<p>I found Univ. South Alabama's website. Not sure whether they offer a formal M.D./Ph.D. program or MSTP. One option, if one was paying for medical school would be to do a Ph.D. elsewhere as I think that it may be possible to apply to a better program for Ph.D. (Sakky has rightly pointed out that GPA/GREs are less stringent for grad school than medical school). If it were the only medical school to which one was accepted, and one was still interested in a biomedical research career, I would advise doing a M.D. there and perhaps get some research experience as a med student. I would then try to do well and get into a good residency and then later do a fellowship with strong research possiblities. Another friend of mine went to medical college of Ohio at Toledo, did his residency at Case Western, and fellowship at NIH, and eventually became full professor at Hopkins. He followed the career path I mentioned above. We presently have a fellow in our program who originally went to Howard but he seems to be well poised for an academic career by going to a top residency program and now a top research/clinical fellowship. Another scientist I know did his Ph.D. at Univ. Tennessee 40 years ago (when it truly was not a signficant research center, sorry any Tenneseeans) and he also is a full professor at Hopkins. I just want to let prospective students know there are many roads to achieving their dreams if they want to have an academic career. It is not just where you go to school but what you do with that experience-it is the case for undergraduate colleges as well as for medical and graduate schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one has ever argued that people shouldn't choose these places when they are offered acceptance there. Just like no one has argued that certain places don't have more prestige than others, just like no on has argued that prestige is entirely irrelevant. Most certainly it is part of the puzzle.</p>
<p>But the question that I have, and that I continue to have (since you only ever tangentially answer questions in my posts, no matter how clearly I state my inquiry), that you continue to ignore is: ** how much does this REALLY matter? ** When do the roadblocks encountered by being from a lesser school outweigh the benefits of the dual degree? Do they ever? </p>
<p>Again, if some impressionable HS student who is interested in MD/PhD programs were to read your posts, they could easily draw suspect conclusions even if you do not explicitly state those things or even intend for your words to be interpreted in such a manner. That is the disservice your posts are fulfilling; that is why I'm pushing for an explanation of scope. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example why this is important, and a familiar one at that- we have all sorts of kids who come on here hoping with all their might that they can get into JHU for medical school because they want to be the best neurosurgeon in the history of the world. And what do we, as a collective, tell them? That their medical school, and even their residency, by and large doesn't matter, because they can become a physician, because all the accredited medical schools are very comparable and so on. If you were to rank all the medical schools the scale of the ranking would be very comfortable being spread out over 12 inches...</p>
<p>Now, same question, but with law schools, then prestige begins to matter. I think most lawyers would agree (though there is some regionality to it all). Rank all the law schools from top to bottom and you need a bigger scale because the quality is very different and it matters, particularly for certain types of jobs. Perhaps that scale would be best spread out over 5 feet to demonstrate the relative difference between top and bottom compared to medicine.</p>
<p>So where does that leave us in regards to MD/PhD? You've demonstrated well with historical examples and books that it matters, but is our scale 2 feet? 10? 20? And yes I realize that we're comparing very different subjects and I don't mean to imply that the same things matter across the board, I just want to judge relative quality here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course it would be good to get a Ph.D. from Harvard or MIT; however, there are many other excellent places
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never said that those were the only 2 places to go. Clearly there are numerous others. Stanford, Berkeley, and we can keep going. I just used Harvard as an example.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think there is no dispute that some institutions have more status than do others. Harvard (and MIT, Stanford, Berkeley) have more status than the University of South Alabama. I hope nobody disputes that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Science is inheritantly meritocratic. Surivival depends upon whether you have good ideas, good data, and can then sell them to your peers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, certainly science is more meritocratic than many other systems. But you also agree that your survival depends not only on whether your ideas are good, but also on whether you can sell your ideas to your peers. That's where status plays a role. It is easier to sell an idea if you have higher status. Gregor Mendel had a problem in selling his (later-proven-correct) ideas regarding population genetics because he had low status. That's what the works of Barber and Merton have shown. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But none of that is relevant to the point at hand. It doesn't matter whether your labs are good or your ideas are good if nobody thinks your ideas are good, or, even worse, if your ideas are good and the credit for those ideas go to somebody else (like how the discovery of insulin by Paulescu was credited to others). </p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote</p>
<p>And I would say that that actually supports my point. A school can indeed increase its status, and one way of doing so is to convince others with status (i.e. Nobel prize winners) to come over there. In other words, status matters. Schools know this. They wouldn't be trying to lure Nobel Prize winners if status didn't matter. At the end of the day, status matters, and that has been my point in this entire thread. </p>
<p>[quote]
