Stanford Health Care-CA

Historically about 16-18 << only? doesn't Harvard interview like 30-40?

It's been historically low. Want to say less than 40, maybe closer to 20-30).

could I ask where you got this figure from?

My memory, I matched a couple of years ago. I didn't interview there but I had friends who did.

why are you still checking this spreadsheet lol

speak for yourself, man, I appreciate wisdom from the elders

OP here, thanks.. I'm still here because I actually want to help lol

where are you for residency?

Midwest, big program. Want to maintain some anonymity still I guess.

thank you for being here OP

I've heard it's common in derm for programs to interview ~10 applicants per spot but that the very elite programs often interview fewer. Someone last year told me Harvard was ~5 per spot

It is not that low! People post ridiculous stuff on here. Last year Stanford interviewed 40.

itchin for that UCLA and Stanford, yafeelme >> is UCLA out?

I think some but not all research went out? Don't think we got regulars yet

can't wait to get the rejection emails either, i feel ya <think positively!

i literally have 1 TY and 1 derm interview lmao if either of these schools interview me i will give you $20 <(haha haha i love your sense of humor! I hope you match somewhere!)

First world problems. same.

c'mon it's still a problem for this person << yea dude dont be a dick

literally no one's gonna want the 1/16 date since UCSF is 1/15, Penn is 1/16 and Stanford is 1/17 bro...and I'm assuming people getting these programs get the lot of the others...good luck x2 << Yeah if you look at the interview swap page a small group of elite are all having conflicts at the same dates and the same places. Nobody is going to "swap" a non-conflict for a potential conflict.

lolololololololololololol... sorry not actually taking joy from the conflicts, just laughing at the fact that the top programs are all interviewing the same people.

im pretending this entire day didnt happen so im willing to let a row slide - meme<<lmfaooo that made me laugh << why cant i get interviews based on how i can make people laugh? - meme

if I were a PD i'd interview you << thanks :)

wait what row??

someone trolled stanford

From the post, which was published in November 2015: "First of all, before I even get into the interviews themselves, I just want to say don’t panic if you don’t have a high number of interviews yet. Dermatology interview invitations come out later than all the other fields, so you can still expect interview invites to roll in through December and even into January. So step one is to take a deep breath and calm down. Schedule all your prelim and transitional interviews now while you have time and try to get as many of those out of the way in November and December because January, the month where the majority of derm interviews are, will be a wild ride."

I feel like this is easy for her to say since she did residency at NYU

also she was coming from stanford

half of the applicants here have >4 interviews. more than half of programs have sent out interview invites; the rest are top tiers or something. that is a like 60+ chance of matching. so now yes, i am panicking.

But how does that help?

figure out if i need to take another year or alternative career options? also does anyone really think there's going to be a huge trickle in january?

yeah with conflicts, probs

i guess thats my only other hope but im real uncomfortable abbout it, not sure if they're seriously going to rank me or its a waste of my money

Top tier: UPenn Harvard UCSF NYU Mayo Michigan, Emory, Henry Ford?) and Michigan and Mayo are not top tier. Would add Stanford, Hopkins, and UCLA instead)

would also add UTSW https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/article/157864/practice-management/us-dermatology-residency-program-rankings-based/page/0/1 <<what is the difference between this article and the doximity rankings? Is there more validity to one vs the other? << lol, someone put UCLA in top tier (UCLA isn't even a Department, it's a Division) >> lol UCLA low tier for sure << realistically, probably middle to low, great overall health system but will always have hands tied and no real ability to grow

UCLA is a solid program, strong surgical training, lacks the super complex patients of some more intense programs but it depends on what you are looking for in your training << I don't think anyone's saying it's a bad program, just not a top tier, that's kind of silly

UCLA is the perfect example of a low-to-mid tier program that is nonetheless quite competitive given it's in California. Again, there's often a disconnect between prestige/quality of training and competitiveness. Location, location, location.

