UC San Francisco-CA

<I think it may be time for us to give up on that dream. << wow aren't you a party pooper

sry...the process is making me slowly lose any hope of matching

I STILL BELIEEEEEEVE

I think both dates were offered and by the last few calls they were giving 1 date choice since the other was full, so not sure if any more invites going out?

< yeah that was my read, too, from the UCSF comments

<have people who received invites gotten a follow-up email?

nope, nothing yet

< that's so weird! no idea what that could mean, bc they're def participating in match this year no?

they're def participating

<< WTF! That is scaring me. Hope it is an error somehow. It says it on ERAS as well. This is my dreammmmm program

< It has to be an error, there is no WAY Penn is not accepting residents for a year. I wouldn't worry! And jw, why is Penn your dream program? For some reason I always feel like UCSF is everyone's #1? <why is UCSF everyones #1?

Penn is mine because of Research and location

if you look at their website it seems as if though they are still accepting. would be weird if they didnt since they included deadlines and everything https://dermatology.upenn.edu/residents/residency-track-application/

Met an internal last week, pretty sure they are participating

Penn student here. As far as I know, everything is normal, Penn is participating and nothing has changed. Not sure WTF is going on witht the ERAS thing but I've talked to involved faculty even in the last couple days and it's all good.

THANKS!

<< Anyone know when the Penn internal day is?

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.

accept our fate, man. if we didn't get contacted....it's a rejection.

nah bruh, they call twice

yeah they've had multiple contact dates the past 2 years!! THERES HOPE

<<<ahahahahaha we all waiting on dat call doh

<<< Unsure what it means, but I heard from a couple of friends they were only offered one of the two dates when called. Are they full? :(

x1

< was only offered 1/15 last week when program director called

I was only offered 1/8, so both were offered (unclear if full though)

I think I was one of the last people they called last week and they only offered me one date and told me the other was full

<was offered both dates but unclear if i was just called earlier on

same I was offered both i wonder how they decided the order

< seems then like it was one wave

<I know early call recipient had two date choices, and late call recipient had one and was told other was full

<still tomorrow! <yes, very true :) << I turned off my call blocker just in case. It's crazy but I can't help but be hopeful :)

it's not crazy! be hopeful based on past precendence!

★<x1

<< A SD wannabeeee << SDlite

Rather than Sheet Daddy, Cell Daddy, and don't forget the grandaddy of them all, Workbook Daddy << LOL << bro we asked SD to move to another tab not to have it come up here again. Just go to the sheet daddy stats tab instead of posting this here. << um bruh, it's just one small highlight box << dude none of us want it here. Put it on the SD page if you want it << no, only you don't obviously and no one picked you as as the autocrat of this spreadsheet << it's not autocrat. MANY people expressed yesterday to have these stats and data on another sheet. << put it to a vote, most people sided with SD x5

A ton of activity today! Last year, UCSF sent its second batch of interviews in the Thursday following its Friday invitations, so maybe we can expect more later today? (In an hour or so?) >fingers and toes crossed!

MOVED TO MAIN CELL Who doesn't mind a small highlight box just with today's interview tallies to have one cell row per day? << lol could you have worded this question in a worse way? << who could not want it except someone who needs to micro manage everything?

<< mods wtf was the point of having the SD stats page if it is still going to be posted here? x1 << having a current list of the day's interview invites is not the same as SD stats

<< We already decided this yesterday. There was a seperate tab made! << no, one person decided it << SD's posts are HUGE too, this is entirely different

< No :-/ was it a dream?

I missed my call and have the VM saved

< I'm kind of jealous of the person who missed theirs lol I feel like that would have been something I would have loved to have on my phone

I am not going to lie, I've listened to it a few times over! haha << I thought about screenshotting the incoming call but was afraid that it would send it to voicemail haha, so pathetic

< LOL i missed mine and I listened to the call like 4 times over. "Hi this is Erin Mathes calling from the University of California at San Francisco."

"we read your application" - her "OMG they actually read it!!!!" - me (in my head)

<So glad I am not the only one who missed it! I was feeling bad about it at first but now that I have the VM I'm okay with it, kinda

anyone know how many invites UCSF sends out?

resident lurker, UCSF usually interviews 8-10 2s and then 22-23 clinical track applicants and they have a separate interview day for internals which includes psoriasis fellows

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