UCSF Interview

There's the interview feedback section on this website. check it out.

 

You'll 1st see Dr. Charles Alexander (assisant dean of admissions). He is great. He'll talk about UCSF and how they select candidates. At some point, he'll talk about UCSF noble prize winners and outstanding researchers. Someone will talkl about financial aid. Later in the afternoon you'll be interviewed by a student dentist and a faculty [closed file interviews]. Enjoy the nice gym & the view

 

cool new signature block, that sucks that you have 56 rejections. better luck next year.

 

Do some reading about the school, think about a few things to talk about you during the roundtable, bring a pen/pencil for a short essay, bring with you one or two questions to ask, pay attention to others while they talk, smile, smile and smile. Lastly, don't jump conclusion. If your interview doesn't seem as you expect, it may be intended so. Handle it well. Be positive, be optimistic.

It's one of the greatest schools, make it your best possible interview. Good Luck!

 

LOL!--- Do you just follow DAT Student around and clown non-stop? I love they way you lurk in the shadows. i'm being serious, its entertainment for sure.

 

My stats are the same, but I don't have an interview. It makes me wonder why. Is everyone else with the same stats better qualified with great extra-curriculars or what? Either that or I'm not invited to the party because I don't represent some underrepresented minority that fits the glorious and much sought after "diverse" student profile universities love to paste all over their glossy brochures. I'm so sick of it all.

 

you know how we do it in NOR-CAL.

 

TimR also apologizes non-stop.

 

I was told this is the formula UCSF uses:

30%......GPA
30%......AA
5%........PAT
20%.......Extracurricular activities, research, community service, working in under-served areas etc
15%......Interview
--------------------
100% or 100 points

You both may have the same DAT scores but kiggar4l2000 may have been involved in more extracurricular activities.

Also, it's possible you submitted your application after kiggar4l2000 did.

 

You're so smart. You're so novel. I'm sure you have earned all of your accollades by shear merit. I'll be surprised if UCSF doesn't serve you up an acceptance in your interview packet. Who knows maybe they'll send it in the mail to you before you can turn down the interview. All because you are so deserving...

oh, and maybe also because last year of all the female applicants that applied 6.8% (51/748) were enrolled compared to 3.4% (29/848) of males enrolled to applied. I'm not sure, but that seems statistically significant...and makes me wonder why. Don't tell me it is because the female applicants were better qualified. You're a math head in a great program, how about you crunch the rest of UCSF's entering stats and tell me if it isn't easier to get in as an underrepresented minority. Thanks in advance.

 

In all sincerity, I think you are right. But it doesn't take the edge off the disappointment.

 

To all who think UCSF is all about the color of skin:

My stats suck (for getting into UCSF that is) and I really don't have that much extracurricular/dentistry experience and I got an interview.

Oh, by the way, I can not be any whiter!!! I'm a super-honkey!

I am really surprised I actually got an interview and am now thinking that I did because of reverse affrim action. I'm the token dumb white dude!! Yeeeee Hawwww!

 

Haha okay. Congratulations. When is your interview scheduled for?

 

I hate to say this but I think I agree with you. Albiet I will not be recieving my bachelors this spring, but my gpa is 4.0 and my DAT scores are in my footer. Not like I'm trying to brag, but its frustrating not hearing back from these schools who outright say they want a diverse crowd. I am a white middle class male, not too diverse, lol.

Let me tell you a little story about ucsf, my uncle applied there (he graduated in 96) and he was denied. He found out later the white male slots were all filled up. He ended up getting in July when someone dropped out. He went on to finish number one in his class from UCSF. Pretty lame politics if you ask me.

 

I think "white male" is a plus for UCSF. Majority of UCSF students are asian & female. In fact, during my interview I was told again this year the majority of UCSF interviewees are female. I really believe UCSF will accept you but UCSF is very research oriented. UCSF gives 20 points / 100 for extracurricular activities. Last year, approx. 1/8-1/10 of UCSF students had a 4.0 GPA.

