Stanford vs UCLA: which one would you choose and why?

[chef]

I'll list some of the observations I made. If you had to pick between the 2, which one would you pick and why?

Stanford: more flexible curriculum
long white coats 🙂
P/F
No AOA
Very research oriented
Thesis required (5 yrs)
Hospital System under water
Housing $$$
Extent and quality of clinical training
SF
Med school facilities subpar
More prestige and "name" than UCLA
High profile faculty

UCLA:
New hospital (already #5)
Lots of $$$ in the Health System
Med school facilities average
Housing $$$

What else??

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Don]

UCLA....THE GIRLS ARE HOT!!!

 

[Scooby Doo]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Dr. Don:
•UCLA....THE GIRLS ARE HOT!!!•••••On that topic, Stanfurd - GIRLS ARE FUGLY!!!!!!!!

Actually, all girls in the bay area are UGLY!!!!!

Except those who wear black (AJM included 🙂 )

 

[CalBear]

stanford does not have a required thesis. many students just choose to do the five year plan b/c they want to do other things (research, volunteer, have a family, etc). the two things i really liked about stanford was that they had a lot of funding and the housing is so much nicer than UCLA. they guarantee first year on campus housing. in the subsequent years you could still apply for housing. even if you don't get it, they will give you a housing stipend or set you up with off campus university housing.

UCLA is definitely a more exciting place. to me, the curriculum seemed a little better than stanford b/c they integrate both the traditional and problem based systems. However, there is not as much funding at UCLA and housing pretty much sucks.

chef, did you get into both UCLA and stanford? i only recently interviewed at both places, so i am still waiting to hear.

calbear

 

[lilycat]

Actually, I just saw this article the other day and thought it was pertinent to the discussion:

<a href="http://daily.stanford.edu/daily/servlet/Story?id=7793&section=News&date=02-21-2002" target="_blank">Stanford Grads Surveyed</a>

It applies to all the grad students at Stanford and not just the med students, but I still thought it was interesting.

By the way, doesn't UCLA have P/F grading as well?

I wouldn't really let the Stanford facilities be too much of a deciding factor -- I think they are all up for a remodel, and I believe their anatomy labs are new, and the lecture halls are adequate. The library is what people usually bitch about, but the undergrad one is amazing.

The one thing I really didn't like about Stanford was it's small class size (~86 students?), but that's just a personal preference. However, the 5-year plan and the opportunity to take lots of classes in other parts of the university, even get a masters at the same time, is a huge plus.

By the way, the hospital system isn't really under water either.

 

[vkrn]

Hi--I didn't apply to UCLA, 'cause I have issues with SoCal, but my thoughts on Stanford (mind you, I haven't done my interview yet... it's upcoming):

I am really concerned about the financial straits that the hospital is/was in. I don't think it can be remedied in the course of a few short years. There was a SDN post about this--a big analytical article in US News and World Report, if I remember correctly.

Of course, I would love to be in the Bay Area, and Stanford's got a great name, but I can't shake the feeling that it's financially teetering.

Also, I would want to have a kick-ass library WHILE I'm there, not after I'm gone.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[lake show]

i choose ucla.

stanford has the best shooting guard in the pac-10 in casey jacobsen. but the bruins have a solid guy named kapono that can shoot the lights out as well. down low though if gadzuric can play up to his potential and get 20 points and 10 boards while staying out of foul trouble, borchardt can't compete. ucla, with matt barnes and knight, has better role players than stanford in julius barnes and childress. i'd choose the bruins 70-65 in a close game...

 

[El Jefe]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by corleone:
•i choose ucla.

stanford has the best shooting guard in the pac-10 in casey jacobsen. but the bruins have a solid guy named kapono that can shoot the lights out as well. down low though if gadzuric can play up to his potential and get 20 points and 10 boards while staying out of foul trouble, borchardt can't compete. ucla, with matt barnes and knight, has better role players than stanford in julius barnes and childress. i'd choose the bruins 70-65 in a close game...•••••Heh if they can recover from last night..... Good Lord that was awful.

 

[jmejia1]

Stanford it seems attracts top notch students not only in California but across the nation. UCLA shows preference to California students, given that's a public state school. Stanford on the other hand is not restricted and takes a sizable amount of out-of-state students, creating a more diverse student body. Some of the Stanford students I met, turned down schools like Penn and Hopkins for Stanford.