No way that Hopkins and UCLA would be top tier over Michigan and Mayo

Mid-tier: OHSU, Iowa, Minnesota, UPMC >> Would probably put MN as low tier? >> Thoughts? Why? >> Minnesota would probably be in same tier as OHSU, Iowa, UPMC. Iowa has great faculty, but I think it does suffer from being in a relatively non-diverse, predominately white, smallish-city in Iowa. Minnesota, OHSU, and UPMC are in more urban environments with at least UPMC and Minnesota having more ethnic / racial diversity, (Portland is super white as well). Also, no one should trust that MDedge nonsense x5

To be fair they tried to make an objective measure. Many of the opinions here leave out some good programs and add in top medical schools that are not top derm programs

MN, Iowa as med-high tier? Would drop UPMC to low tier (just feel like no residents really enjoy it there but maybe that's just me lol)? And Iowa usually as a top 20 program on almost all ranking systems (though you cant always trust these things so who knows). I think its one of those places that suffers in many peoples minds because they have a not-so great med school and its in the mid west, but the derm program is actually extremely well-respected independednt of those facts

1. Penn 2. UCSF 3. NYU 4. Harvard 5. Stanford 6. Northwestern 7. Emory 8. UTSW 9. Hopkins 10. Wash U 11. Mayo 12. Michigan 13. Iowa 14. HF 15. OHSU 16. Colorado 17. Minnesota 18. Utah 19. Cornell 20. Vanderbilt

<-What is this list based on? Its totally inaccurate. Hopkins and Vanderbilt are mid tier programs at best. No Yale? No UW? No Wisconsin? No Miami? No Sinai? Cornell over Columbia? UPMC is definitely mid to top tier. Also, tiers maybe, but I dont understand how you can possibly rank 1 vs. 3 vs. 8 off the cuff << yeah, 1-3 is pretty standard, gets messy with next 5 I was about to post how accurate this list is. Some of the programs listed above are no way in the conversation. You can maybe disagree with Wash U/Cornell to the left tho. I'd agree Vanderbilt too high too

<Yale for sure. x4 . Think that list is pretty accurate for top 20 minus Wash U, Cornell, and Vanderbilt. Would replace with Yale and Columbia. And Cleveland Clinic maybe. <<I question the order of some of these too. Hopkins is not a top 10 (but it is a top 20 probably). I agree that Sinai, miami, Columbia would also be top 20. Vandy should not be on that list and neither should a few others.

<How good are the following programs: UPMC, Hopkins, UCSD, Miami.

I think those are all decent programs (mid-top tier?). I would say that I typically view Hopkins as a mid-tier program (they don't have a lot of diversity in terms of training sites, though Hopkins itself is a great hospital). Miami is typically considered a Top 10 program - but they also are quite disorganized, old facilities, longer hours (Saturday clinics). UPMC takes a lot of MD/PhDs and has great Mohs training, though I never found their program actually attracts people who want to be there. UCSD is solid, somewhat basic-science focused. It's outshined by other programs in California (e.g. Stanford, UCSF, USC) and San Diego has great weather / beaches, though admittedly isn't the most exciting place to live / lacks a lot of arts / culture compared to most bigger cities in the United States.

name me a state with better Mexican food tho

I just want them to be nice

I don't know, I've met a plenty of nice people who I'd rather not work with for one reason or another.

Is it because they can be passive aggressive?

