under the (safe) assumption that you are shooting for a research career, then what matters is that you obtain a credential that will give you status in the scientific community because, whether we like it or not, the scientific community is political in nature. They are going to judge you on the specific prestige of your program as well as the prestige of your advisor. It doesn't matter if you happen to come from a flagship state university that the public has heard of. If that flagship state university does not have a respected academic program and/or you don't have a respected advisor backing you, then you're going to run into serious headwinds when you're trying to place, regardless of how good your ideas might be. Fair or not fair, that's how it is. That's the nature of the sociology of science.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Ok this may seem like a stupid question, but what is the difference between MD/PhD and MSTP? I thought that they were the same thing and the benefits of each are the same, such as free tuition

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The MSTP is a specific type of MD/PhD program that is financially backed by the NIH. </p>

<p>The non-MSTP MD/PhD programs are sometimes financially backed, but sometimes not. Depends on the program.</p>

24

<p>MSTP is a program funded by the NIH. Not all schools are selected to participate (I have no idea what criteria are used to make that decision, but it appears to be awarded on an annual basis). If you complete the MSTP, you end up with an MD/PhD. </p>

<p>However, you can also go to other schools that award MD's and PhD's and have combined programs. In the end, you also end up with an MD/PhD. Whether or not your tuition is paid for, likely depends on the school, but given the MSTP's free tuition, it seems like most schools would offer that as well in order to compete for applicants. </p>

<p>So the venn diagram would have a large circle with all the schools that offer MD/PhD programs and a smaller circle entirely within that larger circle which represents all the MSTP schools. </p>

<p>As for the cost issue - assuming you just do the MD:
1) You can't afford medical school? Duh.
2) You'll need to take out loans? Double Duh.
3) Why a private school? It's cheapest to go to a state school in your home state. There are even state schools which have tuition waivers for out of state students allowing them only to pay in-state tuition (currently not one single person in my 3rd year class is paying OOS tuition, although some did have to pay 1 or 2 years worth at the OOS rate - I knew about it beforehand and asked about it early).</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
After all, a PhD from any school is far better than no PhD at all.

[/quote]
... not always. I can think of some PhD's which are more likely to invite derision or pity than respect.</p>

<p>But I've been making a not-totally-right comparison. The truth is that the best comparison is probably between an MSTP at a school 1 and an MD-only from a different school 2 that that student would be able to get into. School 2 is likely to be a little bit higher-ranked than school 1. In these situations, I still think MUSC and Stony Brook (Stony Brook in particular) are likely to be worthwhile investments*. Compare Stony Brook to, for example, Tufts. An MD-only out of Tufts is probably at an academic disadvantage relative to a Stony Brook MSTP.</p>

<p>(*And yes, BY, investments. Because the four extra years certainly are not made up for by the scholarship and stipend.)</p>

<hr>

<p>
[quote]
I will need to take out loans b/c I can't afford med school.

[/quote]
Welcome to 90% of my class. This is normal.</p>

<hr>

<p>MSTP is the NIH-funded track in which one obtains an MD and a PhD in a joint fashion. An MD/PhD is any situation in which one obtains an MD and a PhD from the same school in a roughly consecutive fashion.</p>

<p>MSTP is one way to get an MD/PhD. It is tuition free. If you were to them separately, the PhD would be tuition free (usually) but the MD would not.</p>

26

<p>Thanks for clarifying this. However, how do ppl know where you got your degree from. Lets say for example. I got an MD/PhD degree from Stony Brook, but I work in like Columbia, the fact that i work in Columbia and submit a publication from Columbia won't help me?</p>

27

<p>Where you work is vastly more important than your degree. The problem is that the two are connected. It is somewhat harder -- not impossible, just somewhat harder -- to get a faculty appointment at Columbia if your MD/PhD is from Stony Brook than from, say, Cornell.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Hence, under the (safe) assumption that you are shooting for a research career, then what matters is that you obtain a credential that will give you status in the scientific community because, whether we like it or not, the scientific community is political in nature. They are going to judge you on the specific prestige of your program as well as the prestige of your advisor. It doesn't matter if you happen to come from a flagship state university that the public has heard of. If that flagship state university does not have a respected academic program and/or you don't have a respected advisor backing you, then you're going to run into serious headwinds when you're trying to place, regardless of how good your ideas might be. Fair or not fair, that's how it is. That's the nature of the sociology of science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I get that the science community is different. Let me clarify my word choice. </p>

<p>I intended "general public knowledge" to mean that I wasn't talking about places like Medical College of Wisconsin or Eastern Virginia or Mercer or MC of Ohio. I was trying to limit the discussion to those medical schools affiliated with universities of a certain size. </p>

<p>My question is, once you get to universities of a certain size, how big of an issue is this really? I mean, those schools I listed are all affiliated with Research I institutions, so it's not like the reputation of those schools is exactly lacking...</p>

