(04-30-2018, 08:47 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-30-2018, 08:42 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-30-2018, 07:20 PM)omegalomaniac Wrote: Possible to match here without a research year given the rest of the app is strong (>250 steps, solid LORs, several pubs, and good performance on subi)?
*edit: and if coming from state school*
Yes. I'm not a resident at Stanford but they don't seem to be a program that is that much of an old boys club like Columbia or MGH which only take ivy league grads.
Columbia just matched a student from IU. State school last time I checked.
Right. Which is what is said. "don't seem to be" "which only take"
(04-30-2018, 09:24 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-30-2018, 08:47 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-30-2018, 08:42 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-30-2018, 07:20 PM)omegalomaniac Wrote: Possible to match here without a research year given the rest of the app is strong (>250 steps, solid LORs, several pubs, and good performance on subi)?
*edit: and if coming from state school*
Yes. I'm not a resident at Stanford but they don't seem to be a program that is that much of an old boys club like Columbia or MGH which only take ivy league grads.
Columbia just matched a student from IU. State school last time I checked.
Right. Which is what is said. "don't seem to be" "which only take"
Columbia rarely takes residents from outside their tier but they have taken residents from Rutgers, now IU and probably a few other public universities in years past. Coming from a state school isn't a disadvantage unless you have no home program or have a malignant home program that won't train you up. If you're at a place like UF, IU, UVA, etc then its probably not hard to end up at a so-called top training program. With that being said, it is advantageous to attend a school like Yale or Duke which have an absurd amount of research time and resources dedicated to filling up the research portion of your CV. Attending a research oriented med school is certainly a leg up but there have been strong neurosurgery applicants coming from all types of schools, especially in these last few cycles.
Best bet is to look at the current Stanford residents - see their publication count by the year they entered residency/if they did extra years of research. See what number have PhDs/what schools they come from/etc. Get an idea of what they look at. Then see where you stand.
(04-28-2018, 07:25 PM)Guest Wrote: Whatever. It's still stanford. More money for residents than ucsf, less malignant and better career options/$$$ after residency
Why does Stanford provide better career options/$$$ after residency? Is UCSF really that malignant? Honest questions here, I am just starting to become involved with the field.
Good people will get good jobs - and good people can be in any program (even smaller name places). Keep your eyes open.
(05-01-2018, 07:59 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2018, 07:25 PM)Guest Wrote: Whatever. It's still stanford. More money for residents than ucsf, less malignant and better career options/$$$ after residency
Why does Stanford provide better career options/$$$ after residency? Is UCSF really that malignant? Honest questions here, I am just starting to become involved with the field.
Certainly good career options but not better than UCSF if you're talking academics. Better $ meaning more Stanford grads go into private practice than UCSF grads.
UCSF is a tough place to train but its not malignant.
(05-01-2018, 11:33 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2018, 07:59 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2018, 07:25 PM)Guest Wrote: Whatever. It's still stanford. More money for residents than ucsf, less malignant and better career options/$$$ after residency
Why does Stanford provide better career options/$$$ after residency? Is UCSF really that malignant? Honest questions here, I am just starting to become involved with the field.
Certainly good career options but not better than UCSF if you're talking academics. Better $ meaning more Stanford grads go into private practice than UCSF grads.
UCSF is a tough place to train but its not malignant.
Ah okay. Thanks for your input, appreciate it. Every other thread here seems to really bash UCSF for some reason...
(05-01-2018, 11:58 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2018, 11:33 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2018, 07:59 PM)Guest Wrote: (04-28-2018, 07:25 PM)Guest Wrote: Whatever. It's still stanford. More money for residents than ucsf, less malignant and better career options/$$$ after residency
Why does Stanford provide better career options/$$$ after residency? Is UCSF really that malignant? Honest questions here, I am just starting to become involved with the field.
Certainly good career options but not better than UCSF if you're talking academics. Better $ meaning more Stanford grads go into private practice than UCSF grads.
UCSF is a tough place to train but its not malignant.
Ah okay. Thanks for your input, appreciate it. Every other thread here seems to really bash UCSF for some reason...
As someone wise once said, the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
UCSF is gold. Dream program
(05-02-2018, 01:35 AM)Guest Wrote: UCSF is gold. Dream program
and the most malignant program on earth
|