YES, niceness and pass-agg seems to come in hand-to-hand for some bizarre reason. Saw plenty of that in FM and Peds

huh ok. I'll change my criterion to "genuinely nice" then. b/c I've met residents who are nice w/o being passive aggressive. Mostly in surgery/derm. oh also neuro << some of the applicant's attitudes and responses here make me think that they're actually OB/Surgery because of their uptight malignancy

I'd prefer surgery's outward malignancy, because at least they are forthright and they will tell you if they don't like you or if you are incompetent.

you know what this is so true, im with you on that passive aggressiveness then! // more attractive than me or smarter than me but not both at the same time// LOL

<< same here because that's me! i think i get along better with people who are really honest and work hard, having a great sense of humor is a cherry on top - meme > I feel like the admissions committee at my school selected against people with a sense of humor; so hard to come across. But lots of people who are honest and hard working

Did your school have grades or P/HP/H for preclinicals? I feel that schools with a more emphasis for grades end up with more serious students. I don't know whether that's associative or causative.

nah we're P/F. maybe we're just boring

< don't get me started on the bullshit that is grading. my school has restricted honors for the top ten percent of the clerkship overall, while other schools have a set number you have to score above. talking to other students on away rotations really opened my eyes to how much each school is different and how little programs care besides seeing the "H" next to the subject.

I went to a school with unrestricted honors. After getting some of my feedbacks, such as ([Name] was one of X students getting honors for this rotation), I realized that in the end, only 15-20% of students ended up getting honors anyway. They set the goalpost (specificed ahead of time) knowing that anyone could meet that standard, but very few people would actually make it. Ultimately, I think this was the right approach because people could still work hard for themselves, regardless of whether or not they met the challenge. << yep this is a great attitude to take to it if the goalposts are properly set! someone's schools had to get 90% on evals, 80% on shelf, unrestricted number. i was like....lol what.

Thoughts on UCSF testing straight P/F grading for clinical clerkships?

In general, I don't think UCSF has an amazing match list compared to Harvard, Penn, and Stanford if we remove the in-home matches. I do think that it will make things harder for the PDs << it might also skew towards the name. P from Harvard? Who even cares, it's Harvard. No H from MidTierStateU? LOL what a pleb. So i dont think UCSF policy will really change anything in the MSPE. << also would reduce the stress level for clinical clerkships. << P/F curriculums may have shifted pressure onto Step 1, could P/F clerkships put more pressure on Step 2?

possibly. Or more pressure on the LORs

Maybe they will move us over to EM's standardized letters of evaluation. I know that some admins in dermatology wanted to do that this year but they were not able to do so. >> 2 cells over in E

I understand that most derm PD's or people reading apps have a sense of individual schools and what the typical grade distributions are << it was made better this year by including graphs in the MSPE

really? I hate those graphs. fucks over half the people in the class << i mean im the OP in the cell to the left. it clearly shows <20 people in my class getting honors directly next to the text for my evaluations so IF, and big IF, the person actually reads why i didn't get honors, they can see that it was only a select few who did. idk, from the underachiever pov, it looks good. << Point taken

i think it'll start depending more on school prestige and LOR maybe like you said, and of course step scores. good school prestige begets good LOR so it's a trickle-down system all the way to the interviews haha. holy shit i forgot about SLOE, imagine that in Derm! hell no, fuck SLOEs. Hate being reduced to a single number/grade as if I were a cow << lol look at the charting outcomes and step score distribution, or like filters that exist already. i hate it too but sometimes its gotta be done

I'd rather be evaluated on the quality of my LORs than another hoop to jump through. Step 1 (and to a lesser extent, Step 2) is enough of an objective measure.

But still, you'd be surprised. In the state of California, Stanford and UCSF had middling average Step I scores compared to places UCLA and UCSD, probably because the students knew that Step I wouldn't matter as much for them in the perspective of other program directors would be happy to have some Stanford/UCSF students as part of the program.

do we have official numbers on these? I don't doubt that it exists, but it'd be nice to know the extent of the disparity of avg Step 1 scores of accepted derm applicants from top vs mid schools

I don't know, I go to a top 3 school. I got a slightly above average score for derm, and my Dean and PD told me that I should be "competitive anywhere" although they did warn me that the places that I'd get interviews may seem random and that I may not get all the interviews that I wanted (and I didn't)

Also at a top 3 with derm average step and don't have many interviews (but others here do). maybe trickles will come

