UCSF--Avoid at all costs

Med School Insiders
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
MyOdyssey said:
They won't release an unofficial numerical score to go with that pass? Also no high passes, medium passes and low passes?
Click to expand...
No -- that would defeat the purpose. If you have an "unofficial score" and it is good, you will use it. And if you don't, that will say something as well. They have scores now. If they wanted to keep them, they would. In the future, to reduce stress associated with scoring, whether or not "official," you will either be deemed proficient, or not. No more ability to distingush yourself.

This is why premeds are stressing about this change and what it will mean for high tier, low tier, DO, etc. But, fear not. You will still be able to stress about Step 2, and distinguish yourself there, which will surely become the substitute for residency programs that want to stratify you, which will be all of them! 🙂
Members don't see this ad.
 
KnightDoc said:
No -- that would defeat the purpose. If you have an "unofficial score" and it is good, you will use it. And if you don't, that will say something as well. They have scores now. If they wanted to keep them, they would. In the future, to reduce stress associated with scoring, whether or not "official," you will either be deemed proficient, or not. No more ability to distingush yourself.

This is why premeds are stressing about this change and what it will mean for high tier, low tier, DO, etc. But, fear not. You will still be able to stress about Step 2, and distinguish yourself there, which will surely become the substitute for residency programs that want to stratify you, which will be all of them! 🙂
Click to expand...
By the time current premeds are ready for step 2 may be they will make that P/F too.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
goaliethrowaway said:
Hey man totally valid question. I think the biggest difference is that UCLA had a wealthy donor (David Geffen) who funded a $300 million unrestricted endowment for the medical school, and that goes a long ways toward medical student scholarships/grants. UCSF has obviously had wealthy donors too (see Zuckerberg Hospital, Helen Diller), and there are even rumors about a potentially similar donation for tuition purposes coming in the future, but currently they don't have the financial resources to aggressively recruit students with full tuition/COA scholarship offers like UCLA does with their Geffen Scholarship. Thankfully, I do think the UCSF name and reputation attracts many students regardless of the school's relatively less wealthy merit scholarship pool.

For IS vs. OOS, I think a lot of it comes down to location more so than IS vs. OOS tuition (because you can apply for IS status once admitted.) This is personal conjecture of course (I don't have any stats on this), but anecdotally (GroupMe, FB page, conversations with classmates) I noticed that a lot of students who were accepted to UCSF and Harvard, for example, would choose Harvard if they wanted to live on the east coast and UCSF if they wanted to stay in California. And honestly that's totally valid with the massive amount of residency inbreeding at these top schools. Personally, I can speak to the fact that my financial aid package at UCSF was far more generous than comparable private schools (think Harvard, Hopkins, Penn etc.) with similar policies of strictly need based aid. I do think UCSF provides students generous need-based aid, and this may be one advantage if you are from a low SES background. Merit aid is limited and rarely at the level of say a full tuition/COA scholarship.
Click to expand...
I think we are very much agreeing with each other. The comparison between Harvard and UCSF is very appropriate, since they are both very highly regarded schools that don't do merit aid. It's also interesting that you mentioned that you received a very generous package. This makes you pretty much the same as everyone else -- money doesn't matter until it does, which is when you have choices. Would you have really made the same choice if UCSF cost significantly more than your other choices?

UCSF doesn't do merit because it doesn't have the funding, not because CA public schools don't do that. Harvard doesn't do it either, and it certainly could if it felt the need. Bottom line -- non-need based aid is a tool schools use, very effectively to attract the students they want. Irrelevant to applicants like you, because you are eligible for generous funding regardless. Others aren't in that position, but money drives their decisions just like it was a factor in yours. If and when schools like Harvard and UCSF start losing too many students to competitors over money, all of a sudden funding will become available.
 
goaliethrowaway said:
I also think we are basically on the same page.

A couple things though:

1. My financial aid package was generous relative to need-based packages at other comparable private schools. I definitely did not receive a full tuition or full COA offer from UCSF, and in fact turned down a full COA merit scholarship to attend UCSF. My argument is that UCSF's need-based aid is relatively generous; it's merit aid from other schools that make UCSF comparably less affordable.
2. I would argue that funding tends to correlate with public vs. private status, so this is just arguing over semantics at this point.
3. There is an argument to be made that merit aid perpetuates inequity because it diverts funds away from less wealthy applicants by offering aid on the basis of factors other than financial need (see this NEJM perspective piece). I think this is a contentious argument with room for debate, but if we accept it as partly true it makes sense why UCSF, a school known for its social justice and progressive streak, would tend to favor need-based over merit aid (unless, as @TheDavidLettermanShow suggested above, UCSF is one day able to offer free tuition for all of its students.)
Click to expand...
1. Yes, I totally understood you! My point with respect to you, not knowing that you turned down a full COA elsewhere, was that you were eligible for generous need based aid, so your decision matrix is different from someone who is comparing a full COA elsewhere (or, for that matter, anything elsewhere) to nothing at UCSF.

