UCLA vs Stanford vs UW-Seattle

[PhineasGage]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey all,

Longtime lurker here...making out my rank list. I wanted to thank some of this forum's stalwarts for their great posts over the last yr+ (e.g. GopherBrain, scm, syrinx, drgirl, crackerjack, neurologist) that have helped me get to this point.

So I'm grappling with how to rank these programs (as well as Yale -- see other thread). Since my #1 and #2 programs are longshots, there's a good chance I'll end up at one of the following 4: UCLA, Stanford, UW, or Yale. While UCLA is the biggest "name," and personal factors may be decisive, I'm trying to think objectively about each program independent of location. I'll give my nutshell impressions of each, and see what y'all think. Keep in mind these are my personal biases (seeking academic neuro in an undecided subspecialty), and please fire away with your arguments. Since few specifics have been posted on these programs, I hope I'm not reinventing the wheel here.

UCLA
Pros -- LA! great clinical exposure (huge pt pop), amazing new hospital set to open, front-loaded call with great lifestyle after pgy-2, wide variety of patients, specialists in virtually every field, lots of residents (can handle absences), good didactics. many go into academics. almost all do fellowships. laid-back atmosphere w/ attendings. program seems flush with money. gets lots of donations from wealthy socal-ites. LOTS of freedom/flexibility with electives. good research opportunities if you pursue them. good relationship w/ queen's square in london for electives.
Cons -- LA! 4 hospitals, very spread out. Residents don't work as hard as SF (or maybe UW) -- are they learning less or just have a better lifestyle? Many stay in LA for fellowship -- are their options limited, or do they just love SoCal? Research opportunities are good, but may not be on par with other top tier programs...? Other PDs/chairs have hinted the program may not be tightly organized. Lots of freedom -- if you need structure to be productive, it may not be for you.

Stanford
Pros -- Beautiful location and facilities. Small tight-knit community. Good didactics. Good qual of life. Night float system, home call except at SUH. County hospital exposure at SCVH, which I've heard is much nicer than the average county hospital (same interesting patients, but in a nicer facility). Opening a new Neurological Institute at Stanford, which could mean more money, faculty, research opportunities, as well as links with biotech industry. Per chair, residents are busy from a statistical point of view ("just as many discharges as SF"). With closure of an adjacent non-Stanford hosptial in San Jose, volume will prob increase at SCVH. Outstanding research opportunities, lots of good basic neurosci if interested. good stroke research. strong in epilepsy. Good fellowships for alum (e.g. Stanford, Harvard, SF, LA). Fairly academic.
Cons -- May lose good cases to UCSF. SCVH situation could be chaos if the volume increases dramatically without a system to handle this (pure speculation). Expensive place to live -- all the costs of SF without the excitement. Less elective time than LA (3 mo/yr), but more rotations are required here. 3 wks vaca/yr (isn't 4 the standard? not that I would decide based on this 😉 ). Few residents, so tough to handle absences. Not as "respected" as SF or LA by most faculty I've spoken with.

UW-Seattle
Pros -- Seattle. Dynamic chair (Ransom) who has recruited very successfully. Hired approx 40 faculty in 12 yrs. Prog growing exponentially (well... at least linearly at a steep slope 🙄 ). Storng clinical training; residents work hard, but are comfortable managing just about anything. Good variety of patients with huge cachement area. Lots of research. Residents get excellent fellowships (anecdotal, did not see a list in writing). Specialists in all the major fields, though depth of coverage less than LA (but maybe > than Stanford? not sure...). Call is frontloaded, but you seem to get worked in all yrs. 50% do academics, but I'm guessing that number may increase, given the culture that I sensed there. Flush with Micro$oft cash.
Cons -- Seasonal affective disorder. Facilities spread out; tough to attend didactics. Amt of medical mgmt done by neuro might be a little excessive. ER at Harborview is run by a former Neurologist, so you get called a LOT more than the average ER. You might learn more initially, but there must be a law of diminishing returns in working up the umpteenth SAH or DTs before neurosurg or medicine takes them. Not a lot of in-house fellowhsips, but you can apparently gerryrig your own if you're resourceful. Also, their website speaks of an impending "neuro-hospitalist" fellowship at harborview which sounds interesting -- and I forgot to ask about on interview day. I think its an up-and-coming underrated program, but that still means the name "UW" doesn't have as much pull around the country...yet.

