Stanford vs. UCSF vs. UCSD

[Sriddymopboi]

Hey all, very fortunate to have interviewed at these residency programs. Was wondering if I could grab some opinions from people here who are familiar with the programs and familiar with the trainees that graduate from these programs. My goal is to enter private practice and I cannot imagine myself getting into academics (at least the kind where you have to do research to get ahead)

My thoughts on UCSF: No doubt they are a top ranked program, and that I would come out of this program very well trained. I'd have to ability to get into academics, lead a department, but would I have my pick of private practice jobs anywhere in California?

Thoughts on Stanford: Is it as highly regarded as UCSF? Is the only difference between the two literally just the location? Because at this point I'm not sure how else to distinguish them.

Thoughts on UCSD: Excellent program. No doubt I'll be well trained. Not as highly academically regarded as Stanford or UCSF but I don't care - I'm just trying to get an amazing private practice job mainly in the location of my choice, again, not really interested in academics. Curious about the philosophy of the program, they stress early autonomy but I am wondering if that means I won't be taught very well by attendings there? I don't want them to just be there for induction and extubation, like I would prefer to have some sort of intraop teaching. Anyways that's my situation and I'd be happy to elaborate on anything else.

Basically at the end of the day, if I went to UCSF or Stanford would I be able to get a job anywhere in California, and would going to UCSD perhaps restrict me to getting any job in Southern California?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted162650]

If you want to work in the Bay Area, go to SF or Stanford.

If you want to work south of LA, go to SD.

That being said, about 1/2 of my UCSD graduating class got PP jobs in the Bay Area (places like Berkeley, St. Mary’s, CPMC, Kaiser, and Daly City).

Don’t get hung up on the “autonomy” at SD. It’s an awesome resident focused/driven department.

 

[cchoukal]

One big difference between UCSF and Stanford is that one has CRNAs and the other largely does not, for whatever that would mean to you. I doubt that either program would hold you back from whatever job you wanted. Ultimately, the only person that can answer your question is someone who knows where graduates from each program have been accepted and rejected for jobs, and that person doesn’t likely exist. You could ask each PD for a list of places graduates have been hired, but that wouldn’t include if, say, a UCSF grad tried to get hired somewhere and didn’t succeed.

 

[nimbus]

There are many many UCSF and Stanford grads working in Southern Ca. You will have no problem moving to SoCal from either of those programs.

 

[nimbus]

One big difference between UCSF and Stanford is that one has CRNAs and the other largely does not, for whatever that would mean to you. I doubt that either program would hold you back from whatever job you wanted. Ultimately, the only person that can answer your question is someone who knows where graduates from each program have been accepted and rejected for jobs, and that person doesn’t likely exist. You could ask each PD for a list of places graduates have been hired, but that wouldn’t include if, say, a UCSF grad tried to get hired somewhere and didn’t succeed.

If they didn’t succeed, it would not be because they trained at UCSF. No hiring committee ever said, “Look, they trained at UCSF, their graduates are weak.”

 

[Sriddymopboi]

If you want to work in the Bay Area, go to SF or Stanford.

If you want to work south of LA, go to SD.

That being said, about 1/2 of my UCSD graduating class got PP jobs in the Bay Area (places like Berkeley, St. Mary’s, CPMC, Kaiser, and Daly City).

Don’t get hung up on the “autonomy” at SD. It’s an awesome resident focused/driven department.

Appreciate the insight. I just haven't seen any other program on the trail so far stress this level of autonomy other than maybe MGH and I'm just curious as to how it differs from other programs and the autonomy that other programs may give their residents. Obviously you haven't gone to to residency programs so it's hard to say but I've always wondered what the difference is

 

[GassYous]

All great programs, top notch reps and shouldn't have a problem with getting a job. Everyone seems to prefer Stanford for whatever reason.

 

[Radar26]

Curious about the philosophy of the program, they stress early autonomy but I am wondering if that means I won't be taught very well by attendings there? I don't want them to just be there for induction and extubation, like I would prefer to have some sort of intraop teaching. Anyways that's my situation and I'd be happy to elaborate on anything else.

