Stanford coasting on reputation?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

repititionition

Sure!
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
907
Reaction score
1,199
Not looking to stir the pot, but I had an interesting conversation today with my department's prior chair. He had great things to say about a number of programs but was unapologetic in saying that Stanford had been "coasting on its reputation", and wouldn't be considered "elite" (for whatever that means) if not for the fact that it's *Stanford*.

As an applicant, I wondered if folks here had any thoughts? Happy to hear them via PM if folks prefer.
 
Not looking to stir the pot, but I had an interesting conversation today with my department's prior chair. He had great things to say about a number of programs but was unapologetic in saying that Stanford had been "coasting on its reputation", and wouldn't be considered "elite" (for whatever that means) if not for the fact that it's *Stanford*.

As an applicant, I wondered if folks here had any thoughts? Happy to hear them via PM if folks prefer.

Went there. Loved it. Graduated within last 5 years. Met or exceeded all expectations. No problems getting first choice for fellowship and good pp job. Obviously you're set for academics if you would rather do that.

Did your PD have any concrete examples or was he just talking s***.
 
Went there. Loved it. Graduated within last 5 years. Met or exceeded all expectations. No problems getting first choice for fellowship and good pp job. Obviously you're set for academics if you would rather do that.

Did your PD have any concrete examples or was he just talking s***.

No examples given. Just said that "there are two programs worth going to in California -- UCSF and UCSD". He's a Harvard guy, so can't imagine he has a specific bone to pick... but that's why I brought it here.

Super glad to hear about your experience there. I'm excited to apply and hope to have the chance to take a look first-hand.
 
What part of the country are you in? How would your former chair know? Did he point to any specific weaknesses?

We have many partners out of Stanford, both younger and older. They all speak highly of it. You'd be a fool not to apply. Another program that is arguably 2nd to none....but requires higher board scores than other 2nd to none programs.😉
 
Last edited:
No examples given. Just said that "there are two programs worth going to in California -- UCSF and UCSD". He's a Harvard guy, so can't imagine he has a specific bone to pick... but that's why I brought it here.

Odd, UCSF didn't even fill in the match this year.
 
I love it here, clinical complexity and volume is high with great teaching - wouldn't choose anywhere else to train. You become a "rockstar" out of this residency. I don't feel overworked at all (hence responding to a post on SDN in the middle of the day) but I do hear (from fellows and faculty who trained else where) we work harder then other programs but i think it adds to the great training. We go by a 10 hour rule - If you end up staying really late you don't have to come in until later in the day when you've had a full 10 hour break. Faculty all reasonable, personable and great mentors. Graduates can do anything they want afterwards - pick of top fellowship or private practice jobs from around the country. Most choose to stay in the area - cause while expensive the bay area is kind of addicting. Salary, while it doesn't allow you buy a house, allows for comfortable resident life - highest in the country probably.
 
What part of the country are you in? How would your former chair know? Did he point to any specific weaknesses?

We have many partners out of Stanford, both younger and older. They all speak highly of it. You'd be a fool not to apply. Another program that is arguably 2nd to none....but requires higher board scores than other 2nd to none programs.😉

I'm in the mid-Atlantic, and I don't doubt for a minute Stanford offers stellar training -- actually the only reason I posted was because I was so surprised by his comment that I wanted to see if I was missing something obvious.
 
Stanford does coast on it's reputation. So does mgh, Brigham, UCSF, etc. Thats the point of going to those places. Using their reputations as leverage for your career. They do the same cases and read the same books as residents at many other major medical centers all over this country. Anesthesia ain't exactly quantum physics. There's great training at a ton of places. But reputation has value once you get out into practice
 
I think several programs intentionally do this. The pick up top applicants that didn't match to plastics, ortho, ent, etc

This is total bull****. If you don't fill your spots that's because you're doing something wrong. And it's definitely not the reason for why ucsf didn't fill.

Stanford is by far the most desirable program from what I've seen in the past few years.

Does reputation matter? I don't know. But it sure as hell played a huge role in the places I chose to interview at.
 
Stanford coasts on its reputation because it produces very high quality graduates that go out into the world and prove that their reputation is well deserved. They also have well developed research and subspecialty tracks that other places can only dream of. That's hugely valuable if you want to develop a foundation for an academic career. I know many Stanford trained people. I also know a thing or two about UCSD and the term sink or swim comes to mind. That's not my idea of great training. But hey, they'll be able to sign your charts remotely now, so you probably don't have to see the faculty at all. That's a plus I guess.
I think your chair is FOS.


