Pacific (PUCO) vs. ICO

Hi all, I never thought in a million years I'd have the luxury of choosing between schools, but here I am. For the past few years, Pacific has been my top choice simply because I was wowed by their presentations that they gave at my university, and also because I'm from the Pacific Northwest and it's the only school around. I hadn't really heard of ICO until relatively late into my application process, and I decided why not, let's add them to the list. I ended up interviewing there at ICO and I was really floored by what I saw - the facilities, the program, it all seemed amazing. The entire week between my ICO and PUCO interviews, I thought for sure I was going to end up going to ICO. Until I went to my PUCO interview, and was again wowed.

I've gone back and forth over the various merits a million times:
-costs are about the same for me
-ICO has a wider alumni network but Pacific has a more concentrated/local alumni network where I'm going to practice after grad
-both have extensive 4th year externship sites
-both seem set up really well to help you excel; ICO via their note-taking and tutoring services, PUCO via the most truly open-door policy and community spirit I've seen anywhere (that lunch on interview day really cemented that to me)
-both seem to have student lifestyles compatible to me - PNW appeal on one hand, big-city life on the other. I'd be pretty happy with either.
-the facilities at ICO are top-notch and amazing, but I'm not particularly one for flashy and new, and I like that PUCO has a variety of types of equipment so you can get to play around with all of it (so they balance out in this regard to me)

What it seems to come down to, for me, is this: I get the impression that Pacific might have an edge in their didactic portions, especially when it comes to providing a broader background on optometry as a whole. I also jibe better with their approach of theory-heavy earlier on and applications after the foundations have been laid down. However, the variety of pathology and heavy clinical emphasis at ICO really, really impressed me, and I worry that if I go for Pacific, I'll be handicapping myself by not going with what'll give me more experience with a variety of pathologies.

I guess my ultimate question is, a. do I have my facts straight in my presumptions above, and b. assuming I do, which factors will ultimately end up making me a better doctor in the end?

For what it's worth, I asked about variety of pathology at Pacific during my interview, to which my interviewer responded that he'd noted that the past few waves of 4th years have noted that they saw quite a wide range of pathology when doing their externships in the downtown Oregon location than elsewhere in the country. So there's that.

I also asked my boss (optometrist) what she thought, and she felt that I should go for the better didactic school, since the bulk of my clinical work will be in 4th year anyways, which is independent of the school location. But she's a Pacific grad so she might be biased, hah.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.

Pacific (PUCO) vs. ICO