Straight through or Gap Year?

[parsimony1428]

I am a junior in UG and am trying to decide on whether I should apply straight through or take a gap year. My stats are pretty good and I have 2000+ hours of research, but no publications, just 2 poster presentations at nat'l conferences. My letters are all set and I've been in the mindset of applying this cycle but I really want to maximize my chances of going to a top 10 MSTP.

Should I take a gap year and do a postbac at the NIH, I hear IRTA is pretty popular, or should I go straight through? Will it make a big difference when competition is already so high and chances are unpredictable?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nonamesleft]

It looks like this is a cross post with the WAMC forum, but you give more info here, so I'll reply here.

Other than research, do you have any clinical/non-clinical ECs? This won't affect a PhD application, but it will affect your chances at a combined MD and PhD. We get cut some slack because of our commitment to research, but your non-research EC's can't be zero.
What is your GPA, MCAT? Are these top-10 worthy?

In terms of gap year plans, I would say that the deficiency in your application (based on the info you've given) is not your research. Therefore, I don't know that a IRTA would improve your chances. Instead, you should address the other aspects that may be lacking in your application (while maintaining the research aspect).

 

[parsimony1428]

Yeah I'm president of two organizations at my school, one is a pre-med type org and another is a research journal. I am a TA for a chem class and run a weekly biochem study session. I have 200+ hours of clinical hospital volunteering and 60 hours of non-clinical (at independent living homes and things of that nature relating to mental disorders, etc). I just feel like the lack of publications might be a hindrance in top MSTPs, even if they say that's not their concern.

 

[jesie]

Just finished this app cycle with a top 20 acceptance. I went straight through (no gap year) with great experience and stats but without publications and it felt like a very clear disadvantage. If I could do it again I would have taken time to do research for a year or two. Anecdotally, when I interviewed at UCSF, only 3/15 of us were still in undergrad. The other 12 were in masters degrees, Fulbrights, or at the NIH. I'd do yourself the favor of taking the time if the prestige matters a lot to you. I (and many others that pick my school) actually said no to my/our 'top ranked' acceptance for the sake of a different, 'lower ranked' school because of location and specific opportunities. You will be surprised by which schools you end up loving.

They're not gonna care hardly at all about the "MD stuff"

 

[ucbundergrad]

You make an interesting point but being on the other side I would argue that a research year to bump yourself from a 10-20 MSTP to a top 5 MSTP would not be worth it. Now if you are not sure about research definitely do it. If you have good grades, good MCAT, and 2-3 years research and know you want MD/PhD just apply.

You can spend that extra year during your PhD where the extra year or two can mean you can turn little papers into big papers or few papers into many. Looking at rank lists for different programs you will find that people from MSTP can end up anywhere (assuming they do well on Step / clinical rotations). Also that caveat I added (good step/clinical rotations) also applies to people at top MSTPs.

 

[parsimony1428]

Just finished this app cycle with a top 20 acceptance. I went straight through (no gap year) with great experience and stats but without publications and it felt like a very clear disadvantage. If I could do it again I would have taken time to do research for a year or two. Anecdotally, when I interviewed at UCSF, only 3/15 of us were still in undergrad. The other 12 were in masters degrees, Fulbrights, or at the NIH. I'd do yourself the favor of taking the time if the prestige matters a lot to you. I (and many others that pick my school) actually said no to my/our 'top ranked' acceptance for the sake of a different, 'lower ranked' school because of location and specific opportunities. You will be surprised by which schools you end up loving.

They're not gonna care hardly at all about the "MD stuff"

Would you be willing to describe a bit about how the distribution was at the schools you interviewed for in terms of gap year vs straight through? I know you mentioned UCSF, but is it like that everywhere? Do you think there was a reason the school like to interview (and subsequently admit) non-traditional MSTP applicants?

 

[Lucca]

Most of the MSTPs are insanely competitive, I wouldn't focus on only the top 10.

Would you be willing to describe a bit about how the distribution was at the schools you interviewed for in terms of gap year vs straight through? I know you mentioned UCSF, but is it like that everywhere? Do you think there was a reason the school like to interview (and subsequently admit) non-traditional MSTP applicants?