--
Il Destriero
 
I love it here, clinical complexity and volume is high with great teaching - wouldn't choose anywhere else to train. You become a "rockstar" out of this residency. I don't feel overworked at all (hence responding to a post on SDN in the middle of the day) but I do hear (from fellows and faculty who trained else where) we work harder then other programs but i think it adds to the great training. We go by a 10 hour rule - If you end up staying really late you don't have to come in until later in the day when you've had a full 10 hour break. Faculty all reasonable, personable and great mentors. Graduates can do anything they want afterwards - pick of top fellowship or private practice jobs from around the country. Most choose to stay in the area - cause while expensive the bay area is kind of addicting. Salary, while it doesn't allow you buy a house, allows for comfortable resident life - highest in the country probably.

Uh isn't the 10 hr break an ACGME requirement for residents..?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3151.PNG
    IMG_3151.PNG
    293.2 KB · Views: 105
Required 8 hours.

VI.G.5.b) Minimum Time Off between Scheduled Duty Periods: Intermediate-level Residents [as defined by the Review Committee] should have 10 hours free of duty, and must have eight hours between scheduled duty periods.

So it looks 10 hrs free of duty but 8 hrs between shifts... i guess my program is a 10 hr between shifts one.
 
A lot is changing in next year's ACGME stuff I'm told, but I think they're doing away with the 10 h suggestion and saying just 8h minimum break. I think they even say you can choose to stay and take care of patients if you want to, so I'm sure some places will push the virtues of that option 😉

Regarding the OP's ?, a lot of program's pride themselves on recruiting top notch applicants and being the best based on various metrics.

As far as I know though, no program can say they take top notch applicants and make them any better than they would've been anyway.

Some folks really aren't compatible with some programs. That's a more important thing to figure out, as in what is it you need to have a high quality residency experience. Feel free to rank based on brand/perception, but do realize your life/career are more important than just surviving a residency at an "elite" place.
 
This is total bull****. If you don't fill your spots that's because you're doing something wrong. And it's definitely not the reason for why ucsf didn't fill.

Stanford is by far the most desirable program from what I've seen in the past few years.

Does reputation matter? I don't know. But it sure as hell played a huge role in the places I chose to interview at.
Agreed. I heard from some residents at UCSF that they had a lot of complaints and their program was getting worse and worse over time.
 
Check the 2017 NRMP match results and you can see which program did not fill in the match. The programs that did not fill in California, are UC Davis 5 spots, UCSF 3 spots, USC 2 spots, Riverside University health system 1 spot and UC Irvine 1 spot.
 
Not looking to stir the pot, but I had an interesting conversation today with my department's prior chair. He had great things to say about a number of programs but was unapologetic in saying that Stanford had been "coasting on its reputation", and wouldn't be considered "elite" (for whatever that means) if not for the fact that it's *Stanford*.

As an applicant, I wondered if folks here had any thoughts? Happy to hear them via PM if folks prefer.


Stanford is a top 15 program. I have heard it several times spoken in the same breath as other elite programs like Duke or MGH at national meetings, so good company for sure.
 
Check the 2017 NRMP match results and you can see which program did not fill in the match. The programs that did not fill in California, are UC Davis 5 spots, UCSF 3 spots, USC 2 spots, Riverside University health system 1 spot and UC Irvine 1 spot.

Wow, did the chair of UCSF attack your mother or something?
 
One piece of the "Why Didn't X Elite West Coast Program Fill In The Match" puzzle is: Stanford and UCSF are in the one of the most expensive areas in the world to live, so even with their housing stipends that can be a big turnoff.
 
One piece of the "Why Didn't X Elite West Coast Program Fill In The Match" puzzle is: Stanford and UCSF are in the one of the most expensive areas in the world to live, so even with their housing stipends that can be a big turnoff.
That's part of the problem, absolutely but not all of. That does not explain not filling that many spots. Stanford actually filled all their spots.
 
Good Luck to all. The main benefit is to know about the program before and during the interview. Residents tend to be honest about the positives and the negatives. So no harm asking them all the questions we want. A few years ago a resident to a candidate "get out of this place it's a nightmare" and that was in southern California. Now, this program is doing very well. I still think that candidates with less competitive profiles should apply to the places that did not fill the positions.
 
If I had to choose a program in California, I would choose Stanford. They have a great reputation from the past and the present. Maybe they coast a little on their past because they have such a great reputation, but they are also leading the pack in many areas and have some faculty with great reputations for new and innovative things. If they coast, it is coasting at a very fast pace as they draft the lead car still leaving the majority of programs in the dust. There are programs out there that I would say are guilty of living on the reputation of their past or the reputation of their hospital. Stanford is not one that comes to my mind.
Full disclosure: No connection to Stanford program
 
Top