I do not know of a University of Southern Alabama Medical School.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't make these things up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that doesn't detract from my point, it actually *enhances *. Your friend simply traded one form of status (institutional status) for another form of status (the individual status of the Nobel). But at the end of the day, it still means that status matters.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>You're a hoot. I'm glad folks like you are around. It makes more room at the places that are higher quality and lower in "status". And FWIW, you certainly do have company. Entire market segments have been built around products having "status", be it education, consumer products or whatever. </p>
<p>So, I grant you your "market segment" in graduate education. Take it. It is all yours. Too bad you can't accept that other people feel differently.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one has ever argued that people shouldn't choose these places when they are offered acceptance there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? No one? So why do I see quotes like "institutional prestige is "for all practical purposes irrelevant" or that "it is not the institution that ultimately matters...It is the person.". Isn't that effectively an argument against taking acceptance from a high-prestige school like Harvard and instead going to South Alabama? After all, if you truly believe that "... it is not the institution that ultimately matters, it is the person", then it shouldn't matter whether you choose Harvard or South Alabama and you might as well flip a coin, right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
how much does this REALLY matter? When do the roadblocks encountered by being from a lesser school outweigh the benefits of the dual degree? Do they ever?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I have attempted to answer it, and I will do so again. My answer is: I don't know. It really depends on a person's individual circumstances.</p>
<p>What I am stating is that the value of status isn't zero. It does have value. How much value? That's contingent on the person. It depends mostly on what the person wants to do. I tend to agree with pmyen on this one. If that person isn't actually all that gung-ho about becoming a researcher (and is satisfied with just ending up as a practicing clinician), then it probably doesn't matter much. But if the person knows he wants to be a researcher, then that's when status carries more weight. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, if some impressionable HS student who is interested in MD/PhD programs were to read your posts, they could easily draw suspect conclusions even if you do not explicitly state those things or even intend for your words to be interpreted in such a manner. That is the disservice your posts are fulfilling; that is why I'm pushing for an explanation of scope.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I would argue that we have impressionable kids who may believe that science is completely meritocratic, that peer review is immaculately fair, and that scientists who do good work will always be recognized, will always be placed into top positions, and will be successfully promoted. That's just not so, nor should we be telling kids that it is so. The scientific community has social biases and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Status does carry weight, whether we like it or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me give you an example why this is important, and a familiar one at that- we have all sorts of kids who come on here hoping with all their might that they can get into JHU for medical school because they want to be the best neurosurgeon in the history of the world. And what do we, as a collective, tell them? That their medical school, and even their residency, by and large doesn't matter, because they can become a physician, because all the accredited medical schools are very comparable and so on. If you were to rank all the medical schools the scale of the ranking would be very comfortable being spread out over 12 inches..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never disputed such a characterization.</p>
<p>But the world of science is different. Like I said, science is an insular community where success is based on community acceptance. A physician can ultimately just start his own practice and thereby essentially appeal directly to the market for a verdict as to his worth. It doesn't matter what other doctors think about him as long as his clientele likes him. Not so for scientists. For scientists to succeed in their career, they have to obtain the approval of other scientists. Status plays a role in determining who gets that approval. It doesn't matter if a scientist is doing good work if other scientists don't THINK he is doing good work. Hence, a scientist requires the social approval of his peers in a way that a doctor does not. That's the key difference between scientists and doctors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're a hoot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As are you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm glad folks like you are around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I too am glad folks like you are around. Keeps things interesting around here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It makes more room at the places that are higher quality and lower in "status". And FWIW, you certainly do have company. Entire market segments have been built around products having "status", be it education, consumer products or whatever
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you speak of that as if that's irrational. Status hierarchies have been found to exist in virtually every single social system ever devised since the dawn of civilization. In fact, much of the entire field of sociology is based on studying social status. To deny the power of status is therefore to deny what seems to be an inherent feature of man. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Too bad you can't accept that other people feel differently.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, you know what they say about those who live in glass houses.</p>
<p>FYI, I fully accept that other people feel differently. In fact, that's the whole point of an open discussion board - so that people can express different opinions. You are free to express your opinions. But I am also free to express mine.</p>
<p>I think we're all agreed here, and I'm not totally sure what the dispute is.</p>
<p>1.) Status matters.