<< prestige man, prestige. its exactly what you said, they'd love to have a person from x program on their resident and potentially staff roster. for us mid-low tier schools, we gotta kick ass on step 1 and etc to have a shadow of your position, potentially with not as good LORs << do we need more hoops to jump through, though? I don't think the answer to leveling the playing field for students not from the top tier schools is to create yet another metric. We have to do so much already, from getting a good Step 1 score, to kicking ass on clerkships, doing research, etc << true man. someone down the sheet suggested having a set number of programs to apply to, like 20 or so, i think that might really be playing with fire and lead to a LOT of people unmatched or SOAPing, both applicants and programs << for sure. we'd need a transition period or something. couldn't ERAS spend a fraction of their $$$ to hire a data scientist to study the optimal number of programs to apply to? << they did that, for derm it was high 30s. let me see if i can find link

https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residency/filteredresult/apply-smart-data-consider-when-applying-residency/ i think that is what we are discussing - meme

congrats! how many interviews does Harvard usually give out?

~30 << not true

more? less?

def more. they have 8ish spots. << wahhhhh I wanted this one!!!

probably closer to 60 invitations

seems like a lot. their yield is probably high <lol no WAY is it 60

It's probably the same as most other programs, ~40. But if you look at the match list from last year, for example, not a single person on that list wasn't connected in some strong way. So likely applicants are ranked before interviews and it doesn't change much after interviews.

Fake news. Not everyone last year was connected to the program

Who wasn't? x2

Even the non-Harvard rotators had gone to Harvard for undergrad << This.

This also applies to Penn. x2 << Basically applies to every top program in the country

Based on my extensive sleuthing, it 100% applies to Harvard, Penn, and Yale. As in you're SOL if you don't have a strong connection of some kind. To a much lesser degree, it applies to Stanford and UCSF

Definitely less with UCSF since they don't have an undergraduate college :)

but you have to have CA ties

Stanford and UCSF to a much lesser degree yes, but CA ties are almost required

disagree no california ties and got UCSF

aren't you a special cookie? We're talking about people who matched, not interview invites you snowflake

I was going to say what this person to the left said, but not as rudely. Yes I'm talking about people who MATCH, not get invited for an interview.

lol got it. thanks for the non-rudeness person #2 i get what ur saying<<what exactly do strong connections mean for these top programs? Like regional, rotating there etc?

reposting from edit history:

congrats superstars!!! are any of you external without any connection/away?

myself x5

that's so awesome, congrats friend!

thank you amigo/a!

Are you guys from other top schools though or have 260+ Step scores? There must be some method to this madness, it can feel so random sometimes x2

I think if it were just 260+ they would still have a lot of work to do to pick candidates. Doubt a place like HMS has to go just based off stats to pick their bunch.

Not true, there's only around 40 applicants with step 1 scores > 260 and they likely interview around 40 candidates" >> as an interviewee, I can tell you the assumptions above are not true x4

what assumption? x2<<needing 260+ step scores.

<hey guys is harvard a good program; first time hearing about it

I think they’re relatively new, I wouldn’t rank personally

yeah my PD asked if its a community program when I mentioned it

My PD didn't recognize the name, is it DO? << I thought it was in the Caribbean, I didn't apply for that reason.

oh SHIT it was spelled with an H in the front; been calling it ARVARD

either way, I think the program is low on brand recognition. who would go there?

yeah the interview date conflicted with a race in my city (which I organized, for just myself) so I declined it

yeah probably not worth the money of flights and hotels, tbh. good call. <I've seen ads for this school inbetween my youtube vids I think

:'D >> Heard Harvard is on probation and might not get accredited next year :/ Pretty poor reputation

