How much does the "clinical prestige" of the medical school matter for MSTP or MD/PhD

[ilikekinase1]

I have been fortunate enough to be blessed with a few acceptances this cycle thus far. Although I am of course still waiting to hear back from a few places, I am already finding out that it is not as simple to choose a program as I thought it would be. Namely, I'm trying to figure out which program will be most promising in terms of helping me land a great residency match 7-8 years or so down the line (a stupid thing to already be worrying about, I know).

I understand that the mantra here on this forum is that one's publication record and general success in the program far outweigh the "prestige" of their institution when it comes to residency matching, but exactly how true is this statement, especially considering that the Step1 is now P/F? With such a change, I'm feeling pressured into choosing a program that has more "clinical pedigree" than a program that actually has higher quality research that suits me, stronger T32 history, and even MSTP status. Does anyone else feel this way / wanna shed some light on this? Or am I overthinking things?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ValentinNarcisse]

I have been fortunate enough to be blessed with a few acceptances this cycle thus far. Although I am of course still waiting to hear back from a few places, I am already finding out that it is not as simple to choose a program as I thought it would be. Namely, I'm trying to figure out which program will be most promising in terms of helping me land a great residency match 7-8 years or so down the line (a stupid thing to already be worrying about, I know).

I understand that the mantra here on this forum is that one's publication record and general success in the program far outweigh the "prestige" of their institution when it comes to residency matching, but exactly how true is this statement, especially considering that the Step1 is now P/F? With such a change, I'm feeling pressured into choosing a program that has more "clinical pedigree" than a program that actually has higher quality research that suits me, stronger T32 history, and even MSTP status. Does anyone else feel this way / wanna shed some light on this? Or am I overthinking things?

It depends what programs you are specifically talking about. In general, attending the best possible medical school you can is the best option, but there is a gray area. I would say a top 20 medical school that is MSTP (which all are to my knowledge) will keep all doors open. If you are falling much below that, it may be more of an uphill battle. The best thing to compare is the MSTP match list at both programs. At the end of the day, while you feel like you are on a completely separate track as an MD/PhD applicant, you will be considered and evaluated a graduate of your medical school when it comes to residency. I would make plans on where you would rather be graduating from in 7-8 years if everything does not go to plan, (i.e. average board scores, average pubs, average grades). The prestige of your medical school will give you more security in your outcome.

 

[StIGMA]

Top 5 program definitely helps you down the line. Probably some sequential decrease in benefit going from there through top ~25 then to top 25-50. This specifically comes up in "candidate" section when you apply for certain grants and contributes to how you are scored (in addition to all the other factors).

If you are comparing #8 to #12 or something or #17 to #26 I don't think it matters nearly as much or at all. #3 vs # 30 does matter.

 

[ilikekinase1]

It depends what programs you are specifically talking about. In general, attending the best possible medical school you can is the best option, but there is a gray area. I would say a top 20 medical school that is MSTP (which all are to my knowledge) will keep all doors open. If you are falling much below that, it may be more of an uphill battle. The best thing to compare is the MSTP match list at both programs. At the end of the day, while you feel like you are on a completely separate track as an MD/PhD applicant, you will be considered and evaluated a graduate of your medical school when it comes to residency. I would make plans on where you would rather be graduating from in 7-8 years if everything does not go to plan, (i.e. average board scores, average pubs, average grades). The prestige of your medical school will give you more security in your outcome.

I'm mainly comparing between two programs that are MSTPs but are ranked decently lower than this one non-MSTP programs I'm considering. The non-MSTP program is a Top 30 last time I checked. However, the match lists between all of these programs are quite impressive, especially among the two MSTPs I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, the non-MSTP isn't fully funded; it pays tuition, but no stipend for medical school years which sucks because it's in a pretty expensive city (I feel like everyone here can guess which program I'm talking about given this description lol). Furthermore, I'm still concerned as to whether the MSTP programs will be able to continually match their graduates this well in the future if more and more emphasis is placed on the ranking of the medical school...

 

[Fencer]

Partially funded MD/PhD program is less desirable. In the big scheme of things, MSTP programs are likely to continue to match as well as they have been doing recently... PM me if you want to discuss.

 

[tr]

I'm mainly comparing between two programs that are MSTPs but are ranked decently lower than this one non-MSTP programs I'm considering. The non-MSTP program is a Top 30 last time I checked. However, the match lists between all of these programs are quite impressive, especially among the two MSTPs I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, the non-MSTP isn't fully funded; it pays tuition, but no stipend for medical school years which sucks because it's in a pretty expensive city (I feel like everyone here can guess which program I'm talking about given this description lol). Furthermore, I'm still concerned as to whether the MSTP programs will be able to continually match their graduates this well in the future if more and more emphasis is placed on the ranking of the medical school...

I would never choose an unfunded or partially funded program over an MSTP, regardless of the USNews factor.

Besides the obvious financial advantages, for anyone who matters, the prestige factor accruing to the MSTP outweighs the prestige factor of any medical school.

Also ,it is true (not a 'mantra') that your individual success as a scientist will always be more important than your institutional affiliation. An MSTP will set you up for scientific success in a way that an also-ran, partially funded program will not.

 

[Neuronix]

Besides the obvious financial advantages, for anyone who matters, the prestige factor accruing to the MSTP outweighs the prestige factor of any medical school.

