UCSF--Avoid at all costs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Sunbodi said:
I didn't realize we were on college confidential. Your son is an adult now, isn't it a bit much?
Click to expand...

LOL omg was thinking the same thing! I (maybe) understand the helicoptering when your kids are in high school but these are full grown adults applying. Can you imagine what an adcom would think if it thought your parents were involved in your process? I think it may be time to cut the cord .
 
jecki46 said:
LOL omg was thinking the same thing! I (maybe) understand the helicoptering when your kids are in high school but these are full grown adults applying. Can you imagine what an adcom would think if it thought your parents were involved in your process? I think it may be time to cut the cord .
Click to expand...
It’s fine for parents to be involved to a certain degree, but some lines should not be crossed. gyngyn has said sometimes parents show up to the interview and they have a hard time getting them to leave.
 
jecki46 said:
LOL omg was thinking the same thing! I (maybe) understand the helicoptering when your kids are in high school but these are full grown adults applying. Can you imagine what an adcom would think if it thought your parents were involved in your process? I think it may be time to cut the cord .
Click to expand...

For some people, "fully grown adults" doesn't register till 25-30.
 
jecki46 said:
LOL omg was thinking the same thing! I (maybe) understand the helicoptering when your kids are in high school but these are full grown adults applying. Can you imagine what an adcom would think if it thought your parents were involved in your process? I think it may be time to cut the cord .
Click to expand...
One person's helicoptering is another person's giving advise based on their life experiences or the info gathered from site likes SDN! I have seen so many kids (including in my own extended family) faltering in UG and spend years recovering and causing severe financial and emotional stress to both kid (or new adult) and parents. So this full grown adult thing is overrated 🙂 Forgive me if I am trying to help avoiding those things. Having said that, I absolutely don't make decisions for my son or impose my views and I have no intent to show up at interviews 🙂 I did go with him to BSMD interviews given that he is a minor and they had a session for parents! However I kept my mouth shut and didn't follow him around 🙂 He was 2/2 but decided to go for traditional path since he wants to aim high (his words not mine).
 
Last edited:
peanuttbuttah said:
sorry haha that was not clear. I meant things like lower STEP scores (new curriculum growing pains?) or AOA being a joke. I've also read 4th years saying they generally don't feel supported/prepped for residency apps and interviews, though the weight of a UCSF degree usually got them where they wanted to go anyway (can't remember the source though, my brain could be making this up).
Click to expand...

I can 100% confirm that 4th years are not well supported during the residency application process. This is what I was referring to re the administration being criminally unsupportive.

Not to mention, two recent grads just lost their residency spots because they failed their pre-employment drug tests (marijuana use).
 
eatprayloverun said:
Recent grad here....word to the wise: Do. Not. Go. To. UCSF.
Seriously.
You will graduate in a tremendous amounts of debt, the new curriculum is terrible, and the administration is criminally unsupportive.
Go anywhere else, especially if you are given a good financial aid package.

I say this all the while having succeeded myself personally (currently at a top residency in a competitive speciality).

DM me if you have questions.
Click to expand...

The name UCSF definitely helped graduates match top residencies in competitive specialties.

Sounds like stupid advice.
 
srk2021 said:
May be they still need helicopter parents 😀
Click to expand...
No, I disagree. These are adults making stupid choices. They don't need to be bailed out by their parents. They need to be accountable for their choices. i would not like to have a loved one's life in the hands of someone who is stoned through their training. They need to learn not to be idiots. Parents need to stay in their lane at this point. My parents wouldn't know the first thing about this process. They have their own lives, and don't spend them managing mine.
 
I just woke up. How did we get from White supremacy to helicopter parenting?