29

<p>Going to a top MD/PhD program gets you into a top residency and research fellowship. Going to a lower-ranked MD/PhD program makes it harder but not impossible, particularly if the candidate has published or worked with a leader in his/her field. If I attended such a school, I would try to find the best possible mentor and thesis advisor available. Although the distribution of NIH dollars is skewed towards the top 20 research medical schools, there are still excellent scientists that work at other places. I would try to work with them. Getting into top residency, fellowship, and research programs is definitely possible coming from a lower ranked university. Having the MD/PhD can be a plus. One last criterion that has not been mentioned is publications and quality of publications. If somone has published well as a MD/PhD they will get into a very top program. I think publication record is the coin of the realm for a trainee trying to get into a top research program and launching his/her academic career. One last point-MD/PhDs have to be competent clinically and it is possible that some of the middle/lower tiered programs from relatively non-academic institutions may be biased AGAINST MD/PhDs as they perceive them as not as committed to being excellent clinicians. Not necessarily true but unfortunately that bias persists.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
not always. I can think of some PhD's which are more likely to invite derision or pity than respect

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I think a PhD from East Carolina University might qualify. </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. This is not my personal opinion. I believe that any PhD from any school (as long as it's not a diploma mill) is a major accomplishment. But like I've been saying, the scientific community is highly political and status-conscious and I can see a lot of scientists sniffing at somebody presenting a PhD from ECU. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The truth is that the best comparison is probably between an MSTP at a school 1 and an MD-only from a different school 2 that that student would be able to get into

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I would say that another comparison to be made is MSTP (or MD/PhD) at school 1 vs. a PhD at another school. Now, I would say that the difference in ranking might be substantial, as I know quite a lot of people who got into top-ranked PhD programs but who probably couldn't get into top-ranked MD programs, usually because they refused to play the "GPA beauty contest" as undergrads. </p>

<p>Heck, one of the posters at CC, molliebatmit, would be a prime example: as after undergrad at MIT, not only is she now in grad school at Harvard, but specifically at Harvard Medical School. But she's in a pure PhD program at HMS. She freely admits that she probably couldn't get into the MD program at HMS or at any other top-ranked med school because her undergrad GPA at MIT wasn't that good. Nevertheless, she got into every single top-ranked PhD program in her field (including MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.) because her research and her prof rec's were stellar. But MD programs care more about grades. </p>

<p>So I think the real question is, which choice would have given molliebatmit better academic/research placement upon graduation: a PhD at Harvard, or an MD/PhD at the presumably middling-ranked program that she could have gotten into? I don't know about you, but I would vote for the former choice, and it wouldn't be a close call. </p>

<p>To be sure, she won't actually be able to practice medicine with just a PhD. So if that's the career she wants, sure, the PhD is inappropriate. But again, the whole point of an MD/PhD is to get a research/academic job. If you just want to practice medicine, then you should just get an MD and not spend the extra years getting the PhD. </p>

<p>
[quote]
However, how do ppl know where you got your degree from. Lets say for example. I got an MD/PhD degree from Stony Brook, but I work in like Columbia, the fact that i work in Columbia and submit a publication from Columbia won't help me?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As bluedevilmike explained, the 2 are connected. The fact that you came from Stony Brook will mean that you will have difficulty in even getting placed in a school like Columbia in the first place. That's because one of the first (often times THE first) characteristic that is observed when you are on the academic job market is what school you are coming from. If you don't come from a respected school, you may not even get invited for a job-talk interview at a top university simply because there are only a limited number of slots available and lots of candidates want to work at that university.</p>

<p>Secondly, presumably, you will be trying to publish as a MD/PhD student in order to build your CV. So if you're a SUNY student, your publication submissions will state explicitly that your submissions are coming from SUNY. That might mean that your publication might not be read (as scientists are more likely to read something published by authors from Harvard than from SUNY). It might also mean that your submission might even be less likely to be published in the first place, despite the quality of the ideas. Again, I reference the Peters & Ceci 1982 study that showed that resubmissions that were tagged with unknown author names from low-ranked schools were likely to be rejected, despite the fact that those submissions had had been accepted and published previously (but had come from prominent researchers from prominent universities). Again, whether you like it or not, that's how the sociology of science works. The upshot is that if you come from SUNY you may end up with fewer published papers and whatever you do have published may be cited fewer times. This also hurts your chances of eventually getting placed at a school like Columbia.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
My question is, once you get to universities of a certain size, how big of an issue is this really? I mean, those schools I listed are all affiliated with Research I institutions, so it's not like the reputation of those schools is exactly lacking...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'size'. Are you talking about the total number of students? Then I would say that quite a few highly prominent medical research schools don't really have that many students. The Stanford University School of Medicine, for example, is quite 'small', in terms of the number of students (i.e. Jefferson Medical College has more than twice the number of MD students). Are you talking about total research dollars? Then again, I would say that the Stanford University School of Medicine is relatively 'small' in terms of total research dollars (i.e. Case Western Reserve School of Medicine had more total NIH research funding in 2006). But I think nobody would dispute that Stanford has a fabulous academic reputation within the scientific community.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
And I think a PhD from East Carolina University might qualify.

