Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have to agree with the comment on diversity. If that is your mission, you shouldn't make accessibility difficult for these groups of people and also show diversity in your cohorts. Many programs claim they are big on diversity, but then their cohort group pictures show otherwise. I've had patients with serious conditions (strokes, STEMIs, etc.) who spoke a foreign language, but there were no providers that knew that language. I love the medicare comment too. I've had many patients with no medical insurance worried about having to pay for an ambulance or medical services. Unfortunately, some providers never had that problem themselves. It's always "lets get you to the hospital" or "your insurance problem will work itself out" when the patient did not really need to go to the hospital nor did they require an ambulance. It's easy to say things like that when you had private insurance all your life. I myself never had private insurance until after graduating college. Without diverse providers, some patients aren't receiving the proper care or at least not to the full extent it could be.

As a POC, I think it's sad to feel like I don't belong in some programs. I've had panel interviews where I was asked if I felt there was a lack of diversity in PA education. I was asked this by white interviewers. The irony. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have to agree with the comment on diversity. If that is your mission, you shouldn't make accessibility difficult for these groups of people and also show diversity in your cohorts. Many programs cla

Has anyone applied that has not heard anything yet? 

I believe they are inviting for second interviews on a rolling basis. For instance, I interviewed last Wednesday (1/20) and received my invitation for a second interview two days later on Friday (1/22

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Pa98173jd said:

I agree with you on these points as well! I think I'm more bothered by the fact that their mission on the interview day was so humanitarian and all about diversifying providers in the Bay area but they are contributing to the problem lol. Whereas, I've been accepted to programs without that much diversity (a bit more diverse than Stanford though) but they don't claim diversity as their mission. It might not be on the national level, but it is disingenuous in my opinion. So I've just been torn about this all to be honest because if I dont get in, I won't know if it is based on my lack of merit or their implicit biases and if I do get in, do I want to be that token POC standing like a sore thumb in their class photo? Are their students equipped to treat African American students fairly? Will I be ostracized? Etc. It is mental gymnastics whether I am accepted or rejected. Like for me it isnt cost necessarily. Im interviewing with USC (similar costs) in 2 weeks but at least USC has 20% ACTUAL minority PAs (not counting Asian Americans) in each cohort. So then why is Stanford different and not like that? 

I see what you are saying. I’m not super familiar with the history of Stanford PA program, but I know couple years ago it was run by another school that had a strong emphasis on primary care. I’m not sure if it is the same director that transferred over. Perhaps, they just kept the mission (but then again, I’m not sure).

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I’m wrong, maybe what you are trying to say is that since Stanford is a world renowned institution, it should lead the way in generating a racially diverse provider population? But diversity comes in many shapes and sizes and race is just one of them, so maybe you want Stanford to change its mission to “racially diverse” instead of just “diverse”? So would you exclude other forms of diversity (I would assume not), so then how would you word the mission statement (if you are the program director)?

If your problem is specifically with racial diversity, then as a solution, I think the Admissions Committee itself needs to be racially diversified. Like someone else mentioned this is a long term problem. It would be met with some challenges, since the demographics of current practicing PAs is not diverse, how can the Admissions Committee be diverse (assuming the committee is made of PAs [but of course I know there are many programs with non-PA admission committees], unless they disproportionally and intentionally hire BIPOC onto their Admission Committee. However, a racially diverse Admission Committee does not guarantee a racially diverse student body, because you could have a BIPOC admitting a non-BIPOC. You could also have non-BIPOC, who is opened minded and willingly admits a non-BIPOC. 

But that is only half the challenge. The other half is to have a pool of racially diverse qualified applicants. Then you have to intentionally accept a certain number of BIPOC into the program.

So basically Affirmative Action in both Admissions Committee and Students?

Going back to cost. How is the program going to pay for discounted education? I’m imagining in order to attract world renown faculty, you have to give them a good incentive (esp when bay area is so expensive). That is one expense. Also the PA program has to compete with other programs in the university for resources and budget. That is another strain. Does the program provide cadaver for every student? That is another expense. Does the program pay for your computer? Pay for your PANCE exam? Pay for your medical supplies? That is another expense. Who is going to pay for all these if it’s not from tuition? (Not every program is lucky to have what Chapman in Orange County have...a full ride scholarship for selected students).

This a complex issue and I’m interested to see what your (all of you) solution is/are?

Thanks again for bring up different issues and points of view. This is an awesome learning experience for me personally! Thank you!