@srk2021 I totally get where you are coming from. As parents we want the best for our kids. But my daughter is barely 4 and I ask her teachers maybe once a month (if that) about her progress. I see she is smart and that she is happy. That is all that matters. It is kinda weird to be so involved in their education...
 
jecki46 said:
No, I disagree. These are adults making stupid choices. They don't need to be bailed out by their parents. They need to be accountable for their choices. i would not like to have a loved one's life in the hands of someone who is stoned through their training. They need to learn not to be idiots. Parents need to stay in their lane at this point. My parents wouldn't know the first thing about this process. They have their own lives, and don't spend them managing mine.
Click to expand...
I think they were joking.
 
jecki46 said:
LOL omg was thinking the same thing! I (maybe) understand the helicoptering when your kids are in high school but these are full grown adults applying. Can you imagine what an adcom would think if it thought your parents were involved in your process? I think it may be time to cut the cord .
Click to expand...
I've heard of moms writing letters of recommendations :smack:
 
MemeLord said:
I just woke up. How did we get from White supremacy to helicopter parenting?

@srk2021 I totally get where you are coming from. As parents we want the best for our kids. But my daughter is barely 4 and I ask her teachers maybe once a month (if that) about her progress. I see she is smart and that she is happy. That is all that matters. It is kinda weird to be so involved in their education...
Click to expand...
@MemeLord - It all comes down to priorities LOL I agree ultimately comes down to their happens. Haven't you seen videos of parents yelling and/or punching referees at kids soccer and baseball games? 😉
 
I
srk2021 said:
@MemeLord - It all comes down to priorities LOL I agree ultimately comes down to their happens. Haven't you seen videos of parents yelling and/or punching referees at kids soccer and baseball games? 😉
Click to expand...
indeed I have. At least from my perspective, I have the understanding and sense of internal locus of control that if my daughter falls off the balance beam at gymnastics, it is not her coach’s fault lol
 
MemeLord said:
I just woke up. How did we get from White supremacy to helicopter parenting?

@srk2021 I totally get where you are coming from. As parents we want the best for our kids. But my daughter is barely 4 and I ask her teachers maybe once a month (if that) about her progress. I see she is smart and that she is happy. That is all that matters. It is kinda weird to be so involved in their education...
Click to expand...

The wonderful world of the internet
 
KnuxNole said:
Honestly, the two people who failed the drug test have only themselves to blame. I want to feel sorry for them, but I would roll my eyes and sigh
Click to expand...

Some of the controversy was that they both had prescriptions for medical marijuana, and at least 1 program was in a state where it was legal. That being said, I fully agree that they should have been aware of the risks, and that it opens them/the institution to liability and questions of whether they’re providing good care. This wasn’t something that had anything to do with UCSF itself.
 
differentiating said:
Some of the controversy was that they both had prescriptions for medical marijuana, and at least 1 program was in a state where it was legal. That being said, I fully agree that they should have been aware of the risks, and that it opens them/the institution to liability and questions of whether they’re providing good care. This wasn’t something that had anything to do with UCSF itself.
Click to expand...
So are you telling me is that two got in trouble for taking medication that they were prescribed? I know it isn’t that simple with marijuana in the states, but come on that is silly.
 
MemeLord said:
So are you telling me is that two got in trouble for taking medication that they were prescribed? I know it isn’t that simple with marijuana in the states, but come on that is silly.
Click to expand...

Yes. That being said, I don’t think it’s so simple- presumably each program had a drug policy they agreed to, and besides, MJ does bring up concerns about being impaired on the job. It’s like drinking before a shift. I know I had to disclose all of my prescriptions and sign an agreement that I wasn’t taking any illicit substances or anything that could impair my functioning - and they questioned my sleeping aids and how often I used them despite prescriptions. MJ is probably even touchier. Imo, I wouldn’t have risked it with a substance that is still illegal on the federal level.
 
MemeLord said:
So are you telling me is that two got in trouble for taking medication that they were prescribed? I know it isn’t that simple with marijuana in the states, but come on that is silly.
Click to expand...
Marijuana is illegal on a federal level. Period. What the states say is immaterial to that determination. In addition, individual institutions can always have stricter rules - in ~20 states it is legal to explicitly discriminate against *tobacco* smokers. Cleveland clinic will test for nicotine metabolites in the blood and will fire you (or well, not hire you) if they are present (I think there may be a one time exception for prescribed nicotine replacement products)

On top of that, even in states like CO, the medical licensing board can (and has) come out and say that physicians who use drugs like marijuana, which are otherwise legal in the state (except for those pesky federal laws), can be disciplined to the point of risking their license.
 
eatprayloverun said:
I can 100% confirm that 4th years are not well supported during the residency application process. This is what I was referring to re the administration being criminally unsupportive.