LOLOL

Rotated at Harvard. They have overall good breadth of training with MGH, Brigham, BIDMC, few other sites. Lots of research opportunities and seems supported by the department. I found the resident surgical skills, dermatoscopy skills, and skin cancer screening skills were subpar at least in comparison to my home program. The department is great and has lots of leaders in derm - but it has a bit of of a very "old-school" feel with lots of white-haired, Caucasian males at the top of the leadership chain. It definitely has an old-school, East Coast medicine feel. This was sort of a turn off for me. Some of the faculty are primarily research clinicians who work 1/2 day a week in cinic - some of these attendings have really not maintained good clinical skills / not particularly interested in clinical medicine and it clearly showed. The number of faculty is huge - which means many residents don't get a lot of exposure to working 1:1 with a smaller group of faculty (there a few expections - for instance, Kroshinky who runs the inpatient service and is just overall the best person ever). Overall, my take home from my experience there was that Harvard has good training and great research opportunities, but that "prestigious" programs aren't necessarily everyone's preference / despite Harvard's own self-perception as "the holy grail of medicine", you can get similar high-quality of training at other less prestigious institutions.

did you get an interview?

no

oh no! you seem really nice, I'm sorry. thanks for the write up! x 2

< Is Kroshinsky nice? I've heard not as positive comments about her, but I much prefer to believe she's as nice as some people have said. Did you interact with Mostaghimi or Chen while you were there? I thought they are both big on inpatient? Were they nice? << Kroshinsky is a superstar x3

are you 3 internals?

not me. Did a research year with her

oh so you're matching Harvard? ;)

<-- Korshinsky is nice. So is Mostaghimi. I didn't work with Chen.

thank you!

Dr Chen is seriously the nicest person on the planet, encourages even med student autonomy in clinic/inpatient

Have heard conflicting things about Mostaghimi though. Heard he can be hard to get along with from an external rotator there

Are you serious?? Hard to get along with in what way? He seems like he'd be so nice and funny! << seemed judgmental and not very friendly << maybe he just has RBF (resting bitch face lol)?? I really don't want to believe he's not as nice as seems :(

< did your friend who was a rotator recieve an interview? << yup

<< white-haired white dude leadership is a thing at a lot of derm programs.... suprised it's still a thing I thought we were in more modern times

< that would be suprising. do you go to a low tier school? Mid-tier

that was a stupid question on my end. what even is high/mid/low tier? like top 10/40/100 or something? but to harken back to your situation, the only things I can think of that could be adversely affecting you other than being from a "low" tier school would be not taking a research year / limited research or your geographical area. <I agree with you. I can't really think of much else besides geography and below average research. I have read all but one of my letters and they were strong. I really don't know what to do at this point.

I'm sorry, friend. I'm assuming it is then the combination of geography and below avg. research. But I'm also SURE you're going to get interviews. Just hang in there! Nothing else you can do now, and with a 260 you clearly worked hard already.

Yes minus the 260 :D

Glad to have you on my team << 260+ can give you that same "top tier" school curse where some programs may think you're out of their league. Hang in there, we're with you

im <260 but PhD (non-research track) and it doesn't look good. low tier school, did good aways, got LoR, SILENCE, it's crazy that this is happening.

0 interviews at all? <aside from internal no << did you get interviews from your aways?<--any updates for you?

top tier med school, 260+ Step 1, 15 publications, great LORs, 0 interview invitations. I'm devastated

Yooooo that SUCKS. Are there a lot of applicants from your school with your stats or better?

yes. double digit applicants, all similar .

damn I'm at a double digit school with way worse stats...now I know why I'm not getting invites

dang OP of this cell, man I feel for you. That is rough, but there is no way you do not match and get a lump sum of interviews at some point.

TBH, OP, if you're at a Harvard/Yale/Stanford etc. school, chances are you're going to match your home program. You're fine.

As someone from a top school with a top home program, not true. I wish that I could match into my program, but the schools want a residency class filled with the best folks from other great institutions to add influx of new idea, skills, and connections to the class. This is true ESPECIALLY if there are a ton of us.

im really starting to realize how big a factor the # of people applying from my school is

# of people applying is a factor but applicants from top schools are typically safer with fewer invites at top programs compared to non-top school candiates with mid/low tier interviews. Top programs want applicants from top schools so you're competing with a small pool of applicants for all the spots at Harvard/Yale/Stanford/Penn/UCSF etc.

