Originally posted by MedApp2003
hey! i was hoping for people's thoughts on stanford:
(1) would anyone go there over ucsf?
(2) i hear their financial aid kicks butt -- is that true? if so, how?
(3) i hear their facilities stink -- is that true?
(4) i hear they have a lot of class everyday -- is that that?
thanks!
I went to Stanford as an undergrad and worked at the hospital for 2 years, so I think I know the program really well. I've been having the same debate (although haven't heard from Stanford yet) and I know it comes up each year.
1) Yes, I would consider it and don't know what I would do. I do know people who are at Stanford and chose it over UCSF. Location is an issue. The campus culture vs. med center culture is an issue. Stanford is less focused on family medicine. Research experience, international opps are great there. You can take classes in the university (poli sci, law, chem eng, comp sci) at Stanford. I have one more factor... I've spent a lot of time there... made good connections... but is it time to try something new?
2) Financial aid rocks. It can be cheaper to go to Stanford than a UC. First, they have lots of grants. The financial aid guy will explain all of them to you. Second, do five years. Some people complain about it, but here is why you do it. Spread your preclinical over three years. This allows you time to either 1) research or 2) TA. You get A LOT of money when you do this...tuition credit and stipend that I think can equals $12,000 a quarter (I may be wrong on the amount but it is really high). You can also use your extra time for community service or get a MBA or MA. Then your fifth+ year(s) are basically free ($3000 I think) They have just about the same avg dept upon graduation (~$65K). So basically a fifth year will save you LOTS of money and give you great experience that other med students won't have.
3) Yes, the lecture halls are old, library really needs some work, but you can get any resource you want there. If the way your library looks is important go to the main library, about a 3 minute bike ride from the hospital. They have done some work since I left last year on the teaching facilities and will do more this year, but it isn't Cornell or Yale (just two that Ive been to that I really liked) when it comes to lecture halls. The anatomy lab though is pretty nice.
4) They are in the process of changing the preclin curriculum. No one knows how much it will change. You can see course schedules in their med school bulletin online for this year. I don't think it is really that much more school time than other schools although it is lecture, not small group oriented right now. That may change. I doubt they will do a systems block structure. The reason is that through a traditional course system you can take classes whenever you want. If you don't want to take anatomy your first year you don't have to. There isn't much flexibility in a systems based format--it is all or nothing
I think both are great schools. If I had the choice of both I really don't know which way I would go. The combination of the two schools would probably be an ideal school. From what I've heard, if you want a traditional, 4-year program where you get great clinical training, go to UCSF... if you want to go non-traditional, do research, volunteer a lot, go abroad, get a MBA, JD, et al, with very good clinical training go to Stanford.
Does that help? Any other questions?