This is very subjective. I have seen all sorts of people in power say and do different things when it comes to things like "prestige".

At the end of the day, pick your opportunities based on your own interests.

With the step 1 going P/F, I don't know what to say any more. It was a huge factor in selecting residents in my specialty. I wrote a lot in the past about step 1 being vitally important to MD/PhDs, because frankly it was for competitive programs in any specialty, and for competitive specialties in general. Without it, I don't know what programs are going to do. You can't see the future, so all you can do is move forward.

Generally prestige and reputation of medical school is directly linked to research opportunities, i.e. the USNews rankings for research directly correlates with MSTP programs and their strength as well. In the end, I don't really see much of an issue, unless you're considering an MSTP for strength in a niche research area that is lower down the rankings. Generally the higher ranked places have more opportunities in research all around and also have the prestigious medical schools. I can't really see a scenario where someone is picking a significantly weaker ranked MD program for significantly stronger research opportunities outside of particular niches. I'd be curious to see a specific example of school A vs. school B where the scenario the op posted actually applies.

 

[happyolik]

This is very subjective. I have seen all sorts of people in power say and do different things when it comes to things like "prestige".

At the end of the day, pick your opportunities based on your own interests.

With the step 1 going P/F, I don't know what to say any more. It was a huge factor in selecting residents in my specialty. I wrote a lot in the past about step 1 being vitally important to MD/PhDs, because frankly it was for competitive programs in any specialty, and for competitive specialties in general. Without it, I don't know what programs are going to do. You can't see the future, so all you can do is move forward.

Generally prestige and reputation of medical school is directly linked to research opportunities, i.e. the USNews rankings for research directly correlates with MSTP programs and their strength as well. In the end, I don't really see much of an issue, unless you're considering an MSTP for strength in a niche research area that is lower down the rankings. Generally the higher ranked places have more opportunities in research all around and also have the prestigious medical schools. I can't really see a scenario where someone is picking a significantly weaker ranked MD program for significantly stronger research opportunities outside of particular niches. I'd be curious to see a specific example of school A vs. school B where the scenario the op posted actually applies.

Did the list of competitive specialties stay the same over the last 5-10 years? What are the examples of more competitive vs less competitive specialties?

 

[Neuronix]

Google charting outcomes in the match and look at metrics like mean step scores by specialty and applicants to matched ratio. Things do fluctuate over time, so you can look back over time as well.

 

[ValentinNarcisse]

Did the list of competitive specialties stay the same over the last 5-10 years? What are the examples of more competitive vs less competitive specialties?

Currently Competitive: Dermatology, Neurosurgery, Plastics, Ortho, Ophtho
Previously Competitive: Radiology, Radiation Oncology

My (albeit dated) experience is that MSTP match lists can be stacked with people matching at prestigious places in fields like Pediatrics, Pathology, Neurology, Psychiatry. Reality is these fields are very MSTP friendly and likely care less about metrics like USMLE scores, med school prestige, and clerkship grades. What you really want to know is if a graduate of the program who was interested in Dermatology was able to match at a top program in that field. Some specialties have centers that may not be immediately obvious to you as being a top program like (Bascom Palmer (Miami) - for Optho, Hospital for Special Surgery (NYC) - for Ortho, or St. Joseph's Hospital (Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix) in Neurosurgery.

 

[love2chis]

I can't really see a scenario where someone is picking a significantly weaker ranked MD program for significantly stronger research opportunities outside of particular niches. I'd be curious to see a specific example of school A vs. school B where the scenario the op posted actually applies.

How about Tri-C MSTP vs Stanford MSTP for Cancer medicine research? Sloan Kettering cancer medicine research is extremely strong, I would say much stronger than Stanford, but Stanford MD program is better than Cornell... In that case should someone pick Tri-C over Stanford for its strong research and let go the prestige of Stanford?

 

[StIGMA]

How about Tri-C MSTP vs Stanford MSTP for Cancer medicine research? Sloan Kettering cancer medicine research is extremely strong, I would say much stronger than Stanford, but Stanford MD program is better than Cornell... In that case should someone pick Tri-C over Stanford for its strong research and let go the prestige of Stanford?

I would go where you think you would perform better (this includes aspects of where you want to live for the next 7-10 years or more) and also if you know where you want to end up long-term. If dedicated to NYC (or even Northeast) it's an easy decision. If dedicated to Cali/West Coast it's an easy decision. Completely different lifestyles for this time period that will affect you more than any perceived differences in the programs.

 

[happyolik]

I would go where you think you would perform better (this includes aspects of where you want to live for the next 7-10 years or more) and also if you know where you want to end up long-term. If dedicated to NYC (or even Northeast) it's an easy decision. If dedicated to Cali/West Coast it's an easy decision. Completely different lifestyles for this time period that will affect you more than any perceived differences in the programs.

But what if it is something like Baltimore vs Iowa City or Ann Arbor? What do people with experience choose for MSTP if it gets to this point?

 

[StIGMA]

But what if it is something like Baltimore vs Iowa City or Ann Arbor? What do people with experience choose for MSTP if it gets to this point?

Similar concept to what I said above in post #3.

 

[happyolik]

Similar concept to what I said above in post #3.

but Hopkins is #2 and Michigan is#15 (I am not sure)???
8 and 12 are closer