UCLA PRIME-LA vs UCSF-JMP vs Kaiser

[anotherpremed6116]

I’m a URM CA applicant and honestly really grateful for the options I have as someone with average stats. Just wanted to share my thoughts and would love to hear what others think. Also forgot to add that my partner and I have been doing long distance for 2 years so we would love to not have to do it going forward but would be okay with doing it for a bit longer if I decided on the JMP (they are not able to move with me up to norcal for a variety of reasons). Side note: I’m also on the waitlist for the UCSF traditional track, which I’ve heard offers better financial aid than the JMP program—so that could shift things if I get off the waitlist. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hydroflaskhomie]

Dang, that UCSF debt really sucks.

I would take UCLA here and reconsider only if you get off UCSF main WL with equivalent aid.

JMP is a great program (disclosure: I was rejected after an II), but I do think the hit of being in Berkeley in a small cohort for a few years is a significant con that is definitely not worth it alongside that debt.

Kaiser you have to drive all over LA unless they've changed that - you could be placed at the site in Long Beach and be given an hour to get from Pasadena there which as you know as a local isn't always feasible. Small class size is not my preference, but this is a personal thing.

P/F clinicals is such a gift. Westwood is close to a bunch of other pockets of LA with different character if you don't vibe with it. 1.5 preclinical in my opinion is the perfect balance. UCLA is an established brand in medicine while Kaiser is a new player.

 

[newkungfukenny]

UCLA

 

[jvquarterback]

UCLA. Kaiser is enticing by saving you a year which should be viewed as equivalent to at least 150k debt. Congrats.

If UCSF in 4 years is on the table I'd definitely take that option if COA is < 150k difference.

 

[anotherpremed6116]

UCLA. Kaiser is enticing by saving you a year which should be viewed as equivalent to at least 150k debt. Congrats.

If UCSF in 4 years is on the table I'd definitely take that option if COA is < 150k difference.

Thank you! Will definitely be considering UCSF if I am taken off the WL. I'm confused on why the extra year should be viewed as 150 k debt? They cover the masters year if I stay at UCLA (which I probably will) and will also give me a 20,000 living stipend (about half of what I am getting as a living stipend for my MD years but probably won't need much more as I will be living with my partner). Outside of that my 4 years of the MD program are completely covered. But all of Kaiser's other free items is definitely enticing.

 

[jvquarterback]

Thank you! Will definitely be considering UCSF if I am taken off the WL. I'm confused on why the extra year should be viewed as 150 k debt? They cover the masters year if I stay at UCLA (which I probably will) and will also give me a 20,000 living stipend (about half of what I am getting as a living stipend for my MD years but probably won't need much more as I will be living with my partner). Outside of that my 4 years of the MD program are completely covered. But all of Kaiser's other free items is definitely enticing.

The net present value of the lost year’s wages is worth >150k if you take five years rather than four to graduate. Unless the mph is going to change your life (it probably won’t and you can learn the material on your own and I don’t think anyone has ever gotten a job over someone else by adding mph after their md) I’d opt for four years.

Really I’m just telling you what you already know: weigh the benefits of the different programs like you are but assign a value to the extra year two of those programs will cost you.