So, anyone have thoughts to add? Any blatant misstatements here? How would you rank these?

-- PhineasGage

PS At all three places, either the PD or chair said virtually the same thing: "The only program on the West Coast that compares to us is UCSF."

 

[GopherBrain]

I didn't actually visit any of these places, but I'll give you my impression based on general reputation, and interview trail gossip.

#1 UCLA. This has the best reputation of the three. They are strong in most every subspecialty. Plus, you are in LA, and the lifestyle isn't bad. I generally think that if people have a bunch of programs they like equally, they ought to decide based on academic clout. However, I plan to stay in academic neurology, so that biases me.

#2 UWashington. Right behind UCSF and UCLA in west coast prestige. I think that this is already a respected name. Maybe the average guy on the street doesn't think of UW as an academic powerhouse, but they do good neurology. So buy a lightbox, develop a taste for espresso, and think about Seattle.

#3 Stanford. Why live in the shadow of the giant? All the crap parts about living near SF (cost mainly) without the benefits. They are super strong in stroke, and some other areas, but I think they are #3 on this list (it's a tough crowd). Even if it were tied for #2 academically with UWash, I think the cost of living would put me over the edge.


On the topic of UCLA, I would like to share my new life-goal with SDN. I want to work hard and someday become PD at UCLA, or even chairman. Then I will frame the snotty interview rejection letter that they mailed me, and hang it on the wall behind my desk. Only damn place that didn't want to talk to me! 😀

 

[scm]

thanks for those posts, really well done. i basically agree with the order above, but i didnt apply to UCLA(wouldnt want to live there), didnt interview at Stanford..however i actually didnt think about UW so favorably after my visit...really didnt seem like a great enviroment in which to do residency. honestly at this point i would go with the program that felt right for you(vs reputation) in descending order. these differences in name, and various aspects of curriculum etc, are small and will really IMHO not matter in the end. many of the neuro subspecialties are small communities, if you work with one well known person at any program, it can really help. many of the big names in various subspecialties didnt goto top tier institutions. you'll be going to a great place regardless.. i wouldnt worry about reputation among these places-i doubt you'll have trouble going where you want afterward . personally ive consistently gone to schools (undergrad, perhaps med school) where it just felt right for me, and i knew thrive, choosing these places over big name ivy league places i also was accepted to.. .. im ranking Oregon, Michigan, Rush, and UNC before U Washington, and I loved Seattle and wished I couldve lived there, but I just felt that UW wouldnt provide an optimal experience in many regards(im sure you saw my other post for specifics, also the post by neurologist in another thread on inpt/outpt). my point ultimately is just rank these based on what felt best to you..

 

[jacksonianmarch]

I am considering ranking Utah and OHSU over UW and Stanford..... For anyone that has interviewed at a few of these programs, can you provide any insight? 😕

 

[tofurious]

I interviewed at UCLA and Stanford last year and turned down UDub for many reasons. While UCLA had the feeling of the large west coast program (the PD's office was as impressive as any Hollywood exec's and it has top research dollars (I think they have the most $$$ in neuroscience from NIH), I thought that Stanford had a charm that was difficult to explain. Most of its faculty were from UCSF, and with the start of the new neurological institute you know things are going to grow exponentially very soon. The only concern I had last year with Stanford was the chairman change, which usually spells a different direction for a program that won't completely take shape for a few years. However, Stanford remains one of the top choices for me for a post-doc type fellowship given its strong basic research at the university level and application for junior faculty.

 

[PhineasGage]

On the topic of UCLA, I would like to share my new life-goal with SDN. I want to work hard and someday become PD at UCLA, or even chairman. Then I will frame the snotty interview rejection letter that they mailed me, and hang it on the wall behind my desk. Only damn place that didn't want to talk to me! 😀

I will do the same at Columbia. Together, we can run the two most bitter, vindictive programs in the USA's two largest cities.

