UCSF interview??

[extra07extra]

I don't know what to make of my interview. All we talked about was baseball. The interview began with "Tell me about yourself". So I said that I was a major A's fan (apparently the faculty member was too) and we spent the next 45 minutes talking about nothing but baseball and the A's.

I'm starting to wish that we had gone over at least some of the more traditional pharmacy school interview questions.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xxone2trixx]

As long as you were confident and articulate, don't mind how the interviewers were. I'm pretty sure you did fine

On the other hand, I was actually disappointed with the whole interview thing. I thought I wasn't able to show my true self and my passion for pharmacy. My nervousness dominated me and my mind went blank and I was stuttering like crazy and probably was blabbering nonsense to them.
Does UCSF place the rest of the applicants who weren't accepted from the interview pool on the waiting? Or do they straight out reject some people? I am so scared right now.

No need to worry like me... you just need to be positive and just know that you tried your best. Being apart of the 275 people that were able to interview at this school is a task that everyone should be proud of because you know that they wanted you for some reason or another. Just stay positive. Know that you did your best. If they do accept us then great... if not then there are endless possibilities... i have learned that you can not just let one thing get you down but just take it with a grain of salt and learn from it and always stay positive

on that note joel said that some people will be rejected some accepted and the rest are on the waiting list with ranks.

 

[xxone2trixx]

I don't know what to make of my interview. All we talked about was baseball. The interview began with "Tell me about yourself". So I said that I was a major A's fan (apparently the faculty member was too) and we spent the next 45 minutes talking about nothing but baseball and the A's.

I'm starting to wish that we had gone over at least some of the more traditional pharmacy school interview questions.

At least your interviewer was interested in you by talking about it... my interviwers were like... okay... yea... they never seemed interested at all in what i had to offer and they kept badgering me on the topic of underserved populations..

 

[UES Girl]

At least your interviewer was interested in you by talking about it... my interviwers were like... okay... yea... they never seemed interested at all in what i had to offer and they kept badgering me on the topic of underserved populations..

The one thing that I hope will make you, guys, feel better at least somewhat is that at least there is always next year. There seemed to be a few of re-applicants including myself at the interviews and they even asked me during my interview about being a re-applicant. I said I believe it is a significant advantage because it shows that I not only possess the will and determination to re-apply again, but it also clearly shows my passion for the profession in general and the admiration for the school in specific. It takes a lot of courage to re-apply, at least for me it did.

 

[Jaded03]

I don't know what to make of my interview. All we talked about was baseball. The interview began with "Tell me about yourself". So I said that I was a major A's fan (apparently the faculty member was too) and we spent the next 45 minutes talking about nothing but baseball and the A's.

I'm starting to wish that we had gone over at least some of the more traditional pharmacy school interview questions.

No worries. My friend had a similar interview for medical school. He didn't think he stood a chance at this top tier medical school and just came in totally relaxed. They talked about ucla and basketball the whole time. He's now a third year there. However, ucsf has a student too. The student didn't chime in?

 

[xxone2trixx]

The one thing that I hope will make you, guys, feel better at least somewhat is that at least there is always next year. There seemed to be a few of re-applicants including myself at the interviews and they even asked me during my interview about being a re-applicant. I said I believe it is a significant advantage because it shows that I not only possess the will and determination to re-apply again, but it also clearly shows my passion for the profession in general and the admiration for the school in specific. It takes a lot of courage to re-apply, at least for me it did.

i agree with what you said. It does take alot of courage and alot of will and determination to go through the whole process again i commend you and good luck. Thanks for the encouragement. Hopefully we can be classmates this coming fall

 

[xoxfresswataxox]

they were mean to you? what happened? So far everyone said that their interviewers were really nice and a little more laid back than they anticipated. Did you get an older/ younger faculty? I'm sure it's not as bad as you think it was.

