<p>No EC's? Meaning no research? He's sunk.</p>
<p>Of course, this has nothing to do with his coursework. Competent students can handle full courseloads -- and late in your career, that will include "graduate-level" coursework -- while doing research and the other necessary EC's and studying for the MCAT. That's normal.</p>
<p>Taking 3-4 science courses/semester (which every science major will have to do at some point) is really not an excuse for having no EC's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"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."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think for the sake of science and one's career, this is probably a good attitude to have in the MD/PhD or even PhD admissions game.</p>
<p>Wow have we gotten off track here.</p>
<p>There is waaaay too much mixing of apples and oranges in this discussion, and Sakky, your concern about "prestige" is, IMHO, doing some readers a real disservice.</p>
<p>When one talks about PhDs in the biomedical sciences and research careers, the value proposition goes something like this:</p>
<p>individual performance as measured by publications and such (for both grad school and post-doc, mostly the latter) > prestige of the lab (which is a function of the PI prestige) where a post-doc is done > postdoc departmental standing > grad school lab prestige > grad school departmental prestige >> grad school institutinal prestige (if indeed it counts at all).</p>
<p>So none of the published commercial rankings, like USNWR really count for a "hill of beans" in these situations. </p>
<p>So lets quit the flights of fancy regarding the hypothetical value of a MD/PhD combo from ENC, MUSC or whereever. It is not the institution that ultimately matters. It is the person.</p>
<p>BTW, the other path to a research career is through an MD. There are quite a few MD only academics around. I suspect they're not more common because they can make more doing other things, like plain old medicine. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think for the sake of science and one's career, this is probably a good attitude to have in the MD/PhD or even PhD admissions game.
[/quote]
Ridiculous, at least for MD/PhD.</p>
<p>So are you arguing that it might be true for regular PhD's? If so there are a great many people across the country throwing away a lot of time and money (their own and that of the people financing their research).</p>
<p>Hah -- my precise argument is that I don't know enough about PhD's to comment conclusively.</p>
<p>Just to bolster my assertion in #45, notice that Mayo, Case Western, Mt. Sinai, Emory, UVa, UNC are all "out of the top twenty."</p>
<p>So you guys suggest that doing ECs is just as vital as doing well in classes and one should take manageable courseload where they could do something like physician shadowing or research and still do well in their classes every semester, corect?</p>
<p>Or that one should be a good enough student to handle a strong courseload and do EC's.</p>
<p>Sakky, I agree with most of your points (probably at least 10 posts ago now). If someone wants a 100% laboratory research career, going to prestigious Ph.D program may be better than a MD/Ph.D. program. However, I would argue that the majority of MD/Ph.D's want clinical medicine to be part of their career even if it is only a small part (e.g., 20%). They have that option as well as clinical and translational research if they have a M.D. degree rather than just a straight Ph.D degree.</p>
<p>While prestige of medical school plays some role in career options and success in academia, I think it is quite overblown. A friend of mine has now become the new dean at Harvard Medical School and has been an outstanding scientist.. He is a graduate of Mt. Sinai Medical School. While it is a good school, it is probably no.5 in NYC among medical schools for research funding and perhaps "prestige." Columbia, Cornell, NYU, and Einstein have more funding and are better known that Mt. Sinai. So, inspite of where he went to medical school, he has climbed to the top of the academic ladder. I have put his web bio here for CCers reference: Dean</a> of Harvard Medicine.</p>
<p>To be fair, Mt. Sinai is no slouch. I consider it to be top tier and its students' GPA and MCAT scores are as competitive as any other top school (3.8/35).</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is waaaay too much mixing of apples and oranges in this discussion, and Sakky, your concern about "prestige" is, IMHO, doing some readers a real disservice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am simply stating that the world of science is elitist, whether we like it or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
When one talks about PhDs in the biomedical sciences and research careers, the value proposition goes something like this:</p>
<p>individual performance as measured by publications and such (for both grad school and post-doc, mostly the latter) > prestige of the lab (which is a function of the PI prestige) where a post-doc is done > postdoc departmental standing > grad school lab prestige > grad school departmental prestige >> grad school institutinal prestige (if indeed it counts at all).</p>
<p>So none of the published commercial rankings, like USNWR really count for a "hill of beans" in these situations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, they count for a 'mountain of beans' because they are all rolled up into one.</p>
