UCSF vs UW

[CaMD]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm having a hard time deciding how I feel about UCSF vs UW. Overall I think they are more similar than different. Both are large programs (lots of residents, lots of research), both have the academic/county/VA model. Both places seem to work very hard and have lots of call, but also have happy, smart residents.

The main differences I see:
1. UCSF is more therapy oriented
2. UW rotation scheduling seems more flexible (at least from 2nd year on)

Anyone have any thoughts about either or both of the programs?

Thanks. 🙂

 

[Poitiers2]

I'm really not sure how UW got to be seen as such a "biological" program. It didn't strike me that way, and they arguably have the best DBT exposure of anywhere in the country with Marsha Linehan practicing there and being involved in their program. I know the residents had DBT groups, as did the fellows in Child & Adolescent. Perhaps UW was more biological at some point, but I get the impression the pendulum has swung the other way, so to speak.

I'd guess it's true for San Diego, but you also get a lot of international/refugee exposure at Harborview at UW, which interested me.

One thing that did impress me is that you had very good turn-out for didactics there. Some of the places where I interviewed seemed like ghost towns come didactic time. I guess that's variable, though.

Sorry, I didn't interview at UCSD. I did have a very favorable impression of UW. Seemed the residents were happy with the program and living in Seattle.

 

[cleareyedguy]

Both UW and UCSF are very strong programs.

I wouldn't include "scheduling flexibility" as an important variable, nor would I worry too much about not getting enough training in anything (though I might wonder if UCSF has enough psychodynamically-oriented full-time faculty; all of their FT analysts left after a purge a while back).

I would include geography (where would you rather live?) and your overall gut feeling, but you really can't go wrong at either place.

Both are very hard to get into, by the way, with UW probably being one of the 3 toughest west of the MIssissippi, and UCSF being one of the 4 toughest in the country.

 

[billypilgrim37]

I'm really not sure how UW got to be seen as such a "biological" program. It didn't strike me that way.

This may just underscore the extent to which "biological" has become a dirty word.

"Biological" basically just means "is not located in Boston or New York" nowadays. 🙂

Plenty of the "biological" programs have excellent training in evidence-based therapy, of which DBT is one. I would speculate that it might actually be easier to find good DBT training at many of the "biological" programs than at some of the more dynamically oriented programs. Pure speculation.

 

[califdoc]

They're both great--go with your gut and hope you get in to one...

 

[CaMD]

Both UW and UCSF are very strong programs.

I wouldn't include "scheduling flexibility" as an important variable, nor would I worry too much about not getting enough training in anything (though I might wonder if UCSF has enough psychodynamically-oriented full-time faculty; all of their FT analysts left after a purge a while back).

I would include geography (where would you rather live?) and your overall gut feeling, but you really can't go wrong at either place.

Both are very hard to get into, by the way, with UW probably being one of the 3 toughest west of the MIssissippi, and UCSF being one of the 4 toughest in the country.

Why do you say not to worry about scheduling flexibility? I like the idea of having lots of elective time so that I can tailor my training to my specific interests. (Both as an undergrad and med student, not having too much structured curriculum has been key to my happiness.)

I agree location and gut are the 2 most important pieces but both programs meet that standard

I do realize they're very hard to get into, but both you and califdoc commenting on that specifically makes me nervous! Ah, well. Nothing to do but wait til March.

 

[CaMD]

This may just underscore the extent to which "biological" has become a dirty word.
"Biological" basically just means "is not located in Boston or New York" nowadays. 🙂

Amen.