Which is more prestiges: UCSF or Stanford?

[jmejia1]

Among the lay people, hands down everyone would say Stanford is simply because the name is well known, but among the medical profession, including premeds, which holds more prestige?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mongoose]

In my opinion, it is much more "prestiges" (sic) to actually be able to spell PRESTIGIOUS!!!!!

 

[jargon124]

More prestigious? Are you crazy? Who cares? Both are obviously and absolutely GREAT schools. Which one is better will surely depend on who you ask, what your preferences are, etc.

 

[none]

I agree. There is no noticeable difference in prestige. The decision should be made based on a complex evaluation of location, cost, people, and the overall curriculums.

 

[lady in red]

stanford almost had their accreditation revoked awhile ago b/c of inadequate facilities and sexual harassment stuff. UCSF does rank higher than Stanford (currently), and people i knew who got full rides (i mean full scholarships) to both, chose UCSF. I guess Stanford will always have a name recognition, but, when it comes to residency, i guess these two schools are pretty even. I'd go with UCSF, but then again I am super-biased towards UCSF, so don't listen to me!

 

[BlackPuma]

I personally think Stanford has a huge repuatation...

I don't know, people consider it the ivy league of the west coast gosh, it's campus was beautiful though...

 

[Original]

Hey your question is a valid one; never mind the haters. I don't think many people here will choose Ross-med over Stanford med, yet several are quick to say prestige is an insignificant factor in medical training. I think it's empowering to med school applicants that we can evaluate and compare med schools just as they do us.

Anyhow, they're both great schools but UCSF is more "prestigious" than Stanford in both biomedical research and clinical training. This is despite the fact that the lay dude on the street knows Stanford but might not know UCSF. Most non-Stanford people in the medical community will tell you that UCSF is better than Stanford.

 

[jmejia1]

Originally posted by mongoose:
•In my opinion, it is much more "prestiges" (sic) to actually be able to spell PRESTIGIOUS!!!!!•••

Mongoose, if you're going to correct me, I don't mind, but don't be a jerk in the process. The tone of your remark was more condescending than funny.

Thanks Original for supporting my question. Premeds sometimes fool themselves into thinking to deeply. My question was which had more prestige, period. Yes of course if one had to pick between attending the two then a whole bunch of more important factors are considered.

Who cares? Well Jargon apparently you don't, but who cares.

 

[AJM]

Originally posted by lady in red:
•stanford almost had their accreditation revoked awhile ago b/c of inadequate facilities and sexual harassment stuff. UCSF does rank higher than Stanford (currently), and people i knew who got full rides (i mean full scholarships) to both, chose UCSF. I guess Stanford will always have a name recognition, but, when it comes to residency, i guess these two schools are pretty even. I'd go with UCSF, but then again I am super-biased towards UCSF, so don't listen to me!•••

Just a couple of corrections: Stanford was never at risk of getting their accreditation revoked. What actually happened a few years ago was that they almost got put on probation by the accreditation committee, which I think is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist and a hit to their PR. The risk of probation was brought up only because of the facilities, not because of any sexual harrassment issues. As far as the facilities go, the administration is currently working on improving the situation. For example, there are brand new anatomy labs which just opened about a year ago, the student lounge will be renovated and improved this summer, and there are plans in progress for the construction of a new medical education building.

You may already be aware of the sexual harrassment issues which lady in red referred to from Fran Connoly's book "Walking out on the Boys". These problems revolved around 2 or 3 individuals, happened over 10 years ago, and in no way affected Stanford's accreditation.

Personally, I think it's very difficult to split hairs over Stanford vs. UCSF's reputations. While I think their reputations are about equivalent, the two programs are actually very different in the way they approach medical education and in the types of opportunities that are available to students. I don't think one program is necessarily stronger than the other, just that one school may happen to appeal more to a certain individual.

As far as the question of remaining competitive for residency, both Stanford and UCSF students do very well in residency placement, and they tend interview at and match at the same or similar places.

Just my 0.02

 

[mongoose]

jmejia -- Sorry. Didn't mean to sound condescending. It is so hard to get tone of voice to come out correctly on these forums. I think it sounded like that because I harbor anger towards you from the time you slammed one of the forum members for having a DUI.

 

[EpiII]

The better school is the one you get accepted at.