<p>You say that publications count for the most. I agree. But the fact is, publication success is wrapped into the prestige of your program, whether we like it or not. Again, I would point to the 1982 Peters & Ceci study in which the researchers took papers that were published in top journals and had been written by famous researchers at top schools and resubmitted them but under false author and institution names, and found that most of them were rejected. Again, these were the exact same papers that had previously been accepted and published. But because this time they were supposedly written by unknown researchers at unprestigious, the papers were rejected, not because the papers were caught as resubmissions (as only a small percentage were so caught and hence were removed from the final results), but because the peer review process deemed them to be unworthy because they were supposedly written by authors without status. Or, again, I reference the example from Barber in which Nobel laureate Lord Rayleigh submitted a paper that was initially deemed to be without merit until at a later point it was discovered that Rayleigh was the author (for the paper had been submitted with the author's name accidentally missing), upon which time the paper was found to have merit after all.</p>
<p>The rest of the argument then proceeds as a cascade. If you have less success in the publication process, then you will have less success in getting a top post-doc, which means you will have less success in landing a top research position, etc. etc. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So lets quit the flights of fancy regarding the hypothetical value of a MD/PhD combo from ENC, MUSC or whereever. It is not the institution that ultimately matters. It is the person.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, the truth of the matter is that, whether we like it or not, the scientific community is political and elitist in nature. Hence, it is not just the "person" that matters. It's not that simple. Gregor Mendel died an obscure monk whose ideas were widely discredited during his lifetime and were rediscovered only years after his death. He couldn't popularize his ideas in the scientific community (even though they were correct) because he didn't have professional status. Alfred Wegener's ideas on continental drift were similarly widely discredited until decades after his death before finally being proven correct. I wonder what would happen if we could go back in time and tell Mendel or Wegener that it is "just the person that matters". I'm sure we would get quite an earful. Heck, I'm sure there are scientists today with low status who will die obscure deaths only to have their ideas rediscovered and validated years after their passing. Sure, their ideas may eventually be discovered, but that doesn't exactly do anything for their careers as they're already dead. </p>
<p>Even if your ideas are proven correct in your lifetime, that doesn't mean that you will get your fair share of the credit. As shown by the eminent sociologist Robert Merton, the lion's share of the credit for any scientific discovery will tend to go to the most famous person who worked on that discovery regardless of how much he actually contributed to it. To give you one example, John MacLeod (along with Frederick Banting) won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of insulin despite the fact that MacLeod did very little of the work, far more work being done by Charles Vest (hence, Vest went unrecognized). But MacLeod was a famous scientist at the time, so the Nobel committee decided to recognize him and not the unknown Vest. {In fact, the plot thickens as it was later discovered that a scientist in Romania, Nicolae Paulescu, had actually published a paper not only announcing the discovery of insulin 8 months, but whose paper was actually cited by the team of MacLeod, Banting and Vest. Nevertheless, the Nobel committee did not award Paulescu and he died an obscure death.} </p>
<p>But the point is this. If you want to know how the scientific community really works, read Merton. Read Thomas Kuhn. Read Lakatos. You will learn all about the sociology of science and particularly about how the scientific community actually works. Not how it's supposed to work, but how it actually works, and in particular, what the role of status is in that community. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that the notion that, in the world of science, it is just "the person" that counts and status counts for nothing - ** that is the real disservice*. Don't get me wrong. I *wish * it was true. That's the way it ought to be. * But that's not the way it IS, whether we like it or not**, and people should know that going in. To believe that the process is truly fair, that status doesn't matter, that you are never going to be judged based on the prestige of the school you come from - these are children's fairy tales. To quote I Corinthians 13:11: *"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things". * None of us are children here, so we should try to understand the world as it is, not how we want it to be.</p>
<p>As sakky no doubt will acknowledge, the chain (the rolling up into one) is a breakable phenomenon. It is not an irreversible tracking. But there is a momentum associated with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never said any such thing. In fact, I suspect that you could have some sort of research career with any sort of MD/PhD. </p>
<p>But at the same time, people should understand that status does matter in the scientific community. Like it or not, it's part of the game. Maybe it shouldn't be that way. But it is that way. Having low status will hurt you in a research career and we should not be so naive as to think otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While prestige of medical school plays some role in career options and success in academia, I think it is quite overblown. A friend of mine has now become the new dean at Harvard Medical School and has been an outstanding scientist.. He is a graduate of Mt. Sinai Medical School. While it is a good school, it is probably no.5 in NYC among medical schools for research funding and perhaps "prestige." Columbia, Cornell, NYU, and Einstein have more funding and are better known that Mt. Sinai. So, inspite of where he went to medical school, he has climbed to the top of the academic ladder. I have put his web bio here for CCers reference: Dean of Harvard Medicine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
