UCLA (full merit scholarship) vs. Stanford Med

[medddyyy]

Interested in hearing about the opportunities present at each school, both of which are amazing.

Also curious to know how much prestige weighs? UCLA is a highly ranked program, but not as high as Stanford. The David Geffen Award also holds much prestige...how will this affect choices for residency?

For those of you who ask, who says no to a 300K scholarship? This is just my opportunity to gather info from anonymous students who have gone through a similar decision process or who know specifics about each school.

Thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MrDoctorman]

Similar discussion: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/ucla-full-merit-scholarship-v-ucsf-is.1005785/#post-14046287

I am going through the same decision (substitute UCSF for Stanford), and every physician I have asked has told me the same thing: I would have to be a fool to turn down UCLA. It is a dream come true to be able to graduate without debt. In fact, you would literally be getting paid to go to medical school. Prestige is just to stroke your ego. Even then, AT MOST 33 out of 8000 applicants (0.4%) are offered the Geffen Scholarship, whereas the acceptance rate at Stanford is ~1.4%. You do the math on which is more prestigious!

Of course, if you think you would be happier overall at Stanford because of the environment, people, or what have you, then that is a different story. For me, I liked both schools when I interviewed. Stanford's campus is beautiful, but I am fond of UCLA as well. Palo Alto looks to be a bit dull compared to Westwood and LA. In the end, my vote is for UCLA.

Good luck with your decision, and maybe see you at second look!

 

[pyrrion89]

You know like half the people reading this thread are dying for you to go to Stanford. Most of us would love to have a free education AND life in the best part of LA at one of the best schools in America. I suppose if your parents are millionaires, go to Stanford.

 

[5dwn7]

Yeah I cannot imagine someone turning down 300k at UCLA to go to Stanford. Getting paid to go to med school vs. paying _____(I don't know how much you'd have to pay for Stanford with your finaid). .... ..... I guess it's about what you value. If you are rolling, maybe go to Stanford and make someone else ridiculously happy with the Geffen scholarship.

I found this an interesting discussion of prestige vs. what is in one's best interest (in general, not specifically med school related):

 

[orthos]

If you are strictly looking at a prestige vs. cost scenario, then by all means take the full ride scholarship. Any perceived prestige advantage you may have with a brand name is a non-factor, unless you are trying to enter academic medicine at top level institutions (and even then, as others have mentioned, the scholarship would be much more impressive than the Stanford name alone).

However, there are other factors that you should not ignore when making this decision, the chief among them, in my opinion, being overall happiness. I gave up a full tuition scholarship to be closer to family and friends and to be in a location that I preferred (I was even able to negotiate a better scholarship offer at the school I attended). In the end, I would do it again. Sure, I may have more debt now, but had I chosen the other school, my grades (and thus eligibility for the residency I wanted) would have suffered.

Again it depends on your goals, your current situation, whether or not there is a specific professor or research project you want to get involved with at either school, etc. The scholarship offer is an incredible opportunity, but money isn't everything.

 

[HelpMeChoosePlz]

I had a friend last year who chose Stanford in the same situation, much to everyone's surprise. He had physicians parents who, I'm assuming, were paying for med school. He now says he's very happy with the choice and would have done it again, because he wants to be a leader in healthcare and he thinks Stanford better prepares him for that based on the people he meets (students and faculty both). I'm not sure what I would do, but that might be helpful to know. I can ask him more in-depth if you want, just PM me.

Edit: I think he also was able to negotiate a scholarship offer from Stanford, but had chosen to go there even before he got the offer.

 

[DrCaliBoy]

I also went through the same issue but substitute Stanford for Columbia and UCSF and I decided to choose UCLA in a heartbeat. Just imagine having the opportunity to live in Weyburn Terrace, buy all your books, and eat what you want without having to worry about money. Plus it's UCLA, if you want to go into academics attending this institution would not hurt you one bit, i'm pretty sure you're a smart dude so you would do fine at either school. Like others have said, if your parents are very rich it may be another story but in my case I realized that this was an opportunity I couldn't pass up. Hope to meet you in the April 4th second look Geffen Scholarship mixer. Good luck with your decision.