 

 

 

Edited by joethepa
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, biopsyd said:

I have to agree with the comment on diversity. If that is your mission, you shouldn't make accessibility difficult for these groups of people and also show diversity in your cohorts. Many programs claim they are big on diversity, but then their cohort group pictures show otherwise. I've had patients with serious conditions (strokes, STEMIs, etc.) who spoke a foreign language, but there were no providers that knew that language. I love the medicare comment too. I've had many patients with no medical insurance worried about having to pay for an ambulance or medical services. Unfortunately, some providers never had that problem themselves. It's always "lets get you to the hospital" or "your insurance problem will work itself out" when the patient did not really need to go to the hospital nor did they require an ambulance. It's easy to say things like that when you had private insurance all your life. I myself never had private insurance until after graduating college. Without diverse providers, some patients aren't receiving the proper care or at least not to the full extent it could be.

As a POC, I think it's sad to feel like I don't belong in some programs. I've had panel interviews where I was asked if I felt there was a lack of diversity in PA education. I was asked this by white interviewers. The irony. 

I know that Medicaid pays the provider less plus...all the paperwork, that is a big reason of providers not accepting medicare. Perhaps, they should increase medicaid payout and make it easier for providers to claim it. But, who is going to fund medicaid? Is it federally funded or state funded? Are you going to raise taxes on the middle class or the wealthy or both? If you raise it on the middle class, do you hinder them from becoming economically non-disadvantaged? If you raise it on the wealthy, do you disincentivize entrepreneurship (assuming most wealthy people make their money from some form of business)? If entrepreneurship is limited, what are the ramifications on technological innovation and thus civilization advancement?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joethepa said:

I know that Medicaid pays the provider less plus...all the paperwork, that is a big reason of providers not accepting medicare. Perhaps, they should increase medicaid payout and make it easier for providers to claim it. But, who is going to fund medicaid? Is it federally funded or state funded? Are you going to raise taxes on the middle class or the wealthy or both? If you raise it on the middle class, do you hinder them from becoming economically non-disadvantaged? If you raise it on the wealthy, do you disincentivize entrepreneurship (assuming most wealthy people make their money from some form of business)? If entrepreneurship is limited, what are the ramifications on technological innovation and thus civilization advancement?

 

 

Agreed. Medicaid is a pain in the neck for providers. That is why we need more empathetic providers who are compassionate and understanding enough to look beyond the inconvenience. Someone who is from a low SES background, or who has been around people in those shoes, is more likely to relate to Medicaid patients.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ceexx said:

@joethepa  You present some interesting points.

About the school's wording on diversity, nothing necessarily needs to change there. Instead, they should be diverse on their diversity, rather than having homogenous diversity, (ugh I hate to use that oxymoron). Certain forms of diversity are more needed than others considering US history and demographics, such diversity as race, language, and SES backgrounds. Notice that these crucial forms are mostly linked to POC. And according to what some of us have seen and said, Stanford already favors diverse sexuality among its cohorts so I'm not worried about that. 

Next, does the ADCOM really need to be racially diverse (although it's not a bad idea) in order to admit ""qualified" POC? Very sad if that's what is needed to see racial diversity in predominantly white schools. I as a person could admit people of whatever race in a balanced way, insofar as they are qualified. They do not need to look like me for me to do that. But I understand what you mean because humans are biased and imperfect and I cannot pretend to be living in a utopian world. 

Also, you talk about "intentionally admitting a certain number of POC." This is the problem I have with the perception on affirmative action. It's looked at in such a negative light, and maybe that's because it's being done wrong. Do you mean a pity party show where they admit POC just to be nice? No thanks! Like someone said, we do not need that. But do you mean admitting "qualified" POC to balance out their cohort? Yes please!! Your statement, and that of all those that detest affirmative action, implies that POC are usually underqualified and are only admitted because of their color. Perhaps you didn't mean to come off that way. But that itself is a bias in the society because no one ever thinks that white applicants are accepted simply because they are white. I know there are other factors to this, such as legacy kids, being rich or a celebrity, etc. Anyway, the ADCOM is not doing POC applicants a favor if the applicants are actually qualified. And I have no doubt that there are as many qualified POC as any cohort could use.  

I think you missed the part, where I said “a pool of racially diverse ‘qualified’ applicants.” I don’t think POC are under-qualified. I don’t detest affirmative action (I’m sorry if it came off that way). I’m actually a beneficiary of affirmative action (I think?). I’m a POC and I even think I got into college and a full ride for my bachelors because of that (one of my scholarship is named as “diversity” scholarship.

 

I’m just offering a solution (to the racial diversity problem specifically), since without an intentional quota of BIPOC student body...the result is what we see today: an un-racially diverse practicing PA demographics. I’m also open to other solutions...unfortunately, my limited brain capacity can only think of this solution...for now.