The cardiac team does plenty of intra-op teaching both from the fellows and the Attendings. Most residents were pretty happy with their amount of “Attending face time” from my experience.

Any of the listed programs have big enough “name” to get your foot in the door if you want to stay in California, so go where you think you’ll be happiest. Although a bike ride up Torrey Pines is hard to beat compared to those cold, June days in SF...

 

[deleted162650]

Appreciate the insight. I just haven't seen any other program on the trail so far stress this level of autonomy other than maybe MGH and I'm just curious as to how it differs from other programs and the autonomy that other programs may give their residents. Obviously you haven't gone to to residency programs so it's hard to say but I've always wondered what the difference is

If you’re this uptight about it, UCSD might not be the best fit. 🤣

 

[GassYous]

The cardiac team does plenty of intra-op teaching both from the fellows and the Attendings. Most residents were pretty happy with their amount of “Attending face time” from my experience.

Any of the listed programs have big enough “name” to get your foot in the door if you want to stay in California, so go where you think you’ll be happiest. Although a bike ride up Torrey Pines is hard to beat compared to those cold, June days in SF...

With all the global warming going on, by the time he finishes residency SF will feel like LA and LA will be like Phoenix.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

If you’re this uptight about it, UCSD might not be the best fit. 🤣

Just trying to be realistic - how am I supposed to get a good feel for the culture of these places over zoom?

 

[abolt18]

Just trying to be realistic - how am I supposed to get a good feel for the culture of these places over zoom?

You're not. It's impossible.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

You're not. It's impossible.

I know, that's why I'm reaching out to this forum for people who have had the experience there and hopefully they can be honest... kind of hurts to be called uptight just because I want to get a true idea of the culture of the place

 

[abolt18]

I know, that's why I'm reaching out to this forum for people who have had the experience there and hopefully they can be honest... kind of hurts to be called uptight just because I want to get a true idea of the culture of the place

If "it hurts" to have a stranger (who cracks a lot of jokes on here) call you uptight, then maybe it's true? Salty is a straight shooter though and will tell you exactly what he really thinks.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

If "it hurts" to have a stranger (who cracks a lot of jokes on here) call you uptight, then maybe it's true? Salty is a straight shooter though and will tell you exactly what he really thinks.

I don't know who Salty is and it helps to know if he made the comment in jest or if he 100% means it. Thanks for the info.

 

[Ezekiel2517]

My thoughts on UCSF: No doubt they are a top ranked program, and that I would come out of this program very well trained. I'd have to ability to get into academics, lead a department, but would I have my pick of private practice jobs anywhere in California?

Thoughts on Stanford: Is it as highly regarded as UCSF? Is the only difference between the two literally just the location? Because at this point I'm not sure how else to distinguish them.

Basically at the end of the day, if I went to UCSF or Stanford would I be able to get a job anywhere in California, and would going to UCSD perhaps restrict me to getting any job in Southern California?

Yes. Anywhere in CA and anywhere in the country.
Yes, maybe slightly more. Pretty much.
Yes. No.

 

[deleted162650]

98% of what I say on here is tongue in cheek.
My comment was more about the culture at SD than it was about you (notice that another SD alum thought it was funny).

Just trying to be realistic - how am I supposed to get a good feel for the culture of these places over zoom?

In all seriousness, it must really suck to be going through the interview process without being able to actually be there. You’re talking about all top echelon programs. The biggest deciding factor at this point should be feel/vibe, which just doesn’t translate via Zoom.

As a general rule, CA programs get progressively more laid back/casual as you go from North to South.

Another significant difference between these programs is size. Are you gonna feel better in a larger or smaller class. Pros and cons to both.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

98% of what I say on here is tongue in cheek.
My comment was more about the culture at SD than it was about you (notice that another SD alum thought it was funny).