 

[BlackBox]

Man, it's a full ride. This isn't even a question.

 

[Psai]

For real? 300k is a huge amount of money.

 

[1Sail0r]

Man, it's a full ride. This isn't even a question.

This.

 

[alpinism]

UCLA is one of the best med schools out there.

Unless your family is willing to pay for med school, Stanford is not with 300K.

 

[medddyyy]

Thanks for all of the input folks!

I posted on here because I was trying to make the "personal" decision that @orthos mentioned and not base my decision solely on finance. That being said, I am nowhere near rolling nor are my parents, so I would derive a lot of happiness from not having debt or money-related stress for four years!

I appreciate the thoughts on prestige @MrDoctorman and thanks for the video @5dwn7, it was quite a different analysis that I had not thought of. My favorite line, "When we have an opportunity to join elite institutions we are so enormously flattered and pleased with ourselves that we do things that are irrational." which is why I may have been led to post this thread in the first place, but as many of you have said, LA is no less elite and I should feel no less grateful for the opportunity.

Well, definitely looking to the re-visit weekend to make my final decision, see some of you there!

 

[medddyyy]

I had a friend last year who chose Stanford in the same situation, much to everyone's surprise. He had physicians parents who, I'm assuming, were paying for med school. He now says he's very happy with the choice and would have done it again, because he wants to be a leader in healthcare and he thinks Stanford better prepares him for that based on the people he meets (students and faculty both). I'm not sure what I would do, but that might be helpful to know. I can ask him more in-depth if you want, just PM me.

Edit: I think he also was able to negotiate a scholarship offer from Stanford, but had chosen to go there even before he got the offer.

I would definitely like to hear more in-depth about his decision-making process, as it is a bit contrary to the "general" viewpoint I am gathering from this page. If you get a chance, please do ask him! Thanks!

 

[medddyyy]

By the way, thanks for assuming I'm a dude/man people!

"This is a man's, man's, man's world..."

 

[Psai]

By the way, thanks for assuming I'm a dude/man people!

"This is a man's, man's, man's world..."

Dude, no one cares about your gender. It's the internet.

 

[catzzz88]

Imagine it like this: 20 years from now, you are standing on the side, ready to take the podium. A young man speaks to the audience, introducing your talents and history.

Many speakers who were introduced before you went to medical or graduate school at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, UCSF, WashU, etc.

However, when they introduce you as having received a full ride to medical school (at UCLA nonetheless), people's ears will perk up a bit. They will be listening and scrutinizing your talk, wondering: what did this person do to deserve that? What makes him/her so special? You will have some people to impress, and you will likely succeed. You have already succeeded in impressing so many (as evidenced by the incredible offers of admission to top medical schools). Just keep doing what you are doing. Take the scholarship; no one in their right mind will ever tell you you should have gone to Stanford.

Mind you: I might be a bit biased-- I'm taking the Geffen Scholarship too! 😉

See you on April 4th!

Best,
C

 

[jturkel]

not sure if anyone else mentioned this but LA >>>>>>>>>>> Palo Alto. and don't give me the SF argument. You wouldn't be living in SF.

and 100% go with the full ride to UCLA. what a deal and awesome medical school (you'll get better training there than at stanford b/c of the more diverse pathologies you'll see)

 

[sourdoughllama]

Imagine it like this: 20 years from now, you are standing on the side, ready to take the podium. A young man speaks to the audience, introducing your talents and history.

However, when they introduce you as having received a full ride to medical school (at UCLA nonetheless), people's ears will perk up a bit.

I highly doubt they're gonna introduce you got a scholarship to a school (no one cares?). If you're gonna go to a lower ranked school with a scholarship, do that and be confident in your decision. But don't expect people to be equally impressed by going around saying you got a scholarship at the lower ranked school. No one gives a ****

 

[catzzz88]

I highly doubt they're gonna introduce you got a scholarship to a school (no one cares?). If you're gonna go to a lower ranked school with a scholarship, do that and be confident in your decision. But don't expect people to be equally impressed by going around saying you got a scholarship at the lower ranked school. No one gives a ****

Not sure what introductions you have heard, but I have been to over 100 science/medicine talks across the US that have had a speaker being introduced and they often get into the nitty gritty. I have even heard mentions of undergrad institutions, grants, scholarships, Fulbright, and many many others. People do actually care... It's interetesting to hear someone's history, especially when there is something unique in there (like a full ride to medical school).