P.S. UCLA: their goal is 50% male:50% female (according to admissions people). Even at UCLA, I've noticed the majority of dental students are asian.

 

Have you ever given a try to perhaps imagining that maybe, just maybe you weren't "UCSF material". Perhaps there was possibly someone more qualified for the position. It's so novel to blame someone else for one's own shortcomings. Dental school isn't something you can waltz into just because you like a billion other candidates have 3.5GPAs. It takes alot more than a number. It hurts the ego to look in the mirror.

 

WOW!!! You seem like a real gem. Go ahead and put your interviews in peoples' faces...

Karma and Payback, you know what they say about those...

Please cancel your interview so gulch and I can duke it out for the bone that you threw us because you are sooo smart and have so many options from all the top schools.

Life isn't fair, Why wasn't I blessed with the genes of jeaniebluebird. Congratulations on being so stellar!!!

 

You are right. As i said above, my uncle wasn't UCSF material either... until he finished first in his class.

Maybe i'm not though, maybe gulch isn't either. We are both expressing the frustration of other people (with equal or lower stats) gettin an opportunity to interview while we spend time posting on this forum.

 

Listen, i was not trying to flaunt the fact that i have been invited to many top universities. I was trying to distinguish between those interviews and other schools. AT those specific interviews, i was the only minority there. At other places, i was one of 2 minorities there.

Gulch's post upset me and provoked my sarcasm. For that I am sorry. But his post was annoying because it implied that I didnt deserve to get invited to these schools. That I have no merit, and they are just calling me and any other minorities because of their desire to make their class diverse.

Are you all going to go into dental school and look at the minority person next to you and just think "This person doesnt deserve to be here, There's no way that he/she can be as smart as i am. They just got in because of the color of their skin." I think that type of thinking is pretty dangerous.

 

Jan 9th

 

I just want to apologize to jeanniebluebird and the other countless SDNers that I no doubt offended for being a jerkface. What I said insinuated that what she had accomplished was due in part to racial/gender factors which she did not choose, same as I did not choose to be a white male. Truth is, I don't know Jeannie, so it is hard for me to say, but I honestly suspect that she is smarter than me. Seriously. She is studying math at Columbia. You can't fake that. It is also very likely that she has better grades and DAT scores than me. I don't know. I'm just apologizing for pretty much picking a fight.

But please try to understand that I really do not understand why race or gender has to play a role in the admissions process at all. I just can't reconcile it. (And please don't give me any of that "You just don't know what it is like to be...whatever" bull crap. You don't know what it is like to me either.) It seems like if equality were the real objective then race would be a non-issue. I understand that it gets a little more complicated than that since there are years of discrimination to repair as well as underserved demographics perhaps best served by a similarly underrepresented minority doctor. Thats cool. I can understand that, but there has to be a better way than the present admission system. Breaking down the entering class profile into races where it is plain to see that some stand better chances for acceptance with the same stats, just so some quota can be met is jacked. It is a disservice to the students it discriminates for and against. To select students based on demographic qualifications seems too superficial and broad. So what I am saying is that there has to be a better means to accomplish the same noble end of equality and quality service to underserved demographics. Don't ask me what it is because I don't know.

So, yeah. Maybe I'm not UCSF worthy. I think about it everyday. But I appreciate the reminder. Just kidding. Actually I didn't really like that post. There are a lot of people with better grades and DAT scores and I graciously defer the seat I wish I had to them regardless of the color of their skin. Its just a drag when I see that my stats are higher than avg, but haven't heard a thing. Forgive me for having been a butthead. I still hope I can have an interview at UCSF.

I've totally hijacked this thread. We should get back to the OP. Is there any info on the UCSF interview that is not addressed on interview feedback that should be discussed here?

 

Gulch, I feel you bro.