If you are accepted at both, then it would depend on what you think you are interested in doing in your career. Find out which has the better faculty or track record in your field of interest. Otherwise, look at cost, location, etc.

 

[eagle26]

I thought being a doctor was more important than the prestige of the institution you attend...I stand corrected now that I know what it's all about. Thank you.

 

[Original]

No don't stand corrected. Being a doctor should indeed be more important than the institution one attends. However, I think jmejia is in a position to choose (or is anticipating such a position) between both places. From his/her post, prestige happens to be one of the SEVERAL criteria involved in his/her decision process.

 

[rajneel1]

i think this is a good question. not that i have the problem of choosing between the two, but i liked stanford's curriculum and the way things are over there. but it seems like UCSF is stronger in medicine stuff. both are awesome of course. but i always think of it as: it is not what school you go to, but how you use your time at the school you do go to.

 

[jdub]

btw, doesn't stanford also have a formal 5 year program? i don't know about ucsf, but if somebody is into research but not the phd, or they just want a broader experience, perhaps with interships abroad, doing it in five years sounds pretty cool.

 

[Street Philosopher]

If I had a choice I'd go to UCSF. That's a big "if" though.

I'd say UCSF is more prestigious to people whose lives extend past undergrad

 

[spicoli]

Stanford SUCKS!!

Like its East side counterparts, it's riding the laurels of its reputation. If you want a QUALITY education, got to UCSF. It is mo' betta. However, if you are outta state, you're pretty much SOL with UCSF.

Trust me. I'm listening to the frickin song!!

 

[spicoli]

Everytime we tried to storm the field, police officers would attempt to stop us. Why is that? But then again, I can't complain about our lack of success. Interesting. Uh oh....

....CLEAR!!!

...uh uh huh huh...

...coherent thought coming back....

...oh wait... I was right.

 

[Triangulation]

My understanding was that it was more than a 'handslap' that Stanford experienced a couple years ago regarding their review with the AAMC. It was basically Stanford's prestige that kept that boat afloat. National Public Radio did a piece on the situation b/c it was such a big deal. They interviewed Stanford med students at the time and several expressed their dissatisfaction with the library and facilities. One individual described how the poor state of the facilities was underscored when they visited the University of Washington and saw their lecture halls. They also received accreditation for laparoscopic surgery only fairly recently and now that is under legal scrutiny bc some othe procedures have gone drastically awry (one woman had her colon fall out of her body during a bowel movement!!) Price and prestige (at least in the field of medicine) go to UCSF. I'll take either though.

To Joseph Reses: It's a fair question. Prestige does matter to a lot of people who have a role in your destiny. People will be more impressed with an MD from one school vs. another, and that impression could impact whether you get the position you seek or not. I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying that's how it works. An applicant has the right to know what people think of a school he/she is thinking about.

I think it's unfortunate that you throw sarcastic remarks at an honest question. People don't need to be penalized for thinking differently than you, moreover I think many people can benefit from this discussion and that shouldn't be quelled. We're all on the same side here.

 

[AJM]

Originally posted by Triangulation:
•My understanding was that it was more than a 'handslap' that Stanford experienced a couple years ago regarding their review with the AAMC. It was basically Stanford's prestige that kept that boat afloat. National Public Radio did a piece on the situation b/c it was such a big deal. They interviewed Stanford med students at the time and several expressed their dissatisfaction with the library and facilities. One individual described how the poor state of the facilities was underscored when they visited the University of Washington and saw their lecture halls. They also received accreditation for laparoscopic surgery only fairly recently and now that is under legal scrutiny bc some othe procedures have gone drastically awry (one woman had her colon fall out of her body during a bowel movement!!) Price and prestige (at least in the field of medicine) go to UCSF. I'll take either though.
•••

Actually, it was just a "handslap". Stanford was never put on probation, and the main thing that happened was that the LCME threatened that if Stanford didn't do anything soon to improve the educational facilities, they'll be more serious when the next review comes around. As I said in my previous post, Stanford med school has fixed some problems, and is in the process of creating a "definitive" solution (aka a new medical education building). The reason it was on NPR as well as on several local TV stations was that there were several members of the Stanford community who felt that they could take advantage of Stanford's situation with the LCME to effect even more immediate change in the facilities. They therefore approached the media with their story, which when combined with Stanford's reputation is actually a big reason why it received such attention. (ie, if Stanford was not such a highly regarded institution, it wouldn't have received any media attention.)

