<p>I have been accepted by UCLA, and I'm still waiting for UCB, which school do you guys think is the better place for pre-med. I have the impression that UCB is cut throat, harder to get A's, and UCLA has a similiar reputation as UCB and may even have a better medical school placement rate than UCB? Okay, so the question again is, which school is better for pre-med?</p>
<p>i hear UCB science is ridiculous... I'd go with UCLA.</p>
<p>I'm not so sure. Berkeley is definitely known as having the harder academics (and yeah, I agree with Liberty that it's pretty ridiculous.) But on the same token, LA is probably just as hard. The only difference is that there are probably less cutthroat people in LA, but I'm sure there still are a bunch of them. In terms of med school placement, Berkeley wins by a hair I think, but they are pretty similar.</p>
<p>Either way, it's probably best to consider the environment and make that the factor that determines your final decision.</p>
<p>With that said, if your only concern is to get a higher GPA...I'd go with UCLA.</p>
<p>UCLA's pre-med atmosphere is known for being cutthroat as well.</p>
<p>I'd go with environment and location before I'd worry about your GPA. You'll probably change your major/goals at least once anyway. A lot do.</p>
<p>is anyone doing pre-med at UCLA in this forum?</p>
<p>I'm not, but I have more than enough experience with it to answer questions (close friends, girlfriend, etc.)</p>
<p>Besides, there's no such thing as "pre-med," really...</p>
<p>UCLAri, how are the curves in each class? As in how many people get A's? Is there homework persay? And are the tests tricky?</p>
<p>Most science classes are curved (in fact, I've been told nearly all are), and about 20% get As. Homework depends on the class, but most don't. There are labs, however.</p>
<p>Tests range from doable to O-Chem. That's the range.</p>
<p>thanks a lot</p>
<p>What is UCR pre-med like?</p>
<p>Like pre-med at every other school: non existent.</p>
<p>To the OP, I would give Berkeley the edge as the better place to go for premed. I think both places are equally cutthroat, and also have equally competitive student bodies, so that's really a wash. </p>
<p>However, I agree with others when they say that it comes down to a personal fit. The culture of Northern California is significantly different from SoCal's.</p>
<p>I don't remember the exact stat, but UCLA has the most "premed" (yeah i know, there's no such thing) students of any university with something like 60% of their incoming freshman class declaring that they are indeed premed students. I don't know about UCB, but I would assume that a good amount of them declare themselves as premeds themselves. Prestige-wise, they're basically the same now.</p>
<p>Btw, I'm a premed at UCLA.</p>
<p>iamhung, are the classes cutthroat at UCLA? how many people get A's percentage wise in a class? and is it hard to pick the teacher that you want for each class each quarter?</p>
<p>The classes that are pre-requisites for med school are pretty cutthroat. I mean, you can make friends and stuff and form study groups, but in the end, it usually feels like it's you against the world. It gets pretty bad sometimes. As for how many people get As in a class, well, it all depends on the teacher. But, it seems like it's been in the 20% range, I'm really not too sure because some teachers don't divulge that kind of information. And if you don't have priority enrollment (because a lot of people do, including athletes, honors students, minority students, etc etc) then it's REALLY hard to get into your classes.</p>
<p>thanks iamhung, since i didn't qualify for the honors program, nor am I an athlete or minority, will I have great trouble getting the popular classes? (as in classes with easier teachers?) or my schedule time be based on luck?</p>
<p>Does anyone know the approx gpa of an accepted med student from UCLA? I hear berkeley's is insanely high like a 3.8-3.9, is it the same at LA? Also, i know berkeley doesnt really have a good admission percentage, does LA? Thanks</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hear berkeley's is insanely high like a 3.8-3.9,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nah, it's not THAT high.</p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2004seniors.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2004seniors.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2003seniors.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2003seniors.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2002seniors.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2002seniors.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2001seniors.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2001seniors.stm</a></p>
<p>I maintain my position that these websites are not useful because they have such a dramatic lack of completeness.</p>
<p>I don't argue that there's any error one way or the other (personally, I think they imply that Berkeley is more successful than it actually is, but I won't make that argument here) - all I'm arguing is that your sample size is so incomplete that you can't conclude anything from it.</p>
<p>In statistical terms, this "study" is very low-powered.</p>