As sakky no doubt will acknowledge, the chain (the rolling up into one) is a breakable phenomenon. It is not an irreversible tracking. But there is a momentum associated with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody, least of all I, has ever said that the process is inexorable. There are indeed opportunities to break the cycle, and some people do. </p>
<p>But the central point is that a status hierarchy does exist in the scientific community. It is not all-powerful, it can be successfully fought, but it does exist and it does influence who does and does not get published, who does and does not get credit for discovery, and who does and does not get the best job placement. Hence, all things equal, it is better to have the status hierarchy working in your favor rather than against you. </p>
<p>Now, to the question of at which 'break point' do you choose a top-ranked PhD program over a lower-ranked MD/PhD program, I cannot say. That obviously depends on your personal circumstances. But certainly that break point exists somewhere. For example, I would surmise that if you want a 100% research career, it is better to get a PhD from Harvard than to get an MD/PhD from, say, the University of South Alabama. I suspect most people here would agree.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Perhaps with some experience you will see what I and others are talking about. Certainly from the perspective of an elitist academic environment like Cambridge MA, and from the perspective of one associated with an elite institution, it can be hard to see how little "prestige" matters for the careers of most people. </p>
<p>Note too that neither I nor others said prestige (or "status" in your terminology) does not matter. Of course it does. So please do not claim others said things they did not. The problem with your simplistic approach is that reality is far more complex than you allude to, and far more complex than simple formulas like " the sociological status hierarchy of the scientific community." being the critical factor. You will discover this someday, I suspect. </p>
<p>The "status" thing is interesting, true, and does tell us something. By and large, it communicates something about the historic quality of the faculty and historic funding levels. Does it tell us anything about the present day? Perhaps. Does it tell us much about the future? Perhaps, as there is some stickyness regarding resources at institutions. </p>
<p>But, as I said before, Institutional status is for all practical purposes irrelevant. No need to believe me, though. Just look at the thousands of alums of Harvard, MIT, Stanford and other elite institutions that have gone on to have quite ordinary careers at best. If your paradigm, that status trumps all were true, we would not see this. But we do.</p>
<p>Regarding science being elitist, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Thank you Sakky, for bringing a laugh to my spirits this morning. I have no need to waste time arguing this point with you, but I ask others to think about: Elitist compared to what? Law? Consulting? Life in general?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps with some experience you will see what I and others are talking about. Certainly from the perspective of an elitist academic environment like Cambridge MA, and from the perspective of one associated with an elite institution, it can be hard to see how little "prestige" matters for the careers of most people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And perhaps with some experience, you will see what I am talking about. </p>
<p>Certainly, nobody is disputing that prestige doesn't mean much for MOST people. But scientists aren't MOST people. Whether we like it or not, scientists live in an insular society where they are constantly being judged by other scientists. They have to publish and be promoted based on the opinions of other scientists. Hence, they spend their careers in a 'sociological echo chamber'. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Note too that neither I nor others said prestige (or "status" in your terminology) does not matter. Of course it does. So please do not claim others said things they did not. The problem with your simplistic approach is that reality is far more complex than you allude to, and far more complex than simple formulas like " the sociological status hierarchy of the scientific community." being the critical factor. You will discover this someday, I suspect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, as I said before, Institutional status is for all practical purposes irrelevant. No need to believe me, though. Just look at the thousands of alums of Harvard, MIT, Stanford and other elite institutions that have gone on to have quite ordinary careers at best. If your paradigm, that status trumps all were true, we would not see this. But we do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, you did specifically say that (institutional) prestige (and I was specifically talking about institutional prestige) in post #44, and again in your latest post where you have called it "for all practical purposes irrelevant". {If we could go back in time, we should tell that to Gregor Mendel and watch him laugh.} Those are your specific quotes So don't try to weasel out of something that you actually said by now claiming that you never said it. You did say it. </p>
<p>Secondly, I find it ironic indeed that you would lecture others not to claim to have said things that you never said (when in fact you did), while at the same time claiming that I said things that I never said.. Did I ever say that things were simple? Did I ever deny the complexity of the world? Did I ever say that status trumped all? If you think I have, then please point to the quote where I specifically said that. In fact, I specifically stated in post #56 that it did not. Sometime in your life, I hope you will learn to actually carefully read what other people actually write. </p>
