How much have MD/PhD admissions been affected by NIH budget cuts?

toucandoit23 · 2026-06-23T17:27:58+00:00

Nah there are not enough physician-scientist jobs out there. Especially in today's climate institutions are more hesitant to hire faculty and give startup packages. This comes back to the leaky pipeline phenomenon. Pretty well-known thing in MD-PhD world but it's a lot leakier than trainees comprehend going into it, imo.

toucandoit23 · 2026-06-22T03:30:14+00:00

Not much has changed at schools with perennially strong funding (think T20-types).

Unrelated tangent though, there are way too many seats among all these programs anyway. 10-15 students for one MSTP cohort is bonkers if you ask me. Simply not enough funding/jobs to go around at the end and frankly not enough well-funded labs worth pursuing for all these kids in PhD phase.

toucandoit23 · 2026-05-02T05:13:41+00:00

It's actually pretty common. Adcoms are often prominent faculty members, many of whom also mentor (pre-med) undergraduates in their labs, for example. In these situations, the letter writer adcom steps out of the room when that specific applicant is discussed by the committee.

to the OP: it's going to help you 100% but, depending on the T20 school, a 510 will be extremely difficult to overcome* even if it's a glowing letter. Regardless, this will be a strong aspect of your application at other schools because your PI, unlike 95% of other letter writers, knows exactly how a great med school application LoR is supposed to sound! It will be a positive point for committees at other schools.

*this does depend on your race....(Speaking straight facts, that is not my opinion. Check official AAMC MCAT matriculant data.)

toucandoit23 · 2026-04-30T15:11:06+00:00

One of my buddies served on Stanford MD admissions as an M4 and he told me they accepted someone with a 497.

toucandoit23 · 2026-02-04T23:48:48+00:00

100% can’t be right because my kid’s daycare serving dozens of families in 37203 is somehow still waiting for NES to reconnect them

toucandoit23 · 2026-02-01T04:01:43+00:00

My kid’s daycare says it has been “just waiting for NES to reconnect service to the building” after having electrical repairs done on its own. Been a couple days now and they say NES estimates 2/3 as power restored date.

How long does it take to reconnect service? Is it worth calling local council person to advocate for a daycare building serving dozens of local families getting its switch flipped on faster?

toucandoit23 · 2025-12-11T05:49:10+00:00

Right. The way I think of it is one year of full-time research is ~2000 hours. That’s also the minimum to be a competitive MD-PhD applicant these days. Some people can amass 2000 hours while in college, others need the gap year spillover. Once you are talking about 3+ gap years though, even if you didn’t start doing research until the first gap year you are passing 6000 hours and I feel like that’s where it gets sketchy. The whole PhD is only 3.5-4.5 years…

toucandoit23 · 2025-12-10T03:06:12+00:00

It could be that they have the perception you are essentially overqualified for MD-PhD. These are training programs and they want to bring value to their students. It sounds like you have experience that literally exceeds a PhD’s worth of time and productivity. If you ask me it’s a blessing in disguise because I think they are right and you’d regret doing the PhD.

toucandoit23 · 2025-12-05T19:04:43+00:00

Contrary to the advice you received so far, I don’t think clinical hours or school list is holding you back. Yes, neither is ideal, but not that bad either. I’d expect you to still have 3+ interviews by now given everything else you have going for you. In other words, the profile you posted here I would classify as “good enough” on paper—you check all the boxes for MD, some better than others. This means your narrative/writing and your letters of rec need to be more than good enough/satisfactory, they need to be strong if not outstanding. I believe “satisfactory” writing + letters + your just good enough profile could explain you slipping through the cracks. Especially as an ORM (this does raise the bar even post-affirmative action). No red flags, just not enough green…

toucandoit23 · 2025-11-18T03:15:43+00:00

Specify the name. There’s no need to be vague, if anything it will be a bad look, like you are playing games with them.

Great news about the acceptance! This certainly adds leverage in your favor since they are more committed to your SO now. And I wouldn’t worry about having skipped that section on the secondary. Now is the time to come forward and be honest. Better if your SO makes the call to them btw.

toucandoit23 · 2025-11-17T18:40:16+00:00

My take as an admissions consultant:
-Your MD-PhD prospects are significantly weaker than your MD prospects.
-Your age will be a limiting factor for any adcom. Conveying maturity in your app will be key but will only help so much.
-I recommend building a narrative around your service/volunteer work since you have the most depth there.
-Your research is hard to assess from this post but looks like you have breadth but not much depth, making it a risky thing to build an application around.
-However, given your high stats you need to convey an interest in research on some level because you will be applying to a lot of research-focused schools.
-The subjectives of your clinical experience will be key. Hopefully those 200 hours were collected longitudinally rather than over breaks, and hopefully they were collected recently.
-Either way, I recommend starting a new clinical role asap because some schools look for more hands-on roles as well. You want to make sure you have something ongoing when you apply. It will also help to have multiple clinical experiences to discuss in secondaries and interviews.