 

I’m more solution based. I think it’s good to bring up problems, but I also hope people who bring up problems can also offer solutions to the problem that they bring up. I believe in this way, you would think of the problem from a different point of view.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joethepa said:

I think you missed the part, where I said “a pool of racially diverse ‘qualified’ applicants.” I don’t think POC are under-qualified. I don’t detest affirmative action (I’m sorry if it came off that way). I’m actually a beneficiary of affirmative action (I think?). I’m a POC and I even think I got into college and a full ride for my bachelors because of that (one of my scholarship is named as “diversity” scholarship.

 

I’m just offering a solution (to the racial diversity problem specifically), since without an intentional quota of BIPOC student body...the result is what we see today: an un-racially diverse practicing PA demographics. I’m also open to other solutions...unfortunately, my limited brain capacity can only think of this solution...for now.

 

I’m more solution based. I think it’s good to bring up problems, but I also hope people who bring up problems can also offer solutions to the problem that they bring up. I believe in this way, you would think of the problem from a different point of view.

Thanks for the clarification. I hope that simply admitting a fair percentage of qualified POC in the same way they admit qualified white applicants is one solution to the problem. This shouldn't be rocket science. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ceexx said:

Agreed. Medicaid is a pain in the neck for providers. That is why we need more empathetic providers who are compassionate and understanding enough to look beyond the inconvenience. Someone who is from a low SES background, or who has been around people in those shoes, is more likely to relate to Medicaid patients.  

I think relatability sounds good theoretically. But I can also see that there would be some providers, because they come from a low SES, they want to compensate for that by making as much as they could. I think you can hope that due to relatability, a provider would accept medicaid. But because it’s not a guarantee, I wouldn’t personally count on it. I would change something that would incentivize providers to take care of those from low SES...but like I said, this issue is super complex. Also it’s hard to enforce with the US governance. It only took a hundred years for the US to reform healthcare and the now ACA...and it is still not good enough!

You would be sad to learn that AMA (providers) who supposedly “should” fight for lower cost of care...are not. I encourage you to read a book called “Reinventing American Health Care by Ezekiel Emanuel.” I think all of you would love it! (I apologize if you already read it, I don’t mean to undermine your knowledge.) Thank you again for your thoughts, they are wonderful!

Edited by joethepa
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pa98173jd said:

@Ceexx @joethepa thank you both for having this conversation with me. It was cathartic sharing the injustice I saw during last cycle's interview day and to know I'm not the only one that sees the problem. 

Thank you for sharing your personal experience. That’s brave of you! Also disheartening to hear that, that was the outcome. I hope they would accept more BIPOC this year, esp with what is going on in the country right now...maybe that will be the motivating factor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, joethepa said:

I think relatability sounds good theoretically. But I can also see that there would be some providers, because they come from a low SES, they want to compensate for that by making as much as they could. I think you can hope that due to relatability, a provider would accept medicaid. But because it’s not a guarantee, I wouldn’t personally count on it. I would change something that would incentivize providers to take care of those from low SES...but like I said, this issue is super complex. Also it’s hard to enforce with the US governance. It only took a hundred years for the US to reform healthcare and the now ACA...and it is still not good enough!

You would be sad to learn that AMA (providers) who supposedly “should” fight for lower cost of care...are not. I encourage you to read a book called “Reinventing American Health Care by Ezekiel Emanuel.” I think all of you would love it! (I apologize if you already read it, I don’t mean to undermine your knowledge.) Thank you again for your thoughts, they are wonderful!

Yup. You're right. Medicine is more monetized, politicized, and bureaucratized than it is about patient-care. Just thought we could give folks from low SES backgrounds the benefit of the doubt. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Just catching up and curious where some of the information is coming from. I too see that their faculty are diverse (http://med.stanford.edu/pa/pa-program-team/core-faculty.html) and per the website (cut and pasted below) the current 2023 cohort stats are:

  • Age: 25 years
  • Gender: 64% women
  • California Residence: 60%
  • Underrepresented Minority (URM): 32%
  • Educationally/Economically Disadvantaged: 18%

Also for costs, the tuition and fees are around 165K for the program, still crazy but starting salaries at the Stanford Hospital are in the 170k range (per some PAs I know that work there).  The costs for the program that someone quoted above include food, transportation, housing etc. USC is 186k for tuition and fees (and they don't list costs of housing/transportation etc, at least that I can see).  

Just want to be sure we are all discussing facts.  

December will be here before we know it!  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, FuturePASF said:

Just catching up and curious where some of the information is coming from. I too see that their faculty are diverse (http://med.stanford.edu/pa/pa-program-team/core-faculty.html) and per the website (cut and pasted below) the current 2023 cohort stats are:

  • Age: 25 years
  • Gender: 64% women
  • California Residence: 60%
  • Underrepresented Minority (URM): 32%
  • Educationally/Economically Disadvantaged: 18%

Also for costs, the tuition and fees are around 165K for the program, still crazy but starting salaries at the Stanford Hospital are in the 170k range (per some PAs I know that work there).  The costs for the program that someone quoted above include food, transportation, housing etc. USC is 186k for tuition and fees (and they don't list costs of housing/transportation etc, at least that I can see).  