In all seriousness, it must really suck to be going through the interview process without being able to actually be there. You’re talking about all top echelon programs. The biggest deciding factor at this point should be feel/vibe, which just doesn’t translate via Zoom.

As a general rule, CA programs get progressively more laid back/casual as you go from North to South.

Another significant difference between these programs is size. Are you gonna feel better in a larger or smaller class. Pros and cons to both.

Thank you, I really appreciate your advice.

 

[gtb]

Stanford. You will get exposed to technology of the future.

 

[IlDestriero]

I can’t PM you Sriddy. Perhaps you can PM me and I can reply with some thoughts.

 

[D P356]

If "it hurts" to have a stranger (who cracks a lot of jokes on here) call you uptight, then maybe it's true? Salty is a straight shooter though and will tell you exactly what he really thinks.

Salty is a guy??!??

 

[deleted162650]

Salty is a guy??!??

Last I checked.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

Stanford. You will get exposed to technology of the future.

I thought UCSD was actually pretty technologically advanced, I mean at least at the new Jacobs Medical Center they are doing pretty top notch stuff. What does Stanford do differently?

 

[deleted875186]

Hey all, very fortunate to have interviewed at these residency programs. Was wondering if I could grab some opinions from people here who are familiar with the programs and familiar with the trainees that graduate from these programs. My goal is to enter private practice and I cannot imagine myself getting into academics (at least the kind where you have to do research to get ahead)

My thoughts on UCSF: No doubt they are a top ranked program, and that I would come out of this program very well trained. I'd have to ability to get into academics, lead a department, but would I have my pick of private practice jobs anywhere in California?

Thoughts on Stanford: Is it as highly regarded as UCSF? Is the only difference between the two literally just the location? Because at this point I'm not sure how else to distinguish them.

Thoughts on UCSD: Excellent program. No doubt I'll be well trained. Not as highly academically regarded as Stanford or UCSF but I don't care - I'm just trying to get an amazing private practice job mainly in the location of my choice, again, not really interested in academics. Curious about the philosophy of the program, they stress early autonomy but I am wondering if that means I won't be taught very well by attendings there? I don't want them to just be there for induction and extubation, like I would prefer to have some sort of intraop teaching. Anyways that's my situation and I'd be happy to elaborate on anything else.

Basically at the end of the day, if I went to UCSF or Stanford would I be able to get a job anywhere in California, and would going to UCSD perhaps restrict me to getting any job in Southern California?

Autonomy .... pfff

So much stuff now seems much less meaningful to me now having graduated. Honestly I think if you’re motivated to learn on your own, you’ll be fine no matter what.

I went to a residency that definitely did not do any “hand holding”, I think it benefitted me, but who knows, some may say differently.

 

[epidural man]

San Diego - duh. Is that even really a real question or are you punking us?

You will learn how to be an excellent anesthesiologist no matter where you go - even in North Dakota. I would bet my left testicle that people trained in Harvard are NOT better than people trained in Arizona. It is what YOU do during your residency that matters. It also matters on how much you pay attention to MY advice on this forum...that will make all the difference. 🙂

I think what you really should be asking are things that make a HUGE difference but no one talks about.
1. Is there free food? How much? How does the free food work?
2. What is the parking situation?
3. Are there world -renowed beaches, warmth all year round, and a chilled vibe in the air?

(Okay, the last one was biased).

 

[deleted162650]

1. Is there free food? How much? How does the free food work?

I remember when I interviewed at UCSF, they had a deal where if you had to stay past 8pm on a non-call day, you got a gift card to a high end restaurant. The whole time they were “bragging” about this, I just kept thinking to myself, you know - I’d really rather just not have to stay past 8pm on a non-call day.

Fast forward a couple years, and I’m talking with our clinical director at UCSD. For some reason this UCSF “perk” came up (he had been offered the same deal years before when he had interviewed there), and told me “Man, I’d really rather just not be there past 8.”

That’s how you know you picked the right program.