2.) Relatively speaking, the status of all MD's in clinical contexts is relatively "flat." That is, the extra status afforded a Penn MD is relatively small compared to the extra status afforded an ECU MD. We'll label this "one" status point.
3.) These hierarchies are not immutable. One can start off very low and through excellence "break" whatever lack of momentum one had. Alternatively, one can start off very high and through poor performance, "break" the momentum you have.
4.) For comparison's sake, let's use law schools. The comparative status of a Penn JD is much, much greater than, say, a New England JD. We'll label this "ten" status points and so calibrate our line.</p>
<p>The question is: how many status points is a Penn MSTP worth relative to a MUSC MSTP? Twenty?</p>
<p>My guess: Something around six. Probably right in between the status differences in law and in medicine.</p>
<p>BDM,</p>
<p>Yes, status matters. (happy, Sakky?) See my post 44, though, because the situation is complex.</p>
<p>The problem is that Sakky keeps referring to institutional prestige. Of all the factors that matter, in the world of science, institutional prestige is the least important. Sakky can't seem to accept that, though. So I will repeat. Institutional prestige is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.</p>
<p>I suspect the reason this is problematic for some folks to understand is that, in the world of science, institutional prestige is ireally the sum of the prestige contribution of the component departments, which in turn is a function of the faculty. More importantly, practicing scientists are aware of this. And that is why some "high prestige" universities get no respect in certain scientific disciplines, and would be a bad choice in those fields.</p>
<p>It matters when nothing else does. In other words, it matters when all other things are equal.</p>
<p>So let's not have silly arguments comparing Harvard to South Alabama. Harvard is a better place (in some disciplines at least) because it has better faculty, which is to say they are better funded, publish more and in more respected journals. If Sakky were to say these things were true because of prestige, then we have a chicken/egg issue. Most practicing scientists (of which Sakky obviously is not) believe that good research leads to the publications and funding which in turn leads to prestige, not the other way around. To put it another way, it is the faculty that matter, not the Harvard name, to extend this example. </p>
<p>So, BDM, the value of Penn MSTP *per se * over a MUSC MSTP? Zero. The chances that a Penn MSTP grad will do better in one's career than a MUSC MSTP? High, not because of having a Penn degree, but because the individual was exposed to higher caliber science and did something with it. (And because lots of folks are like Sakky and attracted to names, so Penn can select higher caliber students who may even do well in spite of Penn, not because of Penn!) And even this will not be true in all areas of research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the value of Penn MSTP per se over a MUSC MSTP? Zero.
[/quote]
So part of it is what we'll call "diploma" value. I'm not sure this is quite zero, but I think it's also clear that it's much less than the six I estimated earlier.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but because the individual was exposed to higher caliber science and did something with it.