Just want to be sure we are all discussing facts.  

December will be here before we know it!  

Are you considering that the entire Stanford program is 9 semesters and the cost you listed is just for 4 semesters? It's easy to misread that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pa98173jd said:

Not everyone has the luxury to have housing and meals provided for free. It is going to cost those students 300k to become a PA , owing 330k at time of graduation. The fact that Stanford is in Palo Alto jacks up the overall cost by so much that you'd owe 15-20k more, living with roommates, than living alone in LA for the USC program. Secondly, USC is very generous with scholarships and other aid. On the other hand, Stanford MSPA faculty made an excuse for not giving aid to students last cycle when the highest cost attribute is for their super high, faculty salaries. Third, no new grad will make 170k. Let's make sure we are discussing facts. If that was the case, they would have 10k+ applications from prePAs so they can make that money. You might have spoken to experienced PAs. Lastly, since your post was directed towards my last post in a passive aggressive way, I have to say that I was reflecting on my experience last cycle where the previous cohorts looked like the picture attached. Stanford did surprisingly okay with their 2023 cohort but they have SO much work to do.

Edit: Also, some information that new applicants wouldn't know, the rotations sites are super, super far from one another. So, transportation cost is a BIG hidden cost. 

P.S. it is still a very phenomenal program!

Screenshot_20201007-005145_Chrome.jpg

Just a small add, I believe Stanford covers the fee if the rotation is far. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Points well taken.  I am told that 1/3 of graduates from this year are now working in the hospital, but agree that ⅔ are not and likely have significant debt.  Although per their social media posts their students are competitive for NHSC awards (I think they have had 3-4 per year) which I believe are full rides and they have a military yellow ribbon program which I also think is free for military (not sure on that).  They do have some program scholarships but not sure how much.  

I don't see how we get to 250-330k of debt.  The tuition and fees are ~18k per quarter.  It is a 9 quarter program (not semester), which is 162K (which I agree is high).  I also get that we have to factor in living expenses which is more expensive in the area but I can't see 250-300k (at least I certainly hope not).

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FuturePASF said:

 

Points well taken.  I am told that 1/3 of graduates from this year are now working in the hospital, but agree that ⅔ are not and likely have significant debt.  Although per their social media posts their students are competitive for NHSC awards (I think they have had 3-4 per year) which I believe are full rides and they have a military yellow ribbon program which I also think is free for military (not sure on that).  They do have some program scholarships but not sure how much.  

I don't see how we get to 250-330k of debt.  The tuition and fees are ~18k per quarter.  It is a 9 quarter program (not semester), which is 162K (which I agree is high).  I also get that we have to factor in living expenses which is more expensive in the area but I can't see 250-300k (at least I certainly hope not).

 

Ugh. I’m sure we would all like for this program to be less costly than it actually is. The reference to “quarter” is correct. However, it is ONLY the tuition that is ~18k, not both tuition and fees. Further, depending on whether you live on or off campus, the estimate for living expenses from the website is between ~40-50k respectively. That’s a significant amount that should not just be waved aside. Hence, total estimated cost of attendance for 9 quarters, ACCORDING TO THE WEBSITE, is $276k for on campus and $297k for off campus. This is not including interests that accumulate over ~3 years. 

9F434600-D02C-449F-980F-639D6341AB72.png

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pa98173jd said:

I received an email inviting me to do CASPer snapshots and the email said that one of the programs I applied to made it mandatory. Anyone know if it was Stanford's PA program?

Got the email too and unsure which program is requiring it. I reached out to CASPer customer care to see if they have answers but the response I got was robotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ceexx said:

Did you mean to say CASPer Snapshot?

I overlooked the snapshot part. Yeah I never did that part.  But I went to the website for CASPer Snapshot and it sounds like an interview tool that some schools are using due to COVID.  When you click on several of the schools on the website, it says "To Be Announced" where Stanford says "Not Required".  What other schools did you apply to that required the CASPer test? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sneuber said:

I overlooked the snapshot part. Yeah I never did that part.  But I went to the website for CASPer Snapshot and it sounds like an interview tool that some schools are using due to COVID.  When you click on several of the schools on the website, it says "To Be Announced" where Stanford says "Not Required".  What other schools did you apply to that required the CASPer test? 

None, just Stanford. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Does anyone know if the current class is doing the program remotely or in person? Because I know some schools have completely moved their program to remote learning until further notice, I was just wondering if anyone has information about Stanford's PA program.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More