UC San Francisco-CA

Penn, NYU, Harvard, UCSF, Stanford (geography/city playing a role, but hoping for Penn) . <<tbh glad I do not have all of these. It would be too hard to choose

in terms of what? clinical vs research vs ... they are very different programs

In terms of whatever matters to you.

Clinically: UCSF, Penn>Harvard>Stanford>NYU

< really? I feel like clinically NYU would be the strongest by far because you're spending 2/3 of your entire residency at the VA+county/public hospital = lots of autonomy. << LOL that person has no idea what they're talking about. Clinically, it's UCSF > NYU > Harvard > Stanford > Penn. Overall reputation is Harvard > Stanford > Penn > UCSF > NYU << lol at these absurd rankings, true delusion

I've heard it's UCSF > Harvard > Stanford > NYU > Penn

Its almost as if the top 5 is interchangable and it really comes down to personal preferences and biases

haha so true x3

Look at last year’s rank sheet. Penn was most popular #1 rank then Stanford out of the top 5.

because everyone definitely writes their ranking and is definitely honest about it too

lol'ed at that gullible person

< there is literally no benefit to faking what you are ranking 1 because that only would dissuade people from also listing that one, which ends up in them possibly ranking where you actually want to go as 1. Also, it's anonymous. It's not each person's specific rank, but a tally of how many people are rankin each program a certain number on their list so there is very little benefit to lying. There is usually a 1/5 yield, so it's actually a good amount of people of the interviewees.

< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16WyBDd4BhLhqR5F5BWMLRAKtq_Na3d9DHyokLtUg0rA/edit#gid=596104293

< can't say personally that I know specifics but have definitely heard from current residents ranking non top 5-10 places higher than such prestigious places for much better environments supporting of any career path.

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

try Airbnb. Definitely a taste of SF cost of living

also interested in the original question. I am down to split a 2-bed hotel if the OP or others are interviewing on Jan 15! The week of jan 8th seems far more reasonable for prices. Seems like week after is a trainwreck. Maybe there is a conference?< i havent booked a room yet for the 15th. The prices are high. I would be interested in splitting a room

JPM20 is 1/13-1/16 that's why the hotels are all booked and ridiculously priced

down to split: dermapp2020@gmail.com

you thought the rent prices wouldn't somehow correlate with the hotel prices?<no, boston and nyc hotels are nowhere near as pricey as cities with similar costs of living. please leave out snarky comments if they're not helpful in answering the question.

<I just checked out SF hotel prices for fun and DAYUM! They are ridiculously high. Even in NYC you can find a nice hotel for $100-150

UCSF sent out an email for their hosting program. You can stay with a resident. Have you looked into that?

UCSF, Cornell, Yale, (but Cornell and Yale apparently required Step 2 prior to interviews, according to Frieda but I don't know how stringent this requirement is). Mayo also said in Frieda that it requires Step 2 prior to interviews, but I got a waitlist there, so I don't know how true it actually is. UCSF is also known to make individual exceptions, according to my dean. In short, if they didn't ask for it, then I wouldn't really think much of it. A couple of residents at different top 5 programs told me that they never updated the Step 2 and the rank list is made after the interviews anyway so there's so many factors going into it (but also note that they were from top medical schools themselves).<<will confirm they werent stringent on step 2 criteria. got an interview invite from both without having taken step 2 ck or cs by that time.

Great for if I failed CS. x2

<my understanding is that clinically there's virtually no appreciable difference; the top 5 have large faculty #s with lots of diverse research and may have the edge for impact/gearing for a career in academics. <--- There's really no difference between a Top 10 program and a Top 100 program. Academics is not particularly competitive - you're typically taking a salary cut for more work - and 80% of academic dermatologists don't do any significant research, so the argument that you need to be at a research-intensive residency program for a typical academic career isn't really applicable to most people. This is why I stress for people to choose the program they like they most based on faculty, location, culture, opportunities specific to your career goals. <-- I disagree. Academics at respectable institutions (read: ivies, stanford, UCSF, etc.) are extremely competitive, as well are fellowships. The statement that there is not difference between top 10 vs. top 100 is downright hilarious

only difference is that people not at the top 5 are the only ones that ask that question

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

<Connections and clinical performance and LORs will be way more important for fellowships. This tends to be the case in all specialities where people are subspecializing. A really low score would be a red flag though. A low CK score will not help you match into your desired residency program. Nearly all dermatology programs require Step 2 scores prior to ranking applicants.

