UCLA vs Stanford

I rotated thru there and it seemed that none of the residents ever really get to operate - even the 5th years. They have to spend mostof their time studying, many seem bitter about it and I heard even that one resident (a girl?) quit the program because of that.
None of the residents go into private practice right after finishing - all go to fellowships - which indicates to me that they don't feel comfortable operating, and need to take a fellowship to do so.

They have lots of fellows there too, which further cut down the O.R. time for the residents.

hey DJD,

What program are you referring to...UCLA or Stanford

Just because most residents in a program go on to do a fellowship does NOT mean their operative experience is lacking. Many WANT to subspecialize, and the idea of being a "jack of all trades" in the community is no longer that attractive. Some want to go on to academics, others are interested in one specific area.

None of the residents ever get to operate? I highly doubt it. Isn't that why there is an RRC? Aren't there certain standards that a residency program must meet in order to receive accredidation? I agree with the above post--doing a fellowship is not a sign of incompetence. It is unfortunate, but I am afraid that some of the information on this discussion board is purposefully misleading--perhaps by people who want to train in California and who are trying to discourage others from doing the same.

Right on, doc.
Funny how residents from UCLA are supposed to be incompetent from not operating, yet the program has never gone past 1st tier in matching and I can't recall the last time they were on probation for lack of adequate operative experience.