- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Oops, I blame dyxselia.
Does anybody know whether there is a high priority waitlist this year?
Thanks for your time and help!
Oops, I blame dyxselia.
Talked to someone this morning, and his best guess was that the earliest that MOST people will hear back from the alternate list is late may. Regarding hpl, he also said typically they use the same approach to admissions every year, though until I hear about someone getting put on hpl I will be skeptical. It's a bummer alternate listers have to wait so long. I assume by then we'll be emotionally invested else where. Regardless, good luck!
Anyone heard of any acceptances given out so far in 2012?
I called about this, they said "sometime next month" for January decisions, that was back in late January.
Late May bc May 15 is the deadline...Who is your source that told you this info?
You're correct. The AMCAS traffic rules apply to all.From Harvard Med website...policy should apply to all allopathic schools. Correct me if I'm wrong. 🙂
Accepted!!! Ahhhhhhahahahahaha!!!
👍
+1 🙂 🙂
👍
+1 🙂 🙂
Holy wow, me AND my husband are accepted! Got the emails at 5:15. This is a dream come true for us, I am so ecstatic and thankful.
This is great news for you all! May I ask when you guys interviewed?
this is great news for you all! May i ask when you guys interviewed?
This is great news for you all! May I ask when you guys interviewed?
Withdrawing my acceptance. I hope this provides a space to someone on the WL. This school is going to be more expensive for me to attend than Stanford. Bummer.
Anybody know when the February adcom meeting is? I interviewed the day after the January meeting, but I don't remember if they said when the Feb meeting would be...
Meetings are usually the 3rd Monday of each month, in which case the meeting should have occured yesterday, Feb. 20.
However, I'm not sure if January interviewees will actually hear something this month.They only just finished sending out acceptances to November interviewees and have yet to get to December. At my interview in December, they told us we would hear the week after the January adcom meeting- which apparently didn't happen.
I haven't really heard much about UCSF's reputation for need-based aid. Does anyone here have any idea if it's reputation is strong, average, below average? Thanks!
I believe strong overall, but jury's still out on how out-of-staters fare (though we can apply for CA residency from Year 2, if I understand correctly). UCSF has the fourteenth lowest average indebtedness.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...ools/top-medical-schools/debt-rankings/page+5
I ran through my numbers over the phone with the financial aid office, and after having done so, I'm at a loss as to how UCSF's average indebtedness is so low. The fin aid office told me that most students receive loans only, and when grants are given, it's generally only $5K per year. Some students, but not many, receive $10K per year. My family is pretty middle class (my mom is a public employee, my dad is employed only part-time), and I was told that I would only receive loans, no grants.
UCSF is my top choice and I'm thrilled to have been accepted, but I'm starting to feel really nervous about financial aid, especially since I already have student loans. I'm hoping that I'll be pleasantly surprised when I receive my actual package vs what I was told over the phone. If the package is loans only, the only explanation that I can think of for the average indebtedness is that many UCSF students must just be able to pay for it outright. Students with zero debt would bring down the average debt very quickly.
If you think any of this is incorrect, please post - I'd be happy to be wrong!
I ran through my numbers over the phone with the financial aid office, and after having done so, I'm at a loss as to how UCSF's average indebtedness is so low. The fin aid office told me that most students receive loans only, and when grants are given, it's generally only $5K per year. Some students, but not many, receive $10K per year. My family is pretty middle class (my mom is a public employee, my dad is employed only part-time), and I was told that I would only receive loans, no grants.
UCSF is my top choice and I'm thrilled to have been accepted, but I'm starting to feel really nervous about financial aid, especially since I already have student loans. I'm hoping that I'll be pleasantly surprised when I receive my actual package vs what I was told over the phone. If the package is loans only, the only explanation that I can think of for the average indebtedness is that many UCSF students must just be able to pay for it outright. Students with zero debt would bring down the average debt very quickly.
If you think any of this is incorrect, please post - I'd be happy to be wrong!
Part of me is deathly afraid of opening my financial aid packages. Part of me is a little relieved, too; it's hard enough to choose between schools like UCSF, and it's nice to know that there are financial aid officers hard at work making my decision for me. 🙂
Were you OOS? Was that the primary reason why it was going to be more expensive for you? I am hoping that they do not cut a lot of the scholarships due to California's budget problems. I am also relying on that extra help to cover expenses.
Good luck at Stanford! It is also a great school!
Thanks. In hindsight, my post made me sound like a little b***h. I'm in-state, but the Stanford system of overpaying their students for TA'ing, research, and whatnot makes it a better financial option for me as someone who has all but signed onto a position in someone's lab for developing molecular diagnostics. That being said, having grown up in Palo Alto, I know how much it sucks. As for how the average debt is still only about 100k...I have no clue. Also...am I the only one who saw that graph of UCSF Med tuition over the years and was like "WTF"? I mean c'mon Wolfsy...you can talk about cutting all the fancy white coat ceremony things that you want, but stretching pennies ain't going to help you with tuition hikes. I'm just hoping that Desmond-Hellman gets more aggressive on this, because UCSF is a great school.