This is false. Programs don't need Step 2 scores in order to rank (exceptions being UCSF, and even then it could be discussed on a case-by-case basis, and according to Cornell, they may require it prior to application deadline) <a bunch of prelims have stated in the interview email that it's required before rank lists are due --- Unfortunately this is true :( Some of my top prelims will need to see my step 2

Step 3 apparently also matters for some fellowships, but idk if thats just IM or all specialties>>I have heard this too! This is crazy as studying well for step 3 during internship is almost impossible!!!

studying for step 3 during internship isn't hard because you just study the subject of whatever rotation you're on, do some practice Q's, review occasionally, and near the end of the year you'll pass with flying colors

<why post on the derm page? are u switching from another speciality to derm? yes. I am thinking that if I do not match to my advanced (rad onc) and just get into a prelim med, I would like to go down the path of doing the IM prelim and then doing derm research to get into dermatology<<why the switch from rad onc to dermatology?

Also, at this point, matching into derm is harder than rad onc.

Depends on the fellowship a good mentor will open up a LOT of doors!!

For reals, I think that getting a good mentor is the most challenging step. He/she should be able to make calls for you on your behalf. One of the people whom I'd worked with actually went out of their way to find an outside match PGY-2 position for a resaerch fellow.

< what are some good research positions (post prelim year)? All I know of is Yoo at UCSF?

do you mean Youn at Stanford?

Honestly, it's smart. Why close the door until you're absolutely certain and interviews are done?

terrible reputation. I will have nothing good to say about any program that doesn't send outright rejections. The most respected programs (Harvard, Stanford, UCSF, etc) do that for their applicants. << you would slam a program over that? Geez, hope you're not matching with me. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with keeping a larger waitlist. Some programs actually give the opportunity for second reviews of waitlist applications when they arise

meh, I must prefer less email spam. rejections suck because it's an extra notification that is useless. I would rather all programs ghost

I can’t really ask a mentor to reach out to a program that rejected me. Would much rather have silence and them be open to re-reviewing versus one random faculty completely closing the door on me.

bingo!

UCSF>>Stanford. Both are amazing, but faculty and research felt a little more amzing and the culture was exceedingly welcoming. However, they are both awesome but if I had to choose based on rotations I had at both.

LOCATION. SF and Redwood City/Palo Alto are vastly different from each other. Also, Redwood City is still ~20-30 minute away from the main Stanford Campus, depending on traffic

Also rotated at both and agree UCSF > Stanford. I think UCSF has the best clinical training in the entire country with the diversity of patient population, subspecialties you get to see. <<I am surprised people tiered Stanford in top 5 programs on here. It is great, but a little below the other 4, and I will likley rank other west coast programs above it (but city is a big factor for me...and my SO)

I have no idea what gauge you're using to say Stanford is "a little below the other 4". In what way(s), and does that criterion/criteria really define the strength of a program?

<beware many people will tell you the opposite of what they think (ie ranking program lower) so that you may rank it lower, and they can rank it higher and have more chances to match. Take everything on here with a grain of salt and trust your gut

this x10000. Stanford is an incredibly, incredibly popular program, and people will pull some shit like this

< was just about to post that! Stanford >> UCSF. Less demanding, better name recognition to your patients, and the community/alumni network are incredible. << I think you have to take everything with a grain of salt here, but these are both literally great, so it comes down more to city/fit/your personal opinion. Don't rely too much on other people for top program comparison. People interviewing at both of these will be sucessful regardless of where we go. It is about where you will be happy.

I think Stanford and UCSF are vastly different programs with different institutional cultures. UCSF is a public, urban, medical focused university with excellent dermpath and derm surgery programs. Stanford is a wealthy, private university with lots of money in a very suburban area with great basic science research. I would say UCSF has more leaders in academic dermatology than Stanford and better clinical training. Stanford has better basic science research, lots more money, potential networking connections given the law/business/grad programs/etc., and overall a little more "cush" / hand-holding culture. Even though they are geographically close, these are vastly different programs.

I think UCSF is better than Stanford in pretty much all regards. Stronger dermpath, peds derm, derm surgery, and med derm. They're both great obviously, but UCSF is definitly the stronger program.

<the top programs also happen to be some of the larger ones, so chances go up. Top programs end up interviewing many of the same people ... so think about it if there's like 40 ppl interviewing at all the tops, they can only go to 1 program ultimately, so those spots open up ... and people have family/geographic ties that bind them ... so your chances end up being better than you think if you're in the group interviewing at all the tops since you never know if like e.g. Penn is your top choice, some people might choose UCSF or Stanford over it since they have to be in SF for their spouse's finance job etc

x2 you never know what people want. Most people at the top end up fitting in somewhere.

