<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I am a Washington HS student and I was accepted into Life Sciences at UCLA. I would love to hear some advice or insight about the two schools. My goal is most likely to go on to grad school or do premed/medschool. Since I am an out of stater for CA, the cost is probably 2x more at UCLA. So cost-wise, about the same as Carleton.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Could you be a little more specific about the questions you have? Obviously, there are going to be some major differences because they’re two very different types of schools, but you probably know that already.</p>
<p>Thanks for you help.</p>
<p>Strength of the faculty and abilty to get into a good grad school afterwards are key. The difference between a ba and a bsci in Biology seems pretty big and I kind of expect to have catch up in grad school if coming from Carleton as I would not have the same depth. Carleton’s breadth of education appears better to me and I would probably be better “rounded” but I guess that is not as important.</p>
<p>If that’s what you value, go to UCLA. The liberal arts education of Carleton will not imbue you with the same in-depth knowledge of biology that UCLA will.</p>
<p>Grad schools have enormous respect for top LACs, especially a place like Carleton which is so strong in the sciences. And for good reason. You develop an understanding of the field that will go far beyond rote memorization. There is no skating here. Small classes, profs who know you and will insist on challenging you, a senior capstone project. Few universities can compete with this.</p>
<p>Carleton is the #8 feeder into Life Science grad programs among all universities and LACs nationally. Something like 80% of Carls eventually head on to advanced degrees in one form or another. UCLA’s numbers are very, very different. This is neither good nor bad, simply a reflection of a student body with, as a group, different goals, goals that appear different from your own. </p>
<p>UCLA is a great university, but $ issues at the school have come front and center. This is a very tough time to be a student in the UC system with enormous cuts coming out of Sacramento. Paying out of state rates for what could be a 5, not 4 year undergraduate degree program, is something I’d think hard about. Larger classes, fewer class offerings, overburdened profs, more limited EC resources are a fact of life for the foreseeable future at not just UCLA but its brethren as well, I’m afraid. Wish it were not so.</p>
<p>It seems like you have subconsciously already made up your mind. Go to UCLA.</p>
<p>For me, it would be Carleton–without a question. Go to the LAC for undergrad–you only get one opportunity for that kind of environment. The UCLAs will always be available during grad/professional school. It’s tough to argue against the attention received at a LAC. Also, student satisfaction plays a role–consider the happy alumni from that school in Northfield. I’m obviously biased–but I believe you will receive a better opportunity for success, and a more satisfying undergraduate experience @ Carleton. What if you should discover in the middle of your sophmore/junior year that another major (perhaps non-science) is more appealing? I’d speak with current students and recent alumni from both. They are very different environments. Do you want a big arena sports environment? That would lend itself to UCLA. Do you prefer a west or mid-western feel? Good luck to you. :)</p>