 

[GassYous]

I remember when I interviewed at UCSF, they had a deal where if you had to stay past 8pm on a non-call day, you got a gift card to a high end restaurant. The whole time they were “bragging” about this, I just kept thinking to myself, you know - I’d really rather just not have to stay past 8pm on a non-call day.

Fast forward a couple years, and I’m talking with our clinical director at UCSD. For some reason this UCSF “perk” came up (he had been offered the same deal years before when he had interviewed there), and told me “Man, I’d really rather just not be there past 8.”

That’s how you know you picked the right program.

When it's four I'm out the door

 

[Urzuz]

You will learn how to be an excellent anesthesiologist no matter where you go - even in North Dakota. I would bet my left testicle that people trained in Harvard are NOT better than people trained in Arizona.

While in general I agree with the sentiment that if someone is motivated enough they can get excellent training in BFE, I still feel like the bell curve is skewed toward people being better clinicians coming out of big name programs versus a program in North Dakota. Whether that’s a function of their training or the actual graduates themselves (since in general I would venture to guess the average resident who went to Harvard works/studies harder than the average resident in North Dakota), who knows. But anecdotally in my practice, there are new hires that we have from random no-name training programs that don’t feel comfortable doing what I assumed were basic things that I feel like any CA-2 should be able to do (basics to trauma resuscitation, emergent craniotomies, ultrasound-guided lines/blocks, simple medical decision making, etc). Just last week we had a new hire give a 60 kg ESRD patient 100mg of rocuronium for a PD catheter placement, tried to reverse it with 2mg of neostigmine at the end of the 30 minute case, and extubated the patient and took them to the PACU. Needless to say the patient didn’t fly...

I think that those of us who trained at and work in decent places take for granted what we consider bare-minimum training to be a competent anesthesiologist. There are a lot of scary places out there that are certifying anesthesiologists with the competency of a 6 month CA-1 resident.

 

[deleted875186]

I think the most important factor will be culture at the hosptial, like said above that is hard to gauge, even with in person interviews.

what’s the relationship with attendings, CRNAs, PACU nurses? Do you relieve CRNAs. Are you going to be out in the eye room, GI, off site crap because the CRNAs don’t want to be out there. Are you going to get the good cases, or share them with other trainees and fellows. Are you preoping other people’s patients when on call because they left early? Are the PACU staff jerks. Are the ICU staff jerks. These things are going to get to you after several years.

 

[J Peterman]

I trained at Stanford within the last decade and thought the training was excellent. Many co-residents have stayed on as faculty in the years since I’ve left and I can vouch that they are excellent people to work with. I also generally liked and respected the vast majority of my attendings there.

Each of these great programs and the people they tend to attract have their own differences, which is very hard to get a sense of without pre-interview dinners and lunch with the residents due to residency interviews being conducted via Zoom. Feel free to PM me with questions.

 

[epidural man]

I remember when I interviewed at UCSF, they had a deal where if you had to stay past 8pm on a non-call day, you got a gift card to a high end restaurant. The whole time they were “bragging” about this, I just kept thinking to myself, you know - I’d really rather just not have to stay past 8pm on a non-call day.

Fast forward a couple years, and I’m talking with our clinical director at UCSD. For some reason this UCSF “perk” came up (he had been offered the same deal years before when he had interviewed there), and told me “Man, I’d really rather just not be there past 8.”

That’s how you know you picked the right program.

This is a great story.

And the thing is - on the interview trail - you absolutely don't want to ask...."so....are we here a lot past 8?"

 

[abolt18]

While in general I agree with the sentiment that if someone is motivated enough they can get excellent training in BFE, I still feel like the bell curve is skewed toward people being better clinicians coming out of big name programs versus a program in North Dakota. Whether that’s a function of their training or the actual graduates themselves (since in general I would venture to guess the average resident who went to Harvard works/studies harder than the average resident in North Dakota), who knows. But anecdotally in my practice, there are new hires that we have from random no-name training programs that don’t feel comfortable doing what I assumed were basic things that I feel like any CA-2 should be able to do (basics to trauma resuscitation, emergent craniotomies, ultrasound-guided lines/blocks, simple medical decision making, etc). Just last week we had a new hire give a 60 kg ESRD patient 100mg of rocuronium for a PD catheter placement, tried to reverse it with 2mg of neostigmine at the end of the 30 minute case, and extubated the patient and took them to the PACU. Needless to say the patient didn’t fly...