Severely dissapointed by the interviewers.... they were so mean... but what can i do... its all over now all i gotta do is just wait :-(... this sucks too since this was my number one choice ahh :-(

 

[xxone2trixx]

they were mean to you? what happened? So far everyone said that their interviewers were really nice and a little more laid back than they anticipated. Did you get an older/ younger faculty? I'm sure it's not as bad as you think it was.

yea they were mean especially the student. It was a younger faculty member actually an adjunct professor so idk. I answered the questions to the best of my abilities but thye never seemed that interested in what i had to say or what i had to offer but thats about it...

 

[CafeMed]

yea they were mean especially the student. It was a younger faculty member actually an adjunct professor so idk. I answered the questions to the best of my abilities but thye never seemed that interested in what i had to say or what i had to offer but thats about it...

Hmmm...kinda sounds like my interviewers. The student didn't seem really satisfied with my answers and it showed because the student just looked at me like...um...ok...after I answered questions. I don't feel too good about the interview.

 

[xxone2trixx]

Hmmm...kinda sounds like my interviewers. The student didn't seem really satisfied with my answers and it showed because the student just looked at me like...um...ok...after I answered questions. I don't feel too good about the interview.

i concur but what can you do right.. you did the best you could. look on the bright side we both got interviews and that in itself is a great accomplishment. you should be proud if they didnt like you for who you were then well its not the right place to be!

 

[UES Girl]

How are you guys managing the waiting ?

 

[UCB2005]

How are you guys managing the waiting ?

Oh God...lol. I have been thinking the same thing. Waiting sucks...every day I check if there's a large or small envelope waiting for me.

 

[xangelx]

Oh God...lol. I have been thinking the same thing. Waiting sucks...every day I check if there's a large or small envelope waiting for me.

What is the difference between a small and a large envelope again?
Thanks

 

[UES Girl]

What is the difference between a small and a large envelope again?
Thanks

There are no large and big evelopes, lol. UCSF students said envelopes look the same when someone asked that question.

 

[xangelx]

There are no large and big evelopes, lol. UCSF students said envelopes look the same when someone asked that question.

Okay then. So the only way of knowing is to rip open the small envelope and reading the first sentence

 

[koercive]

How are you guys managing the waiting ?

reapplying sucks (over 1 year of waiting).

praying and hoping for the best, preparing for the worst. i try to forget about it, so i'm not so

 

[pharminful]

So far everyone said that their interviewers were really nice and a little more laid back than they anticipated. Did you get an older/ younger faculty? I'm sure it's not as bad as you think it was.

My interviewers were not quite so laid back, but they weren't mean. A resident and student interviewed me, so both were pretty young. They were difficult to impress. Kinda aloof most of the time. It did not feel like a "conversation," which Joel kept stressing the interview should be like. I heard some people interviewed with the dean. Who interviewed you guys? Did most people get a faculty and 3rd/4th year student?

 

[homeskillet]

My interviewers were not quite so laid back, but they weren't mean. A resident and student interviewed me, so both were pretty young. They were difficult to impress. Kinda aloof most of the time. It did not feel like a "conversation," which Joel kept stressing the interview should be like. I heard some people interviewed with the dean. Who interviewed you guys? Did most people get a faculty and 3rd/4th year student?

I think we had the same people. I think it went pretty good for me and even though I had a couple of long thinking questions, it was still a bit relaxed and conversational. Maybe they were so intrigued by your file that they were too concentrated on grilling you.

 

[homeskillet]

It could also be that since they were relatively young, they haven't had too much experience interviewing, and stuck to a rubric or bank of questions, making things seem less conversational. This happened to me at my cal northstate interview with P1s.

 

[OTFuturePharmD]

I interviewed with a faculty member and a 3rd year student. They were really tough and nice at the same time. It wasn't an easy interview. They asked some thought provoking questions and really challeneged me on my background. Neither of them were mean and made the interview into a really nice conversation. No matter what happens I had a great time and don't regret anything I said or did. I was honest. I did like the fact that UCSF has professors that are practising pharmacists. I have found through my interviews at other schools and my research, not every school does have as many practising pharmacists.