 

[orthos]

Not sure what introductions you have heard, but I have been to over 100 science/medicine talks across the US that have had a speaker being introduced and they often get into the nitty gritty. I have even heard mentions of undergrad institutions, grants, scholarships, Fulbright, and many many others. People do actually care... It's interetesting to hear someone's history, especially when there is something unique in there (like a full ride to medical school).

Not to discount your personal views, but many physicians do not care how they are introduced, nor if they impress their audience with their accolades. The only merit that such introductions have is to establish credibility as a speaker.

 

[catzzz88]

Not to discount your personal views, but many physicians do not care how they are introduced, nor if they impress their audience with their accolades. The only merit that such introductions have is to establish credibility as a speaker.

This does not discount my personal views. I completely agree with you!

 

[Ace-Co-A]

Always take the cheese...

 

[Underarchiever]

Imagine it like this: 20 years from now, you are standing on the side, ready to take the podium. A young man speaks to the audience, introducing your talents and history.

Many speakers who were introduced before you went to medical or graduate school at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, UCSF, WashU, etc.

However, when they introduce you as having received a full ride to medical school (at UCLA nonetheless), people's ears will perk up a bit. They will be listening and scrutinizing your talk, wondering: what did this person do to deserve that? What makes him/her so special? You will have some people to impress, and you will likely succeed. You have already succeeded in impressing so many (as evidenced by the incredible offers of admission to top medical schools). Just keep doing what you are doing. Take the scholarship; no one in their right mind will ever tell you you should have gone to Stanford.

Mind you: I might be a bit biased-- I'm taking the Geffen Scholarship too! 😉

See you on April 4th!

Best,
C

No, there will be no introduction of your medical school and undergraduate college if they are not awe-struck types of institutes regardless scholarship. Unless it is well known national scholarship such as Rhodes, Fullbright, Marshall, etc, it won't be mentioned either. The introduction will focus on your academic achievement, your contribution to the field and awards you have received. Yes, Stanford is a worthy mention in introduction, and UCLA? highly unlikely. If you are an unaccomplished junior speaker, your name and your current institute will be introduced, and it will be nothing more.

 

[medddyyy]

Imagine it like this: 20 years from now, you are standing on the side, ready to take the podium. A young man speaks to the audience, introducing your talents and history.

Many speakers who were introduced before you went to medical or graduate school at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, UCSF, WashU, etc.

However, when they introduce you as having received a full ride to medical school (at UCLA nonetheless), people's ears will perk up a bit. They will be listening and scrutinizing your talk, wondering: what did this person do to deserve that? What makes him/her so special? You will have some people to impress, and you will likely succeed. You have already succeeded in impressing so many (as evidenced by the incredible offers of admission to top medical schools). Just keep doing what you are doing. Take the scholarship; no one in their right mind will ever tell you you should have gone to Stanford.

Mind you: I might be a bit biased-- I'm taking the Geffen Scholarship too! 😉

See you on April 4th!

Best,
C

Thanks C! Congrats on the scholarship! I am definitely grateful and feel honored to have been awarded this scholarship. Since it has become a long discussion, I am going to be paying attention to my future talk introductions...who knows...

 

[medddyyy]

not sure if anyone else mentioned this but LA >>>>>>>>>>> Palo Alto. and don't give me the SF argument. You wouldn't be living in SF.

and 100% go with the full ride to UCLA. what a deal and awesome medical school (you'll get better training there than at stanford b/c of the more diverse pathologies you'll see)

Do you mind speaking more on the diverse pathologies? Do you feel this would be the case because of location? I feel that many interesting disease presentations would also be taken to a top institute as Stanford just as much as LA, but interested in hearing more.

Always take the cheese...

View attachment 179821

Gotcha!