I think that those of us who trained at and work in decent places take for granted what we consider bare-minimum training to be a competent anesthesiologist. There are a lot of scary places out there that are certifying anesthesiologists with the competency of a 6 month CA-1 resident.

Now I just want to know where this person trained!

 

[Twiggidy]

A few things to consider.....

Sure doing your residency in CA will give you a leg up in the job hunt process, and honestly for the most part it'll be because you'll have the elusive CA license. Much of your success navigating private practicing hiring will be based on need. Alway remember that the so called "better private practices" won't necessarily advertise out in the open so it'll mean doing well enough in residency so that when someone in their practice calls their buddy who is an academic attending, that person will have good things to say about you. People retire often and people move often (topic for a different thread) so there could be something in the "CA you dream about" but that's not to say you couldn't find something easier in the Central Valley or far out LA suburbs.

Additionally the only other thing I want to address is getting hung up on autonomy. I would say take that topic with a grain of salt. I don't know what you definite as an "autonomous program" but residents need some level of babysitting up to and somewhat even through their CA3 year. So what you may find as an attending being "too hands on" is really someone watching out for the patient because many residents can only be alone in a room so long in the early years. Likewise, some programs may be so autonomous you may question if they're teaching anything because the attending is never around. This won't be obvious in an interview whether its on Zoom or in person. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[IlDestriero]

Now I just want to know where this person trained!

North Dakota.

 

[Twiggidy]

I remember when I interviewed at UCSF, they had a deal where if you had to stay past 8pm on a non-call day, you got a gift card to a high end restaurant. The whole time they were “bragging” about this, I just kept thinking to myself, you know - I’d really rather just not have to stay past 8pm on a non-call day.

Fast forward a couple years, and I’m talking with our clinical director at UCSD. For some reason this UCSF “perk” came up (he had been offered the same deal years before when he had interviewed there), and told me “Man, I’d really rather just not be there past 8.”

That’s how you know you picked the right program.

I’d rather get out at 5 and get a Mission burrito

 

[Twiggidy]

While in general I agree with the sentiment that if someone is motivated enough they can get excellent training in BFE, I still feel like the bell curve is skewed toward people being better clinicians coming out of big name programs versus a program in North Dakota. Whether that’s a function of their training or the actual graduates themselves (since in general I would venture to guess the average resident who went to Harvard works/studies harder than the average resident in North Dakota), who knows. But anecdotally in my practice, there are new hires that we have from random no-name training programs that don’t feel comfortable doing what I assumed were basic things that I feel like any CA-2 should be able to do (basics to trauma resuscitation, emergent craniotomies, ultrasound-guided lines/blocks, simple medical decision making, etc). Just last week we had a new hire give a 60 kg ESRD patient 100mg of rocuronium for a PD catheter placement, tried to reverse it with 2mg of neostigmine at the end of the 30 minute case, and extubated the patient and took them to the PACU. Needless to say the patient didn’t fly...

I think that those of us who trained at and work in decent places take for granted what we consider bare-minimum training to be a competent anesthesiologist. There are a lot of scary places out there that are certifying anesthesiologists with the competency of a 6 month CA-1 resident.

To an extent I agree with some of this post....the reality is that “big name programs” get the volume to expose residents to a multitude of situations that either prepares them to continue in that setting or be fairly competent in a community setting. It’s no knock on people who train at smaller places but it’s just about “experience”. That experience also includes “teaching” which is what I alluded to in my post on “too much autonomy”. A resident making mistakes you mentioned either didn’t get enough exposure to sick patients or don’t get good teaching.