[/quote]
Again, notice that not all medical schools offer MSTP programs. ECU is one of the 80 that do not.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Again, notice that not all medical schools offer MSTP programs. ECU is one of the 80 that do not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I thought we were talking about all MD/PhD programs, not just the MSTP.</p>

<p>But, hey, feel free to substitute the Medical University of South Carolina.</p>

<p>Medical</a> Scientist Training Program - Medical University of South Carolina</p>

34

<p>As mentioned before, I think that when the time comes the OP will only be looking at MSTP's... but he's free to correct me.</p>

<p>And MUSC is a very different school from ECU. Actually I suspect an MUSC MD/PhD is worth quite a bit.</p>

<p>I still haven't decided on the best comparator yet. I'm thinking about it. You're right that mine is clearly not right either.</p>

35

<p>I disagree with Sakky's assessment of the value of a MD/PhD when he discussed molliebatmit. Many MD/PhDs do see patients and can be good clinicians as well. Probably 1/3 do not stay in academic medicine or research (even industry) when one looks at their career paths 20 years out. It is possible that some choose to become clinicians due to difficulty obtaining funding while others simply realized that they preferred clinical medicine. The MD part of their training gives them that option. Additionally, having a MD degree allow the physician scientist to conduct clinical research by itself or in combination with basic research or even some area in between-i.e., translational research. Basically, the MD/PhD can choose his/her area of research anywhere from bench to bedside. </p>

<p>The advantage of a straight PhD over a MD/PhD, in my view, is the time and money saved. There probably is about a 5 year time lag (at least) in moving up the academic ladder for a MD/PhD vs a PhD. If someone truly loves research, I see PhD as an excellent option. If someone wants to combine both or is not absolutely sure and wants to become proficient in two areas, the MD/PhD is the better option regardless of the program. Clinical medicine will always be an option professionally.</p>

<p>Grad schools are looking for demonstrated excellence in undergrad research and scientific potential. Someone with strong test scores and undergrad research experience, will get into a top program even with less than stellar grades. Extracurriculars, grades, and all the packaging that goes into med school apps count little towards acceptance. The self discipline and perhaps pedestrian approach to getting good grades in intro science courses are not the same as scientific creativity and intelligence. Doing well in high level courses and being able to do independent research is much more important. LORs from top scientists who know the student are very helpful. And brilliance matters!</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'size'. Are you talking about the total number of students? Then I would say that quite a few highly prominent medical research schools don't really have that many students. The Stanford University School of Medicine, for example, is quite 'small', in terms of the number of students (i.e. Jefferson Medical College has more than twice the number of MD students). Are you talking about total research dollars? Then again, I would say that the Stanford University School of Medicine is relatively 'small' in terms of total research dollars (i.e. Case Western Reserve School of Medicine had more total NIH research funding in 2006). But I think nobody would dispute that Stanford has a fabulous academic reputation within the scientific community.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm guess I'm not sure what I mean by size either, other than I don't mean medical school class size (which is meaningless)...I guess gravitas? I don't know but I guess that the schools I listed have a certain heft...but that's not what I'm trying to get at either. </p>

<p>I guess what I'm interested in is trying to really get an idea of how much this matters, other than simply "it does, end of story". I doubt there's a way to quantify it, but for example, any of those schools I listed were all affiliated with Research I universities (however teh Carnegie Foundation determines those things). The way I see it, there is a significant difference between the schools I listed and places like Eastern Tennessee or NEOUCOM (I don't know if they actually give out MD/PhD - they're examples, so don't nitpick on this). But my question is for these "middling" schools...like are they so bad that students would be better to forgo admissions to these schools if they can't get accepted into a better program?</p>

<p>I mean, I worry that we're making a mountain out of a molehill as we've discussed this and it presents an inaccurate summation of the situation. I mean really, to read this thread and some of the things Sakky has written, one would assume that if you can't go to a select group of MSTP schools, then you're life will be a waste and you'll live in utmost poverty, holding a sign on the street corner reading "will research for food". Certainly there is a level of professional ease that benefits a graduate of a better ranked program, but I'm not sure that alone outweighs the benefits of getting an MD/PhD if that's what a student really wants to do (and free or significantly reduced tuition).</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
I disagree with Sakky's assessment of the value of a MD/PhD when he discussed molliebatmit.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe you misunderstood what I was saying, or perhaps my point in general. The benefit for somebody like molliebatmit of choosing a PhD over a an MD/PhD is that, at least in her case, she likely got into a far better and more prestigious PhD program than the MD/PhD program she would have been likely to have gotten into. Again, she herself has freely admitted that she would never have gotten into Harvard Medical School as an MD student (and presumably also not as an MD/PhD student). Nor does she feel it is likely for her to have gotten into any of the top-ranked MD programs. But she did get into *every single one *of the top ranked PhD programs. </p>

