Fencer's corner

[Fencer]

The system was down this morning, but seems to be resync. There are now around 750 applicants with at least one MD/PhD acceptance. As you can see, the process slows a lot during early April, but as people start making decisions this (and next) week, programs need to refill those last few spots. Historically, by the end of the cycle, we have close to 850 applicants with at least one MD/PhD acceptance. The majority of them (75% or 75 applicants with their 1st MD/PhD acceptance) will be selected prior to May 10th... then it is just a trickle..

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[neuro_tick]

Hi Fencer, do you have any sense of where currently-accepted students are with regards to releasing their spots? Is there a big change from before the April 15 deadline, or is the April 30 deadline usually the bigger catalyst?

 

[Maebea]

There is a some movement starting in mid-April, but things really start happening closer to the April 30 deadline.

I find it interesting that back when the deadline was May 15, we would have a pretty good idea of what our class would look like (within 1-2 people) by April 15. Now, with the deadline moved up to April 30, we do not have that level of confidence until the deadline (or a day or two later).

 

[ophthoptimistically]

Hi Fencer, do you have any recommendations for an MD-PhD applicant with 78 clinical volunteering and 30 shadowing hours at time of application? Should the applicant attempt to increase either prior to submitting (seek out opportunities and project hours) or could that be enough?

 

[Fencer]

It depends on the trajectory of the applicant, but it could be enough... additional hours over the year of application could also be described. The most critical aspect for a MD/PhD application is the quality and quantity of research experiences, which should have informed the applicant of the physician-scientist career.

 

[B0NK]

Hi Fencer, I'm curious if you have access to the statistics of the average gap year for applicants. I wonder if a higher percentage of matriculants are taking gap years in recent application cycles. I have heard some programs are trying to build a holistic review process that is more friendly to applicants still in college. Is this a consensus across MD/PhD leaderships? I would love to hear if you have any personal takes on this too.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Hi Fencer, I'm curious if you have access to the statistics of the average gap year for applicants. I wonder if a higher percentage of matriculants are taking gap years in recent application cycles. I have heard some programs are trying to build a holistic review process that is more friendly to applicants still in college. Is this a consensus across MD/PhD leaderships? I would love to hear if you have any personal takes on this too.

Where have you heard this? Holistic review is about providing additional context about an applicant; if anything, it really benefits applicants who succeed despite challenges and obstacles in their lives. That would include individuals who attend community college prior to going to undergrad (or vice versa as career-changers).

From my own experience at the admissions desk, we field applicants who take gap years doing research (such as at NIH IRTA or perhaps involved in clinical research) before making an application to do MSTP.

So from my perspective, draw your conclusions. I think more applicants have taken gap years if you compared to candidates from 20 years ago. But there were also fewer SMPs or postbac research opportunities then.

 

[ddhopeful]

Hi Fencer, I'm curious if you have access to the statistics of the average gap year for applicants. I wonder if a higher percentage of matriculants are taking gap years in recent application cycles. I have heard some programs are trying to build a holistic review process that is more friendly to applicants still in college. Is this a consensus across MD/PhD leaderships? I would love to hear if you have any personal takes on this too.

Changes to holistic review could also mean a switch from looking at race/ethnicity of applicants to socioeconomic disadvantages after the US Supreme Court decision. If that were the case, applicants without such disadvantage would face more competition and would need more research experience and/or higher stats to get acceptances to MD/PhD programs and that would necessitate taking gap year(s). That might be an additional reason why a higher percentage of matriculants are taking gap years nowadays.

I am just thinking aloud here, Fencer, Maebea and Mr. Smile12 will have a much better idea.

 

[Fencer]

Update as of today:
Total - 1,857 MD/PhD applicants (6% international) - 513.0 MCAT, 3.75 cGPA (averages)
1 or more MD/PhD AC - 769 applicants - 517.6, 3.87 cGPA (averages)

There will be movement in the waitlists this coming week... Target for cohort of 1 or more MD/PhD AC is about 840-850, so quite a few people without yet a MD/PhD acceptance, will get one. Send those letters of interest.

 

[neuro_tick]

It's really surprising (but cautiously optimism-inducing) that there's so much waitlist movement at this late point in the cycle! Would you say that this is more applicant or school-driven? i.e. is a lot of the late movement due to applicants holding onto multiple acceptances until the last possible minute? Or do schools prefer to wait until May 1st, when they get more detailed data on waitlisted and accepted students?

On a related note, would you say that it's worth sending a second letter if we've already sent one two weeks ago? It seems like so much change has occurred over the past few weeks that programs might appreciate the transparency, but I also don't want to be a nuisance.

 

[Fencer]

In the 2 days after the 4/30 9 am deadline, we had 30 applicants receiving their 1st MD/PhD acceptance! And this overnight sync only captures the day and half (Tue / Wed). I expect that by the Saturday, we would be around 825-830 applicants with at least one MD/PhD acceptance for the cycle.

 

[UniCrys]

In the 2 days after the 4/30 9 am deadline, we had 30 applicants receiving their 1st MD/PhD acceptance! And this overnight sync only captures the day and half (Tue / Wed). I expect that by the Saturday, we would be around 825-830 applicants with at least one MD/PhD acceptance for the cycle.

Thank you Fencer! Would you be able to update us on Saturday if you have time !

 

[petzlpro]

I have a quick question about MSTP vs non-MSTP MD/PhD program funding. It is my understanding that MSTP programs cover students' funding for their med school and part of their graduate years but that their remaining graduate years' funding is often up to the departments/PIs. Is this a correct understanding, and if so, can you elaborate on how this might be different than a funded non-MSTP program that is "fully funded" but requires graduate-year funding to come from the PI? Is it just that you are losing out on some security in the funding since, in the MSTP case, it is often departmental and not based on individual PIs, or am I missing/misunderstanding something?

 

[Fencer]

The most important difference is prestige... I try to make sure that every single of my trainees is appointed to the T32 training grant for at least a year during typically the first 2 years of training (during medical school) and during that time, they do have a supplement of training related expenses from the grant that allows them to get a computer and/or some goodies. All students in a MSTP are considered MSTP trainees whether they are supported by T32 directly or only indirectly. Fully funded MD/PhD programs are in a quest to be recognized by the NIH, and behave pretty much like a MSTP without having T32 MSTP funding as of yet. There is a new type of T32 MSTP which is called the LEAD T32 MSTP award. It is for smaller programs with great degree of excellence. Two programs that I am told that were awarded in this category are the MD/PhD programs at U Nebraska and U New Mexico.