 

[catzzz88]

Okay, since people here seem to be focusing on the fact that UCLA is a "lower-ranked" school, even going so far as to say that UCLA is unworthy of mentioning in an introduction, I thought I would post some information about UCLA for you to actually (hopefully) help your decision. UCLA and Stanford are both excellent schools. Stanford has a more prestigious name. Stanford is ranked as the #2 school overall and UCLA is ranked as the #12 school overall. No one is arguing that UCLA is more prestigious than Stanford. Stanford is in the game with Harvard, UPenn, and John Hopkins. If you didn't have the scholarship, Stanford would be a great choice. However, when asked whether the difference between Stanford and UCLA is worth over $300,000, you should consider many things. other than "prestige."

UCLA is ranked 13th in all medical schools for primary care training. Stanford is somewhere below the 30th ranking. Not sure if you are interested in a specific specialty, but if so, check out the rankings between the two schools.

UCLA Medical Center is ranked the #1 hospital in California and #3 in the nation by US News and the majority of nationally ranked specialties recieved a top 10 ranking. Stanford Hospital and Clinics are ranked the #2 hospital in California.

Stanford is ranked #2 for research, UCLA is ranked #12.

Here is a website that compares medical schools. I am not sure what "Smart Rank" is, but UCLA is ranked #4 and Stanford is ranked #10. I guess it is just another ranking measure, like USNWR. Not sure how good their numbers are, but it is a cool way to scroll down and directly compare information.

Both Stanford and UCLA are ranked in the "Top 10 Medical Schools With the Lowest Acceptance Rates."

Stanford has 22 Nobel Laureates, UCLA has 6 Nobel Laureates.

Both schools are awesome. The person who said that UCLA wouldn't be mentioned in an introduction is incorrect. But this isn't about introductions... I only gave that as an example of a hypothetical situation in which a full ride to medical school would be recognized. As many people have mentioned before, the Geffen Scholarship is something that you will want to put on your resume and it is one that will be recognized. This is only the second year they have had, but it is the only scholarship of it's kind (for now), and that says something about you. Just think about the big picture. People like you probably don't need the coat tails of Stanford to rise above. Make an impact in your field, show passion and dedication, be a superb physician. Do these things, and it will work the other way around... people will meet you and think more highly of UCLA than they had before!

Perhaps I have a tendency to be overly dramatic and theatrical... perhaps I am a bit too optimistic.... but it has certainly gotten me places! Plus, I tried to balance it out with factual links this time instead of an imaginary podium and an imaginary introduction! 🙂

Good luck!

Best,
C

 

[Patros]

Stanford is ranked #2 for research, UCLA is ranked #12.

Correction: Stanford is not ranked#2 for research, but ranked #2 among medical schools when accounting for research funding. It's not a measurement of research by itself, since it also incorporates reputation from surveys, teacher-student ratio, and so on.

Research by itself is a little different. According to the NIH Reporter for 2013, UCLA received $342M and Stanford received $358M. This puts them at 13th and 10th positions respectively, so the difference isn't as big as USNWR makes them seem. Overall research funding for the entire universities are ~$1350M for Stanford and ~$900M for UCLA, as per their websites. Long story short, they are both massive research powerhouses, the difference between them overall is likely to be insignificant.

For someone who didn't even apply to these schools, I did way too much research on them.

 

[catzzz88]

Correction: Stanford be not ranked#2 for research, but ranked #2 among medical schools when accountin' for research fundin'.

Thanks for the correction! Great additional info!

The closer you look, the narrower the gap is!

 

[Psai]

Correction: Stanford be not ranked#2 for research, but ranked #2 among medical schools when accountin' for research fundin'. it be not a measurement of research by itself, since it also incorporates reputation from surveys, teacher-student ratio, and so on.

Research by itself be a little different. Accordin' to t' NIH Reporter for 2013, UCLA received $342M and Stanford received $358M. This puts them at 13th and 10th positions respectively, so t' difference isn't as big as USNWR makes them seem. Overall research fundin' for t' entire universities be ~$1350M for Stanford and ~$900M for UCLA, as per their websites. Long story short, they be both massive research powerhouses, t' difference between them overall be likely to be insignificant.

For someone who didn't even apply to these schools, me did way too much research on them.

