<p>Need advice and guidance!!</p>
<p>I'm trying to decide between Cal, UCLA, Duke, and Tufts.</p>
<p>I'm interested in biology, but not exclusively. I want a school where drinking isn't the only way to have fun. I don't want classes to be extremely cutthroat (although I know at least a little bit is inevitable). I've heard Cal is notorious for "not taking care of your GPA." I would like to eventually go to grad school, so it worries me that C's are far more common than A's there. Is this true for the other schools as well? Which college do you think will provide the best overall undergrad experience (academically [opportunities for scientific research], socially, etc.) while also providing for the future?</p>
<p>If you are from instate, and thus qualify for the instate tuition, I recommend going to UCLA. UCLA has amazing sports, good weather, gorgeous campus, good academics, good women (if you're a guy), reasonable tuition, and very interactive social life. Frankly, if you are looking for top notch social life as well as academics, I think that UCLA may be the best on your list. After UCLA, I would go to Duke, unless the cost isn't significantly higher. GL.</p>
<p>I think you sound more like a Jumbo than like anyone else :)</p>
<p><em>Sigh</em> People always seem to discount Cal because it's too hard. Isn't college about challenges and a great education? Why apply in the first place?</p>
<p>Cal's biology department is by far the strongest out of all your options.</p>
<p>It is not that Cal is hard. I like hard and like to be challenged. But in terms of thinking of my future, I will be challenged at any one of these schools, but I might as well get the best grades I can for applying to grad school. ahhh so complicated!</p>
<p>Let's look at another factor then.</p>
<p>What costs are you looking at for these universities?</p>
<p>a Jumbo? I am no shrimp hehe</p>
<p>You know, grad schools consider the difficulty of the college you went to.</p>
<p>They aren't going to go "oh, this guy got a 3.8 at San diego state. clearly he is a better student than this guy who got a 3.5 at Berkeley"</p>
<p>
[quote]
You know, grad schools consider the difficulty of the college you went to.</p>
<p>They aren't going to go "oh, this guy got a 3.8 at San diego state. clearly he is a better student than this guy who got a 3.5 at Berkeley"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not quite. Many Berkeley premeds and even MIT premeds w/ subpar gpa have extremely hard time getting accepted to med schools. It is imperative, esp. for med hopefuls, to maintain a strong gpa whereever the institution may be. It is to anyone's advantage that he/she attends a prestigious school w/ grade inflation if he/she is vying for an acceptance from med schools. (but, other grad school programs, such as ph.d. or the like are completely different ball game from med school admissions...)</p>
<p>Exactly. Do you know which of these has the most grade inflation? Or at least which has the most deflation?</p>
<p>Are med school admissions committees really that ignorant? I find it hard to believe that they would purposely try to encourage grade inflation/knowingly admit inferior applicants just because they go to easier schools.</p>
<p>Cal & UCLA are probably equal in 'cut-throat' culture; LA is just a little more laid back about it. But, the C average needs to be considered in context. The UC admission process admits a lot of kids at the top two flagships that would fare much better in a mid-tier UC -- they earn the C's (or lower).</p>
<p>JP:</p>
<p>med schools are ALL about gpa + test scores. Yes, a 3.8 from a Cal State may not be as impressive as a 3.5 from Cal or UCLA, but Tufts & Duke are top tier Unis. On a per capita basis, the kids at those two schools are statistically higher than Cal's since they admit few kids with a sub-600 SAT.</p>
<p>"Best" undergrad experience depends on your interests. For example, if money is no object, and you are a big sports fan, than Duke is a no-brainer, IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are med school admissions committees really that ignorant? I find it hard to believe that they would purposely try to encourage grade inflation/knowingly admit inferior applicants just because they go to easier schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yeah... i think that grad school admissions is kind of massed up, but hey undergrad admission is pretty massed up, too. I previously looked at a chart from MIT, can't remember, but most MIT students whose gpa was lower than 3.2-3.3 were pretty much rejected from every single med school they applied to. And, we all would agree that MIT is one of the hardest, if not the hardest, university in the country in academic rigor/difficulty. </p>
<p>OP, I can't dare to judge which school is the 'easiest'. But, I heard several students' accounts that Cal is a pretty tough school and thus not so ideal for pre-meds. But, if I were you, I would make the choice btwn UCLA and Duke, and preferrably UCLA for all the reasons I posted above.</p>
<p>older sister, bioE at Cal, 3.4+, 33 MCAT applied to 19 med schools, advanced to second round in about 5 and ultimately rejected everywhere.
Yes, GPA does matter and no they do not care which school you got your low gpa from.
Someone from our same high school went to jhu, got 3.8, 31 MCAT, got into several and he's definitely not as good as her their entire time in high school.<br>
Another girl went to SJSU, 4.0, not too sure about her MCAT, got into some med school in Philly.
The average GPA for med school is about 3.8. Cal GPA deviates too much away from the mean.<br>
I got accepted to bioE at Cal and I'm not going!</p>