Not to mention, two recent grads just lost their residency spots because they failed their pre-employment drug tests (marijuana use).
Click to expand...

Hey, my school’s hospital just closed and auctioning off residency slots to the highest bidder. My class feels largely unsupported going into residency applications right now
 
Raryn said:
Marijuana is illegal on a federal level. Period. What the states say is immaterial to that determination. In addition, individual institutions can always have stricter rules - in ~20 states it is legal to explicitly discriminate against *tobacco* smokers. Cleveland clinic will test for nicotine metabolites in the blood and will fire you (or well, not hire you) if they are present (I think there may be a one time exception for prescribed nicotine replacement products)

On top of that, even in states like CO, the medical licensing board can (and has) come out and say that physicians who use drugs like marijuana, which are otherwise legal in the state (except for those pesky federal laws), can be disciplined to the point of risking their license.
Click to expand...

Multiple hospitals I have rotated at do pre-employment screening for tobacco. It is becoming a much bigger thing.
 
Last edited:
ciestar said:
Hey, my school’s hospital just closed and auctioning off residency slots to the highest bidder. My class feels largely unsupported going into residency applications right now
Click to expand...

I knew the hospital was closing but what’s this about residency slot auctions? And is 5$ enough?
 
Lucca said:
I knew the hospital was closing but what’s this about residency slot auctions? And is 5$ enough?
Click to expand...

It’s a mess. And the federal government is trying to block it. Everyone is left in limbo right now. Hahnemann officially closed on Tuesday.

www.inquirer.com

The $55 million bid that won Hahnemann residency slots was ‘a big surprise’

The winning bid far surpassed the baseline bid of $7.5 million by Tower Health, which has an academic partnership with Drexel University.
www.inquirer.com www.inquirer.com
 
ciestar said:
Hey, my school’s hospital just closed and auctioning off residency slots to the highest bidder. My class feels largely unsupported going into residency applications right now
Click to expand...

Oh gosh, can you or someone elaborate on the auctioning off of the residency slots? That sounds like a total nightmare. Sorry you are going thru this
 
Engrailed said:
Oh gosh, can you or someone elaborate on the auctioning off of the residency slots? That sounds like a total nightmare. Sorry you are going thru this
Click to expand...
Do hospitals have to pay for residency slots? I thought hospitals got paid by the federal government to run residency programs. If so, how can they auction off slots?
 
StanleyYelnats said:
Do hospitals have to pay for residency slots? I thought hospitals got paid by the federal government to run residency programs. If so, how can they auction off slots?
Click to expand...

I think this is why the government is trying to block it.

No, they dont have to pay for residency slots (at least I dont think so..) but they do get paid to have them.
 
Last edited:
ciestar said:
I think this is why the government is trying to block it.

No, they dont have to pay for residency slots (at least I dont think so..) but they do get paid to have them.
Click to expand...
Exactly -- it's all spelled out in the article you linked to. Basically, the slots represent a guaranteed future revenue stream from Medicare payments, so Hahnemann is trying to treat them as assets in the bankruptcy and use the proceeds from a sale to pay off creditors. The bidders are willing to pay for them because of the future revenue they represent. The government doesn't want residency slots to be treated as an asset that can be bought and sold, especially because they don't sell them in the first place, but also because they want to control where they are located.
 
KnightDoc said:
Exactly -- it's all spelled out in the article you linked to. Basically, the slots represent a guaranteed future revenue stream from Medicare payments, so Hahnemann is trying to treat them as assets in the bankruptcy and use the proceeds from a sale to pay off creditors. The bidders are willing to pay for them because of the future revenue they represent. The government doesn't want residency slots to be treated as an asset that can be bought and sold, especially because they don't sell them in the first place, but also because they want to control where they are located.
Click to expand...