-PG

 

[PhineasGage]

Stanford had a charm that was difficult to explain.... Stanford remains one of the top choices for me for a post-doc type fellowship given its strong basic research at the university level and application for junior faculty.

Yes, I get the feeling Stanford is an ideal place for fellows -- better than for residency. But that's just a gut feeling.

Thanks to all for their responses. This really helps.

-PG

 

[syrinx]

I will do the same at Columbia. Together, we can run the two most bitter, vindictive programs in the USA's two largest cities.

-PG

Both the chairmen at Columbia and UW are alum of the Stanford neurology residency.

I actually ended up canceling Stanford, UCLA, and UW so I didn't get a chance to visit. By reputation, UCLA is clearly the best of the three. However, Bruce Ransom (UW) is a great chairman and a well-known glia cell neurobiologist. I met him at a conference three years ago and found him to be a terrific person.
At my UCSF interview, I found that many of the residents were Stanford Med graduates. They did complain that Stanford pays their residents a LOT more than at UCSF.

Go with your gut feeling. Before this all started, Columbia was my clear #1.
After all the visits, they are at best #6.

 

[kasimagore1]

One other thing to consider is the prelim program. I think of the 3, UW is the only one that offers an integrated prelim year. UW internal Medicine residency is actually one of the most competitive programs, and the residents are super bright and competent. It's almost a bonus if you match at UW for neurology and that you also get a year of training at one of the terrific medicine progams. You will be confident and comfortable after your prelim training to handle the majority of medical problems of your neuro patients. I do agree that UW neurology is more inpatient oriented compared to others (michigan, for example), but so are many powerhouse programs (columbia and UCSF, for example). The part that you mentioned about the ER director at Harborview being a neurologist is funny----since he is so confident of neurology residents' ability in managing medical problems, he used to send everyone who came to the ER door with any neurological derangement to be admitted to neurology service...this however, has been changed for the past few years, but you still see a fair amount of ETOH W/D, Drug OD patients in additional to many weird cases from the 5 state catchment area with advanced neurological symptoms and have never seen a doctor in their adult lives. Lastly, as a N1, you are actually acting as a manager and not a res-intern because you will have two strong UW internal medicine interns working under you.

 

[crackerjack]

wow, this is a really great thread. this is actually helping me with my match list right now. the thing is, im actually going with location. location, location. in that same vein, the prelim year is very important to me. for example, i did prelim interviews in all the places where i did neuro interviews-- if i didnt get a prelim interview in the same city/program, i did not go to the interview. so, phineas, if youre like me, youll think-- gee, in a year, im going to have to move all my crap, find a new place to live, meet more people, etc all during my one week of vacation in the summer, and that blows. so that is something to consider (as writ above). i love seattle, i didnt interview at uw (punks didnt ask me) but thats fine-- im not too offended. it is an awesome program and i would have enjoyed living there. as for stanford standing behind ucsf, that may indeed be true, but why is it that i preferred umaryland to hopkins, and theyre both in baltimore? i just did. i liked the feel of the program better, i liked the people i met better, and in the end, id go to maryland over hopkins any day (if i was okay with living with baltimore which im not completely convinced of). and, i do want a career in academia, i am just not willing to go to a place where i didnt get a good vibe (despite hopkins being unarguably one of the best places for neuro in the country).

its all going to come down to your gut. im sure that you will make the right choice (if you havent already). as for me-- my list is being formulated in my head right now... and im faxing it later today. oh geez. my heart just started going a little faster.
location, location! right.

 

[tofurious]

so, phineas, if youre like me, youll think-- gee, in a year, im going to have to move all my crap, find a new place to live, meet more people, etc all during my one week of vacation in the summer, and that blows. so that is something to consider (as writ above).

I think many people share your viewpoint, cj. Many people decide to only interview for prelim spots in the same city as your top neuro choices or where you are going to med school so you only have to move once one way or the other.