West Coast Battle: Stanford vs. UCSF vs. University of Washington

[minwoo123]

I predict that this thread will have appeared in the next few months anyhow, so might as well get it started. I selected the so-called """flagship""" med schools of the West Coast.

Duke it out! Pros and cons, likes and dislikes, merits and faults.

(Also, argue why the West Coast is the best coast. LOL. But more seriously, why we should all attend West Coast med schools over East Coast med schools.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dsk89]

I predict that this thread will have appeared in the next few months anyhow, so might as well get it started. I selected the so-called """flagship""" med schools of the West Coast.

Duke it out! Pros and cons, likes and dislikes, merits and faults.

(Also, argue why the West Coast is the best coast. LOL. But more seriously, why we should all attend West Coast med schools over East Coast med schools.)

UW is a great school, but its hard to really put them in this category simply because they are so biased towards the WWAMI region. Practically no one else stands a chance at that school.

 

[leeyuhang]

Actually this weekend is more like Stanford vs. Oregon and USC vs. UCLA. Pac-12!!!

 

[ShenanigansMD]

Med School:

1 Stanford, UCSF
2 Washington, UCLA, UCSD
3 Oregon, USC
4 Other UC schools

Football:

1 Oregon
2 Everyone else

And... East Coast = Least Coast

 

[premed2000]

I always wonder why UW has a higher NIH funding than both UCSF and Stanford. UW is second only to Harvard.

 

[NekoBeats]

Actually this weekend is more like Stanford vs. Oregon and USC vs. UCLA. Pac-12!!!

Go Trojans!! 😉

 

[CholeCystems]

I guess depends what you are looking for. Take it for what you want but I think UW has been #1 in primary care 18 years in a row or something on USNews and OHSU is usually in the top 3 too. I think UCSF is in the top 5 in PC also.

 

[joonage]

I always wonder why UW has a higher NIH funding than both UCSF and Stanford.

It might possibly be due to UW's affiliation with Harborview Hospital (Only Trauma 1 in NW I think), Fred Hutch (cancer research), and Seattle Children's.

People knock on UW because it doesn't have that "name factor" and has a huge primary care focus. But it's still one of the best medical schools in the country that pumps out great researchers and doctors.

(Source: Current Husky)

 

[Arbor Vitae]

UCLA, ftw

 

[DrSolus]

I'm also in need of some advice here on the east vs west coast question: I've interviewed at several schools in the East and one in the West, specifically UWashington (!). I was pretty impressed and excited about UW after I visited, the problem is that it'll be a big investment for me to move out to Seattle from home and pay OOS tuition.

Can anyone here comment on how UW generally compares to other top schools on the east coast, and if there are any reasons why UW would be worth the move? (note: UW is the highest ranked school I was offered an interview for, but I've got acceptances at great schools out east too - I'm just trying to figure out if UW is as great as the rankings say it is)

I know this is a very vague question, but I'm pretty set on going into primary care and one of the big reasons why I applied to UW was for its reputation in that area (#1 in primary care according to usnews, #10 in research). Problem is, I know that at some point, the difference in ranking between the top 20 schools really doesn't mean much and it's questionable if rankings really mean anything at all in terms of quality of education. I have a feeling though that for primary care, UW's reputation in the field might clearly set it apart from other schools. Any thoughts?

Thanks for the help!

EDIT: To help bring this back to the main topic of the thread, maybe it would help to compare...say...UW vs Stanford? Is UW's excellence in primary care what sets it apart from a great school like Stanford?

 

[deleted127837]

Would need to know what schools you're comparing it to to really help you. The only comparable schools to Stanford on the east coast are ranked higher than UW, so that'll bias this discussion.

Obviously: UW will train you well. Consider the debt load you'll be taking and whether you want to be that far away from friends and family. For some people that sounds great, for others, they want to be close to home. NIH funding and research rankings are almost entirely irrelevant to your goal of being a physician, past the "tiers" for schools without a "big name" (top 5, 10, 20, 30, 50; exceptions being schools like Brown and Mayo whose reputations are at odds with their rank due to the comparative lack of focus on research.)

Of the list here, UCSF > Stanford > UW. If you're into research, Stanford > UCSF > UW (I think Stanford edges the others out in terms of overall research reputation and name-power). Pure clinical doctor training, UCSF > UW > Stanford. Stanford just doesn't have the hospitals or cases.

If you name the schools you're comparing UW to, then we can give our personal rankings.

 

[DrSolus]

Thanks for the input!

I guess I'll just put it out there that I'm considering Rochester and Mount Sinai. Both are great schools and both are well regarded in clinical and research training. I'm sure I'd be happy at either.

It's just hard to compare UW to other schools because it doesn't have the same name recognition out in the east and because nearly no one gets offered an interview from out of region.

My impression is that UW would be a better experience for someone wishing to go into primary care simply because so many people from there go into primary care and it provides the unique opportunity to practice medicine in such a variety of settings - even crossing state lines (the WWAMI program).

UW's famed medical centers are probably great to train at for residency, but I don't know how that translates into benefiting the med students there.

Obviously, I'm considering UW because I'd love to be on the west coast, but it would help to further justify the move if UW's training would be significantly different from the kind that I can get out east.

I know this is turning into a very UW centered question, so I hope I don't offend anyone by bringing this up here.

Thanks!

 

[alpinism]

UW is much better than Rochester and a little better than Sinai for clinical training and research.

UW is by far the best primary care school out there. If you're interested in primary care, go to UW.

 

[DrSolus]

UW is much better than Rochester and a little better than Sinai for clinical training and research.