 

[homeskillet]

How are you guys managing the waiting ?

i work in the sunset neighborhood so i practically see the tip of ucsf everyday from my window. oiiii... just think happy thoughts..

 

[Suparman31]

My interviewer was an emeritus professor... he was pretty serious and kept staring me down, although he cracked a few chuckles here and there. The student interviewer was as cold as ice... and she questioned one of my answer responses (it was a question about Obama's healthcare policy...apparently my opinion wasn't the answer she wanted to here). Not a particularly fun or laid back experience.

 

[schleima]

My wife was one of the people interviewed on Feb 20.

One very interesting topic which we found out on the day of her interview is that there is apparently a killer question.

In the two days leading up to her interview, my wife met with 5 different professors and the assoc dean for informational interviews, in order to get a sense of the faculty and UCSF's role in the future of pharmacy. In one of the faculty member's offices, she met two pharmacology (not pharmacy) students. They both told her that during their pharmacy school admissions interviews, they said they were interested in research.... and were subsequently denied admission!

UCSF's justification for this is that if you're interested in research, you should be on a pharmacology PhD track, not pharmacy. So the lesson is, if anyone asks you if you are interested in pursuing anything besides pharmacy, the answer should be a resounding NO.

And for what it's worth, her interviewer was also stone faced (the student was more affable), though she did get the faculty member to crack a smile or two. The good thing is that the professor was someone that she tried to contact for an informational interview (she was too busy to meet because of interviews), so my wife was actually very familiar with her academic background, and was (hopefully) able to emphasize their similar goals.

 

[xxone2trixx]

My wife was one of the people interviewed on Feb 20.

One very interesting topic which we found out on the day of her interview is that there is apparently a killer question.

In the two days leading up to her interview, my wife met with 5 different professors and the assoc dean for informational interviews, in order to get a sense of the faculty and UCSF's role in the future of pharmacy. In one of the faculty member's offices, she met two pharmacology (not pharmacy) students. They both told her that during their pharmacy school admissions interviews, they said they were interested in research.... and were subsequently denied admission!

UCSF's justification for this is that if you're interested in research, you should be on a pharmacology PhD track, not pharmacy. So the lesson is, if anyone asks you if you are interested in pursuing anything besides pharmacy, the answer should be a resounding NO.

And for what it's worth, her interviewer was also stone faced (the student was more affable), though she did get the faculty member to crack a smile or two. The good thing is that the professor was someone that she tried to contact for an informational interview (she was too busy to meet because of interviews), so my wife was actually very familiar with her academic background, and was (hopefully) able to emphasize their similar goals.

thats not nice... i think i had that question but i totally forgot how i answered it... :-( all we can do is wait now :-(

 

[dt30]

My wife was one of the people interviewed on Feb 20.

One very interesting topic which we found out on the day of her interview is that there is apparently a killer question.

In the two days leading up to her interview, my wife met with 5 different professors and the assoc dean for informational interviews, in order to get a sense of the faculty and UCSF's role in the future of pharmacy. In one of the faculty member's offices, she met two pharmacology (not pharmacy) students. They both told her that during their pharmacy school admissions interviews, they said they were interested in research.... and were subsequently denied admission!

UCSF's justification for this is that if you're interested in research, you should be on a pharmacology PhD track, not pharmacy. So the lesson is, if anyone asks you if you are interested in pursuing anything besides pharmacy, the answer should be a resounding NO.

And for what it's worth, her interviewer was also stone faced (the student was more affable), though she did get the faculty member to crack a smile or two. The good thing is that the professor was someone that she tried to contact for an informational interview (she was too busy to meet because of interviews), so my wife was actually very familiar with her academic background, and was (hopefully) able to emphasize their similar goals.