[/quote]
Here's the thorny issue. The problem is that this is inseparable from the diploma per se. It is impossible to study as a Penn MSTP without getting the diploma*, and vice versa. So is it the exposure value? Or the diploma value?</p>
<p>In other words, it wouldn't surprise me if exposure value plus diploma value added up to, as I estimated above, six. Whether that's a 0-6 or a 1-5 or even a 2-4 split, I don't really know -- but they're so tied up that separating them out might not be a particularly useful exercise.</p>
<p>*Of course, it is possible to drop out, but this is such a negative signal to relevant decision-makers that it cancels the whole purpose.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, status matters. (happy, Sakky?)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, the issue is not resolved, because of what you continue to assert below:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is that Sakky keeps referring to institutional prestige. Of all the factors that matter, in the world of science, institutional prestige is the least important. Sakky can't seem to accept that, though. So I will repeat. Institutional prestige is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, institutional prestige is NOT the least important. But now perhaps I understand the problem. When I say "institution", I don't simply mean the institution as a vacuum. My institution inherently carries the weightings of the particular departments or the schools, in the context of this thread.</p>
<p>To wit: anybody who graduates with a PhD from, say, the Harvard Department of Economics, enjoys a significant advantage in imprimatur. Many of the best Econ departments in the world are going to have at least heard of the person's name, and may choose to bring him in for job talk. But the same level of status cannot be accorded to, say, new PhD graduates from, say, the Harvard French Department, which is apparently not an elite department in French. </p>
<p>How that relates to this discussion is that we are talking about prospective medical scientists here. I think it's safe to say that nobody who is seriously thinking of becoming a medical scientist is going to pursue a PhD in French. The fact of the matter is that Harvard is an elite school in virtually every single reasonable discipline that a medical scientist might pursue. Hence, there is no salient difference between institutional status and departmental status. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most practicing scientists (of which Sakky obviously is not) believe that good research leads to the publications and funding which in turn leads to prestige, not the other way around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that right? Then let me give you a taste of what the literature says. </p>
<p>Biggs 'The Impact of Peer Review on Intellectual Freedom' (1990) - Found that manuscript submissions from lower status institutions are less likely to be accepted for publication than similar contributions from famous institutions</p>
<p>Garfield 'Uses and Misuses of Citation Frequency' (1985) - *Similarly found that publication success tends to be negatively correlated with institutional status, controlling for publication quality *</p>
<p>Jacobson 'Scholars Fault Journals and College Libraries in Survey by Council of Learned Societies' (1986) - ** Found that about 70% of surveyed scholars believed that the peer review system is biased towards those coming from high status institutions** Now, newmassdad, how exactly does this square with your notion that "most practicing scientists believe that good research leads to the publications and funding which in turn leads to prestige, not the other way around."?</p>
<p>Rosenthal 'Reliability and Bias in Peer-Review Practices' (1982) - *Describes Rosenthal's own experiences in which, as a professor at the University of North Dakota, he had numerous papers that he could not get published (although he had other papers that did get published). But then when he took a faculty position at Harvard those unpublished papers were duly accepted by the very same journals that had ignored him previously. *</p>
<p>Now, those are just 4 papers that I happen to know about. There is actually a mountain of evidence regarding biases in the scientific community having to do with status. While I obviously can't read it all, at least I'm trying to get a grasp on what the academic literature says regarding this issue. Can you say the same, newmassdad? Do you have evidence to cite? If not, then what exactly are you talking about?</p>
<p>Ah, Sakky, so a practicing scientist should also be familiar with the literature in an unrelated field? You may not know it, but the papers you cite would not be considered to be part of the literature of the biological sciences. Perhaps in Philosophy? Perhaps in Sociology? But certainly not science.</p>
<p>Now, regarding the cites you provide: These cites are pretty old (one person's experience in 1982 should hardly lead to a sweeping generalization in 2008!)</p>
<p>Regarding your other cites: Biggs? of course this is true. Quality of the scientists and their work. Garfield? how do you control for quality? How correlated? Jacobsen? of course the bottom 70% would feel this way. The result is not, BTW, inconsistent with my statement. I'll let you figure out why.</p>
<p>But did you not say above that Harvard's reputation is a function of its individual departments? "The fact of the matter is that Harvard is an elite school in virtually every single reasonable discipline that a medical scientist might pursue." Fine. We agree.</p>