2. Agree to disagree! I think funding correlates more with prestige and ability to raise funds. Publics like UCLA (and, according to @TheDavidLettermanShow, UCSF at some point in the future) have funding, while many lower ranked privates do not. Funding seems to correlate with ranking and endowment (and priorities) much more than public vs. private. Harvard has no money for merit scholarships while UCLA does. It's not just about David Geffen, since Harvard could certainly raise the money if it wanted to. Being public does not stop UCLA from using its endowment for this purpose.

3. Yes, totally, 100%!!! Merit scholarships are to attract talent, not to address inequity. Other programs (need based aid, URM and low SES preferences, etc.) are meant to deal with that. Contentious to be sure, because ultimately UCSF also cherishes its ranking. If not, it could certainly fill its entire class with very deserving, relatively lower stat applicants, provide them a full ride, and let them end up matching wherever they can. If UCSF really wants to walk the walk, it probably has the capacity to slide right into a mid tier slot while fulfilling all of its social justice goals. Of course, once it becomes a mid tier, raising money might not be as easy as before, so it's a balance. 😎
 
Last edited:
KnightDoc said:
1. Yes, I totally understood you! My point with respect to you, not knowing that you turned down a full COA elsewhere, was that you were eligible for generous need based aid, so your decision matrix is different from someone who is comparing a full COA elsewhere (or, for that matter, anything elsewhere) to nothing at UCSF.

2. Agree to disagree! I think funding correlates more with prestige and ability to raise funds. Publics like UCLA (and, according to @TheDavidLettermanShow, UCSF at some point in the future) have funding, while many lower ranked privates do not. Funding seems to correlate with ranking and endowment (and priorities) much more than public vs. private. Harvard has no money for merit scholarships while UCLA does. It's not just about David Geffen, since Harvard could certainly raise the money if it wanted to. Being public does not stop UCLA from using its endowment for this purpose.

3. Yes, totally, 100%!!! Merit scholarships are to attract talent, not to address inequity. Other programs (need based aid, URM and low SES preferences, etc.) are meant to deal with that. Contentious to be sure, because ultimately UCSF also cherishes its ranking. If not, it could certainly fill its entire class with very deserving, relatively lower stat applicants, provide them a full ride, and let them end up matching wherever they can. If UCSF really wants to walk the walk, it probably has the capacity to slide right into a mid tier slot while fulfilling all of its social justice goals. Of course, once it becomes a mid tier, raising money might not be as easy as before, so it's a balance. 😎
Click to expand...

UCSF has a lower MCAT average than peer schools because it is already doing this.
 
MyOdyssey said:
UCSF has a lower MCAT average than peer schools because it is already doing this.
Click to expand...
But not nearly to the extent that it can. Median is 518, 75%ile is 521, 90%ile is 524. They have a lot of room to go, since, no offense, there are not that many high stat, low SES matriculants at any one school.

Look, it's a great school and they're not going to give that up in order to take social justice goals to their logical extremes, so I'm just making a point. But, if 25% of their accepted applicants are 521 and above, 9% of their class receives no aid at all, and the average debt of their grads is nearly $150,000, there is clearly a lot more they can do, even though they are obviously already doing more than peers with higher stats and less need based aid.
 
KnightDoc said:
But not nearly to the extent that it can. Median is 518, 75%ile is 521, 90%ile is 524. They have a lot of room to go, since, no offense, there are not that many high stat, low SES matriculants at any one school.

Look, it's a great school and they're not going to give that up in order to take social justice goals to their logical extremes, so I'm just making a point. But, if 25% of their accepted applicants are 521 and above, 9% of their class receives no aid at all, and the average debt of their grads is nearly $150,000, there is clearly a lot more they can do, even though they are obviously already doing more than peers with higher stats and less need based aid.
Click to expand...

UCSF has to compete with Harvard and other top schools for hooked applicants with good to great stats.

Are hooked applicants with median matriculatant stats, E.g. MCAT = 513, already getting a hard look from UCSF? Probably.

To go lower than that would mean being less than a mid-tier private medical school in terms of stats.
 
MyOdyssey said:
UCSF has to compete with Harvard and other top schools for hooked applicants with good to great stats.

Are hooked applicants with median matriculatant stats, E.g. MCAT = 513, already getting a hard look from UCSF? Probably.

To go lower than that would mean being less than a mid-tier private medical school in terms of stats.
Click to expand...
And THAT'S my point. What's more important -- stats or social justice????? Both? Then they need to do more to compete with other top schools that offer merit money. Social justice? Then, as we all know, you don't need a 513 to handle medical school. Social justice means not caring about rankings. 😎
 
goaliethrowaway said:
I'm not sure what your point is? It feels like you are arguing for the sake of argument.

