This is part of the conversation my S24 is having with the MD/PhDs mentoring him in his current research position. Like, would he need post-bacc research experience before applying to MSTPs, and would it make more sense given his interests to just do the PhD part? Apparently the answer to both questions is a lot of “it depends”.
Obviously the point in this context is not to try to decide for him what to do, but I was trying to illustrate the possible implications of college costs for post-college flexibility. Like, the basic deal is apparently doing the MSTP route adds around 2 years on average to the PhD timeline (this is assuming the same sort of PhD either way) and those 2 years are fully funded with stipend.
The point I intended to illustrate was that while this may superficially seem like a “good deal” for an MD (only two years and “free”!), of course that is way too simplistic, at a minimum you have to consider the extra years for the total program as opportunity costs (either way, whether it is the “extra” years for the PhD or “extra” years for the MD). If you are already planning a glide year or two, then post-bacc research might not add to that opportunity cost, but if it did add any such years, then you would have to account for that too.
None of which is insurmountable if this is really what you want, but I think this points to some gradations of “full pay”.
Like there is a version of full pay where the student still has a decent amount of debt coming out of college, and is on their own from there. On the opposite end, there is a version of full pay where the student has no debt, and the parents are also planning to help out with house downpayments, cars, pay for joint vacations, maybe help out with making early Roth contributions, and so on (there is no real limit to this, of course). And variations in between.
If you are more in the latter sort of situation, then the full pay for college kid may still feel free to do something like a MSTP–of course assuming they can get admitted and that is actually what they want to do, and the vast majority of kids would not even want to. But this is just an illustration one of many different things that could have a similar logic.
However, the first sort of full pay kid may not feel so free to consider such things.
And I think sometimes in those cases, the kid may in practice have to be the one to put their foot down about what really makes sense for them. Like, I have conversed with some kids online who once they got admitted to a “prestigious” private college that would require them to take on personal debt (either formally or in a parents expected to be paid some back sense), felt a lot of pressure from their parents to actually take that offer rather than go to an in-state public or take a merit offer that could let them graduate from college debt free. And I think those kids absolutely should be very cautious about assuming the more “prestigious” and more expensive college is actually worth it to them, even if their parents believe it is.