I know the Stanford program extremely well. Well enough that I can identify each person from Stanford on this thread. That includes you ATsai, although it's quite bold to be fomenting rumors about us as a fellow from somewhere else--granted, you do have a connection to this place---ERRRRRRR I digress.
Let's not beat around the bush. The OP and others obviously did not have a good time here. There are others on this thread who sound like robots defending this program. The truth lies somewhere in between.
1. There's no real way to directly compare your experience in a residency program to some other place. Keep this in mind whenever someone has a strong opinion about their program.
2. That being said, the number one problem at Stanford is that Stanford is disorganized. This is Stanford in general. Same goes with the residency program. It's gotten better, but not by much. Registration, orientation, paperwork, expect to have hassles setting any of this up.
3. Diversity of patients. Surprisingly, we do get a diverse group of patients. There's definitely the rich b*tch clientele who demand everything, but there's also a large population of migrant workers, uninsured, etc who are referred to Stanford. I don't want to discuss this ad nauseam, but suffice it to say the only big deficiency is the lack of HIV patients.
4. Biggest gap in training. Our ICU training sucks. Whoever tries to sell you that it's good, don't listen to them. When we are on unit months we take care of a lot of postop surgical patients, which gets old after about 2 patients and frankly is a waste of our time. Both at the VA and at Stanford, residents are basically interns and rarely get to run the show. You get the point.
5. Team morale. This one is harder to assess, but there definitely was a time when most of the residents were pissed off and disgruntled about the leadership change. Also, there were too many changes at one time, some good, some really bad. The residents--and a lot of faculty actually--felt slighted by all the unilateral changes. Also, it's true, the person touted as the program director is not the real program director. But you'd rather have the other person running the show anyway. It is an unnecessary facade though. It seems like the morale has gotten better, but time will tell.
6. Yea, our former dept chair was dishonorably discharged. I won't go into details either, because it's all hearsay and could lead to slander.
7. We still do pretty well in the fellowship match. A lot of people want to stay at Stanford for fellowship, which explains the disproportionate number of Stanford matches for GI/Cards/Heme-Onc. Most want to stay because of family, comfort, etc. A lot of the people who matched for GI/Cards, for instance, could've matched elsewhere if they chose to. Some of them at the top places (MGH, UCLA, Brigham, etc.) if they wanted. The Stanford name carries weight when applying--whether deservedly so, that's another story. The faculty is also pretty supportive when it comes to applying. Our fellowship matching is one of our greatest strengths--don't ignore this if you want to specialize!
I'll post more later, if this thread continues...
Probably not. Five or six SUH residents have come and gone and none have commented on the chief of medicine scandal. I'm impressed by the discipline.
-AT.
. I also felt like it was clear that Dr Witteles was the acting PD and very in touch with the residents and, yes, an incredible guy.
