UC San Francisco-CA

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

i heard shit things about northwestern so maybe not there << What is the problem? << Overpromise and underdeliver. They talk up their projects, tell you you'll get x number of publications by whatever time, tell you they'll mentor you through the application process - and at the end of the day you'll maybe see your PI once a month << and then they don't interview all their research year people lmao << ya fml << Def heard avoid northwestern for research fellowship. They use you for free labor.

<< That sounds terrible. Anybody with experience at Harvard or UCSF? Even Upenn but that would hard for my SO << I have had several friends at Harvard who swear by their expeirences there << wherever you go, def pick clinical research over basic science research (more pubs). also don't just go for the fancy names, look into places that would actually match you after spending a research year there (not to say that you're not good enough for harvard/ucsf/penn, but also top programs historically don't give a crap if you spent time with them)

I don't know if I agree about a place that takes their fellows. It's not a bad strategy but also a mentor who fights for you can go really far!

Are there any specific people or groups that are worth reaching out to? How did you guys find where to go? << I have heard of people having success with Kroshinsky at Harvard, Koo at UCSF, Rosenbach at Penn, and Mostaghimi at Brigham

I did research with Mostaghimi. He wasn't around most of the time and I didn't find the experience that fulfilling tbh << Not sure why comment was deleted. Seems like someone has an agenda. I worked with Mostaghimi and thought he was really dedicated to me and his other students. If you are thinking about working with him he will put you in touch with people who have actually worked with him and you can get a sense of what their experience was like. Don't believe everything you read on these boards.

I found my research year by talking to just about every upperclassman who had done one in the 1-3 years before me. Really variable year to year and I agree that big name places can be a let down. There's just no way Harvard cares when they have so many research fellows. heck, they a least a few of their own med students didn't match last year so don't expect an interview.

<< Can't speak for insitution at large but both at Harvard and other institutions the specific individual that you work with is the most important part. Look at the people who have worked with these attendings in the past, they've genreally done well. Do your homework, find a person and talk to peple who have worked with them before

i think it went out on monday? << for everyone or internals?

seemed like there were externals too Also, it seems Kansas went out? Is 1/16 interview date confirmed?

What are the odds of a Miami trickle?

Not horrible odds since many places like Northwestern, UCSF, Hopkins, and others overlpa with their dates

< I tried to creep and I think last year they had 2 invite dates in december, I'm wondering if that might mean they had those 2 in addition to the internal date in late october, so maybe they would have another date to release invites!!!

They say those programs are malignant so you rank them lower, and then they can match at them, lol

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.

Any program with daily didatics before 8am. <name names x2

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.

It goes fully from 8 am-4pm (resident who interviewed there)<thank you!

the system is trickle, gimme dem invites! but seriously i dont know why schools do this, i guess its their way of filtering out even more candidates...<<i guess but then they miss out on some really great applicants that might have gone there. for example, i literally couldnt choose between two schools on those dates, so i just went with the more convenient flight option. Not because i liked one school more than the other....who knows if i would have been a better fit for the other school

man i feel for you, im not saying its right or anything.

I feel for UConn and Maryland internals/rotators. Only given 1 date << can you imagine if you rotated at both, and then had to pick between invites at JHU, UCSF, Northwestern, UC-Davis, UMiami, Mayo-AZ?<<that was me, i had to pick between ucsf, northwestern, mayo AZ, Davis, and hopkins <goals x3

i would love to have those problems

I hate the overlap especially since I have had to pick even though I only have 5 invites. However, with people going to 15+ or 20+ interviews, I'm glad they do this to force a little trickle. << problem is for some of us we already got rejected from these programs, so even if the spots are now open...it won't be to us :(

As someone with far more rejections than invites, we have to accept that those were not for us.

Did Stanford go out already?

no, but maybe for internals?<is Stanford coming out today?

yeah seems pretty impossible to make but thankfully theirs did not seem mandatory (Harvard's was more strongly worded to attend)

< yeah I am driving though. wanna hitch a ride?

LOL <if some folks are leaving right after or together I would be down to share the Uber to the airport

I just emailed the coordinator to see whether she thinks it's possible to make the 6:40pm JetBlue flight

if you're talking about the Harvard interview, the coordinator confirmed that the AM session (starting at 7:30am) is scheduled to end at 1:30pm.

is there an AM and PM session? I thought the email said the interview day goes from 7a-5pm? Although my email said to arrive at 9:15am...?

I think there are 7:30, 9:30, and 12:30 sessions. I was told to arrive at 7:20.

So I should ask when the 9:30 session ends but presumably 3:30?

probably<<confirmed with coordinator that 9:30 session will end at 3:30, not sure about the other ones but i think we can assume they will last around the same length.

<similar struggle for me, ended up booking two flights in event I can't get out early enough.

which two flights?

booked the 6:40p jetblue

The UCSF pre-interview dinner was amazing. I would try to attend it. I thought it was 10/10 better than Harvard's. Just sayin.