UC San Francisco-CA

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.

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

all I can confirm is that we got an email explicitly saying they weren't going to. whether or not they did I have no idea but I know I didnt get a call haha

A few have but I think we don’t want to say

why not..?

I bet the new programs interview a ton of people to ensure they don't go unmatched. Like maybe 20:1 vs normally programs are 10:1. CU only had like 4?:1

feel like that still doesn't make sense tho right? like UNC interviews 5:1 and I think of them similarly to colorado. just a strange ass situation << Sometimes programs overshoot and interview all 260+ AOA from top 10 schools who all end up at Harvard or UCSF. That's probably what happened to DEnver

yeah also if they did only interview 19 people and have 6 spots then they're closer to 3:1

wow 3:1!? that's.... not a smart move.

this situation is just super unlucky and unfortunate because it confirms a program's worst fear and will discourage programs next year from saving everyone time and money by interviewing fewer applicants/spot

it was an insanely low number of interviews... do 1:5 if you are so confident (which a lot of the ivy leagues do), not 1:3. that's literally idiotic << Not even the top 5 could get away with a 1:3 ratio... Agreed 1:5 is the lowest even the best programs should drop to

St. Lukes Interviewed 120 people for 2 spots, It was impossible for them not to match

LOL WHAT << They thought they would get approved for 4 spots, so they did 120 which is 30:1, then a month ago they sent an email saying "sike" we just have 2 spots <- interviewed there and got such bad vibes from the program. DNR. <- just curious what your bad vibes were, as I also interviewed there but didn't see any red flags except for them being brand new

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.

agreed

<Get it together people!

Yeah can we please stop being so uncool now that ranks are in and any of your motivations to be a troll are gone! honestly, it's probably not us. more likely to be the program itself...<why would they even care, I'm sure they have more important things to do

um, we live for this juicy shit too

LOL @ a program being petty enough to come in and change it to 100 ppl ranked it 1

not that one

<hilarious how there are 20 more 1st ranks than 2nd and 3rd. I guess its all those people that only got one interview and it happened to be Stanfrod, Harvard or another top program. smh. I'm losing faith in my future colleagues...

I highly doubt that. People are probably just not filling in their top 2 and 3 bc they're mostly concerned with getting their number 1. I initially only filled out 1 and 2 out of laziness. Not sure if your comment was a joke or not... but most of those people have more than 3 interviews. <it was sarcasm

ah, very dry.

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

From my understanding the 2nd look is a GME-wide initiative and not derm specific or indicative of rank

Seems like both did. But UCSF is more of a URM thing

why the misinformation? Stanford did not send out RTM calls and UCSF invited SOME (not all) URM interviewees to a GME-wide second look. Why are we propagating so much BS?

scroll down and you will see people got RTM Stanford calls

ohh I see now

There is a person here who is absolutely desperate to match at Stanford and is spreading lies like crazy. I talked to a resident and they said they had NOT done RTM calls. The same person here keeps deleting/changing posts and is a genuinely manipulative person

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.

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.

I actually thought that I had a good shot for both... here's what I get for getting my hopes up

sadness, sadness all around today x2 <-- could be worse

Great for if I failed CS. x2

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 thought the people at Harvard were fantastic x2.

The Harvard residents are super shady. They have secret hang-outs but dont invite the residents that arent "cool" enough. Serious mean girls shit. Lol. Very clique-y.

Wait where did you hear this? FAKE NEWSSSSS << I didn't "hear" it. I experienced it. If you don't believe me, go confront one of the "popular" residents about it.

LOL love how in the cell to the left Stanford residents are called tight knit and happy for sticking together and Harvard residents are called cliquey

If you feel "left out" by the residency class, maybe you're the weird one

harsh lol

Penn > UCSF > Stanford = Harvard >> all others . (x2 though I did not go to one of these, I have the same order for the other 3, but it varies alot with who you happened to talk to) ^sounds like someone's desperate to go to Harvard/UCSF/Stanford : )

haha I agree with this order, and I am ranking Penn 1. If people are actually trying to alter ranks by these orders, that is kinda sad....if it works that's even more sad lol

UCSF and Penn were my favorites x5 <- damn lol, you guys are very lucky to have interviewed at both

didn't interview at UCSF, but had the other 4 "top 5" programs and agree Penn residents seem closest. I would put NYU up there as well

utsw residents were chill! did not expect that x2

very pleasant surprise. The program moved up on my list based on the people there which I was not expecting

Hopkins residents were so fun and nice! x3

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