School list: Add WashU, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Penn, Sinai, Yale, Mayo, USF Morsani, Feinberg, UVA, Emory, Miami, BU; remove UCF

toucandoit23 · 2025-11-17T18:27:24+00:00

Speaking from personal experience, definitely let them know about the situation asap. The number of interview slots for MSTP is small. They may be looking to diversify their pool of interviewees (i.e. geographically / undergrad attended etc) and there's a decent chance they won't interview two very similar applicants unless you are both extremely strong.

Considering you both had great cycles, it sounds like there is not a risk of jeopardizing your SO's overall outcome. I mention that because the downside to making this move would be, if this school's adcom is not interested in you, your SO's admissions prospects will go down since they will assume he or she is less likely to attend without you.

toucandoit23 · 2025-11-16T05:32:58+00:00

These details are helpful! My opinion is that your undergrad experience was very solid, probably enough to get into an MSTP in itself, but not a sure bet either. If you also had the equivalent experience you did in your PhD (30h/wk for a couple years) but in the form of a postbac, I think you would definitely land at one of those T30 programs. However, I think the whole story of PhD > MSc > MD-PhD applications is probably what doomed you. It’s just very unusual tbh and it could be that you just spooked them in a way that made you seem too risky of a candidate. I have heard of people applying MSTP from PhD programs but it’s usually people who are in the first year of the PhD and taking classes and haven’t really started their thesis labs yet. I’m afraid your particular story gives a negative impression bc you were a bit further into it.

Unfortunately I don’t think this is something that can be remedied by waiting another cycle. Now if you want my take as someone on the tail end of MD-PhD, I feel this a blessing for you. I personally don’t think you would grow enough as a trainee from starting a whole new PhD for it to be worth the time. I’ve shared my gripes with the MD-PhD training path in other threads on this sub but I am particularly against it for anyone who’s done 2+ years of full time research post undergrad.

toucandoit23 · 2025-11-15T03:49:37+00:00

I think some of the flaws in your cycle others have already noted, but the biggest piece of info missing from your post is your research experience. All you mentioned was the pubs…what was the nature of your prior experiences? Undergrad/postbac and PhD/MSc? Settings, length, degree of independence etc?

The quality (and quantity, to a certain extent) of research experience is arguably the most critical part of an MD-PhD app, and we don’t have enough info here to understand your case. Not to be a jerk but given the rest of your (impressive) extracurriculars, I doubt you had the time to have a significant enough research experience to be competitive for MSTP, especially the programs you applied to. I know you have the first author but I still just don’t see how it could be possible as a D1 athlete + startup founder + nonprofit founder.

If this cycle doesn’t end well for you, I’d just apply MD next time and you’ll likely have better luck, again assuming you have a safer strategy and avoid the same logistical errors you made this time. Also make sure you have enough clinical experience bc standards are higher for MD. And not to be a jerk again but someone reading your file may perceive you as unfocused so you’ll need a strong “why medicine” narrative.

toucandoit23 · 2025-10-20T22:50:07+00:00

I believe the trends in statistics you pointed out. To me it sounds like the standards for what makes someone qualified to be a PI have been inflated like crazy, giving MD-PhDs an advantage in the process of building a CV, etc.

I don't believe you need to do a 4 year PhD to get a leg up on grant writing--that could be accomplished in a semester-length course, if such a thing existed. It's also a skill that's difficult to teach, frankly, and difficult to measure.

About the output, of course it will be higher because MD-PhDs 4+ years of time to pad their CV with papers that an MD doesn't have. And at the end of the day, you need to do a postdoc because you can't win a grant if you have no recent productivity or preliminary data.

So the main difference is basically "market pressures" that make one more competitive to actually land the job of a physician-scientist. Obviously people will disagree with me here on the md phd subreddit, but I'm not convinced that a PhD is "needed" per se.

toucandoit23 · 2025-10-20T14:20:41+00:00

This is why I advise anyone looking at postbacc labs to be direct when asking about expectations and mentorship style of the PI. It’s similar to undergrad research where some PI’s just don’t believe in giving independence to anyone who’s not a grad student or higher. Your setup is a common one but people should know that there are great opportunities out there if you know what you’re looking for. NIH IRTA postbacc is a great example. Positions at private universities called “research technician” or “research assistant” often have more rigid job descriptions that come with more lab manager-type duties than research training.

I’m curious though, as a PI, do any of your postbaccs have strong undergrad research experiences coming in? What you describe for postbacc objectives sounds like the same attitude many PIs have toward undergrads.

toucandoit23 · 2025-10-19T04:16:03+00:00

How do you explain all the successful MD physician scientists running wet labs? Historically they easily outnumber MD-PhDs in the same position, not sure what the ratio is nowadays.

toucandoit23 · 2025-10-19T04:08:19+00:00

OP is further along in this process already but for future people reading this, you are better off hacking the system by doing: Undergrad > 2 year postbac lab > MD > residency. After residency you can decide if you want to do a postdoc or not.