As stated b4, I'm a complete cracker but got accepted with a full academic scholorship to UC Berkeley (Affrim Action HQ!!) and now was given an interview to UCSF (The Berkeley of Dental Schools). My stats are lower than yours. Who knows why? I have been talking to adcom's and GPA and DAT are only part of it. Remember there are hundreds of peeps with your exact same stats. They then go to other things like strength of LOR's, your essay, experience, maturity, etc. There are simply too many applicants from them all to get an interview.

On to your statements about Afirm Action. I went to Berkeley when California proposed and passed Prop 209, removing all afirmitive action in state funded institutions. Oh boy, if you thought those Berkeleyites loved to protest before....wow! it was 24/7 sit-ins, walk-outs, whatever! The funny thing is that UC Berkelely had already removed any quotas in their selection process several years prior. I agree that basing ANYTHING on race, in either direction is a wrong step. End of arguement!

I remember a SDN'er a while back saying some crap about diversity and helping the underprivileged or making amends for past atrocites to entire races. He stated that if he lost his seat to a dental school in favor to a less qualified, but minority, applicant, he would undestand and agree with the decision. Wow! What a load of crap.

I'm not just saying this because I'm a white dude. If I were a minority I wouldn't want the school to give me that "extra help" because of my race. I would never know if I got to where I was because of my own merits or if it was given to me.

I'm all about diversity and if the school really values that then it is up to THE SCHOOL to actively recruit QUALIFIED minorities. I don't even think race should even be on any application just as religion or sexual pref isn't.

hmm...that's enough pointless ranting for one day.

PDizzle sign'n off.

Commence the flameage!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thanks Gulch, i do appreciate your apology.

Here's what i can add to the discussion regarding minority status and UCSF: The 2004 Census showed that 26.4 % of Americans are African American or Latino. These two groups make up what is defined in dentistry as underepresented minority. If you look at most dental schools underrepresented minorities do not make anywhere close to 26.4 % of the applicant pool. For UCSF in particular, for the 2003-2004 entering class, 110 out of 1246 total applicants were minority. Thats only 9%. In order to get a dental school class of 80 that more accurately represents the population as a whole, you would need to enroll about 21 minorities. That year only 12 minorities were enrolled, about 15% of the class.

The thing about all this that i think a lot of people are confused about is that schools do not accept minorities that are underqualified and make allowances for them. From what i have heard about the process from some people at the admissions offices, everybody undergoes the initial numbers cut. Basically if you dont get a certain DAT or GPA score, you are not making it in. That number is the same across the board for all applicants to a particular school. AT this point, like some people have mentioned, you can get a whole boat load of candidates with 3.5 GPA and DAT scores of 22. The admissions people will look at shadowing, maturity level, background, etc. to distinguish between students. If they are going to maintain a fairer representation of the population, admissions will have to interview a higher percentage of minority applicants than non-minority applicants.

This has to do with the fact that a lot less minorities apply to dental school in general. We are talking about a huge difference between 9 % and 26%. If adcoms didnt make a conscious effort to interview minority applicants, the odds would be in favor of interviewing nonminority applicants with 3.5 gpa and dat 22. There are just statistically more of them out there in the applicant pool. Minorities with the same stats would be at a disadvantage in getting interviews or acceptances. This does not mean that the minorites who get accepted to schools are not qualified. Remember, they already met the numbers cut at the school they are interviewing at. If they werent qualified, they probably wouldnt graduate from the dental school. I dont think UCSF or any school is going to knowingly waste their time and money on a student that will fail out.

This is my understanding of the whole process and i hope it helps anyone out there to understand my view. If you have a different one, i totally respect that and can understand your frustration. IN the end, I think most applicants with the kinds of stats weve been talking about will get in to a number of schools and hopefully will find the right fit for him or her.