I'd have to say that this simply doesn't ring true with own experiences in the program. They actually actively encourage students in the program to pursue research based careers either in academics or industry if that's what they are interested in. Hence the pharm. sci. pathway, which sets up students to spend the majority of their 4th year working full time on research and potentially enter into a subsequent fellowship as opposed to direct residency. Yes, the heaviest emphasis in the curriculum is on clinical skills, but those are applicable no matter where you wind up. If anything I think UCSF is one of the institutions that is leading the way in terms of promoting the Pharm. D.'s role in research oriented jobs that have traditionally gone exclusively to Ph.D.'s.

In my own interview we talked almost extensively about my own research past and how my eventual plan was to work in clinical research in industry and I personally believe it gave me an edge over what could have been regarded as a more typical approach. If your actual goals are research based and you try and come up with a story that your passion is in clinical work this might come off as disingenuous. We did talk about why I choose to pursue a Pharm. D. over a Ph.D., but since this is a major decision it's something that I had obviously spent a lot of time thinking about and could articulate why I had chosen Pharm. D. instead. I guess if someone had never thought about the difference, or about what a Pharm. D. could provide to a research oriented career and what the drawbacks were, than yes, it's probably a reason to not take their application seriously and potentially deny them.

Just my two cents for what it's worth.

Good luck to all those waiting to hear back and hopefully I'll be seeing some of you around in the fall!

 

[schleima]

I'd have to say that this simply doesn't ring true with own experiences in the program. They actually actively encourage students in the program to pursue research based careers either in academics or industry if that's what they are interested in. Hence the pharm. sci. pathway, which sets up students to spend the majority of their 4th year working full time on research and potentially enter into a subsequent fellowship as opposed to direct residency. Yes, the heaviest emphasis in the curriculum is on clinical skills, but those are applicable no matter where you wind up. If anything I think UCSF is one of the institutions that is leading the way in terms of promoting the Pharm. D.'s role in research oriented jobs that have traditionally gone exclusively to Ph.D.'s.

In my own interview we talked almost extensively about my own research past and how my eventual plan was to work in clinical research in industry and I personally believe it gave me an edge over what could have been regarded as a more typical approach. If your actual goals are research based and you try and come up with a story that your passion is in clinical work this might come off as disingenuous. We did talk about why I choose to pursue a Pharm. D. over a Ph.D., but since this is a major decision it's something that I had obviously spent a lot of time thinking about and could articulate why I had chosen Pharm. D. instead. I guess if someone had never thought about the difference, or about what a Pharm. D. could provide to a research oriented career and what the drawbacks were, than yes, it's probably a reason to not take their application seriously and potentially deny them.

Just my two cents for what it's worth.

Good luck to all those waiting to hear back and hopefully I'll be seeing some of you around in the fall!

I suppose it's very possible (and likely) that the interviewer noticed other things about those pharmacology students that disqualified them from pharmacy school, other than their research background. We don't have that information-- all we know is what they told us, which is that admissions told them that they were denied for the reasons I outlined above.

I have a feeling that the devil is in the details here. My wife is very interested in the pharm sciences pathway, and she has a very strong research background, but ultimately she found the solitary life of a researcher unfulfilling and wanted clinical interaction with patients, while at the same time performing research, and that's what she told them (because it's the truth). Hopefully they appreciated this answer and offer her a spot in the upcoming class.

 

[extra07extra]

My wife was one of the people interviewed on Feb 20.

One very interesting topic which we found out on the day of her interview is that there is apparently a killer question.

In the two days leading up to her interview, my wife met with 5 different professors and the assoc dean for informational interviews, in order to get a sense of the faculty and UCSF's role in the future of pharmacy. In one of the faculty member's offices, she met two pharmacology (not pharmacy) students. They both told her that during their pharmacy school admissions interviews, they said they were interested in research.... and were subsequently denied admission!

UCSF's justification for this is that if you're interested in research, you should be on a pharmacology PhD track, not pharmacy. So the lesson is, if anyone asks you if you are interested in pursuing anything besides pharmacy, the answer should be a resounding NO.

