UCSF or USC??

[mtmn]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm so torn between these two schools. I don't want to base this decision on tuition alone, so I was wondering if anyone had any insight or suggestions for me to help choose. I'm open to all ideas! Thanks!

 

[dptforme]

It's refreshing to see that someone does not want to base their decision on tuition only! Although I have not visited either school, I have been accepted to USC and plan to visit it next week. If I was in your position I would make a list of pro's and con's of each school, program, rates, and surrounding areas. It will help you weigh out which aspects of the programs are most valuable to you. Also talk to current students in the program! I wasn't sure about sending in a deposit for USC(first school I've heard back from) until I talked to a student and she absolutely loved the program. So now I feel better about the possibility of going there, since I didn't even think I could get in.

I can also only speak about pros/cons of USC so you may want to talk with someone else about UCSF. USC can offer you the "Trojan Family" aspects and everyone who I have talked to have said that the alumni of USC help out fellow alumni a lot, probably because most have money. Also, even though you likely won't make more after graduation with a USC degree, your patients may look at you differently since USC is a very highly regarded, prestigious, respected school. Those who I have told about my acceptance to USC, the first word that comes out of their mouths is usually "Wow!" Several patients that I work with as a PT Aide said I should go there because having that degree is worth it and would say a lot about me if I do go there.

But ultimately I think you should choose the one you felt most comfortable at and most at home. Since you'll be there for 3 years or so(less depending on where your clinical rotations are) it is important that you're in the right place for you regardless of money. For instance, if you absolutely felt that "at home" feeling at USC then at the graduation and finding a job you would probably feel like the made large investment on tuition was worth it.

That's my 2 cents. Hope it helps! Good luck!

 

[PT2014]

UCSF all the way.

USC doesn't even interview the potential 95 applicants that will ultimately spend 3 years and $127,000 in tuition alone. Again, that's a class size of 90-100 students, where UCSF is around 28-35. As you've already experienced, UCSF provides a thorough interview day on a Saturday to meet students face to face and allow students the opportunity to get a real feel of the program. Any school with a ton of money can pay to be ranked #1 in the nation, but what does that even mean to anybody? It sure doesn't mean anything to most employers. Read some posts on here about student debt after they graduate before submerging yourself in fantasies of everyone "ooing" and "ahhing" over a USC degree. I know you're not concerned about tuition, but isn't that a huge part of life after graduation? UCSF is a very highly respected medical center, in the awesome urban environment of the bay area, and it's nearly half the price tag.
Both schools are heavy into research too, if that's your thing.
--my opinion*

If you LOVE LA, and tuition is not a factor at all then I'd say USC.
Honestly though, I'm sure USC grads are happy to promote their school, but I'd say UCSF is 10X more impressive, even if it's just because they accept 28-35 students instead of 100.

*My position is biased towards SF because every time I hear USC mentioned for PT school I cringe at the debt burden that people inflict on their lives.

 

[hra89]

If money isn't an issue, I'd agree that you should try to weigh both schools pros and cons. I'm more biased towards UCSF because I wanted a research based school, the location was amazing, and the students really sold me on their program, but I also didn't apply to USC or visit it ever. However, I got waitlisted so I'd love to say go to USC, haha.

But honestly you should think about what you want in a school because I think it's different for everyone, if you got good vibes for students at both schools it might be tough but they each are very different in terms of class size, location, costs, more research based or not, etc, so it really depends on what you are looking at for a school and how you want to spend the next 3 years of your life. They both are excellent programs though and I'd doubt you would be unhappy at either. Good luck!

 

[hefe]

USCF is more competitive and probably keeps a higher caliber class overall. You'll probably have a higher student faculty ratio, the academic hospital system is great. Not to mention its in the Bay area, I'm a bit biased admittedly.

I've stated the views on tuition costs, this is without it. 😉

 

[Momohime]

I'm a USC '04 graduate, tuition is a factor but you'll want to compare programs, professors, rankings, etc. There's a difference for sure that USC is private and UCSF/SFS is public and you'll see that as far what technology, equipment, study materials. USC continues to upgrade and provide the best experience to help you understand and change each year to be better for the classes. The class size is big but with so many professors, assistants and PTs - you get individual attention. It's also a plus when you do group projects as you can learn from so many and also not get stuck with the same group all the time. USC has so many well known professors that are involved in the field.