Anyway, my point was and still is that Stanford was not at risk for losing their accreditation. In addition, considering the progress they are making on the facilities, which is being followed by the LCME, they are not at any risk of losing their accreditation in the future.

2nd -- I don't know where you heard about the laparoscopic surgery program from. Their laparascopic program has been around for quite a while. In fact, the surgery department is currently doing research on virtual reality training for laparoscopic surgery. There isn't even a national accreditation in existence for laparoscopic surgery fellowships -- it's considered an "unofficial" fellowship -- so there is no program out there that has an accredited fellowship program in laparoscopic surgery. I also have not heard about the case you mentioned. My roommate is a Stanford surgery resident, and I definitely would have heard about that one. Last, what difference does a laparoscopic fellowship program make in medical student education? Those are often the most boring cases for medical students to watch. I personally wish that I was able to scrub into LESS lap cases than what I did. Now, if you would have reversed your argument and made a statement that Stanford has too much laparoscopic cases, and they might be better off with less training in that, then I would agree with you.

Last point -- price. Stanford and UCSF graduating students have the same debt on average, to within $5,000. Please don't make the assumption that just because UCSF's tuition is lower that it's cheaper to go to.

There's a lot of misinformation about Stanford med out there, mostly because it's an unusual program and most people don't understand it. If you are curious at all about the school, please come visit it yourself and make your own judgment. If you're concerned about the facilities, come see the school for yourself, then decide whether they would actually affect your quality of life. Please don't make assumptions based on 2nd or 3rd hand information. Some people hate the facilities, while other people, like me, don't mind them at all, or don't even notice them. It depends on what you value.


As far as reputation, to re-emphasize what I said and what another poster said on another thread, there is no significant reputation difference between any of the top 10 schools, particularly when you're talking about residency selection. If you are at a top 10 school, you will have a definite advantage in residency selection.

My 0.02

 

[Triangulation]

Unfortunately ajm, secondhand information such as the SF Chronicle, where I read the article regarding the surgeries gone awry, is something I'm going to pay attention to. Secondhand information is what makes this forum work. Stories we hear, things we have read. I think it's strange to say that we need to physically visit each and every school before we evaluate it. That is why we read, why we ask, to find out what people have heard or read. I have nothing against Stanford. Many of their programs as well as the flexibility seem outstanding, but the issue of facilities that people with whom I have spoken were dissatsfied with does concern me. A library is critical and any administrator knows this, so, to me, it is short-sighted that they ever let this lapse. The mere fact that LCME had to step does reflect poorly.

Let me emphasize: Stanford is a great school that I would attend, but UCSF is more impressive to me. As far as cost, according to 2001 Princeton Review Book of Medical Schools, written by a current Stanford med student, Stanford is on average $12K more expensive as far as loan debt. When you're as poor as me, you gotta think about that.

 

[ConstantlyWaiting]

UCSF is much better because they gave me an interview. Stanford is mean because they rejected me. Therefore, UCSF is in my opinion, better. (shocking, isn't it?)

 

[Jova]

I feel I must respond to this thread with some clarification.

#1 Stanford's laparoscopic surgery program is very strong! The article in the Cronicle was not about Stanford's surgery program!!--It was about events that occured years ago with a researcher at Stanford (who happened to be a laparoscopic surgeon) who may have submitted incorrect information on research that he did many years ago. The article was about a research issue NOT patient-care. (Infact, I believe that the article even mentioned that he is a respected surgeon.) Please re-read the article.

#2a I think the Stanford campus is absolutely beautiful. Yes, the classrooms were built a long time ago and are not as modern looking as some schools, but they have seats and professors--not much else is really needed in lecture. (By the way, they were just re-painted this week, surprise to me.) More importantly, most of the lectures I attend are really quite comfortable with the most pleasant atmoshpere I know--my sofa, my jammies, with my mug of coffee (or Corona)! The use of technology at Stanford sometimes blows my mind. One of the perks is that all lectures are videotaped and available the same-day on the internet.

#2b Also, the hospital, I think anyway, is absolutely charming! If you are going to be spending tons of time at a hospital (as a patient or student/doctor) this is a beautiful place to be, especially compared to most county/public facilities. This is important: When choosing where to go to med school, REMEMBR, you will be spending most of your time, (and learning most meaningfully) in the HOSPITAL.--Don't base decisions on which school has the best-looking classrooms.