This . If you look at the people in the Y/H/S/P etc. schools, 80% of residents are from that program, 15% from another Y/H/S/P etc., and MAYBE 1-2 a year from a more "random" school—and that person 100% either had a 100th percentile Step 1 score and/or connections. Also, if you look at their match lists from the past couple years, not a SINGLE one of those programs had an unmatched applicant. So not sure why you're "devastated" when you have a 100% chance of matching—and likely at your home or another top program (unless your personality sucks).

Swap out Yale for NYU, and you have the proper list of top programs.

I seriously dont know how this process works. thats insane . <<Not OP (have way lower stats than that lol), but as someone who goes to a top 5 place I can say with fact that there is not a 100% chance. I do not know how all top programs work, but the fact is even though we have more residents than the average program, the number of applicants from our school is greater than th enumber of spots. On top of that, our school does not rank its own first (but yes 1/2 the porgram tends to be our own/research/rotators). It is a top programs and it wants the best from the country. If you look at our match list it looks AMAZING, but it never mentions the people who do not match. I know for the last 3 years, there was 1 or more unmatched derm. We're all in this shit together

<--- I review applications. While there are some programs that highly value Step 1 score -- I think applicants overestimate how much most programs care about these things. I don't think there are any functional differences betweeen applications with a 240 versus 260 on Step 1. Again, the more important differentiators are clinical grades, letters of recommendation, research, and personal statement (probably in that order). << Agreed, and same is true for whether Top/Mid med school

< It's really heartening to know that, thank you! Do you know if most programs feel the same way you and the program you're at does about scores? And what programs really do care a lot about scores?

< does anyone know if school look at clinical grades out of 6 or 7 rotations? (aka including neurology or not?)

<< This is a long post with some relevant data in addition to your predictions. Hope you all find this useful and have a goodnight! -SD << You're #1 in my heart. Thanks SD <3 x7 <<< SheetDaddy fan here, but I think if the posts were smaller, more morsels/highlights, like the first program prediction/tally template - we'd probably get most people on board. On mobile a post like this to the left takes up entire screen

<-- Download the "Calm" App. << why? << because this is neurotic! << Chill out bro, don't read it if you don't like it instead of being negative. Maybe you should spend your time using the "calm" app instead of being up everyones ass x6 << this actually is pretty neurotic, and I don't think saying something is neurotic should invite such a volatile response. Like damn this whole SD shit is becoming cult-like and stupid.

Hey SD--how many interviews do you have? x2

sdff

< You know, there is the entirety of the West Coast to consider. We're still in business hours << I don't think it's updated to say we're done, just a running tally (the same row is moved up) << just updated it << 10+ person, can you please press CTRL+Z to not erase the field that was there or use the function to get the past entry back << Thank you for reverting it back to original

If you want to do Mohs, it can be helpful to choose a program that has a Mohs fellowship (for instance, Stanford does not). You may want to also consider that certain top programs may be less likely to want to train their own residents. For instance, I've heard UCSF sometimes prioritizes non-UCSF residents for Mohs fellowship slots - in that case, the reasoning is they'd prefer to train people who'd be less likely to stay in the Bay Area as the market is already saturated there and they don't want to train more "competition" for their own practice. That's certainly not to say that any of those top programs won't be super supportive in your application to other top programs. It's honestly probably a case-by-case thing. << that's a BS made up story. They dont care if you stay in the area. You aren't "competition" for them. If that ridiculous postulation were true, no program would train people from their home program for fear of "competition" to their practice. Ridiculous. >> the competition piece is a common concern for Mohs surgeons, so it is true.. not sure who feels so confidents its not, it is, it is well known in the Mohs field that people dont want to train their own competitoin -- certainly not all mohs surgeons, but about 50% probably feel this way including some at academic institutions<< that may be true overall but the OP was specifically saying this about UCSf and it should have been a more general statement, because it doesnt only apply to UCSF. << seems like the OP is just trying to make UCSF look bad when, in actuality, it is probably one of the most supportive programs in the top 5 for Mohs

<--That's not true at all. UCSF basically always offers to keep their residents if they want to stay. I know that for a fact. They've had plenty of years where 2/3 or 3/3 fellows were UCSF residents.