 

[siracha]

Another thing to look into: When were each programs accreditted for DPT? I heard that UCSF was recently accreditted this year, so do you really want to be a guinea pig for the program? Im sure the program is fine, but with anything new, there will likely be glitches...

http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Directory_of_Programs1&Template=/aptaapps/accreditedschools/acc_schools_map.cfm&process=3&type=PT


Also about paying for USC. has anyone thought about scholarships, TA and other paid research positions? Everyone talks about USC's tuition as if impossible to manage. Why the pessimism?

Just my 2cents. Someone mentioned about visiting facilities and talk to current students, and faculties. I think that is an awesome idea rather than banking a decision on baised thoughts from perspective students.

Also for "why did some ppl ONLY hear from USC" - I actually took the time to call up schools I applied for and asked them for feedbacks as well as how they weigh on their applicants. Many have told me that they look at the numbers - GRE/GPA or both, and many times when I ask about how they view the schools and program of your undergrad, they would say something like, there are 800-900 applicants this yr. it is very competitive..and gre/gpa score therefore weight alot. (so then undergrad prog's rigor does not matter?) and it doesnt seem they read closely into the personal statements nor the LOR closely or at all either.

When i talked to a USC admission personale, they actually went into details on the fact that because they do not interview, they look at each applicant's app very throughly. They look at the classes u take, and while GPA does matter, they take note on which classes u take as well as where. They also read ur PS and LORs very carefully, etc etc. I think thats very honorable of them.

Other thoughts?

 

[EasyStarr]

I'd go for SFSU/UCSF because I'd rather pay $80G to a public school.
I heard USC's labs have tv screens so you can follow along instead of having the direct attention of the teacher.
USC people brag about getting connections. Getting connected is the last struggle any of us would have. lol.

 

[Momohime]

The tv screens in the lab are there so you can see a close up of what is being performed and therefore are not crowded with everyone to take a peak. You would be surprised that having connections are harder than you think and employers look at what school you go to.

 

[PT2014]

I don't think it's true that employers look at the school you went to. In fact, 100% of the PTs I've talked to said they hire based entirely on how well the PT will mesh with the clinic. A USC degree doesn't make you a good clinician.

 

[lovelajolla11]

I'm so torn between these two schools. I don't want to base this decision on tuition alone, so I was wondering if anyone had any insight or suggestions for me to help choose. I'm open to all ideas! Thanks!

I visited both institutions prior to even applying to any program. Following my visits, I decided not to even apply to USC for the following reasons. First, it wasn't in a desirable location, second it was much more expensive, third it enrolled far more students then the other programs, fourth it's anatomy lab was on a TV monitor to help account for so many students (versus UCSF 4 students per cadaver and close up viewing of any dissections done by instructor). On a side note, it's interesting that the PTs that now work in UCSFs faculty practice are graduates of either the UCSF or the USC program. After completing the very rigorous program at UCSF, I have high regard for any PT that graduated from there (and from my experience so does the rest of the PT community and patients as well). In the end, most employers in the "clinical world" really don't care where you received your degree. They want someone with a license. UCSF was a great school, with a rigorous program that trained me to be a great problem solver. It was also in a good location. UCSF holds extremely high standards and has a difficult criteria to meet to be selected. I highly recommend UCSF if you get in.

 

[okramango]

Another thing to look into: When were each programs accreditted for DPT? I heard that UCSF was recently accreditted this year, so do you really want to be a guinea pig for the program? Im sure the program is fine, but with anything new, there will likely be glitches...
http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Directory_of_Programs1&Template=/aptaapps/accreditedschools/acc_schools_map.cfm&process=3&type=PT

I'm not sure where you got the idea that UCSF was only accredited this year (the link you posted is dead), but it's not correct. Their website has graduation rate data dating back to 2009, and a friend of mine graduated from there around 2002 or 2003 with her masters in PT. It is a very well established and respected program. Another friend of mine attends there currently and absolutely loves it.

UCSF all the way.
USC doesn't even interview the potential 95 applicants that will ultimately spend 3 years and $127,000 in tuition alone. Again, that's a class size of 90-100 students, where UCSF is around 28-35.

UCSF's website says they accept 50 students per year, and this is what my friend who attends there says, too. I still think that's a lot better than 90-100!

And to the OP, I also agree with those rooting for UCSF, for all the same reasons stated above.