#2c The facilities at Stanford are varied. There are some beautiful new research buildings with state-of-the-art cool stuff (ie. each anatomy table has its own built-in ventilation system, very cool)! The library building is not that great. However, it has all the books/journals you need. Honestly, I never go to the library. I have never needed to. Most important journal articles are available through the internet (Stanford maintains connections to databases so we can access full-text articles and print them on the computer). The medical campus is landscaped beautifully to have fresh blooming flowers all year round. (They actually dig out the plants and change them seasonally so they will always have blooming flowers.) If you are really into libraries, many students go to the Law School or Business School libraries, which are very nice (plus, if you're single, it's a great place to find a date).

#3 Financial aid is unbeatable! Seriously! I also had no money, and financial aid was a big factor in my decision. Attending Stanford was actually cheaper than attending the UCs!--No kidding. If you don't have much money, Stanford will find some to give to you. I was offered a full-tuition grant at one of the UCs; even with that, Stanford offered me a better financial picture! Take home point: Do not even consider money a factor when choosing between a UC and Stanford.

#4 Both UCSF and Stanford are excellent schools! If you are fortunate to have the choice, I urge you to spend time at both and just choose where you "fit" the best. Stanford is geared to a certain type of personality and admits students accordingly. It is very important to know which school fits your personality best.

Once you figure out which school "feels" best, go there. And remember, both are excellent!

Jova

 

[Triangulation]

I don't know what this means, but it sure doesn't sound good.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/533638.asp#BODY" target="_blank">web page</a>

My intention was not to rile people up, but to bring to the fore something that people have, do, and will talk about in regards to Stanford med. It doesn't mean it's not a quality school. I think in certain regards the school handled this well.

 

[AJM]

Thank you, Jova, for clarifying details much more eloquently than I could. I did forget to mention the fact that the school is very committed to it's students, and while the classrooms themselves may not look the prettiest, the resources that have been made available to us are absolutely amazing. Most of the outstanding library facilities are online, as Jova said. So, the administration has in no way let education "slide" here.

Triangulation -- believe it or not, but you do actually need to visit a school to get a good feel for it. If you've never seen a place, and never talked with a good sample of students or faculty, then it is incredibly difficult to make a judgment on a schools' quality. In my previous posts I was just encouraging anyone who may be interested in finding out more about the school to visit Stanford to see for themselves how the school fits them, and to see what a real sampling of students think about the facilities, etc (and not just from the 3 students that approached the media.)

The Chronicle and the Princeton Review are still 2nd hand information, and not even good information at that. The Review is known to contain a great deal of false information about almost every school out there, even Stanford. As far as the Chronicle article, I think I now know what you were referring to with the laparoscopic surgeon -- that was actually an OB/Gyn who is marginally affiliated with Stanford who does laparoscopic Gyn surgery in the Stanford OR. He also produces a bunch of research, and there was a lot of controversy surrounding the research (not the clinical practice).

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing about Stanford's program. If you truly want to know about the type of training you would get there, whether you would fit in, and whether you like or dislike the facilities, please come visit. I think one thing that you will learn is that the facilities and LCME issue (which happened 4 years ago, BTW) is not what students are thinking or talking about. In my own residency interviews, no one (not even other med students) has asked me about Stanford's facilities or about the LCME -- it's really not what people are talking about.

Both UCSF and Stanford are amazing schools with outstanding opportunities, and both will help a great deal with residency selection (which is really what's important in discussing med school prestige, isn't it?). I hope you will be happy at whatever med school you end up at, Triangulation, and I also hope that you will at least give Stanford a chance.

Take care.

 

[Triangulation]

Honestly ajm, I do like Stanford a lot. I have family who attended there and Palo Alto is a lot of fun. Excellent research is done there as well(I mean they've got Lubert Stryer. What are you gonna do?! I'm big into physics and the first demonstration of particles moving backwards in time was done there recently. Very cool.) On a superficial note, the architecture doesn't do it for me personally, but the Rodin's near the chapel are fantastic. They haven't said anything to me since submitting my 2dary, so it's not a matter of me liking them, apparently they're not that keen on me.

I just feel like we should be able to put everything out there on the table. That was my only intention. I didn't mean to ruffle feathers.