Oh, right. Yeah and they dont want the buying and selling of residency slots to become a thing in the future.

Only solace i get in this is that these slots stay in Philadelphia and surrounding areas if this goes through.
 
ciestar said:
Oh, right. Yeah and they dont want the buying and selling of residency slots to become a thing in the future.

Only solace i get in this is that these slots stay in Philadelphia and surrounding areas if this goes through.
Click to expand...
Or even now. The problem they have is balancing their desire to control the slots with the need to get the creditors as much as they can. Medicare probably also wants the slots to stay in the region, but apparently has a problem with the group gaming the system, coming up with huge bid to attract the attention of the bankruptcy court, and then grabbing the overhead part of the reimbursements without incurring additional overhead costs. It's in everyone's interest (other than the high bidders and the current owners) to actually see someone take over and run the Hahnemann site, rather than take all the Medicare money and spread it around the region. (i.e., If Hahnemann never existed, would Philly have received all of those slots in the first place? Maybe not!)

Do you know why Drexel isn't trying to raise the money to take over the hospital? Wouldn't that solve a lot of issues?
 
Last edited:
KnightDoc said:
Or even now. The problem they have is balancing their desire to control the slots with the need to get the creditors as much as they can. Medicare probably also wants the slots to stay in the region, but apparently has a problem with the group gaming the system, coming up with huge bid to attract the attention of the bankruptcy court, and then grabbing the overhead part of the reimbursements without incurring additional overhead costs. It's in everyone's interest (other than the high bidders and the current owners) to actually see someone take over and run the Hahnemann site, rather than take all the Medicare money and spread it around the region. (i.e., If Hahnemann never existed, would Philly have received all of those slots in the first place? Maybe not!)

Do you know why Drexel isn't trying to raise the money to take over the hospital? Wouldn't that solve a lot of issues?
Click to expand...

It was discussed, but HUH was hemorrhaging money and I guess they decided it was in the best interest of Drexel to not go ahead with it. Governor Wolf basically said the same thing.
 
ciestar said:
It was discussed, but HUH was hemorrhaging money and I guess they decided it was in the best interest of Drexel to not go ahead with it. Governor Wolf basically said the same thing.
Click to expand...
That sucks. Given what I know is the great need in the area, it sucks that it cannot be operated without losing tons of money. It does create an issue surrounding Medicare allowing all the slots to stay in the area while losing the needed location.
 
Spoke with a current 4th year student and they like the new curriculum but also said lot of their classmates don't like it. May be I didn't hear correctly but change was to pass/fail from honors for 3rd year and that's why hard to differentiate yourself for competitive specialties.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how buying residency slots would work but the off shore schools have been itching to do so and may have succeeded in some locations:

House votes for efforts to keep offshore MD schools from buying U.S. GME slots

U.S.-based graduate medical education (GME) programs should maintain their ability to select residents based on merit, House says.
thedo.osteopathic.org thedo.osteopathic.org

story is a few years old and I don't follow this topic but I recalled seeing something about it a few years ago.
 
UC Berkeley lost its rank on US News due to false reporting its alumni contribution and now UCSF grads personally admitting it sucks to be in the Bay Area... Should have gone to UCLA
 
differentiating said:
U Can Stay Forever certainly isn’t a guarantee... I know quite a few of my classmates who matched below UCSF on their rank lists despite being competitive. I would’ve loved to stay in the Bay, but it didn’t work out. But we have a high likelihood of matching in Cali, if not in the Bay.

I know they were talking about ditching AOA, but I don’t know where they landed on that.
Click to expand...
Certainly not a guarantee but when you look at UCSF's match list in comparison to their Step scores, it's obvious they have a strong tendency to keep their own students even when it means lowering their standards to do so. Not unique by any means but it's a little different when you're at the top in nearly every specialty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

princeofmediocrity
How do I avoid yield protection? (527 / 4.0)
Replies
7
Views
588
Goro
Goro
S
All Late Interviews
Replies
7
Views
1K
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
8
Views
2K
Yhwach
Yhwach
I
Einstein vs UCSF
Replies
7
Views
2K
aquamist
aquamist
Top