And for what it's worth, her interviewer was also stone faced (the student was more affable), though she did get the faculty member to crack a smile or two. The good thing is that the professor was someone that she tried to contact for an informational interview (she was too busy to meet because of interviews), so my wife was actually very familiar with her academic background, and was (hopefully) able to emphasize their similar goals.

I agree with dt30. Why would UCSF have a Pharmaceutical Sciences pathway at all if they didn't want students that were interested in research?

With your wife's strength in her research background, did she give that resounding NO when she was asked if she was interested in research?

 

[Suparman31]

I suppose it's very possible (and likely) that the interviewer noticed other things about those pharmacology students that disqualified them from pharmacy school, other than their research background. We don't have that information-- all we know is what they told us, which is that admissions told them that they were denied for the reasons I outlined above.

I have a feeling that the devil is in the details here. My wife is very interested in the pharm sciences pathway, and she has a very strong research background, but ultimately she found the solitary life of a researcher unfulfilling and wanted clinical interaction with patients, while at the same time performing research, and that's what she told them (because it's the truth). Hopefully they appreciated this answer and offer her a spot in the upcoming class.

I also emphasized my interest in integrating research and clinical roles. At the end of the interview, however, when I asked the professor how most faculty members manage their responsibilities, he said that because of time constraint and/or greater self-involvement, most people end up focusing on either research or clinical work (he seemed convinced that a balance between the two could not be reached).

 

[schleima]

I agree with dt30. Why would UCSF have a Pharmaceutical Sciences pathway at all if they didn't want students that were interested in research?

With your wife's strength in her research background, did she give that resounding NO when she was asked if she was interested in research?

She actually did not give a resounding NO.... she did not have enough time to fully take in the advice given by the pharmacology students, and when she was asked the question she said something like "I have a very strong research background, and I am very good at performing research, but I have lots of friends who went down the PhD path, so I know what it's like, and I don't want that solitary life." She is still worried that her answer was not emphatic enough.

 

[xangelx]

She actually did not give a resounding NO.... she did not have enough time to fully take in the advice given by the pharmacology students, and when she was asked the question she said something like "I have a very strong research background, and I am very good at performing research, but I have lots of friends who went down the PhD path, so I know what it's like, and I don't want that solitary life." She is still worried that her answer was not emphatic enough.

this is all well and good that you are giving us this tip after all the interviews are done. i never heard of informational interviews. when the assoc dean and the pharmacy professors and the admissions office granted them to your wife, did they all know she was an incoming pharmacy school applicant with a pending interview, in like oh the next 2 days?

 

[extra07extra]

My wife was one of the people interviewed on Feb 20.

One very interesting topic which we found out on the day of her interview is that there is apparently a killer question.

In the two days leading up to her interview, my wife met with 5 different professors and the assoc dean for informational interviews, in order to get a sense of the faculty and UCSF's role in the future of pharmacy. In one of the faculty member's offices, she met two pharmacology (not pharmacy) students. They both told her that during their pharmacy school admissions interviews, they said they were interested in research.... and were subsequently denied admission!

UCSF's justification for this is that if you're interested in research, you should be on a pharmacology PhD track, not pharmacy. So the lesson is, if anyone asks you if you are interested in pursuing anything besides pharmacy, the answer should be a resounding NO.

And for what it's worth, her interviewer was also stone faced (the student was more affable), though she did get the faculty member to crack a smile or two. The good thing is that the professor was someone that she tried to contact for an informational interview (she was too busy to meet because of interviews), so my wife was actually very familiar with her academic background, and was (hopefully) able to emphasize their similar goals.

I suppose it also depends on the type of research and where the research was done. For example, research that is done in an academic setting may be looked at differently than research that is done in a company or for the government. And also how much relevance that research had with the pharmacy profession. That said, I could however see how admissions officers may think that one who has spent a significant amount of time in an academic lab doing investigative research be better suited in a PhD program.