<p>I think we are all saying pretty much the same things with Sakky going on a limb w/r prestige. I would say to HSers that if you want to pursue a science career, try to go to the top graduate program or research medical school you are accepted to. If you do not get accepted to one of the "prestigious" graduate or medical schools, do not give up your dream as you can still have a good career in science (I agree that from a clinical point of view, it matters little to your patients where you went to med school. You are "doc" to them). Furthermore, post-doctoral or clinical research fellowships are ways to enhance your research training. In fact, they may be more critical for launching your academic career than the graduate or medical school which you attend. </p>
<p>I also have pointed out a few examples where some outstanding physicians and scientists have started out at less "prestigious" institutions and have done extremely well. Also, it should be pointed out that many less "prestigious" schools still have stars who do research there. They are big fish in a small pond and have nice perks-i.e. lab space, institutional funding, endowed chairs, etc. so do not judge the quality of science from where the person is working. Last, funding, with the exception of program projects, is an individual sport. You are judged by the quality of your proposal, your track record, and the likelihood of your success on your project. Feasibility is considered; however, institutions are evaluated as to whether there are the resources to be able to conduct the research successfully (the prestige of the institution really does not play any significant role in that regard). Having said that, researchers from places like Harvard, MIT, Hopkins, Duke, etc. get big pieces of the pie. However, it is the quality of research they do, not merely the institution they are from, that determines their success.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ah, Sakky, so a practicing scientist should also be familiar with the literature in an unrelated field? You may not know it, but the papers you cite would not be considered to be part of the literature of the biological sciences. Perhaps in Philosophy? Perhaps in Sociology? But certainly not science
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sociology of Science, my friend. Sociology of Science. In other words, are you now admitting you are not familiar with the sociology of science? And yet you claim to know about it anyway, and in particular, to know more about it than me? Interesting. </p>
<p>Secondly, if you would prefer something close to home, how about the slew of papers published in JAMA regarding the biases of peer review? Would you like to talk about some of those papers? Now I don't think you have any excuse, as this is JAMA we're talking about. I hope that practicing medical scientists would be familiar with that journal. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, regarding the cites you provide: These cites are pretty old (one person's experience in 1982 should hardly lead to a sweeping generalization in 2008!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's bizarre to the extreme. ** You haven't cited a single article from ANY year**, and yet you feel that you can make sweeping generalizations based on precisely zero evidence! However old my evidence may be, at least it's better than yours. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Biggs? of course this is true. Quality of the scientists and their work
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope. Like I said above, this was controlled for, by comparing to similar works from other authors. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Garfield? how do you control for quality?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Same as above. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Jacobsen? of course the bottom 70% would feel this way. The result is not, BTW, inconsistent with my statement. I'll let you figure out why.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, you're completely inconsistent. Keep your story straight and figure out which way you believe the causality runs and we can revisit the subject.</p>
<p>Thought I'd just add on to this thread, instead of starting a new one.</p>
<p>For MD/PhD programs that are offered in the social sciences, how should one's application differ? Are they looking for only a demonstrated interest in research, or should completed research be done in the general area of the desired PhD?</p>
<p>Do it in the PhD area, definitely. I'm not sure how many schools offer Social Science MSTP's. Penn does, I think, but beyond that... well. It's worth looking into.</p>
<p>Well, I don't think you necessarily have to restrict yourself to just MSTP. If you're willing to consider a non-MSTP MD/PhD program, you can consider Harvard.</p>
<p>The</a> M.D.-Ph.D. Program at Harvard Medical School</p>
<p>I don't know about anybody else, but I would be far far more interested in completing a non-MSTP MD/PhD at Harvard than an MSTP at a much lower ranked program.</p>
<p>The main advantage to an MSTP is that full funding is guaranteed, including a stipend above and beyond tuition. Harvard's program sounds like full funding is possible -- but at most schools, I think the MD portion will have to be financed by the student himself.</p>
<p>The funding is the issue. For the Harvard program, it seems only your PhD years are funded (and that's with the usage of Harvard MSTP funds). That's a substantial difference considering how much debt you'll rack up in just the med school years. MSTP programs are fully funded.</p>
<p>The PhD I'm interested in is medical anthropology. A quick search on Google of "MD/PhD + anthropology" popped up schools like Yale, UCSF, Case Western, and Harvard, so I definitely have options if I wanted to pursue the route.</p>
<p>I gave some MSTP programs a quick glance, to see if they offered medical anthropology. Unfortunately, MUSC (one of my two state medical schools) does not cover the social sciences in their MSTP program. That would have probably been the easiest program to get in to.</p>
<p>Oh, certainly nobody would stop you from doing a joint degree. That's not the question. The question is whether they'd fund you under an MSTP or at all.</p>
<p>In any case, your research should definitely be in your chosen field.</p>