UCLA or Tri-I

[purplerainbow]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bluelamin]

if u have interest in cancer research - getting a phd at msk would be best

 

[ValentinNarcisse]

After months of waiting and narrowing down my choices, it appears these are my best choices based on research opportunities and location. I'm admitted to UCLA MSTP only, not UCLA-Caltech. Other choices: NYU, UTSW, Michigan, Colorado.

A little about me:

• CA resident (not LA), lived on west coast my whole life. I have been to NYC many times (10+) to visit. I've been to LA <3 times. Grew up in the suburbs, but have lived in a big city for 2 years.
• Research interests: immunology, allergies, computational genomics. I'm currently working in innate immunology, but am not married to it. In fact, I want to do something more computational. These interests could certainly change, so I want great opportunities in other fields if I change my mind.
• My biggest considerations: research opportunities/prestige, livability/location, clinical exposure, high concentration of interesting people/social life.

Thanks so much for taking the time to read this! I really appreciate your help.

Tri-I. No brainer. The opportunities and PIs at Rockefeller/MSK/Cornell is very difficult to beat.

 

[purplerainbow]

Tri-I. No brainer. The opportunities and PIs at Rockefeller/MSK/Cornell is very difficult to beat.

Can you elaborate a little more? Where is UCLA lacking in comparison?

 

[eteshoe]

Can you elaborate a little more? Where is UCLA lacking in comparison?

They're both great. It'll come down to your research interests though.

 

[purplerainbow]

They're both great. It'll come down to your research interests though.

Given that my research interests are immunology, allergies, computational genomics, which program would best fit? Thanks!

 

[eteshoe]

Given that my research interests are immunology, allergies, computational genomics, which program would best fit? Thanks!

In that case Tri-I

 

[purplerainbow]

@Fencer @Neuronix. I definitely look up to you two for advice. Anything to add here? I'm having a lot of difficulty with this decision.

 

[Neuronix]

Go second look at both. This is a personal decision.

 

[OxToCA]

I remember your last post on the Caltech-UCLA MSTP, and am curious if you were able to find out more about transferring into it? Oh, and

 

[purplerainbow]

I remember your last post on the Caltech-UCLA MSTP, and am curious if you were able to find out more about transferring into it? Oh, and View attachment 216238

Haven't found any more info yet, but I'll let you know.

 

[purplerainbow]

Besides cancer research, what are Rockefeller, MSKCC, and Cornell's biggest research strengths?
How about UCLA?

 

[GalaxyKnot]

One thing that can help is trying to find PIs that have work that excites you at the schools you are considering. From there you can look into their publication and grant history of the PIs that intrigue you. Afterwards you can weigh which university might suit your ambitions the best. You mentioned that you want a more computational approach; try to look into their computer science department for PIs that incorporate biology into their work. Sometimes the computational people do not immediately show up in the biomedical department faculty lists.

From my own experience, the MSTP directors will be able to point out the research strengths of the school. The directors can point you towards PIs that suits your interests and have had a history of successful MSTP students in her or his lab. Again, you can gather this info from both schools to compare and contrast.

The two suggestions that I mentioned above will probably come up by default while you RSVP and arrange second look visits to these schools. This is my two cents; I am sure that you are already on top this homework and looked into these options. Congratulations on your options!

 

[OxToCA]

Besides cancer research, what are Rockefeller, MSKCC, and Cornell's biggest research strengths?
How about UCLA?

For transitional research, they made a joint Tri-I, pharmaceutical company, and capital firm deal Pioneering Drug Discovery Company Bridge Medicines Launched to Advance Promising Early Technologies in Major Academic Institutions through Human Proof of Concept | Newsroom | Weill Cornell Medicine and said some pretty big things (e.g. "... transform New York into a world-class center of biotechnology excellence"), so let's see if they can back it up; looking into affiliated labs would probably be worthwhile.

For ref., their idea is summarized as: "In current drug-development models, intellectual property is often sold or licensed to a pharmaceutical company when it is still a basic compound or antibody. This early stage is fraught with risk; companies may choose to discontinue a project if it doesn’t meet expectations during the clinical trial process – or the project may not find funding at all. The Tri-I TDI program reflects a different paradigm: Principal investigators collaborate with medicinal chemists from Takeda to demonstrate the therapeutic viability of new compounds through preclinical proof-of-concept studies... Any project successfully graduating from Tri-I TDI is eligible to enter Bridge Medicines, where it can continue along the drug development pipeline without interruption and be professionally managed in a venture capital setting." I'm looking into what drug classes they're targeting past cancer... edited for at Tri-Institutional Therapeutics Discovery Institute

They do a lot of translational research at UCLA too through their CTSI program, which was recently awarded $80 million.

 

[purplerainbow]

.

 

[Neuronix]

This is all you've got for me? Of course it's a personal decision. Every time someone makes a school choice, it's intensely personal. I'm just looking for your perspective. After being in the field for a while, do you have any insight on these 2 programs?

No and nobody here will have what you're looking for.

I've never been to either place. Almost nobody has been an MD/PhD at both places. If you give a very specific research interest, you might find someone who knows that interest very well and can give advice about that interest. When you list multiple interests, nobody knows in depth about the opportunities at both places. Both are MD/PhD programs of roughly the same tier.

I personally avoid giving info comparing two programs. I trained at one place. I have no idea if it would be better for someone else where I went or at another program. I don't know what life is like at other programs.

Occasionally someone will come by to rah rah rah promote their own program. I think it's misleading. Just because someone happens to be on SDN promoting their program (typically an eager beaver first year who we never see again as they get more jaded), doesn't mean that program is better IMO.

Hence, all that people can give you is advice about how you can pick. You've gotten that advice. Good luck.

 

[Fencer]

I have lectured in both places, but I am not an immunologist, allergist or a computational genomics researcher or practitioner. It appears to me that you need to attend the 2nd visits and then choose based upon those interactions. Having said that, after taking 2 years of medical school, at least a good 20-30% or so of MD/PhD students will change their area for PhD research. Keep that in mind when you do your 2nd visits.

 

[kamikaze1992]

It comes down to NYC vs LA for the next 7-8 years. Whether you see yourself ina a more comfortable, I'd revisit both and decide on gut feeling.
Researchwise, I think great to think ahead in terms of interest, but it also is important to keep in mind that it'll change. Also, some labs that have done great research in your field of interest might not be the best place to do a PhD/training on.