Stanford is a pretty wealthy university as well. If your parents make less than $100,000, they give you $24,000 worth of GRANT money yearly, plus you can TA a class in the undergrad (anywhere from biol to psych classes) and they pay you $12,000 per quarter!

The facilities looked pretty old, but who cares? Plus, you don't even need to attend class; they digitally record the lectures and upload it to the internet so you can sleep in!

There is no such thing as a required thesis, either. You don't even have to do research, you can use the five year plan to do early clinical experiences, or get involved in community outreach or get a masters in whatever, science or not.

I interviewed at Stanford, but havne't even got a secondary from UCLA, but IF I had a choose between the two, given what I know from my friend who attend UCLA med school, I would go to Stanford, hands down.

 

[Scooby Doo]

jmejia,

What does your friend at UCLA say about his school?

 

[McEntrye]

I didn't complete the secondary for Stanford, but I would say the biggest difference for me is cost. Stanford is $15,000 a year more, which would be $60,000 more in loans for me, no thanks.

 

[jmejia1]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Scooby Doo:
•jmejia,

What does your friend at UCLA say about his school?•••••I didn't mean to make it sound like he says bad things about UCLA, only that he's given me some knowlege about UCLA's curriculum and student-life. He says that though they have PBL, there isn't room for early clinical experiences. There isn't the sleugh of electives availabe at UCLA that there is at Stanford, and that contrary to popoular belief, UCLA isn't much diverse in terms of enrolling URMs. By the way, Stanford is pretty diverse in terms of ethnicity and age of applicant.

 

[Wahoo]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by McEntrye:
•I didn't complete the secondary for Stanford, but I would say the biggest difference for me is cost. Stanford is $15,000 a year more, which would be $60,000 more in loans for me, no thanks.•••••Actually, Stanford's financial aid program is such that their average debt is practically identical to the UC schools.

 

[AJM]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Scooby Doo:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Dr. Don:
•UCLA....THE GIRLS ARE HOT!!!•••••On that topic, Stanfurd - GIRLS ARE FUGLY!!!!!!!!

Actually, all girls in the bay area are UGLY!!!!!

Except those who wear black (AJM included 🙂 )•••••Gee Scooby, I almost took offense to that! 🙂 But I'm glad you kept me in mind as an "exception". :wink:

I've already posted on this forum and the Allopathic forum several times recently about Stanford Med (I'm a med student in my 5th and last year here). So I'll spare the audience and not take up too much space on this thread. Take a look at my previous posts about the school (past 3 weeks or so), and feel free to PM me with other questions.

I didn't apply to any of the UC schools when I originally applied to med school, so I can't really make a good comparison. My advice to you is to try to contact current med students who did go through the process of deciding between Stanford and UCLA (I'm sure there are lots of med students at both schools who had to make that choice), and ask them how they decided.

A note on the hospital financial situation -- it's true that the hospital is losing money, but that's nothing unique to Stanford. Most academic medical centers around the country are facing lots of finanial problems right now, or they will soon. While Stanford has made their situation public, most centers have not publicized their problems. In truth, the medical students have not been affected by the financial situation -- the administration is very careful about insulating the school's finances from the medical center. In fact, the medical center is actually already starting to turn around -- they're losing much less money this year than they were last year. And hopefully with the new administration and CEO that trend will continue.

I also wouldn't worry about the hospital going under -- Stanford University would never let that happen since the hospital and medical school are such an integral part of the university as a whole.

 

[EpiII]

Don't be counting the new UCLA Hospital quite yet. Constuction was just started and probably won't be ready until '05 (I think that is what they told us on our tour).

 

[matthew0126]

stanford sucks

the girls are nasty, there's nothing to do there, and the school is riding on reputation alone. did you know that the school was notified by the aamc (or whatever governing org that does this) that they better revise their curriculum because it was not up to standards? this was told to me by several ucsf students -- if you got beef with this info, blame the ucsf students, not me, just passing the word

it's expensive. too research oriented. also, i do not like the fact that 2 out of the 3 stanford med students that i know well have this snobbish air -- this "i deserve to be here because i'm great" attitude. maybe i just met 2 bad eggs? maybe not

okay so i just read this post and realize it is very negative. but everything i said was true, so i'll leave it as is. flame me if you wish 😀

 

[Ceelo]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Scooby Doo:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Dr. Don:
•UCLA....THE GIRLS ARE HOT!!!•••••On that topic, Stanfurd - GIRLS ARE FUGLY!!!!!!!!