 

You're right on the money when you talk about the disconnect between the fraction of minorities to overall us population and the fraction of minorities applying to dental school. I am glad you brought that up. I was actually thinking about that the other day while I was driving in the car, thinking about this particular forum. Here's my take. Where UCSF lists the "preliminary statistics for the entering class of 2005" it would be insightful to also include ratios of minority to overall population size. This would better elucidate just how underrepresented a particular minority is in the profession of dentistry, simultaneously creating a better sense of understanding in non-minorities upon seeing the disparity. It seems that if I could actually visualize the differences in proportion of minorities to the overall pop. to the proportion matriculating to UCSF it would be an easier pill to swallow.

I am in the 3.5 GPA, 22 DAT boat. Or may be it is a freightliner, I don't know. But, upon further introspection I think I have pinpointed my frustration (I'm not saying it is necessarily justified). Let's say we are talking only about all the candidates to UCSF with stats the same as mine. In order to close the gap between the proportion of minorities in the total population to the proportion of those practicing dentistry some "special consideration" is given to those that represent underserved populations. It is hoped and assumed that such students representing underserved populations will not sell out, but will return to their communities and improve the delivery of oral health care to populations traditionally unable to access adequate treatment. I am sure that in many cases this is a safe assumption, but is it such a safe assumption that it should serve as the tie breaker between two candidates with equal stats on paper? Maybe. I'm still weighing it out. There is probably statistical research done on the subject that I should look up. What bothers me a little bit is that such "special consideration" is given for factors the candidate did NOT actually earn. Like I said before, I no more chose to be a white male than you or anybody else chose to be non-white or non-male. I believe the heart of my frustration lies in the fact that a tie-breaker would be decided by factors outside of my realm of influence. There is nothing I can ever do to gain the "special consideration" given to other candidates for factors they did not merit or choose.

But maybe there is virtue alone in developing a class that is diverse (ethnically anyway- since individual ideals, faith systems and personal experiences do not constitute diversity to the admissions offices). And by "diverse" I assume the idea is to create a student class profile that reflects the overall population. The upshot of this is that we can all question the cultural assumptions of our upbringing--especially if this wasn't already accomplished in undergrad. The problem is that this ideal is so easy to embrace when it works for you and so bitter to swallow when it does not, that it can create a rift between minorities and non-minorities defeating the very common understanding it was meant to foster.

As for me, I really appreciate being exposed to new ideas and cultures, but understand that the maxim of giving "special consideration" to traditionally underrepresented populations does not work in my immediate favor, consequently is hard to accept, no matter how justified it may actually be. I hope I am accepted to UCSF or some other school with a great degree of diversity, but getting in is the first step. I am curious to know where I will be spending the next four years...

 

Wrong! Why do you say this? This would only be true if the institution would actively discriminate AGAINST minorites. The opposite is true so this statement is completely false.

This thinking is an example of why quotas are so fundamentally flawed. People who go by numbers and percentages are only satisfied when it all fits nice. What conclusions do you draw when the minorites are not represented in dental school as they are in the general population? Are the schools being racist?

Let me ask you, why does the intitution strive to enroll the the "proper" percentage of minorities? Is it to prove that they are not discriminating against minorities? Is it to be "fair" to all races?

Is the ultimate social goal to remove all biases and discrimination based on race? Because that's what I thought it was. If discrimination is to be removed from society, it must be removed. The quick fix strategy of giving preference to minorities so the numbers make things look like everything is fine and dandy is a step in the wrong direction. It's just reverse discrimination. Any way you try to dress it up, you are still basing decsisons on race. No matter how noble the cause, it's just plain wrong.

Race needs to added to the "It don't make a flying f#$k of a difference" list, along with sex, religion, sexual pref, weight, height, eye color, back hair, foot oder, personal hygiene, bad breath.........wait, OK, some of those last things actually matter a little

 

ADcoms do NOT strive to enroll the proper percentage of minorities to PROVE that they arent discriminating.They are doing it because they want the dental profession to reflect the races of the general public. WHy should this be a goal of theirs? I'll just leave you with this statement from Columbias website ( i couldnt find one for UCSF):

"The School of Dental and Oral Surgery seeks a diverse student body reflecting not only the many faces of the patients who will be treated by the graduates of the school, but also for the creation of a diverse body of thought and interest within this community of scholars. Our definition of diversity includes race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and more, but is certainly not limited to those considerations. The candidate’s background in the sciences, future career intentions, unique abilities, personality, and general accomplishments also are carefully reviewed in seeking to have a diverse student body. For instance, a student who has demonstrated unique talents and skills in research, or who has a unique life mission in public health service, brings to our student body another important measure of diversity.

