UCSF vs UOP

[Goal]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I am accepted at both UOP and UCSF.
Other than fees ,duration and PG oppurtunities can anyone suggest why one should choose one school over the other.
Any insights will be valuable.
Thanks
Goal

 

[gbdental]

UCSF = tops in research, great post grad programs at the school, great reputation, P/NP curriculum.
UOP = good for general dentistry, slightly happier students (being at a rich private school doesn't hurt), lots of mormons (could be good/bad/not matter depending on who you are), great dean.

If you're looking to specialize, going to UCSF is probably a better choice. If you just want to get through dental school and start pumpin' out the moolah, UOP is the better choice. They're both good schools, but very different.

I am accepted at both UOP and UCSF.
Other than fees ,duration and PG oppurtunities can anyone suggest why one should choose one school over the other.
Any insights will be valuable.
Thanks
Goal

 

[Goal]

Thanks gbdental for the info.

I would appreciate if I can also know about the patient pool,clinical requirements,Cal dental board pass rate and types of cases(variety)we get to work on once we complete our clinical requirements.
Thanks
goal

 

[crazy_sherm]

Thanks gbdental for the info.

I would appreciate if I can also know about the patient pool,clinical requirements,Cal dental board pass rate and types of cases(variety)we get to work on once we complete our clinical requirements.
Thanks
goal

You'll get much more clinical exposure to a larger variety of cases at UOP, not because of patient pool, but because we don't house nearly as many specialty programs as UCSF. I know UCSF has implemented a new curriculum in the past couple of years, don't know if they bumped up the requirements. But I had a couple friends who graduated before having only done 2 endos. I know several 2nd year students now (only 2 quarters in clinic so far) who have done 3 endos already. I'm not sure about UCSF, but at UOP, production matters for grading and graduation. If we don't make a certain amount of $$ for the clinic, we're not considered efficient enough.

I was in the same situation as you last year. I ended up choosing UOP because I liked the environment way more and the facilities were much nicer. I had gone to Berkeley for undergrad and realized I didn't want to go through 4 more years of a UC education. I also wouldn't have saved all that much money going to UCSF, and I don't have plans to specialize. I would say to choose the one you felt would be the best fit. They're both great schools and you'll have plenty of opportunities at either one.

 

[gbdental]

You'll get much more clinical exposure to a larger variety of cases at UOP, not because of patient pool, but because we don't house nearly as many specialty programs as UCSF. I know UCSF has implemented a new curriculum in the past couple of years, don't know if they bumped up the requirements. But I had a couple friends who graduated before having only done 2 endos. I know several 2nd year students now (only 2 quarters in clinic so far) who have done 3 endos already. I'm not sure about UCSF, but at UOP, production matters for grading and graduation. If we don't make a certain amount of $$ for the clinic, we're not considered efficient enough.

I was in the same situation as you last year. I ended up choosing UOP because I liked the environment way more and the facilities were much nicer. I had gone to Berkeley for undergrad and realized I didn't want to go through 4 more years of a UC education. I also wouldn't have saved all that much money going to UCSF, and I don't have plans to specialize. I would say to choose the one you felt would be the best fit. They're both great schools and you'll have plenty of opportunities at either one.

You wouldn't have saved much money? It's like a 50-70K difference...unless you got some kind of a scholarship to UOP.

The pt pool at UCSF is huge, so there's no problem with that. Most of us have too many patients. Denture patients are a tough find for some reason, so we usually struggle to reach our requirements there. Endo facts are true. With a PG Endo program on campus, they get all of our complex canal systems and all 2nd and 3rd molars. So that does cut into the amount of endo we get to do. We are in the same boat as UOP as far as production requirements go. If we don't produce a certain amount of $, we don't graduate either. Our new curriculum is Pass/No Pass based, but if you attain far above the clinical production goals you receive an honors pass. So we're kind of like UOP there, except they get letter grades instead. I don't know which is better; it depends on your philosophy. I happen to prefer P/NP, but that's just me.

 

[Stanford Fencer]

I do think that you get more clinical exposure at UOP in the sense that you are likely to do more of certain types of procedures. From that perspective, for a GP-to-be, you'd choose UOP.

But, how do you know what you are going to do after dental school, without having exposed yourself fully to the various specialty areas? Then from this perspective, you want to be at a place where you get to expose yourself to the full spectrum of fields. I'd argue for UCSF in that regard.

Caveat: It does not mean that should you be interested in endo, for example, that you won't do enough of them during dental school at UCSF, even though it has an endo residency. The residents have a 3 month long waitlist, and they obviously can't absorb all the patients. If one demonstrates interest and competency, some one can be given more freedom to do endo on difficult cases as a dental student.

Bottom line: I doubt that you really know what you want to do with a dental career before actually attending dental school. Therefore, cover all bases, and go to schools that are as comprehensive as possible. It may just open more doors for you after graduation.

 

[dileepdanivas]

Hi,
I tend to agree with gbdental's basic layout of what ucsf and uop are know for.
I am not an UCSF-UOP comparison expert as I do not know a lot about UOP' program. I can speak about UCSF program. In addition to the facts stated in the other messages posts, I want to add a note on the flexibility in UCSF's curriculum. We have something called as ISO- Independent Study Option. These are half day sessions (1-3 in a week) that the student can utilize to persue his/her academic interests. These can be used to work with professors in their research projects, catch up on the paperwork and errands around pt care/didacticsf, indulge in pt care, or invest time studying in interest-areas or studying for an upcoming exam. This helps in defining and getting what you want from the program.

 

[nothen2do]

You'll get much more clinical exposure to a larger variety of cases at UOP, not because of patient pool, but because we don't house nearly as many specialty programs as UCSF. I know UCSF has implemented a new curriculum in the past couple of years, don't know if they bumped up the requirements. But I had a couple friends who graduated before having only done 2 endos. I know several 2nd year students now (only 2 quarters in clinic so far) who have done 3 endos already. I'm not sure about UCSF, but at UOP, production matters for grading and graduation. If we don't make a certain amount of $$ for the clinic, we're not considered efficient enough.

My one concern about UOP when I was applying (other than outrageous cost) was from a shadowing experience. There was a recent UOP grad working at the office and he was performing a certain procedure on a child with primary teeth (can't remember what the procedure was since it was a while). When the Main dentist came in, he said "What the $%^& are you doing!" It seemed that there were multiple ways to go about this procedure, and the UOP grad was only taught one way. This one way is not how you are suppose to treat the primary dentition, and irreversible damage was done to the teeth. So whenever I hear about how great it is to be out in 3 years, I always think back to that incident. DOing a million procedures and being super efficient does not make up for adversely affecting your patients health with your lack of knowledge.