 

[UES Girl]

I'm going to officially stop reading this thread. I'm learning some things that I rather would have preffered not to have learned. I'll check back when I get my letter.

 

[CafeMed]

Why would UCSF have a Pharmaceutical Sciences pathway at all if they didn't want students that were interested in research?

Exactly, UCSF prides itself on research and it's part of their plan for the future of pharmacy so it's hard to believe they would deny people who are interested in that aspect of pharmacy.

this is all well and good that you are giving us this tip after all the interviews are done. i never heard of informational interviews. when the assoc dean and the pharmacy professors and the admissions office granted them to your wife, did they all know she was an incoming pharmacy school applicant with a pending interview, in like oh the next 2 days?

Completely, agree. This seems really odd to me.

 

[schleima]

this is all well and good that you are giving us this tip after all the interviews are done. i never heard of informational interviews. when the assoc dean and the pharmacy professors and the admissions office granted them to your wife, did they all know she was an incoming pharmacy school applicant with a pending interview, in like oh the next 2 days?

Of course!! That's the whole reason she did them... to talk with faculty actually doing research at UCSF, so she could be better informed at the interview. One faculty member even invited her to come talk to him about a job if she's accepted. Another pharmacist actually offered to practice interview questions with her. She is being extremely resourceful and forthright, and I'm really proud of her for that.

There's only so much you can learn by reading UCSF website and reading speculations on these forums. For what it's worth, she also did informational interviews in Los Angeles as well, not just with faculty at schools she's applying to, but also with local pharmacists in the community. She knows that these interviews will benefit her no matter what school she goes to. You're a pharmacy applicant. It's just good sense to find out everything you can about the field you're going to devote the rest of your life to. And if I recall correctly, UCSF encourages you to find out as much as possible about the school, the profession, etc. This is all part of the process.

As for telling you now about the research question, we didn't find out ourselves until 2 hours before her scheduled interview, and to be honest comforting my wife before the interview was a greater priority than posting tips on studentdoctor.net!

In retrospect I am sure that there must be many factors at play with the pharmacology students... I can't imagine a school like UCSF, which makes such thorough efforts in getting to know their applicants, would dismiss someone over one incompatible answer. But that was the impression of those two pharmacology students, and that's all I'm reporting here.

Good luck to everyone... and my apologies to cheburashka. I didn't mean to scare you away!

 

[chibipinkbunny]

Hmmm, ha, ha, its probably best to chill out until you get the letter. Although that's easier said than done Anyway, my interview was two years ago, and I thought I did really bad. In fact I cried after my interview. As soon as I got out of the UCSF building I cried for a good few minutes. My parents were convinced I wouldn't get in too. Then again I'm the type of person who thinks I do horrible on exams, and I usually get A's. Sooooo, yeah I would have saved myself a lot of grief if I just put it out of my mind. I remember that my student interviewer was nice, and the faculty interviewer seemed very serious.

 

[pharminful]

Congrats on getting the interview over with. Let's just stay hopeful and keep our fingers crossed April 1st sounds like an awfully long time away. I'd hate to receive the letter on that day saying "congrats, you're accepted...just kidding! APRIL FOOLS!" If anyone starts receiving letters, please post!

 

[smarin87]

Does anyone else feel like this has been an emotional roller coaster?? from applying...to getting the interview letter, to dreading the interview and now this waiting. Some days I am confidant and feel that maybe my prayers will be answered...of course, then there are other days when I feel like....am I kidding myself its never gonna happen! But...i guess thats life..

APRIL 1ST CAN'T COME ANY FASTER! I FEEL LIKE I AM IN LIMBO

 

[Jaded03]

I'm confused. Why is everyone waiting for April 1st? Isn't that the LAST day to hear from UCSF? It can be this week or next week. I know waiting for them can be agony, but the wait isn't as long if you don't think about being the last possible one to hear from them.