 

[epidural man]

While in general I agree with the sentiment that if someone is motivated enough they can get excellent training in BFE, I still feel like the bell curve is skewed toward people being better clinicians coming out of big name programs versus a program in North Dakota. Whether that’s a function of their training or the actual graduates themselves (since in general I would venture to guess the average resident who went to Harvard works/studies harder than the average resident in North Dakota), who knows. But anecdotally in my practice, there are new hires that we have from random no-name training programs that don’t feel comfortable doing what I assumed were basic things that I feel like any CA-2 should be able to do (basics to trauma resuscitation, emergent craniotomies, ultrasound-guided lines/blocks, simple medical decision making, etc). Just last week we had a new hire give a 60 kg ESRD patient 100mg of rocuronium for a PD catheter placement, tried to reverse it with 2mg of neostigmine at the end of the 30 minute case, and extubated the patient and took them to the PACU. Needless to say the patient didn’t fly...

I think that those of us who trained at and work in decent places take for granted what we consider bare-minimum training to be a competent anesthesiologist. There are a lot of scary places out there that are certifying anesthesiologists with the competency of a 6 month CA-1 resident.

I agree with the statement that this person doesn't seem like they have much experience.

What I don't agree with, is that somehow an academic hospital in St. Louis has different cases than an academic hospital in Harvard. I know there are some exceptions (UCSD does pulmonary thromboembolectomies that I never did) - but for the most part, most academic, CITY hospitals take care of sick and old people.

I guarantee that the quality of anesthesiology teachers is equally spread throughout all academic centers, and the dicks and a-holes are also likely spread evenly throughout all the academic centers.

 

[GassYous]

I agree with the statement that this person doesn't seem like they have much experience.

What I don't agree with, is that somehow an academic hospital in St. Louis has different cases than an academic hospital in Harvard. I know there are some exceptions (UCSD does pulmonary thromboembolectomies that I never did) - but for the most part, most academic, CITY hospitals take care of sick and old people.

I guarantee that the quality of anesthesiology teachers is equally spread throughout all academic centers, and the dicks and a-holes are also likely spread evenly throughout all the academic centers.

Some places do trauma, transplant, complex peds, etc that others don't. Even if you don't do those cases in practice I think the experience is valuable.

 

[epidural man]

Some places do trauma, transplant, complex peds, etc that others don't. Even if you don't do those cases in practice I think the experience is valuable.

I don't disagree, except maybe trauma.

I remember asking my attending who had just returned from the SHIZ in IRAQ - "how do you do anesthesia on trauma patients? Is it difficult? What do you do different?" His response was - "ummm....you don't do anesthesia on trauma patients. You just give blood."

My overall point is that the quality of training is probably pretty standard at MOST places, and that shouldn't be much of a factor in ranking matching spots. IT is all the other stuff that add quality of life while you are getting your butt kicked. THAT is WAY more important I would think.

 

[Twiggidy]

I don't disagree, except maybe trauma.

I remember asking my attending who had just returned from the SHIZ in IRAQ - "how do you do anesthesia on trauma patients? Is it difficult? What do you do different?" His response was - "ummm....you don't do anesthesia on trauma patients. You just give blood."

My overall point is that the quality of training is probably pretty standard at MOST places, and that shouldn't be much of a factor in ranking matching spots. IT is all the other stuff that add quality of life while you are getting your butt kicked. THAT is WAY more important I would think.

And to an extent that attending is mostly correct. Many times you're "inducing" with paralytic and maybe giving some versed if you have some compassion and at that point it's a drawn out resuscitation. It can be argued that "anesthesia" is taking care of the spectrum of elective "normal" outpatients to the elective/somewhat urgent/emergent patients (ie, hearts, complex peds, transplants, vascular) that have multiple disease processes that need a level of thinking to get them through the OR and through the perioperative period, ie, extending critical care into the operating.