The school sets no quotas nor has set asides; regardless of race or ethnicity, all applicants are considered in the same competitive pool using the same policies and procedures and Admissions Committee members. Our Admissions Committee protocols insure that all applicants receive individualized consideration using a flexible policy in which race/ethnicity is one of a number of diversity related considerations or factors taken into account.

Historically, the school has made a good faith consideration of workable race neutral alternatives to race conscious policies. Such alternatives have proven inadequate in creating the desired nature of the student body. In dentistry in particular with the very small national applicant pools for those groups who are under-represented in dentistry, race neutral alternatives are particularly limited.

In summary, it is the intent of these “narrowly tailored” policies to assure a “critical mass” of under-represented in dentistry students, as well as a student body which is diverse in many respects. Such a student body is best prepared to meet the health care needs of our local community and society at large. As part of the institutional outcomes annual review, these policies and the results of their implementation are carefully reviewed and subject to future modification."

Hope that helps you at least understand a little bit of why they do it. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I just hope that you realize that we are talking about students with stats that are just as competitive as nonminority applicants.

 

OK, here's a test to see what factors a school should use to decide on a candadate. For everything they list in the above paragraph that are qualities they want and give weight in their decision to accept you, flip it around and see if it makes sense to REMOVE weight in their decision if they LACK the trait. Ill give you an example:

(taken right from the paragraph "The candidate’s background in the sciences, future career intentions, unique abilities, personality, and general accomplishments ". Now, if a candadate has those qualities, its helps him/her. If they LACK these in the way the dental school wants, it HURTS them. The school actively wants those characteristics and says so openly. They say if you do not have these it will weaken your application. Does that make sense? I think it does.

Now consider this list: "race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation". Do the same thinking. What if you do not have the qualities the school is looking for. You're the "wrong" race, or the "wrong" religion. It will HURT your application. They actively discourage those traits and say so openly. Does that make sense for a dental school to do that? Of course not. If a dental school did openly say this, what would you think of them?

So, when considering a trait that a school should use, do the above test and if it makes sense to weaken an application for not having the trait, then it passes.

If you answered to yourself, "It doesn't HURT you to NOT be in the group they want, it only HELPS applicants to be IN the group they want". If you think this way then your thinking is fundementally flawed. To select on the basis of a particualr trait means, by definition, you are selecting against the non-trait. If you want a DAT of 20 or higher, that means you DONT want a DAT of 19 or lower.

An applcant can not help what group to be in. He/she can not choose their race or sexual orientation, and certainly shouldn't change their religion to go to school (cough, cough...Loma Linda, cough). Weather or not the applicant would have been admitted without race/religion consideration is irrelevant.

I am talking about fundemental principles here. I'm all about diversity but if a school wanted the average height of their students to match the national average and made sure of this by adding strength to short applicants they would be insane! Why? Becasue height has nothing to do with dentistry and it is out of the applicant's control.

America is a place where you can do anything you want if you work hard. It is counter to what America is all about and the goal of simply having a diverse "looking" dental class is not justification for the discrimination. And believe me, it is discrimination know matter how they dress it up.

 

We could go on forever, so I think we should just agree to disagree. My apologies to the OP for going so off topic and taking over this thread.

 

/agree

 

I agree with the last post about not hijacking this thread, but I just wanted to "briefly" add my two cents to this.

For starters, my apologies to Gulch for one of my previous comments. My intention was not to make you feel like you don't deserve an interview w/ UCSF. I think you do.