< okay so there are something like a few hundred seats though right? Like so the top 40 take the top 5-10 programs, and then everywhere else is regional or what? like its not like only even the top 100 people would match

regional and totally random. And heavily influenced by rotators, connections, compelling reasons someone wants to move.

it kills me that people are having this decision haha. Like obviously really impressive, wow, that's amazing and I am not diminishing your accomplishments, but its just amazing to me the thought of choosing between 4 top 5 derm programs<<i feel very blessed and grateful indeed! and doing my best to pay it forward and be fair to decline invites I have no intention of going to << yay you kind soul - try to judge by your interview day or ask current medical students/residents - look for fit if location means nothing to you

<Harvard for baller academic/research connections and opportunities, lots of med derm, less clinically heavy; NYU tons of clinics/Bellevue which you'll get baller, academics also good, UCSF work hard af but has a bit of everything and is great; Stanford is like the most supportive of the top 5 and will likely have the most good-feeling experience ... idk I'm a PGY1 that interviewed some of these so I don't actually know anything <<thanks for your insight! what do you mean harvard is less clinically heavy? like more inpatient experience? <<there's less resident clinic autonomy, you work a lot with attendings in specialty clinic and it's less ownership of your own patients, but it's like that anyways at the top academic programs as opposed to a small community program, just heard it's more accentuated at Harvard<<interesting, so are residents mostly just presenting patients and writing notes rather than coming up with management plans? <i imagine yes since you're seeing super complex patients at a tertiary care center<dang, fair enough. thank you! << "just present and write notes instead of coming up with management plans"? Is that an actual, serious comment? You think the residents just present the patient then stand there looking blankly at the attending waiting for them to just hand them a treatment plan? If you see complex patients, you learn how to come up with complex plans

< thanks for the input! What about penn?

PGY1. Loved Penn program (didn't match there but had it ranked #1). Amazing faculty, good autonomy, everyone seemed happy. Great exposure to procedures as well (which I felt was a weakness at Harvard)

Stanford - happy residents, assume great clinical experience (although no one seems to emphasize this as much about Stanford); UCSF - one of best if not best clinical experience in the country for complex derm, work you very hard though. Others I don't know as well. Go with your gut and where you felt like the personalities of the residents were most similar to yours.

Penn is the best all-round plus the procedural skill > Harvard. Stanford would be my #2 for the supportive vibe and innovation.

UCSF and Penn are definitly the two best/most well-rounded programs in the country. All the other "top" programs have significnt weaknesses (i.e stanford and harvard have weak derm surg, etc). NYU residents seem to work the hardest and seemed to me to be the least happy.

skin of color as in red man syndrome?

oh good question! I would like to know too

My guess: Mt. Sinai, Wake, Howard, UCSF, Harvard, U penn, NYU

< you forgot UTAH

NYU??? x2

absolutely NYU << dang one would think that best skin of color training would occur in places with high % skin of color pop (Detroit, Birmingham, Baltimore, etc)

really UTAH?

I think sarcasm

What about Henry Ford, Emory, UNC, NW? Henry Ford PD actually felt the need to reassure us during the interview presentation that they get to see skin cancer at community clinics because the main hospital is so heavily just skin of color

<I rotated at UNC and felt it was very diverse - agreed, very pleasantly surprised

Another vote for Wake Forest! Amy McMichael is an amazing doctor and person!

<- WF faculty seems diverse, but their patient population is still pretty rural and not as diverse

yes, but Dr. McMichael has an interest in SOC so tailors her teaching/clinic to that. She gave a talk to our program a few years ago, hence the fangirling.

Also, Hopkins has a specific initiative to support underrepresented minority faculty and residents.

and Penn

Uhh yah probably 95% of us

don't think it's that high

Let's say 800 people apply... they probably interview 40-50 so max they're inteviewing is 5% of candidates... no? I mean ball park << when you say AND, you're multiplying stats right, so im going to assume that at least 90% of people missed out on all of Harvard, Stanford, UCSF, AND Penn

So to make this simpler, what are the chances of getting an interview at one the top 5, say UCSF, Harvard, Stanford, NYU, and Penn?

how many people do you think get all 5 of the top 5 places? 4/5? 3/5?

~10%, ~12%, ~15% respectively I'd say? ---- Probably 15-20 people get 5/5 for the top 5. I've realized that it's mostly the same people getting all the top 10 interviews." <- coming from one of these schools i can tell you that this is not the case and the number with all 5 is much fewer.

I'm sure there are some godly people out there with all of the top 5 plus the next top 5, and ideally they will drop some of them for the rest of us :p<<<guilty :) but have trickled many invites so wishing everyone the best of luck

sigh managed to get NYU/harvard/stanford/UCSF...and no penn...and ive lived near penn my whole life. idk what went wrong there, was my top choice

x 2 how do we find out if we actually need this or not. Don't want to bomb it in case I have to do this all over again if I don't match...

< I feel your pain

But serious question though...My school doesn’t care.

i heard others mentioning that some schools require it to rank, but idk which programs

< I know UCSF and Case Western do