As to what you're saying, I agree. If all the choices are "university based residency programs" in my opinion you can't go wrong with most choices. That's where the learning will take place. You are 100% correct in saying that an important factor is life when you get those nice moments outside of residency and that's why California weather makes many of the university residencies here so competitive. (This is no offense to the UCSF/Stanford/UCLA/USC/UC-Davis, etc who I'm equating to each other. I know program has it's particular strengths, but if the goal is private practice a graduate will be just fine from any of these institutions.......and probably a decent surfer)

 

[vector2]

And to an extent that attending is mostly correct. Many times you're "inducing" with paralytic and maybe giving some versed if you have some compassion and at that point it's a drawn out resuscitation. It can be argued that "anesthesia" is taking care of the spectrum of elective "normal" outpatients to the elective/somewhat urgent/emergent patients (ie, hearts, complex peds, transplants, vascular) that have multiple disease processes that need a level of thinking to get them through the OR and through the perioperative period, ie, extending critical care into the operating.

As to what you're saying, I agree. If all the choices are "university based residency programs" in my opinion you can't go wrong with most choices. That's where the learning will take place. You are 100% correct in saying that an important factor is life when you get those nice moments outside of residency and that's why California weather makes many of the university residencies here so competitive. (This is no offense to the UCSF/Stanford/UCLA/USC/UC-Davis, etc who I'm equating to each other. I know program has it's particular strengths, but if the goal is private practice a graduate will be just fine from any of these institutions.......and probably a decent surfer)

There are university programs and there are "university" programs. The latter are, in actuality, barely academic community programs at community hospitals that have a loose affiliation with some school of medicine. The hallmarks are non-existent clinical research, residents giving each other lectures, weak intraop teaching, a dearth of fellowship trained staff, not meeting case minimums, or when case minimums are met it's because the residents are rotating at away private practice sites and getting B&B specialty cases instead of complex tertiary cases.

If one can't go to a pretty high tier university program, one is better off imo going to a quaternary hybrid megahealth place like Cleveland, Geisinger, Ochsner, etc. At least at those kind of places you know you'll be getting complex peds, cardiac, vascular, transplant, neuro etc

 

[fakin' the funk]

Hey all, very fortunate to have interviewed at these residency programs. Was wondering if I could grab some opinions from people here who are familiar with the programs and familiar with the trainees that graduate from these programs. My goal is to enter private practice and I cannot imagine myself getting into academics (at least the kind where you have to do research to get ahead)

My thoughts on UCSF: No doubt they are a top ranked program, and that I would come out of this program very well trained. I'd have to ability to get into academics, lead a department, but would I have my pick of private practice jobs anywhere in California?

Thoughts on Stanford: Is it as highly regarded as UCSF? Is the only difference between the two literally just the location? Because at this point I'm not sure how else to distinguish them.

Thoughts on UCSD: Excellent program. No doubt I'll be well trained. Not as highly academically regarded as Stanford or UCSF but I don't care - I'm just trying to get an amazing private practice job mainly in the location of my choice, again, not really interested in academics. Curious about the philosophy of the program, they stress early autonomy but I am wondering if that means I won't be taught very well by attendings there? I don't want them to just be there for induction and extubation, like I would prefer to have some sort of intraop teaching. Anyways that's my situation and I'd be happy to elaborate on anything else.

Basically at the end of the day, if I went to UCSF or Stanford would I be able to get a job anywhere in California, and would going to UCSD perhaps restrict me to getting any job in Southern California?

I did residency at UCSD, fellowship at Stanford, work in the Bay, and worked with a lot of UCSF grads along the way.

Where you get a (good) job is ultimately a) your desire to be in that geographic area and b) your connections / pipeline to (good) jobs in that area. E.g., UCSD has a strong pipeline in SoCal and the two Bay programs strong pipelines there.