But, to continue where the last post left off, I think this subject is hard to deal with. I would agree that there is a kind of reverse discrimination by making race part of the selection process. But, without at least of tinge of that, what will happen is what happens often: minorities will continue to be under-represented. What happened in the past is in the past, yes. It's old news. It certainly seems like we're beating a dead horse with a sledge hammer.

But, that past racism that existed (and still exists , although nothing like before) and the discrimination is still lingering. How you ask? Is it any of this generation's fault? What have we to do with what happened decades before? Nothing. But, it happened. And because of it, those who were the majority at the time ,and who still are, have a foothold and a very firm foundation that is unshakeable. It's still a power play. It is still here. Now, what do minorities do? They will always be at a disadvantage.

These selection policies are just an attempt to take a stab at making sure that minorities have a fighting chance. It's not an end all be all solution. It might not even be ethical considering how much we as Americans fight for equality. It certainly doesn't sound like equality to allow minorities (in this case, qualified minorities) to have a certain percentage of seats as a standard. But, what else is there? What if there were only 1% of minorities per school as a result of unmonitored acceptances? Would you actually want to go to a school like that? I personally prefer a diverse student body even if that diversity was forced. (I'm probably not representing what I want to say here, but I'm giving it a shot. I'm not so eloquent at saying what I mean so don't kill me with words If I sound like a moron )

And anyway, it's not like minorities are just given a free pass in without regarding their records. I'm sure that if a minority student's GPA and DAT scores do not measure up, that person will not be considered.

I, too, am learning more by discussing these things. I'm not white, so I cannot sum up what it is to be white. I can only say what it's like to be a male hispanic. I'm happy to be me, but I can't say life's a peice of cake. Where I was born, what my parents were, how long they've lived here in this country, and the schools I was able to attend all influence my chances for success. Now, rising up out of difficult circumstances is all on me, and I have risen to the occassion. But, for some (not all) there is no struggle. Just a walk in the park. Waltz right through high school and college because there is nothing to deal with other than making friends , making the grade, and choosing a career. As opposed to juggling school, work, friends, helping parents financially, helping with the family business (as a necessity, not just because they wanted me to learn something). There are a plethora of non-minorities who go through the same thing, but it just isn't an equal world like we'd like to think. There are economic disadvantages of being a minority. After all, that is what the word implies. Minor versus Major.

I'm open to seeing the other side of the coin. I don't think my opinion is fact, but just what it is. What I see and feel. An opinion. (And I said I'd be "brief" sorry OP.

 

First off, yeah, this thread is completely hijacked with no chance of recovery but I think it has become an intelligent and important discussion, so I will continue.

From the last post: "There are economic disadvantages of being a minority." This is false and is an example of why I am against affirmative action.

Are minorities over represented in the economically challenged group?

Yes.

Is it more difficult to achieve everyday goals while economically challenged?

Yes.

Does it say something about your character if you achieve the same goals as a non-economically challenged individual?

Yes.

Should weight be placed on that applicant for their success through adversity?

Yes.


It seems like I agree with you, right? Well, if you said that you wanted a diverse background socio-economically, I would agree. But that's not what is happening. Some schools want the color of your skin which in many cases does correlate to socio-economic hardship but clearly not all cases.

What about white males that are underprivileged? They are screwed!

If the schools want to add weight to the fact that you were underprivileged and still achieved, I say more power to them! I strongly believe that it says something about your character and work ethic. But, if you consider race in any way, shape or form, you are a taking a step backwards and this country will never truly experience equality. It’s just that simple.

We need to attack the real problem, not just put a band aid on it. Do I have all the answers to fix it? Hell no, but I know that affirmative action is not the answer. It's a band aid.


And to reiterate one of my points, whether or not a minority applicant would have been accepted without racial consideration is irrelevant. I realize that applicants without competitive scores will not gain admittance simply based on race but it is the principle I question.


We both want the same thing, but only differ on how to achieve it.