<p>Hence, for her, the choice is to either get a PhD at Harvard (and specifically at HMS), or to get an MD/PhD at some lower-ranked program. Like I explained to bdm, I believe the first choice is better, and it's not by a close margin at all. Presuming that she wants a research career (which is, after all, the whole point of a PhD, either a standalone PhD or part of an MD/PhD), I believe she is far far better positioned to place for a job if she had a PhD from Harvard than an MD/PhD from some lesser school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The advantage of a straight PhD over a MD/PhD, in my view, is the time and money saved.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. Again, the other major advantage is that, at least for some people, you can attend a far more prestigious PhD program than an MD/PhD. And given the highly elitist and status-conscious nature of the scientific community, that prestige carries a lot of weight. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Grad schools are looking for demonstrated excellence in undergrad research and scientific potential. Someone with strong test scores and undergrad research experience, will get into a top program even with less than stellar grades. Extracurriculars, grades, and all the packaging that goes into med school apps count little towards acceptance. The self discipline and perhaps pedestrian approach to getting good grades in intro science courses are not the same as scientific creativity and intelligence. Doing well in high level courses and being able to do independent research is much more important. LORs from top scientists who know the student are very helpful. And brilliance matters!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that highlights my point. Some people who can get into top PhD programs can't get into top MD programs, or in extreme cases, can't get into any MD programs. Like you said, the admissions criteria is quite different.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
I mean, I worry that we're making a mountain out of a molehill as we've discussed this and it presents an inaccurate summation of the situation. I mean really, to read this thread and some of the things Sakky has written, one would assume that if you can't go to a select group of MSTP schools, then you're life will be a waste and you'll live in utmost poverty, holding a sign on the street corner reading "will research for food". Certainly there is a level of professional ease that benefits a graduate of a better ranked program, but I'm not sure that alone outweighs the benefits of getting an MD/PhD if that's what a student really wants to do (and free or significantly reduced tuition).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, clearly, nobody is saying that anybody is going to be starving in the streets. Obviously anybody who gets an MD/PhD will, if nothing else, at least be able to work as a regular practicing physician and live a lifestyle that is far more financially comfortable than that of the vast majority of other Americans. </p>

<p>But what I (and I believe bdm) have been saying is that the MD/PhD is not something you do rather than just a regular MD because you will actually benefit financially. By almost any reasonable calculation, the regular MD is a better financial deal. The free/reduced tuition is a financially foolish reason to undergo an MD/PhD because you can easily make up that tuition by just forgoing the PhD and just practicing medicine earlier. You do the MD/PhD because you actually want to be a researcher, probably preferably at a university. The truth of the matter is, like I have said, the scientific community is elitist. A lot of MD/PhD grads from lower-ranked programs will have difficulty winning placement for the desirable research jobs. They will have difficulty publishing, and will also have difficulty getting credit even when they successfully publish, relative to somebody else coming out of a top program (even if that person just has a PhD). Like it or not, that's how the scientific community works.</p>

39

<p>And I've understood that from the beginning and I'm certainly not trying to argue that it doesn't occur. People are elitist by nature. But again, you completely fail to give any measure of scope. I think that's important because once again, you could read this thread and as an impressionable HS or lower classman think "Gee, I guess if I can't get into a top 20 USNWR Research School, I should probably just forgo my desire to be a researcher." </p>

<p>As I've said, I'm not looking for concrete numbers, but something to justify how important this is would be appreciated. Even if its just putting tiers of programs on a scale from 1 to totally awesome (Is Harvard 8 and half exploding helicopters while Tulane is only sharks with laser beams on their heads?). Maybe at what point does it become more worthwhile to just get a regular MD? Outside the USNWR top 50 research list? Lower? Higher?</p>

40

<p>Sorry to butt in, but I have a question. I have seen that one of you has mentioned the importance of ECs. I have some upperclassmen friends in my school who are currently juniors and also want to get into MD/PhD programs. One of them is taking 3 difficult science classes and a graduate course. I am not denying that one should not challenge themselves, but the question that I have is: shouldn't one focus more on the MCATs and ECs at this time as opposed to taking 4 difficult science classes with no ECs? I know that grad courses look good, especially if one can do well in them b/c it'll show that your prepared for med school, but one can always take grad courses in their senior yr. I would just think that MCAT prep and ECs are more important than taking grad courses in one's junior yr. Please comment on this.</p>