As for differences in training, many have made lots of helpful comments, and my interview experiences are almost a decade old now. I will say, UCSD and UCSF grads tend to have more "autonomy" built into the program probably because of the county hospital experience. My experience at Stanford was that there was a lot more oversight. Size of the program matters. UCSD is definitely more "chill" than the Bay programs, and at least in my cohort UCSD had apparently much stronger regional training. If you know you have a subspecialty interest, that might sway you as well. Feel free to DM.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

So what you may find as an attending being "too hands on" is really someone watching out for the patient because many residents can only be alone in a room so long in the early years. Likewise, some programs may be so autonomous you may question if they're teaching anything because the attending is never around. This won't be obvious in an interview whether its on Zoom or in person. Just something to keep in mind.

This is definitely the thing that I'm worried about and thanks for articulating it for me. If there are any current UCSD residents on here it would be great to hear from you as well. And thank you to the other UCSD/Stanford/SF grads and everyone else too who have given me advice as well.

 

[epidural man]

Just heard some inside info about UCSD.

Apparently the incredible and awesome residency director (Dan Lee) was exchanged.

The thought is that the UCSD environment, once a giant in academics with big brains in the field, doesn't seem to be the academic place it once was.

That is sad. I always felt kinda cool being across town from such a big force in the field. But I suspect that may be the case all over. Young people maybe just don't care that much about science, and care more about making sure straws stay out of the ocean. Good for them I guess.

 

[nimbus]

Just heard some inside info about UCSD.

Apparently the incredible and awesome residency director (Dan Lee) was exchanged.

The thought is that the UCSD environment, once a giant in academics with big brains in the field, doesn't seem to be the academic place it once was.

That is sad. I always felt kinda cool being across town from such a big force in the field. But I suspect that may be the case all over. Young people maybe just don't care that much about science, and care more about making sure straws stay out of the ocean. Good for them I guess.

I don’t know the back story but in the past 30 years UCSD has had 2 residency directors. High turnover is not a problem for that position. Hopefully they’ve chosen someone as good as their predecessors.

 

[GassYous]

Just heard some inside info about UCSD.

Apparently the incredible and awesome residency director (Dan Lee) was exchanged.

The thought is that the UCSD environment, once a giant in academics with big brains in the field, doesn't seem to be the academic place it once was.

That is sad. I always felt kinda cool being across town from such a big force in the field. But I suspect that may be the case all over. Young people maybe just don't care that much about science, and care more about making sure straws stay out of the ocean. Good for them I guess.

Eh a lot of research these days are just crap. People thinking up stupid studies so they can put another line on their resume but no one reads it or cares. There's too much focus on wasting time by trying to force people into doing useless crap.

 

[abolt18]

Eh a lot of research these days are just crap. People thinking up stupid studies so they can put another line on their resume but no one reads it or cares. There's too much focus on wasting time by trying to force people into doing useless crap.

Seriously, it's always "hey do you want to do _____, would be a nice thing to add to your CV!".

I've literally never seen someone at my institution say "hey, I really think we can make a positive change with this. Do you want to be involved?"

 

[Twiggidy]

Seriously, it's always "hey do you want to do _____, would be a nice thing to add to your CV!".

I've literally never seen someone at my institution say "hey, I really think we can make a positive change with this. Do you want to be involved?"

That's how you advance in academics which leads to having the opportunity to get better gigs in academics. I used to think that because academic pay is typically lower they would be willing to take all the help they could get. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that's not the case anymore. They want someone who's doing something other than "just putting people to sleep" that they can show off to other institutions at ASA, SCA, Echo week, etc.

 

[deleted162650]

Apparently the incredible and awesome residency director (Dan Lee) was exchanged.

I would be more concerned with who the replacement is, than with the fact that Lee isn’t in the position any more.

I don’t know the back story but in the past 30 years UCSD has had 2 residency directors.

3. Wahrenbrock (sp?), Atwater, Lee.

 

[lakersbaby]

I would be more concerned with who the replacement is, than with the fact that Lee isn’t in the position any more.




3. Wahrenbrock (sp?), Atwater, Lee.

sources say its a pain guy named Dr. Beal who everyone likes not sure if he will be as big an advocate as I heard Dr. Lee was.