Out of this $350 million, a medical student's contribution will cost approximately $10,000 if even that much, assuming an interest in research. Keep that in mind as you slobber over research rankings.

 

[Patros]

Out of this $350 million, a medical student's contribution will cost approximately $10,000 if even that much, assuming an interest in research. Keep that in mind as you slobber over research rankings.

If you actually pay attention to what I wrote, you will find that I said the difference between UCLA and Stanford's research expenditures is insignificant. Maybe you should understand what someone is saying before you are condescending to them. Keep that in mind the next time you criticize someone.

Obviously Stanford, UCLA and the other institutes that get hundreds of millions of dollars will be able to fund medical students without a problem (which was my point earlier). Do you think this is also true for schools like NYMC or Albany MC, that get $5-10 million per year? This may not be important for you, which is fine. But for prospective physician-scientists like myself, you bet annual research expenditures is useful information.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Okay, since people here seem to be focusing on the fact that UCLA is a "lower-ranked" school, even going so far as to say that UCLA is unworthy of mentioning in an introduction, I thought I would post some information about UCLA for you to actually (hopefully) help your decision. UCLA and Stanford are both excellent schools. Stanford has a more prestigious name. Stanford is ranked as the #2 school overall and UCLA is ranked as the #12 school overall. No one is arguing that UCLA is more prestigious than Stanford. Stanford is in the game with Harvard, UPenn, and John Hopkins. If you didn't have the scholarship, Stanford would be a great choice. However, when asked whether the difference between Stanford and UCLA is worth over $300,000, you should consider many things. other than "prestige."

UCLA is ranked 13th in all medical schools for primary care training. Stanford is somewhere below the 30th ranking. Not sure if you are interested in a specific specialty, but if so, check out the rankings between the two schools.

UCLA Medical Center is ranked the #1 hospital in California and #3 in the nation by US News and the majority of nationally ranked specialties recieved a top 10 ranking. Stanford Hospital and Clinics are ranked the #2 hospital in California.

Stanford is ranked #2 for research, UCLA is ranked #12.

Here is a website that compares medical schools. I am not sure what "Smart Rank" is, but UCLA is ranked #4 and Stanford is ranked #10. I guess it is just another ranking measure, like USNWR. Not sure how good their numbers are, but it is a cool way to scroll down and directly compare information.

Both Stanford and UCLA are ranked in the "Top 10 Medical Schools With the Lowest Acceptance Rates."

Stanford has 22 Nobel Laureates, UCLA has 6 Nobel Laureates.

Both schools are awesome. The person who said that UCLA wouldn't be mentioned in an introduction is incorrect. But this isn't about introductions... I only gave that as an example of a hypothetical situation in which a full ride to medical school would be recognized. As many people have mentioned before, the Geffen Scholarship is something that you will want to put on your resume and it is one that will be recognized. This is only the second year they have had, but it is the only scholarship of it's kind (for now), and that says something about you. Just think about the big picture. People like you probably don't need the coat tails of Stanford to rise above. Make an impact in your field, show passion and dedication, be a superb physician. Do these things, and it will work the other way around... people will meet you and think more highly of UCLA than they had before!

Perhaps I have a tendency to be overly dramatic and theatrical... perhaps I am a bit too optimistic.... but it has certainly gotten me places! Plus, I tried to balance it out with factual links this time instead of an imaginary podium and an imaginary introduction! 🙂

Good luck!

Best,
C

This is wonderful and all, but everyone here recognizes UCLA is a great med school just like Stanford is already. You're trying way too hard to compare UCLA to Stanford, and to most people there is a difference in prestige. Like many have said on this website, there is a steep drop in prestige past the top 5 or so. If you feel comfortable with that gap because of 300K (and if you're economically savvy, you should be taking that money), then that's awesome and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. But you're fighting a losing battle here if you think you should be recognized for a full ride - and sorry, it is nowhere near a Rhodes/Full Bright.

 

[bullseye46]

Correction: Stanford is not ranked#2 for research, but ranked #2 among medical schools when accounting for research funding. It's not a measurement of research by itself, since it also incorporates reputation from surveys, teacher-student ratio, and so on.

