U Southern California

Nox3

<- yes, I missed my call and got a voicemail

Reading this article over and over to make myself feel better: https://www.foxla.com/news/survey-to-be-happy-in-la-you-need-an-annual-salary-of-204855

But these help, too: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-scandals-20180520-story.html // https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-usc-investigation-storygallery.html // https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-usc-fellowship-accreditation-loss-20190425-story.html // https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-doctor-20170717-htmlstory.html #FightOn!

dates? X2 - 1/11 and 1/15, but they have a date picked for you already that you can try to change if it doesn't work << is one date for external and one for internal?--Ahhh not sure, sorry << thanks anyways :) really appreciate the info!

Any chance they’re calling people up alphabetically?

just x1 so far? << could also be calling just a handful of top candidates/internals/rotators first

Anyone still getting calls? Or any insight about whether or not to give up hope here? x3 << I'd give them at least until lunch. Calling around 40 people, even if each call was only 2-3 minutes or so, would still take a few hours. i

Any rotators still waiting to hear? << yep. <ugh this sucks <I'm sure it just takes them time to call everyone. I wouldn't freak out yet.

still calling?

also wondering this x 2

yes just got a call 12:30pm PST

got a call at 3:30 PST

first letter of last name?? Fingers crossed

<- just got a call at 6pm CST x1, last name near end of alphabet (how near is near? The letter S or Y?) <- T

Colorado x2, UCLA, UCSD x2, UT Austin x2, University of Florida, Hofstra, Brown, maybe USC, Stanfordx2?

stanford comes out first week of december

source?x2

< how do you know? x3

<yeah fake news. PC told me they'd come out by the end of November

Anyone know interview dates for Irvine?

check the PD-made interview calender <it's not on there, which is why people keep asking about it

do we know if cornell was internal orr all?

Cornell has ~4-5 spots, so I would have expected more invites to have been represented as part of the self-report. Also, the only people who responded to that question were internals

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

Reading this article over and over to make myself feel better: https://www.foxla.com/news/survey-to-be-happy-in-la-you-need-an-annual-salary-of-204855

But these help, too: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-scandals-20180520-story.html // https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-usc-investigation-storygallery.html // https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-usc-fellowship-accreditation-loss-20190425-story.html // https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-doctor-20170717-htmlstory.html #FightOn!

Obviously northwestern is an objectively much better proram. The only way I could see picking Davis is if youre almost certain you want to stay in CA long term or if you have zero interest in academics and dont want to deal with all the extra pressure to publish youd probably experience at NW

Could I ask a similar question about USC vs Northwestern?

Northwestern. It is a fantastic program. USC is fantastic too, but Northwestern has way better opporunities in almost anything you can think of. Only thing USC has over Northwestern is weather. << well, that and nicer faculty

Northwestern is a top 15 program. Davis and USC are both not top 30

what about people interested in Mohs? Per comments in the older spreadsheet, even the PD admitted that NW is not the best training site for people interested in going into Mohs

USC's big-name Mohs surgeon left recently to be Chair elsewhere

Derm programs are ranked into the 30s?

if you ended up picking northwestern, i will start praying to the trickle gods

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

<USC as a medical center (and undergrad) is kind of a dumpster fire of scandal after scandal these days

USC is a top tier medical center and dermatology program. If you don't want to come, it's your loss

Yes, but there are also top tier medical centers that aren't smeared and besmirched because of wild scandals

ok but sexual assault is not a big deal for training purposes and the department has it all taken care of

Maybe so, but just like you do with an applicant, we as applicants can choose to rank a program higher that doesn't have scandals. << I never ever want to see “sexual assault is not a big deal” written ever again please wash your mouth with soap x6

yeahhhhh I definitely don't agree that sexual assualt "isn't a big deal for training purposes." It's a pretty big deal and indicative of the greater problems in the culture and administration of USC. <couldn't agree with this more

Please everyone rank USC low because of the scandal so I can match there!!! <no prob x2, also it's scandals plural

< lmao the story about their ex-dean is fire

email said around 1 oh please, I just hate the lies some times. USC as a health system was recently on probation. They are not jumping from UCLA in droves to USC.

this is actually not true - several faculty have been poached from UCLA to USC (in "droves") <yes, including USC's current PD and head Mohs surgeon.

before or after probation issues? Also 2 people don't constitute 'droves'

some after, some before. probation issues had nothing to do with the derm department. there are more than those 2.

either you have a UCLA invite and not a USC invite, or you haven't spent much time with both depts...

you don't have to believe me, look up their faculty list and see for yourself

☕☕☕

um, UCLA has like 8 more faculty than USC

quality, not quantity honey

<not a top CA program <There are many solid CA programs and UCLA is included in that. I know someone who ranked UCLA over UCSF & Stanford partially for locations reasons, but they did not feel like they were sacrificing quality of education. <Great location, but still not a top program compared to every others in CA. <true

not true

Stanford & UCSF are on another level, then UCSD, then UC-davis, UCLA & USC

would consider lower tier program. Not a department (it's a division under medicine) so there is limited upside for improvements. Location is amazing though if you want to be in SoCal x4 .