 

[xxone2trixx]

I'm confused. Why is everyone waiting for April 1st? Isn't that the LAST day to hear from UCSF? It can be this week or next week. I know waiting for them can be agony, but the wait isn't as long if you don't think about being the last possible one to hear from them.

hahahah damn i totally forgot.. i kind of have just took UCSF off my rader cause i did so bad at the interview .. but thanks for reminding me!!

 

[chicadefarma]

Does anyone know when they started sending out acceptances last year? I tried doing a search but wasn't very successful.

 

[matt48]

Does anyone know when they started sending out acceptances last year? I tried doing a search but wasn't very successful.

If I analyze the way they did this correctly, we will receive letters starting thurs/friday this week. Last couple years, UCSF sent out decision letters approximately 10 days after the last interview day, which meant that the adcom met on a monday and tuesday on the 2nd week after the last interview week.
For example, last year, the last interview date was Feb 15th, and the first patch of letters were postmarked on Tues, Feb 26th and Weds, Feb 27th. This indicated that they met on Monday, Feb 25th and Tues Feb 26th (hence the letters were postmarked on 26th and 27th respectively). Also, I believe the adcome only meet twice each week, on each Monday and Tuesday, and decision letters will also be sent out twice each week on the following Tues/Weds.

Moreover, the way they sent out both acceptance/rejection independently of the interview dates during the last couple years showed that they used some sort of ranking system. This is just my speculation, I don't know for sure but this fits the pattern. After ranking each applicant, they will decide to send out acceptance letters to the first few strongest applicants and rejection letters to the few weakest one at the same time. Then, next week, they continue to send out next "wave" of acceptance/rejection letters based on how strong/weak the applicants are. The list will shrink from both end, the strongest end and the weakest end. The one who are in the middle will receive letters last and the rest will be on waitlist.

I think this explains how people receive both acceptance/rejection letters at the same time regardless when they were interviewed.

 

[rycetrix]

If I analyze the way they did this correctly, we will receive letters starting thurs/friday this week. Last couple years, UCSF sent out decision letters approximately 10 days after the last interview day, which meant that the adcom met on a monday and tuesday on the 2nd week after the last interview week.
For example, last year, the last interview date was Feb 15th, and the first patch of letters were postmarked on Tues, Feb 26th and Weds, Feb 27th. This indicated that they met on Monday, Feb 25th and Tues Feb 26th (hence the letters were postmarked on 26th and 27th respectively). Also, I believe the adcome only meet twice each week, on each Monday and Tuesday, and decision letters will also be sent out twice each week on the following Tues/Weds.

Moreover, the way they sent out both acceptance/rejection independently of the interview dates during the last couple years showed that they used some sort of ranking system. This is just my speculation, I don't know for sure but this fits the pattern. After ranking each applicant, they will decide to send out acceptance letters to the first few strongest applicants and rejection letters to the few weakest one at the same time. Then, next week, they continue to send out next "wave" of acceptance/rejection letters based on how strong/weak the applicants are. The list will shrink from both end, the strongest end and the weakest end. The one who are in the middle will receive letters last and the rest will be on waitlist.

I think this explains how people receive both acceptance/rejection letters at the same time regardless when they were interviewed.

I kind of did the analyzing too and last year the last interview was 2/15 and the first rejection was on 2/28 and the first acceptance on 2/29, which is about 2 weeks. So we can only assume that since the last interview this year was on 2/20, about two weeks after would be this Thursday/Friday.