What's your basis for this? I know it's your personal opinion, but surely you're basing it on something?

I've heard numerous times on this site that you should pick a school based on where you'll be happiest. Well, being close to home would definitely be easier/more comfortable for me, but I'm willing to go the extra 2.5k miles if UW is worth it. This is my dilemma and this is what I'm trying to figure out =/

Thanks alpinism for giving your take, I'd love to hear what others think as well.

 

[deleted127837]

Thanks for the input!

I guess I'll just put it out there that I'm considering Rochester and Mount Sinai. Both are great schools and both are well regarded in clinical and research training. I'm sure I'd be happy at either.

It's just hard to compare UW to other schools because it doesn't have the same name recognition out in the east and because nearly no one gets offered an interview from out of region.

My impression is that UW would be a better experience for someone wishing to go into primary care simply because so many people from there go into primary care and it provides the unique opportunity to practice medicine in such a variety of settings - even crossing state lines (the WWAMI program).

UW's famed medical centers are probably great to train at for residency, but I don't know how that translates into benefiting the med students there.

Obviously, I'm considering UW because I'd love to be on the west coast, but it would help to further justify the move if UW's training would be significantly different from the kind that I can get out east.

I know this is turning into a very UW centered question, so I hope I don't offend anyone by bringing this up here.

Thanks!

UW > Mount Sinai >> Rochester, in my opinion. Larger, more comprehensive system that allows its students dominant access to an entire region of hospitals, whereas Mount Sinai hospitals are competing with Cornell and Columbia, both of which are commonly considered "better." Nobody outside of medicine has heard of Mount Sinai, even moreso after their recent name change (Icahn School of Medicine?), if that matters to you.

UW also has more substantial NIH money, and their main undergrad campus and corresponding programs obviously provides the opportunity for massive diversity in terms of research and study opportunities, something Mount Sinai simply can't match.

Of course, Mount Sinai has New York City if you're into that, but the benefits aren't especially tangible when you're a poor medical student, and Seattle's cost of living will be lower.

Rochester isn't really in the same tier as the others in terms of research, hospital, etc. opportunities, and MS or UW will most likely take you farther.

And if you're an east coaster, it never hurts to get some cred on the opposite coast for greater opportunities later.

UW is by far the best primary care school out there. If you're interested in primary care, go to UW.

You overstate the significance of the US News and World rankings. They're the research rankings, minus NIH funding, plus what percentage of people go into primary care. As in, they're as meaningless outside of broad categorizations as the research rankings are.

 

[IlDestriero]

Once you stroll the campus at Stanford the decision will be clear. If you want to go to go to cloudy Washington for specialty residency training, that's fine, but 4 years of medical school in Palo Alto is hard to beat. It is a good 30 to 45 min to SF, so if you're into the urban lifestyle, it's probably not for you.

 

[mcloaf]

Once you stroll the campus at Stanford the decision will be clear. If you want to go to go to cloudy Washington for specialty residency training, that's fine, but 4 years of medical school in Palo Alto is hard to beat. It is a good 30 to 45 min to SF, so if you're into the urban lifestyle, it's probably not for you.

Ehhh, I may be bitter because they didn't interview me, but I have a friend doing a PhD at Stanford and he can't stand Palo Alto because it's boring as ****. That being said, I'm a Seattleite so the weather up here doesn't bother me (plus there's really no better place to be in the world from July-Sept).

 

[113]

You really can't go wrong with any of these. First, go with your gut. Second, go with the cheapest COA.

 

[The Beyonder]

Ehhh, I may be bitter because they didn't interview me, but I have a friend doing a PhD at Stanford and he can't stand Palo Alto because it's boring as ****. That being said, I'm a Seattleite so the weather up here doesn't bother me (plus there's really no better place to be in the world from July-Sept).

I went on a tour of Stanford and did not like the vibe. People at UCSF were very down to earth. There is also the fact that I like cities and Palo Alto felt very sub-urban.

 

[DrSolus]

Nobody outside of medicine has heard of Mount Sinai, even moreso after their recent name change (Icahn School of Medicine?), if that matters to you.

I couldn't care less about name recognition - Sinai's reputation counts where it matters: in medicine.

UW also has more substantial NIH money, and their main undergrad campus and corresponding programs obviously provides the opportunity for massive diversity in terms of research and study opportunities, something Mount Sinai simply can't match.

I was under the impression most med students have as little involvement with the undergrad campus as possible. Also, I can think of many excellent medical schools that don't have an attached undergrad campus and I don't think this detracts from them much, if at all (UCSF?).

And if you're an east coaster, it never hurts to get some cred on the opposite coast for greater opportunities later.

Wouldn't this come at the cost of having less cred on the east coast though since I'm training on the west coast for 4 years? All I have going for me in the east is my undergrad degree.

 

[Lucidity]

I couldn't care less about name recognition - Sinai's reputation counts where it matters: in medicine.

I was under the impression most med students have as little involvement with the undergrad campus as possible. Also, I can think of many excellent medical schools that don't have an attached undergrad campus and I don't think this detracts from them much, if at all (UCSF?).

Wouldn't this come at the cost of having less cred on the east coast though since I'm training on the west coast for 4 years? All I have going for me in the east is my undergrad degree.

Sorry to detract the OP's thread more. DrSolus if you are thinking primary care go to the school that will create the least amount of debt for you. From the MSAR that would be Mount Sinai about $11,000 difference between that and UW (From COA not tuition). It doesn't matter that UW has a primary care focus, almost all medical schools do. If I were in your shoes and was truly thinking primary care I would go to the school that graduated me with the least amount of debt.