<p>Status is one important factor that determines your success. Is it the only factor? No, and I have never claimed otherwise. But it *is * an important factor. Those who think otherwise are simply deluding themselves. Just like height is an important factor in determining your success in basketball. Now, does that mean that some 7-foot-tall guys will nevertheless be terrible basketball players? Of course! But that doesn't take away from the fact that height is an important attribute on the basketball court. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Regarding science being elitist, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Thank you Sakky, for bringing a laugh to my spirits this morning. I have no need to waste time arguing this point with you, but I ask others to think about: Elitist compared to what? Law? Consulting? Life in general?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is it funny? It's a simple fact of life. Science is elitist due to its nature as an insular sociological system in which people spend their entire careers judging each other. </p>
<p>Now, is it as elitist as other fields? That I can't say. I'm sure we could compile a list of fields that are more elitist, and another list of fields that are less elitist. But so what? That doesn't take away from the fact that science is in fact elitist, and more so than are some other fields. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The "status" thing is interesting, true, and does tell us something. By and large, it communicates something about the historic quality of the faculty and historic funding levels. Does it tell us anything about the present day? Perhaps. Does it tell us much about the future? Perhaps, as there is some stickyness regarding resources at institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you're only proving my point further. It doesn't matter why some institutions have more status. It only matters that they do have more status, and hence people should rationally prefer to have status working in their favor rather than against them. </p>
<p>In other words, if you are admitted to Harvard and to the University of South Alabama, then Harvard's prestige is a legitimate factor for you to consider, as that status can help you in your career. Now, is it the ONLY factor to consider? No, I never said it was. But it is a legitimate factor to consider. Let's not think otherwise. In particular, let's not believe that, in your own words: "Institutional status is for all practical purposes irrelevant". It is relevant. I am confident that with greater experience, you will learn that somebody.</p>
<p>I agree with newmassdad. I think Sakky's emphasis on where one gets a Ph.D. is overblown. Of course it would be good to get a Ph.D. from Harvard or MIT; however, there are many other excellent places. My second point on the intrinsic value of a M.D./Ph.D. from any accredited North American program in order to do clinical research or practice medicine still holds. If you want to do any of the foregoing or do translational research, having a M.D. helps. I think it is good to advise high schoolers/college students thinking about this pathway with this option in mind.</p>
<p>Science is inheritantly meritocratic. Surivival depends upon whether you have good ideas, good data, and can then sell them to your peers. Grants determine academic survival-not your pedigree. Where you get your Ph.D. may help you land your first faculty job but ultimately you have to produce in order to survive in academia. I would agree that applying for grants from some major institutions has advantages due to core facilities and potential collaborations; however, in this day and age of internet access and jet travel, these differences are mitigated. There has been a democratization of scientific research over the past 20 years. While a disproportionate amount of total NIH funding may go to the top 20 research universities, very high quality resarch is now done at many different places, including private research institutes that may only have peripheral ties to an university. Their strength may be uneven but good labs can be found almost anywhere. If a low ranked or new university wants to build up its research capability, they can do so quite quickly if enough resources and will are committed to it. Univ.Texas Southwestern built up a top-tier program very rapidly after its inception 30 years ago. They simply invested large amounts of money in infrastructure, and paid enough money and provided enough resources to lure Nobel Prize winners there. I do not know of a University of Southern Alabama Medical School. However, University of Alabama Birmingham has become a very strong research institution in its own right and is probably a regional leader in research in the deep south. For me, it is another good example of a medical school which has rapidly become a research powerhouse (obviously not quite at the leve of the top 20 universities yet). I know several top scientists working there. I think it would be an excellent place to do a M.D./ Ph.D. and would pick it over Harvard Ph.D. alone if I wanted (even remotely) to have clinical medicine as part of my career. This would be even more true if I were accepted to its MSTP program. </p>
<p>As I said earlier, there are advantages to going the straight Ph.D. route. The prospective student just needs to make sure he/she does not want to do clinical medicine, and then go full steam ahead. In that case, going to a top research university would be preferable unless there was the possibility of working with a well-known professor who also is respected at a mentor at a lesser university. A friend of mine from college decided not to go to Harvard or Stanford for his Ph.D. when he had the opportunity to do his research training with a Nobel Prize winner at another university that was less "prestigious."</p>
<p>I think sakky's point about basketball players is instructive, though.</p>
<p>The vast majority of NBA players are under 7 feet tall. (The vast majority of successful scientists did not go to Harvard.)</p>
<p>The vast majority of 7 footers in the world are not successful NBA players. (Going to Harvard does not guarantee -- not even close -- a successful research career.)</p>
<p>However, being 7 feet tall helps.</p>