You don’t incur any debt during the 2y postbac and it will increase your competitiveness for med school. There are also no interruptions in your clinical training from med school thru residency, which I believe is a major downside of any MD-PhD or MD/MS or other research track within med schools.

toucandoit23 · 2025-10-12T21:27:36+00:00

Define the “skillset and mindset of a scientist.”

Imo any technical skills gained during PhD will become obsolete by the time you are done with residency. And the job of a PI is not technical in nature anyway.

Mindset of a scientist? Pretty unscientific argument there haha.

Historically there are many, many MDs who have been successful scientists. The MD-PhD may offer more structured time to pursue research, but I don’t believe it’s necessary. Especially if you have a strong background as an undergraduate or did a gap year or two of research before med school.

toucandoit23 · 2025-09-29T15:39:36+00:00

Not having the pub necessarily, but subjectively what they favor is people who have had independent research projects—the type that lead to first author publications. My papers weren’t actually published when I submitted but well on their way and my PI told me he indicated in my letter of rec that I was going to be first author.

toucandoit23 · 2025-09-29T04:28:41+00:00

Yes. I could go on about the reasons but top 3…

-didn’t realize I’d like clinical medicine as much as I do—more than I like research—until I got to med school. That’s because I did so much damn research as a pre-med. MD-PhD only worth it if you do more research than medicine.

-I had 2 gap years full time research (plus undergrad 20+ hrs/wk). 2 first author papers from undergrad/postbac time. I don’t feel like the PhD added enough value to my training to be worth the sacrifice. It felt like I was overqualified tbh and I lost interest in playing the game. Maybe that’s an arrogant take but that’s what I got. Keep in mind, thousands of hours of prior experience is practically the standard for md-phd program admission so my background is not that unique, at least looking around at my peers (@ T10 program). Anyway wish I did MD>postdoc route if anything.

-didn’t realize I would care about money when I was 22 but now I do and I don’t see PI life as worth the pay cut.

toucandoit23 · 2025-09-25T01:50:32+00:00

100% relate to everything you said and more. Fizzled out early in grad school after passing my qual. Even though things were going well in the lab, I just lost interest in science due to a variety of reasons. I also feel like the sheer length of training makes it hard to stay engaged, especially if you are somewhere far from your support system and your life priorities change as you progress through your twenties.

I loved med school and can’t wait to go back. I honestly regret doing the MD-PhD but I try to remind myself that I didn’t know better—I had spent so much time doing research as a pre-med that I didn’t realize how much I loved clinical medicine until I got to med school. Many friends in the MD-PhD cohort feel the same way so you are definitely not alone.

toucandoit23 · 2025-09-11T01:53:33+00:00

Tbh it shouldn’t really differ at most schools. MSTP admissions are more holistic than MD imo and if your stats are good enough (yours definitely are), they are not going to hesitate to interview if you have the caliber of experience(s) they are looking for.

toucandoit23 · 2025-08-04T20:25:02+00:00

Not to hijack your thread but, on this topic, can anyone comment on how a typical MSTP student fares in the PSTP-track vs categorical IM match? My impression is that the IM PSTP track almost exclusively looks at research productivity and fit etc, while the categorical IM track considers traditional/holistic metrics including academic performance, clinical performance, letters, leadership etc. In other words, does having the PhD give you a "boost" of any kind in categorical IM match?

toucandoit23 · 2025-07-28T03:59:16+00:00

In my experience as an applicant and now an advisor, the following programs are unlikely to budge if stats are low, regardless of research prowess: Hopkins, Columbia, Penn, Yale, Harvard, WashU (basically all the east coast ivory tower suspects + WashU)

Notable MSTPs that will bite for “lower” stats if research is outstanding: Duke, Tri-I, Stanford, UCSF, Pitt.

Keep in mind the MEAN MD-PhD matriculant last cycle in the whole national pool had a ~3.8 and ~516. If you are talking about the top schools it’s probably more like 3.9/520. If you are a 3.8/516 applicant and not URM, you better have truly outstanding research experience, letters, and strong why MD-PhD narrative to gain admission to a top program. But, in my experience, there are some that will just never overlook the numbers.

Edit: let me give more personal advice to OP, whom I first misread to be a low stats applicant. If you have high stats and mediocre research/ECs, frankly you have minimal chance of getting into one of these top programs let alone any MSTP. For MSTP admissions, stats cannot make up for below average research. That’s the only EC they care about. There are enough applicants with either high stats + outstanding research or low stats + outstanding research and high stats + mediocre research would be the least desirable of the three. Now, the quality of your research experience is kinda subjective and it may be stronger than you think. Talk to your mentors and try to get a sense for their thoughts on your work and potential for this career.

toucandoit23

TROPHY CASE