Research by itself is a little different. According to the NIH Reporter for 2013, UCLA received $342M and Stanford received $358M. This puts them at 13th and 10th positions respectively, so the difference isn't as big as USNWR makes them seem. Overall research funding for the entire universities are ~$1350M for Stanford and ~$900M for UCLA, as per their websites. Long story short, they are both massive research powerhouses, the difference between them overall is likely to be insignificant.

For someone who didn't even apply to these schools, I did way too much research on them.

USNWR lists 2,665 full-time faculty for UCLA and 874 full-time faculty for Stanford would indicate the difference between them is not nearly as small as you tried to indicate. USNWR changed their ranking formula to take into account the size of the school and not just the total research funding they received. This is the primary reason Stanford rose so quickly in the past few years.

not sure if anyone else mentioned this but LA >>>>>>>>>>> Palo Alto. and don't give me the SF argument. You wouldn't be living in SF.

and 100% go with the full ride to UCLA. what a deal and awesome medical school (you'll get better training there than at stanford b/c of the more diverse pathologies you'll see)

More diverse pathologies != better clinical training

Anyway, UCLA is a great medical school and assuming what will likely be the price difference (certainly not 300k but Stanford has a limit on the amount of grants they offer), I would personally find it hard to turn down UCLA. Great choices and good luck.

 

[catzzz88]

But you're fighting a losing battle here if you think you should be recognized for a full ride - and sorry, it is nowhere near a Rhodes/Full Bright.

National acceptance rate for a Fulbright is 20% ...

However, only 32 Americans are chosen annually for the Rhodes Scholarship. So, that's actually pretty on point with the Geffen Scholarship (33 applicants chosen annually).

 

[sourdoughllama]

National acceptance rate for a Fulbright is 20% ...

However, only 32 Americans are chosen annually for the Rhodes Scholarship. So, that's actually pretty on point with the Geffen Scholarship (33 applicants chosen annually).

Ok dude

 

[jturkel]

Do you mind speaking more on the diverse pathologies? Do you feel this would be the case because of location? I feel that many interesting disease presentations would also be taken to a top institute as Stanford just as much as LA, but interested in hearing more.

Interviewed at ucla for medical school and both for residency so I'm a bit familiar with the programs. Stanford has a VA, private/university, and a "county hospital" whereas ucla has two counties, a VA, and Ronald Reagan. Reagan is the top hospital on the west coast and has the second sickest patients in the country (I forget who after and no I don't have a source but I had one when I was interviewing for residency). Reagan is a major transplant center and you'll see things not seen elsewhere. The population of LA is also much different than that of Palo Alto....primarily affluent though the hospitals still get referrals for unusual cases.....just not quite at the same level or to the same degree. They are more research heavy than clinically heavy. When interviewing for residency I can say that many residents at Stanford felt uncomfortable treating HIV or TB patients because they just don't have that many compared to other paces such as UcLa....San Francisco has plenty of that but they have their own hospital over there in ucsf. I have two friends who are finishing their third yr of medical school at Stanford and they say they see a lot of the typical stuff, but agree that they've had minimal experience at most with things like Tb and HIV. I'm not as sure about where rotations are done for Stanford med students, but I don't THINK they do much at "their" county hospital which is Santa Clara valley state. You really want a true mix of hospital/patient settings so you not only see the different pathologies, but also work with different patient populations and even learn how medicine is practiced in different settings.

I want to make it known that I am in NO way saying that Stanford is an awful school or that one is better than the other. You can go to either and come out very prepared for residency and get to where ever you want to go. I just think one has a different focus than the other and one is free...and Also LA >>>> Palo Alto lol. And it's not crazy to pass up the name of Stanford for a full scholly to UCLA. If you'd like to talk to me specifically about it more feel free to send me a pvt msg

 

[Patros]

USNWR lists 2,665 full-time faculty for UCLA and 874 full-time faculty for Stanford would indicate the difference between them is not nearly as small as you tried to indicate. USNWR changed their ranking formula to take into account the size of the school and not just the total research funding they received. This is the primary reason Stanford rose so quickly in the past few years.