I know that some students were upset over UCSF cutting pennies on the white coat ceremony, and from what I've heard they definitely made it known to the administration. I'm hoping they don't cut corners from that next year. My family will be so sad if they do! Cutting corners from a ceremony that means so much to families, friends and newly minted med students is a tragic way to symbolically show the school's being frugal.
I couldn't care less about the white coat ceremony, but I do appreciate that it means a lot to some people, and I agree that cutting costs there is stupid. I think it's more idiotic, however, that their budgetary plan is so myopic. I hope that those who are so gung-ho about UCSF (or any one particular institution) temper their enthusiasm by researching how the school handles its finances. I've started to realize (through collaborations) that UCSF is generally managed by sub-par individuals who were recruited either before or just on the cusp of its emergence as a prominent institution in the 80's as a key player in elucidating the AIDS epidemic.
Rant over.
If you love UCSF regardless of its management issues, then definitely go. The most important thing is that you're happy with your decision.
I ran through my numbers over the phone with the financial aid office, and after having done so, I'm at a loss as to how UCSF's average indebtedness is so low. The fin aid office told me that most students receive loans only, and when grants are given, it's generally only $5K per year. Some students, but not many, receive $10K per year. My family is pretty middle class (my mom is a public employee, my dad is employed only part-time), and I was told that I would only receive loans, no grants.
UCSF is my top choice and I'm thrilled to have been accepted, but I'm starting to feel really nervous about financial aid, especially since I already have student loans. I'm hoping that I'll be pleasantly surprised when I receive my actual package vs what I was told over the phone. If the package is loans only, the only explanation that I can think of for the average indebtedness is that many UCSF students must just be able to pay for it outright. Students with zero debt would bring down the average debt very quickly.
If you think any of this is incorrect, please post - I'd be happy to be wrong!
EDIT: I'm in state
Not everyone is as pessimistic as you are about the financial climate of UCSF. If anything, I have been impressed by how Chancellor Desmond-Hellmann is managing UCSF despite the economic turmoil plaguing California. UCSF is even changing its relationship with the other UC campuses in order to ultimately save millions of dollars per year. http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11...es-new-approach-secure-ucsfs-financial-future AND http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/20/MNF11MR2KE.DTL
Furthermore, I seriously doubt "sub-par" individuals are managing the institution. This statement screams subjectivity and bias. Funding for UC institutions has severely decreased over the years. This is a fact. Personally, I think its remarkable that UCSF has maintained its elite status despite the financial hardships, and is capable of sponsoring the largest biomedical construction project in the world (Mission Bay Campus).
*Disclaimer: I am gung-ho about UCSF.
Not my intention to start a flame war. You should go where you feel most comfortable. As a financial analyst for biotech/pharma, my last point is this: UCSF receives over 90% of its funding from private sources; however it has been disbursing funds (as can be seen by anyone looking at their publicly filed financials) to projects that will not contribute to its long-term financial health. The SDH committee is exploratory, and she has a number of enemies in the regents. I think she's awesome, and that she was the first competent outside hire they've had in a while, but the decisions by many of her predecessors were pretty stupid. I stand by my original claim about UCSF's management. I'm also gung-ho about UCSF, which is why I've taken it upon myself to look at it through a microscope.
I'm interested in hearing all perspectives on UCSF, however, the most useful perspectives rely on specific facts and not on value judgments/ad hominem attacks. To me, calling others "sub-par" and generalizing non-specified decisions as simply "pretty stupid" suggests black/white thinking rather than nuanced judgment. It makes the speaker seem arrogant and biased. If you want to write about specific decisions that believe will undermine UCSF's strength as an institution, I would love to hear your thoughts -- but please rely on facts, rather than on dismissive generalizations.
Also, for what it's worth, I've heard lots of criticism of Stanford vs. UCSF. I work at a Stanford-affiliated institution, with physicians who have taught at both schools. One physician/professor told me that the classes at UCSF were much more organized than the Stanford classes and that the students seemed happier at UCSF. Several physicians and lab employees have told me that they are not impressed with Stanford students' lab skills, critical thinking, and clinical notes, when compared with students at other schools. At least three people have told me that Stanford likes applicants who have a "story" (overcame major life challenges, etc) and values that over academic/clinical/research abilities.
I share this not to bash Stanford or its students (I only know a couple myself), but simply to balance the discussion when comparing schools. .There will always be people who are down on one school or another, for whatever reason. But the fact that both Stanford and UCSF are generally highly regarded and sought after probably means that you can't go wrong with either one, it just comes down to individual choice and fit (e.g., urban vs. suburban, larger vs. smaller, etc)..