OP here. This is based off discussions with a former UCSF resident who wanted to stay at UCSF but did not match there. I have no idea what this specific residents relationship with the department was...but can you tell you this is honest and true information I discussed with said resident. UCSF is a great and supportive training program. And this person did match elsewhere at a great program. Honestly not trying to mislead anyone. << one residnet not matching at their program doesn't mean "they dont like to keep their own residents." That was likely a resident specific issue. It's not helpful when you use broad/sweeping statements. <--- OP again. The way I was explained this was this was the "culture" at UCSF for Mohs - and same logic was applied to other internal applicants that year. I also personally know my own program's Mohs fellowship director prefers not to take internal candidates - though he's very supportive of getting them matched elsewhere. His rationale is more that he prefers to bring in "new" people to the program, rather than preventing "competition", though our metro area is also admittedly saturated with Mohs surgeons and it is difficult to impossible to find a full time position. I've also heard of other programs - like Mayo Rochester for instance - highly favor internal applicants. It's an institution-specific thing.

I will second the fact that its common knowledge that many places don't want to train their competition for Mohs. I have no knowledge about which specific programs / if this applies to UCSF, but just backing up the OP in saying that this line of thinking would not be out of place as it is prevalent in the Mohs field <<To echo this, this is true for many subspeciality fellowships in many different fields. New fields that are not recognized fellowships yet often have fellows sign noncompetes today which was true for some Mohs programs 15-20 years ago (and probably still true for the some that are not ACGME). Now, most fellowships can't have official noncompetes, but they will try to pick applicants with that in mind...medicine is a business.

this is true and has actually been studied/reported in the literature. https://journals.lww.com/dermatologicsurgery/Citation/2019/10000/Micrographic_Surgery_and_Dermatologic_Oncology.15.aspx

It's been historically low. Want to say less than 40, maybe closer to 20-30).

could I ask where you got this figure from?

My memory, I matched a couple of years ago. I didn't interview there but I had friends who did.

why are you still checking this spreadsheet lol

speak for yourself, man, I appreciate wisdom from the elders

OP here, thanks.. I'm still here because I actually want to help lol

where are you for residency?

Midwest, big program. Want to maintain some anonymity still I guess.

thank you for being here OP

I've heard it's common in derm for programs to interview ~10 applicants per spot but that the very elite programs often interview fewer. Someone last year told me Harvard was ~5 per spot

It is not that low! People post ridiculous stuff on here. Last year Stanford interviewed 40.

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI HAS DIDACTICS AT 7AM EVERY DAY << HF has morning lectures <<LOL someone deleted UCSF being malignant

UCSF is malignant

how are 7am lectures = MALIGNANT? I think people are confusing working hard and dedicated learning with malignant LOL << I don't think anyone is conflating 7AM with malignant. It was a seperate question.

the initial response though spoke of lectures before 8am = malignant, so it can be inferrered the subsequent responses were in the same vein

I've heard that Stanford is very very....NON malignant <uhhhhm i've never heard that before

originally it said not malignant, some foo edited it

resident lurker here FYI UCSF's lectures start at 8 am everyday not 7 am. There is a 7:30 am dermpath session before lecture on Tuesdays.

not OP, but do you know people who rotated there and didn't get interviews? All the ones I know got IVs

< yes, know people who didn't get interviews after rotating

not this year. all rotators got IVs this year

<<Do rotators interview on their internal day? Yup!