Do you want UCSF to do more to compete with top schools, and therefore maintain their status as a top-ranked school, or disregard their rankings because they care about social justice? I don't think social justice and prestige are mutually exclusive, nor do I think UCSF needs "to do more" as they are already clearly attracting talented students while being a T5-10 medical school according to USNews, PD surveys, consensus in medical circles etc.
Click to expand...
Are you sure social justice and prestige not mutually exclusive? Will they retain their rank if they fill class 80-100% based on social justice matrix? I already hear complaints.
 
goaliethrowaway said:
I'm not sure what your point is? It feels like you are arguing for the sake of argument.

Do you want UCSF to do more to compete with top schools, and therefore maintain their status as a top-ranked school, or disregard their rankings because they care about social justice? I don't think social justice and prestige are mutually exclusive, nor do I think UCSF needs "to do more" as they are already clearly attracting talented students while being a T5-10 medical school according to USNews, PD surveys, consensus in medical circles etc.
Click to expand...
We've come full circle! 😎 My point is what we started with -- UCSF does a great job meeting the financial needs of folks eligible for need-based aid. Not so much for other applicants.

As competitors step up their game, UCSF will either find a way to compete, or will lose more and more applicants whose choice is not generous need-based aid at UCSF or full COA elsewhere, but, rather, nothing at UCSF or full COA (or whatever) elsewhere. If social justice is the priority, additional money raised will go towards that, and attracting high stat, high SES applicants won't be a priority, at the risk of maybe not being a T5-10 school in the future (unless, of course, there are enough high stat, low SES students to fill the void, and that they choose UCSF over the competition).

I don't care what UCSF chooses to do, I was just pointing out the choices. If that's arguing for the sake of arguing, then I guess I'm guilty as charged! 😎

My point is that the competition for high stat candidates ineligible for need-based aid is increasing. It's not decreasing and is not static. UCSF, with its somewhat unique (for a T5-10) and heavy emphasis on social justice, will have to reconcile its mission with this reality, or cede this ground to its competitors.

You're a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. Would you have chosen UCSF if not for its FA package? Since you had attractive merit offers at other schools, I'll assume you are atypical at UCSF. (I.e., how many people are really choosing to pay more to attend UCSF instead of a peer school? And, for you, I'll assume the differential isn't that great due to a very generous FA package.) I'll bet your full pay peers did not receive decent merit offers elsewhere. Am I wrong? As other schools step up their merit offerings, I think you'll become even more the exception and less the rule at UCSF, unless UCSF decides to get into the game, which definitely conflicts with its social justice mission, as you pointed out previously.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
goaliethrowaway said:
I will not speculate as to how UCSF recruits for students as I am not involved with their admissions.

Personally, I don't think anonymous complaints on SDN will have much effect if any on UCSF's reputation in medical circles.


Well maybe in a couple of years UCSF will be tuition free as rumored ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And yes, I personally know of multiple students like myself who chose UCSF over comparable schools that offered full COA/tuition scholarships.
Click to expand...
No, not like yourself. Do you know people who turned down significant money elsewhere, at peer schools (T5-10-20) to be full pay at UCSF? If you like UCSF and your cost is modest, your decision makes perfect sense. It would make no sense for someone who received no discount at UCSF. And, if they do go tuition free and make it available to everyone, like NYU, there will surely be howls from the progressives who won't like the way that money is being used, as you pointed out before!
 
KnightDoc said:
As competitors step up their game, UCSF will either find a way to compete, or will lose more and more applicants whose choice is not generous need-based aid at UCSF or full COA elsewhere,
Click to expand...
Why competition need to step up game? Competition will get merit scholar and UCSF will get need scholar, still scholar though.
 
HopeP said:
Why competition need to step up game? Competition will get merit scholar and UCSF will get need scholar, still scholar though.
Click to expand...
May be USNWR will add third ranking criteria (Social Justice)?
 
EdgeTrimmer said:
May be USNWR will add third ranking criteria (Social Justice)?
Click to expand...
I see that as a cause, part of mission. Isn't that "Why school X? essay" is all about to align yourself with school's mission?
 
HopeP said:
I see that as a cause, part of mission. Isn't that "Why school X? essay" is all about to align yourself with school's mission?
Click to expand...
UCSF doesn't have Why school essay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
All Late Interviews
Replies
7
Views
973
LizzyM
LizzyM
ParentOfReapplicant
How choose schools to avoid rejection due to yield protection?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
V
Yale vs UCSF
Replies
7
Views
1K
m1redsox
M
I
Einstein vs UCSF
Replies
7
Views
1K
aquamist
aquamist
P
Acknowledging intersectionality, avoiding identity politics
Replies
7
Views
873
Goro
Goro
Top