Would not say low tier. Would pick it above most of the 100+ programs, but not top tier/upper

In order: Stanford/USCF, UCSD, UC-Davis, UCLA, USC, UC-Irvine, Loma Linda/UCLA-Harbor, Kaiser Permanente, Opti West (Newport)

UCLA and UC Davis are not above USC

This one line represents the horrible sabotage that is going to plague every question about california programs this season

This whole thread is ridiculous. Pick whichever CA program suits you the best. Derm reputations are mostly based on how long the program has been around and how much research money they have. Remember that matching at a "top tier derm program" may be seen as > matching to other programs, but they're >>>>>>>>> not matching. Regardless, you'll be the envy of every other non-derm doctor

<--- 4k for all county residents as far as I am aware, but I am not certain: https://keck.usc.edu/otolaryngology/training-education/residency-program/resident-benefits-and-salary/ -- I think it is program specific though

<-some resident posted online about how much they disliked the program, bad-mouthing it, etc. turns out the person was a problem resident in other ways so people took their rant with a grain of salt. UMichigan addressed it during interview day and told everyone they were taking steps to make their program less malignant. IIRC PD also just changed recently. (lurking derm resident). Thread: https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/malignancy-at-michigan-dermatology.1296049/

< wish more programs would come to terms about their malignancy ;)

Ok, I will come out of lurking. I am a resident at UM. I'm not going to answer a ton of questions but wanted to chime in and say the online badmouthing was regarding conditions that are now totally different and the PD really made an effort to hear grievances/change. That person who did the posting was a sour character who was unhappy in general. There were also some blatant lies like our PD discourages people from getting pregnant (I think 9 people have had kids in the past 2 years). Is our program perfect? Of course not. Am I happy here? Yes I am. Did someone pay me/threaten me to post this, definitely not. If you come and interview here please ask quesitons about this - we will be 100% transparent with you. <Thank you for this!

Well this should be a good lesson learned for UMichigan. Often, we as applicants will get overlooked because of something on our application and programs (especially top tier) can just go to another applicant for an interview who checks all the boxes. The justification given (rightfully) is that they should not have to settle since they can get an applicant who has it all. Well UMichigan, while these rumors might not be true or the issues have been addressed, I can just rank a program that is not filled with drama and doesn't have people getting so worked up that they post online. X2

This "well well well michigan, i'm too good for you" post is the saltiest shit i've read on here. I'm not derm but i'm couples matching with derm and I hope you don't end up in my partner's program

take it for what it's worth, but I have friends who are current residents at the Michigan program. 1 loves it, 2 can't wait to get out

I think this would be true of many big programs or maybe that is overly pessimistic of me.

Or they matched residents who fell so low on their rank list that they're happy to "end up" at Michigan. I don't think it's anyone's number 1 program. << nahhh UM is definitely a backup school

<< there are some wayyyyy worse (toxic) programs than UM that are bragged about as being good. UM's just the one that people keep talking about because it's already out there in rumors. They honestly have improved considerably<what are some of the other toxic programs? x2

Miami, Pitt, USC

<-- in what way has USC been/is toxic?

stanford comes out first week of december

source?x2

< how do you know? x3

<yeah fake news. PC told me they'd come out by the end of November

I think there's a lot of people who state something with authority when either they don't really know themselves or when they're just being malicious and stating false stuff, but from my own limited personal understanding, these programs are the ones that repeatedly -- year after year -- are cited as "malignant." But I think people are using a broad definition of malignant and the reasons for being listed as "malignant" are different for each program -- NYU has been stated to have unhappy residents who do a lot of scut (as can be said about Columbia) with not the nicest attendings; Pitt has been stated to have somewhat uncaring attendings; USC is broadly a scandal-ridden school so not particularly dermatology department-related; Michigan has supposedly improved; UMiami they just work you hard eg, 7:00 am daily lectures (as can be said about UCSF). So I think malignant in derm programs is not like general surgery malignant, I think just one or more of hard working/unhappy residents/not very nice or caring attendings.

<<well said. I a lot of the "malignant" rep just means your are working a little harder in some way relative to some other programs. However, some of these top programs are top programs because they work you a little harder...forcing you to learn a little more. -- Agreed --> I would disagree slightly. Sometimes "working harder" doesn't mean learning more. It just means working harder. x3

<lol someone said lower that malignant means having morning lectures. Very broad range of definitions here

I think people have the expectation that derm residency should be a 9-5 cush job...? << I don't think that person was conflating 7 AM lectures with malignancy, I think it was a separate question

7 am lecture is a special type of torture but not malignant, agree.

idk I equate malignant with people (attendings, coresidents, PD, chair, etc) being actively mean and malicious. Like not caring about the residents or caring that they are unhappy. Long hours, early lecture = sucks but not necessarily malignant if people know about it in advance and sign up for it.