 

[TrjTraddie]

I kind of did the analyzing too and last year the last interview was 2/15 and the first rejection was on 2/28 and the first acceptance on 2/29, which is about 2 weeks. So we can only assume that since the last interview this year was on 2/20, about two weeks after would be this Thursday/Friday.

lol... i think ur thinking tooooooooo hard

 

[crazy4eck]

If I analyze the way they did this correctly, we will receive letters starting thurs/friday this week. Last couple years, UCSF sent out decision letters approximately 10 days after the last interview day, which meant that the adcom met on a monday and tuesday on the 2nd week after the last interview week.
For example, last year, the last interview date was Feb 15th, and the first patch of letters were postmarked on Tues, Feb 26th and Weds, Feb 27th. This indicated that they met on Monday, Feb 25th and Tues Feb 26th (hence the letters were postmarked on 26th and 27th respectively). Also, I believe the adcome only meet twice each week, on each Monday and Tuesday, and decision letters will also be sent out twice each week on the following Tues/Weds.

Moreover, the way they sent out both acceptance/rejection independently of the interview dates during the last couple years showed that they used some sort of ranking system. This is just my speculation, I don't know for sure but this fits the pattern. After ranking each applicant, they will decide to send out acceptance letters to the first few strongest applicants and rejection letters to the few weakest one at the same time. Then, next week, they continue to send out next "wave" of acceptance/rejection letters based on how strong/weak the applicants are. The list will shrink from both end, the strongest end and the weakest end. The one who are in the middle will receive letters last and the rest will be on waitlist.

I think this explains how people receive both acceptance/rejection letters at the same time regardless when they were interviewed.

I kind of did the analyzing too and last year the last interview was 2/15 and the first rejection was on 2/28 and the first acceptance on 2/29, which is about 2 weeks. So we can only assume that since the last interview this year was on 2/20, about two weeks after would be this Thursday/Friday.

Your analyses are really helpful. Thanks!!! It helps prepare me as I get the mail tomorrow/Friday and beyond =)

 

[chicadefarma]

If I analyze the way they did this correctly, we will receive letters starting thurs/friday this week. Last couple years, UCSF sent out decision letters approximately 10 days after the last interview day, which meant that the adcom met on a monday and tuesday on the 2nd week after the last interview week.
For example, last year, the last interview date was Feb 15th, and the first patch of letters were postmarked on Tues, Feb 26th and Weds, Feb 27th. This indicated that they met on Monday, Feb 25th and Tues Feb 26th (hence the letters were postmarked on 26th and 27th respectively). Also, I believe the adcome only meet twice each week, on each Monday and Tuesday, and decision letters will also be sent out twice each week on the following Tues/Weds.

Moreover, the way they sent out both acceptance/rejection independently of the interview dates during the last couple years showed that they used some sort of ranking system. This is just my speculation, I don't know for sure but this fits the pattern. After ranking each applicant, they will decide to send out acceptance letters to the first few strongest applicants and rejection letters to the few weakest one at the same time. Then, next week, they continue to send out next "wave" of acceptance/rejection letters based on how strong/weak the applicants are. The list will shrink from both end, the strongest end and the weakest end. The one who are in the middle will receive letters last and the rest will be on waitlist.

I think this explains how people receive both acceptance/rejection letters at the same time regardless when they were interviewed.

Yes, THANK YOU Matt48 and Rycetrix! Hopefully, there will be good news for us soon

 

[koercive]

lol , I did a similar analysis for USC a while back .

I wish UCSF would expand the entering class to somewhere around 250 , so most of us get in

 

[CafeMed]

lol , I did a similar analysis for USC a while back .

I wish UCSF would expand the entering class to somewhere around 250 , so most of us get in

Haha, same here, but imagine how bad you'd feel if you were one of the 25 that got rejected.

 

[atlantisx714]

lol , I did a similar analysis for USC a while back .

I wish UCSF would expand the entering class to somewhere around 250 , so most of us get in

lol...they should expand it to 275 so all of us can get in

 

[CafeMed]

lol...they should expand it to 275 so all of us can get in

 

[UCB2005]

Out of curiosity, what other schools is everyone here considering? And would you go to UCSF over these other choices?

To answer my question, I have been accepted to University of Michigan and University of Minnesota. I would love to go to UCSF but it really depends on what it's gonna cost me.