Actually, all girls in the bay area are UGLY!!!!!

Except those who wear black (AJM included 🙂 )•••••I beg to differ. I've been out here for 5 years and, yes, Stanford girls are not hot...however, Bay Area girls are. 😎

 

[rajneel1]

to Scooby Doo and Matthew,
i find it insulting that you would talk about women in such ways. and degrade them by calling them ugly or hot. whatever, grow up. this isn't junior high anymore. i'm disappointed that you idiots are going to be physicians.
maybe you don't like stanford because you didn't get interviews? stanford is very selective.
also stanford's debt is very low, lower or the same when compared to UCs. going to a private school, the students are well taken care of.
who cares what is happening to the stanford hospital? it doesn't matter to me, it should matter to the hospital administration. i could care less.
there is alot to do in the bay area and in the peninsula/south bay. but i don't know how much time you would really have while in medical school to do all of that stuff. atleast with the flex curriculum you will have the time.
research oriented? nobody is putting a gun to your head making you do research. many top 10 schools encourage research (maybe some of you didn't have the chance to figure that out), stanford just happens to be more supportive of it with research funds. if you want a competitive residency, then research is almost a requirement.
i don't care what ucsf people have to say about stanford,i didn't like ucsf anyways.
that all. obviously i would pick stanford.

 

[Trek]

You seem to fall into that 66% that matthew was talking about.... --Trek

 

[rajneel1]

incredibly funny trek. i enjoy being a bad egg. but you know nothing about me. too bad your observations are false then.

 

[matthew0126]

hello rajneel,

i didn't even apply to stanford because of those reasons i mentioned. don't assume that someone doesn't like a school because they didn't get an interview.

it's interesting... people that go to schools where there is nothing to do always retort "you won't have time to do anything anyways as a medical student; much better that there are no distractions..."

and i find it ridiculous that you are condemning me and scooby for talking about the girls when you come right back and insult us quite a few times

"maybe you don't like stanford because you didn't get interviews? "
"many top 10 schools encourage research (maybe some of you didn't have the chance to figure that out)"
etc.etc. this is the arrogant attitude i was talking about. and for the record, i did get those interviews

•••quote:•••Originally posted by rajneel1:
•to Scooby Doo and Matthew,
i find it insulting that you would talk about women in such ways. and degrade them by calling them ugly or hot. whatever, grow up. this isn't junior high anymore. i'm disappointed that you idiots are going to be physicians. get interviews? stanford is very selective.
maybe you don't like stanford because you didn't
also stanford's debt is very low, lower or the same when compared to UCs. going to a private school, the students are well taken care of.
who cares what is happening to the stanford hospital? it doesn't matter to me, it should matter to the hospital administration. i could care less.
there is alot to do in the bay area and in the peninsula/south bay. but i don't know how much time you would really have while in medical school to do all of that stuff. atleast with the flex curriculum you will have the time.
research oriented? nobody is putting a gun to your head making you do research. many top 10 schools encourage research (maybe some of you didn't have the chance to figure that out), stanford just happens to be more supportive of it with research funds. if you want a competitive residency, then research is almost a requirement.
i don't care what ucsf people have to say about stanford,i didn't like ucsf anyways.
that all. obviously i would pick stanford.•••••

 

[Trek]

thanks matthew for the logical rationale behind my post. I didn't feel like typing it out like you did. PS: it wasn't a joke. You really seem like that. --Trek

 

[Vader]

Hey matthew,
I don't know what "UCSF student" told you this about Stanford, but it sure wasn't me. Stanford's curriculum is more traditional than UCSF's new one, but it also offers quite a bit of flexibility. Many students there choose to take 5 years and do research, an MPH, etc., or take other non-medical classes. In addition, they videotape lectures, something I do wish they would do at UCSF. Then again, we only have a couple of hours of lecture per day anyway. :wink: While it is possible that the LCME or AAMC may be pressuring Stanford to update their curriculum, people should probably verify this by talking with people (i.e. faculty, administrators, students) there and not simply go on the word of students at other schools.

At any rate, I have to say that being from Southern California myself and now living in Northern Cal, I can see that there are quite a few differences, with plusses and minuses for each. Stanford is a better school overall than UCLA, with stronger academics, research, faculty, and financial backing and a much better reputation nationwide (both in the medical community and outside). However, UCLA is a good school and you certainly can't go wrong by going there. There is no right or wrong answer. In the end, it all comes down to where one fits best.