The stats I have seen for schools that report show that it's at least 50/50 trad/nontrad in the entering class for a school. The main reason is research experience. A lot of people might have research from undergrad but not something independent, long-term, and impressive which is what the MSTPs want to see. So, lots of people will go take an extra year to round out their application. Many others are not sure about MD/Phd and take the year or two off to figure out if that's the career they want.

 

[Electricity]

From someone who took 2 years off doing research before matriculating into an MSTP, I recommend applying now rather than taking time off. This will free up more time for you later in your career. For example, you will be able to afford to do a fellowship or a short postdoc at a more prestigious location. Science is in general a "what have you done for me lately" game, so research in your pre-MD/PhD years won't help you nearly as much as research down the line for the really competitive things, like R01s.

 

[SunnyDO]

I would take a gap year just to have a life outside of medicine before you jump into your career. If you wanna be super productive and do a post-bacc to enhance your application, that's cool too.

 

[nonamesleft]

Yeah I'm president of two organizations at my school, one is a pre-med type org and another is a research journal. I am a TA for a chem class and run a weekly biochem study session. I have 200+ hours of clinical hospital volunteering and 60 hours of non-clinical (at independent living homes and things of that nature relating to mental disorders, etc). I just feel like the lack of publications might be a hindrance in top MSTPs, even if they say that's not their concern.

Ok. Just checking that you had "some".
If you're concerned about your # of pubs coming straight from UG, you could check the student profiles at the schools that you're interested in, and do a pubmed search to see how many of those that came straight from UG had pubs. I think that pubs are "bonus" for UG since research was extracurricular, but more "expected" for those that did post-grad work because they spent time in 100% research.

 

[parsimony1428]

From someone who took 2 years off doing research before matriculating into an MSTP, I recommend applying now rather than taking time off. This will free up more time for you later in your career. For example, you will be able to afford to do a fellowship or a short postdoc at a more prestigious location. Science is in general a "what have you done for me lately" game, so research in your pre-MD/PhD years won't help you nearly as much as research down the line for the really competitive things, like R01s.

But what about if I were to have a research offer from a lab at a top tier med school or even the NIH postbac, both of which would be prestigious. It would only be for one year, so I'm trying to see if the short term delay of one year would help in going to a great institution in the long term, which arguably is more important for getting R01's, since there is bias in who gets those grants.

 

[ucbundergrad]

You need to make your decision weighing your own goals. I do not think doing your MD/PhD at a top 5 program vs a 15-25 program would impact your career more than the numerous other factors that will be in play over the next 8-14 years of doctoral and fellowship training. You will also still be pursuing residency and fellowship at numerous institutions and have a chance to widen your pedigree. Also at these later stages you will be making impressions on people that more directly impact your real career.

For most people one additional year at any later stage would be significantly more useful than your one year postbac. For example one extra year to my PhD now would probably allow me to get 1-3 more first author publications and/or turn my first author publications into a higher tier paper. One additional year after my residency/fellowship would likely allow me to get more preliminary data or publications to make my K08/R01 more competitive. Also those additional years would allow me to make contacts / improve relations with mentors who will play a direct role in helping me get a future job.

Obviously I have a bias of reducing time and you need to figure out what things you care about. You are definitely not making a bad choice by doing an additional year of research. Don't assume it will be the magical thing that will get you into a top 5 MSTP, and even if it does, don't assume that means you will now "make it".

 

[Electricity]

But what about if I were to have a research offer from a lab at a top tier med school or even the NIH postbac, both of which would be prestigious. It would only be for one year, so I'm trying to see if the short term delay of one year would help in going to a great institution in the long term, which arguably is more important for getting R01's, since there is bias in who gets those grants.

I did a postbac. I don't think it will give me any prestige points in terms of getting a grant or faculty position in 5-10 years. Certainly not over getting more/"higher-impact" papers (which I could do if I used those years for my PhD, instead).

I'm happy that I did the postbac because I didn't have much undergrad research so I didn't have much of a choice. I also had the opportunity to read a lot and clarify some of my goals in life.

It was also a good experience in terms of seeing how different labs operate. I actually do think that 1-2 years in a postbac + 3-4 years in a PhD lab will on average make you a better scientist than 5-6 years in single lab for a PhD. But that's separate from what's best for your career. And with science such a competitive game these days, it behooves you to consider that.