I always suspected that the grants per investigator would be pretty high at Stanford, but three times as high as UCLA? That's pretty nuts. Of course, "full-time faculty" may not be proportional to the number of PIs, so the comparison might be a bit muddled. Still, it's very impressive. Anyway as far as OP is concerned as a medical student, the research numbers are basically "really really high" for both places.

 

[jturkel]

Also.....idk about this whole intro thing....who cares? At my top 20 school and when I was interviewing for residency at top 5 hospitals, they introduced the persons name and program....whether it was Hopkins or joe shmo no name program. The point is that you got somewhere...not to show off. Whoever is concerned about the introduction to a grand rounds or talk is not looking at this the right way.

And regarding the scholarship things.....I have no clue what the geffen is...or was. Sounds like a great deal. Maybe it's as hard to get as the Fulbright or Rhodes. Or even harder.......but those two are more well known so it doesn't matter. And srsly who cares guys...

 

[Underarchiever]

National acceptance rate for a Fulbright is 20% ...

However, only 32 Americans are chosen annually for the Rhodes Scholarship. So, that's actually pretty on point with the Geffen Scholarship (33 applicants chosen annually).

Some school specific merit scholarship has only one awardee per year, it does not make it more well known or more meritorious than Fullbright or Rhodes. If it is not widely known in the country, introducer needs to take pain to explain what the merit of that scholarship is based on: personal contribution? Service? Research? Leadership? Or simply a good applicant the school wants to recruit. The latter one isn't much to brag about unless you have done something special leading to that scholarship.

Stanford name does have an aura. It turns head inside or outside the medical field. But it may not worth 300k. If OP has no money concern, and likes Stanford better, Stanford would be a natural choice. Otherwise, UCLA would be an overwhelming favorite, especially if OP wants to practice in academic setting where pay is generally lower.

 

[catzzz88]

Some school specific merit scholarship has only one awardee per year, it does not make it more well known or more meritorious than Fullbright or Rhodes. If it is not widely known in the country, introducer needs to take pain to explain what the merit of that scholarship is based on: personal contribution? Service? Research? Leadership? Or simply a good applicant the school wants to recruit. The latter one isn't much to brag about unless you have done something special leading to that scholarship.

Stanford name does have an aura. It turns head inside or outside the medical field. But it may not worth 300k. If OP has no money concern, and likes Stanford better, Stanford would be a natural choice. Otherwise, UCLA would be an overwhelming favorite, especially if OP wants to practice in academic setting where pay is generally lower.

Very true, and to second what many others have said here: students from top 20 institutions in general will have no problem getting into top residencies as long as you remain a top student in your class and do well on the Step 1.

OP, take a look at the match lists for UCLA and Stanford. You will find incredible matches at top programs for both schools. Both Stanford and UCLA are known to be fillers for the top California-based residencies as well, so if you are keen on staying in California long term, both would help you do that.

I feel like everyone here has given you a wide range of opinions and sources to help you make your decision, but going to second look will most certainly help more!

 

[Psai]

If you actually pay attention to what I wrote, you will find that I said the difference between UCLA and Stanford's research expenditures is insignificant. Maybe you should understand what someone is saying before you are condescending to them. Keep that in mind the next time you criticize someone.

Obviously Stanford, UCLA and the other institutes that get hundreds of millions of dollars will be able to fund medical students without a problem (which was my point earlier). Do you think this is also true for schools like NYMC or Albany MC, that get $5-10 million per year? This may not be important for you, which is fine. But for prospective physician-scientists like myself, you bet annual research expenditures is useful information.

You're going to be working in one lab. It doesn't matter how much funding your school gets in aggregate if your PI can't get any grants. "for prospective physician-scientists like myself" don't waste time with a Ph.D. because the competition is tough for both funding and for academic positions so you might find yourself doing 3-4 post-docs with no future. Keep looking down on schools due to their supposed lack of research money though since that seems to make you feel better.

 

[solitarius]

Gonna give the residents/Attendings benefit of the doubt and suggest that maybe prestige is less important than we think it is.

Anyways... for med school in California, I think Stanford and the 3 big UCs are on the same level.

