What applicants said about UC San Diego Med Ctr-CA in the 2020 cycle

Most rankings are based on research output is my understanding

faculty turn over at ucla is an issue -- regardless still one of the best programs in the country. Both are powerhouse programs

really? Both powerhouses?

people on this sheet throw around "one of the best in the country" and "powerhouse" and the phrase "hands down" like its candy on Halloween x2; "powerhouse? powerhouse? we got UCSF and Stanford crushing it on the west coast, and about 20 stronger programs than UCSD and UCLA, and ya'll want to talk about powerhouse?"

Don't think you can go wrong with either. For me it would come down to am I an LA person or San Diego person.

Stanford's was also pretty solid <Most beautiful campus on the planet

UCSD. Straight to the shores/cove x2

The Wake bus tour with Dr Feldman was awesome! We even stopped for delicious BBQ. Second time i type this because felt the need to delete my comment

,

Congrats!

which date did you get??

heard it used to be great, but there have been some turnover with faculty (many leaving to USC, which is now considered a better program by some)> they have very little info on the website<anyone have any idea when the interview day will end?

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

wow, wasn't expecting invite (external and no ties to Cali), but I think our PD has connections to the program <UCSD is known as a very score dependent program, do you have high scores? << derm range but not ridiculous

external and no Cali ties and got interview too

high step 1 (265+) lower CK (240's)

why do you think your CK is lower? I would have guessed you'd score high 260s on step 2 with that step 1 score! Not necessarily true; some people here w/high board scores with no UCSD invites...

Personalized email? or group? GROUP

Anybody know if multiple batches of invites went out for them in prior years or just one?

I bet only 1 day WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF< damn wanted this so bad Are dates confirmed 1/9 and 1/16?

yes <are people wanting the 9th ? No one has heard back re their date yet right (i will lose my mind if I can't go)

have not heard back yet

Just heard back <eek im scared. what time did you reply, I think I emailed in five min.

responded in ~3min< are you ninth or sixteenth? <anyone not hear back yet...? <just heard back for 1/9. responded in 3 min<still haven't heard back for the ninth and responded in four wahhh

also 1/9

pretty sure we all asked for 1/9 lol 1/16 is a shitshow< just got the 9th

same! 1/9

why would 1/16 be a shitshow??? Penn and Harvard ???

just that week has a lot going on on both coasts and midwest

Congrats! San Diego is so incredible x 1

Got skunked by the top 10, but got my top choice! << same here! x3

any rotators get an invite?

yes i did

wooooot San Diegoooooooo

Doubled my derm invite total today!

congrats!! x2

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

I think we're past due for Colorado, due for UCLA/UT Austin/UCSD/Hofstra

I get a few more rejections

Same x4

Today felt oddly quiet without any rejections x4!

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

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

Yes!! UCSD, UCSF, UT Austin at Dell x 2, MCW, etc. <Northwestern, UMn

Make sure you ask specifically if there are peds derms at your programs. Many very good programs don't have a fellowship trained pediatric dermatologist, especially if located in a "less desirable" geographic location.

UCSD. Straight to the shores/cove x2

The Wake bus tour with Dr Feldman was awesome! We even stopped for delicious BBQ. Second time i type this because felt the need to delete my comment

,

Make sure you ask specifically if there are peds derms at your programs. Many very good programs don't have a fellowship trained pediatric dermatologist, especially if located in a "less desirable" geographic location.