 

[Patros]

You're going to be working in one lab. It doesn't matter how much funding your school gets in aggregate if your PI can't get any grants. "for prospective physician-scientists like myself" don't waste time with a Ph.D. because the competition is tough for both funding and for academic positions so you might find yourself doing 3-4 post-docs with no future. Keep looking down on schools due to their supposed lack of research money though since that seems to make you feel better.

I'm honestly not sure why you are being hostile, especially when you don't have a dog in this fight. Let me make these points and you can agree or disagree, doesn't matter to me.

1) It DOES matter how much funding your school (or at least, department) gets. First of all, each institution receives a T32 training grant which will determine how much money the school has to spend on students. Bigger schools can afford to spend more freely on student training. Second, in a department that gets more funding, you will have an easier time finding someone whose interests align with yours. Third, research isn't done in a vacuum. For the best training, you want multiple PIs within your department so you have a good collaborative environment. You don't want to be the only person in your institution working on a unique field.

2) I'm aware that competition is tough, but it is not relevant to this discussion of Stanford vs UCLA. If anything, that highlights the importance of going to a place with lots of connections. Anyway, I will be sure to let the MD/PhDs I work with know that they are wasting their time. Also I will shoot off an email to Francis Collins and tell him to resign as director of NIH and to return his Nobel. Sarcasm aside, research is a vocation and some people want to discover therapies and direct labs, and for these people a PhD is not a waste of time.

3) Again, it is not a matter of "looking down on schools," but one of fact. If you look on the websites of the schools I used as examples, you will see that their summer research programs are for a "limited number" or "select" students. These disclaimers are rare in high research-productivity schools. This says nothing about quality of education, only about how easy it is to get a funded research position.

 

[Psai]

Cool story bro but this is medical school, not graduate school.

 

[MrDoctorman]

Cool story bro but this is medical school, not graduate school.

Such negativity...

 

[jturkel]

this thread is still going? i'm actually in shock. this is the easiest X vs Y i've encountered on sdn

 

[jvquarterback]

Not quite the same scenario but I had to decide between your two schools and WashU with a scholarship. I took the money and went to St Louis and spent the next 9 years there, and another 3 in private practice nearby, before I made my way back west and am now in I consider the ideal private practice location for my specialty. If you ask me now whether I would trade 250K for 9-12 years in California, I'm still uncertain which was the best choice. I'm happy, but I would probably be happy if I had gone the other way too.

Ask yourself what you want? Academic medicine? It doesn't matter where you train. Some academic center will hire you and underpay you no matter which option you pick. Private practice? That's a different story, though neither option will limit you for just about any position in California. If you're aiming for a super-competitive residency like I was ask around and check the match lists for that residency. Nobody at WashU had matched in California in my specialty in 10 years. It sounds like you're a smart enough guy to get the residency you want, but you'll have do do some work,including away rotations and the like either way.

BTW I'm from LA and I wouldn't live there for a 50% raise on what I make now. I turned down jobs in both LA and Palo Alto for one on the central coast.

In the end I think the answer should be pretty easy.

 

[TxC]

Not quite the same scenario but I had to decide between your two schools and WashU with a scholarship. I took the money and went to St Louis and spent the next 9 years there, and another 3 in private practice nearby, before I made my way back west and am now in I consider the ideal private practice location for my specialty. If you ask me now whether I would trade 250K for 9-12 years in California, I'm still uncertain which was the best choice. I'm happy, but I would probably be happy if I had gone the other way too.

Ask yourself what you want? Academic medicine? It doesn't matter where you train. Some academic center will hire you and underpay you no matter which option you pick. Private practice? That's a different story, though neither option will limit you for just about any position in California. If you're aiming for a super-competitive residency like I was ask around and check the match lists for that residency. Nobody at WashU had matched in California in my specialty in 10 years. It sounds like you're a smart enough guy to get the residency you want, but you'll have do do some work,including away rotations and the like either way.

BTW I'm from LA and I wouldn't live there for a 50% raise on what I make now. I turned down jobs in both LA and Palo Alto for one on the central coast.

In the end I think the answer should be pretty easy.

I'd be surprised if OP is still trying to decide where to go.

 

[NeuResurgens]

Take the money and Fly, you Fool.

 

[DSM_302.0]

What did you decide?