<p>I would expect, for schools that do not manipulate the applicant pool by withholding committee letters to those who do not already have a high chance of admission, that medical school admission rates roughly correlate to the colleges’ admissions selectivity.</p>
<p>@coolweather:</p>
<p>I think anyone who read your posts would have thought that you were trying to use personal anecdotes to prove a point. There isn’t just a language issue here, but also a logic and honesty/maturity issue.</p>
<p>And personally, I believe that a comparison of the GMAT-GPA grid would be a better comparison between schools.</p>
<p>Also, for a kid who has already gone through the pre-med sequence, I’m not sure why you think advising them against med school is better than letting them apply and take their chances.</p>
<p>Obviously, any pre-med with a brain would understand that they need a certain GMAT and GPA (and ECs, etc.) for a strong chance of getting in.</p>
<p>^ In many discussions in the media, the authors usually use stories of some individuals to introduce a bigger idea with stronger supporting facts. I did not do anything different than that. People read the entire article, not just some single details to understand what is conveyed in it. You can side with the poster to say illogical things anyway you want. Your posts did not help to answer the OP’s question because they lack reasoning and logic. Please don’t underestimate the critical reading and judgement skills of people here. </p>
<p>@coolweather:</p>
<p>You saying my posts lack reasoning and logic is
- Pretty rich, coming from you.
- Not going to be true just because you say it.</p>
<p>I think most people can follow my logic perfectly fine (and more people would find problems with your logic).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I let the public judge. Move on.</p>
<p>
all I can do is repeat what I wrote before: See <a href=“Ecological fallacy - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy</a> or google the term “ecological fallacy”. To quote from the article “An example of ecological fallacy is when the average of a population is assumed to have an interpretation in term of likelihood at the individual level.” You insist on doing just this.</p>
<p>A student contemplating Cal or Irvine or any other school does not care about the overall placement rate of the university. They aren’t the Chancellor of the university. What she/he cares about are their own chances. As the article or any other research on the term “ecological fallacy” clearly points out, population averages (eg. how many kids from that college got into med school) can not be interpreted to predict the chances of a given individual. I fear this is something you just aren’t going to ever understand. </p>
<p>^ Actually you incorrectly applied “ecological fallacy” and purposedly threw it in to make the water more murky and hide your flawed argument that I analyzed in my post. It’s not that complicate to interprete and understand the UCB statistics. Your opinion and my opinion still remain different and just leave at that to move on because there is nothing new to say.</p>
<p>
Not only could they, for all we know they would be right. Irvine does not publish a chart with acceptance rates against MCAT/GPA but they know that info internally. I expect that the chart is actually similar to Cal’s. Meaning? Cal is not necessarily better than UCI. </p>
<p>It’s widely known that the GPA and SAT to get into Cal are higher than to get into Irvine. It should be no surprise that the stronger kids entering college go on to earn higher GPAs and get better MCAT scores. The implication? The chances are about the same at either college; Cal just happens to have more kids entering that will end up in the better boxes than Irvine, but for any particular kid they will end up in the same box no matter which of the two they attended. </p>
<p>^ No. A kid who goes to a school with better advisors, better resources, better curriculum and teaching, better opportunity to work with peers to collaborate and discover, better opportunity to know professors so that professors can give convincing reference letters will have better chance for medical schools. A student with high GPA/MCAT but does not have chances to meet and work with professors won’t get good recommendations. Raw intelligence alone does not always help. The environment does. And sometimes the environment can prevent students from falling through the cracks.</p>
<p>If every college is the same then there is no point for HS students to work harder on college apps, to move away from home,… They just need to go to any college.</p>
<p>I must admit from the people that I know that went to UCB for premed had very disappointing results. I think some of them went to weak high schools but was accepted to Berkeley and had to go there because of prestige.
Aside from premed, engineering, economics, finance came out from ok to great.
Of course they are all anecdotes but overall you do hear things and do wonder.</p>
<p>In fact, UCI honors could be better than Cal for pre-med if that can get them more research opportunities and better recs and advising.</p>
<p>And as I’ve said before, for a bright, motivated upper-middle class kid, any college would likely be equally fine for most career paths.</p>
<p>Agree both my nephew and niece got into uci honors back years ago when tuition was paid in full for regents. They had stem cell research or something similar. I think one got into ucla but didn’t go. Their mom didn’t let them apply to UCB .
They both graduated or about to graduate from medical school.</p>
<p>@DrGoogle:</p>
<p>LOL. What did the mom have against Cal?</p>
<p>BTW, being a CA resident makes it tough to get in to med school.</p>
<p>Probably an Asian Tiger Mom who didn’t want her kids to be far away from her 
(Asian Dad here)</p>
<p>Private schools of course!</p>
<p>It is supply and demand. Why is the acceptance rate to ivies way lower than that at UC Berkeley and LA? Well, the supply of seats are way too high (too many for the limited resources of a government school to properly service) and the demand for seats is way too low (a lot less people want to go there, even with the low price). </p>
<p>If you get in, even if you have to take a loan, an ivy will be worth it. 10 years down the road, you will be a manager at a top tier firm, rather than coding on a couch for a 100k yearly. Also, the UC admission system is run by low-level bureaucrats. The people who read your application are not professors, are paid near minimum wage, and often did not go to any UC schools. Do you really want them to choose your academic peers and friends? </p>
<p>Oh, please, Wharton. An Ivy degree is no guarantee of success. Are you kidding??</p>
<p>And adcoms don’t choose anyone’s peers and friends. A student at a UC who is smart and motivated can seek out intellectual peers. Some of them may prefer the diversity of a UC, not to mention the ability to have deep conversations outdoors all year long.</p>
<p>its all about the connections and resume as sad as it is</p>
<p>The blatherings of a teenager who doesn’t know how the world works makes my head hurt.</p>
<p>The ED/SCEA acceptance rate at <em>every</em>single<em>Ivy</em> besides Yale is higher than Cal’s acceptance rate these days, and that’s how the Ivies fill almost half their school (at some, it’s more than half).</p>
<p>Not to mention that Cal’s SAT numbers are comparable to Cornell’s (and I believe UPenn’s), so a kid there doesn’t even have to look all that hard to find intellectual peers. Not to mention that by the alumni success metrics I looked at, Cal did as well as some Ivies/equivalents. But I won’t rub it in 10 years later, @WhartonnotHYPS, when you’re making less than some Cal or other state school grad.</p>
<p>I do believe that the CA funding cuts are a concern, but the top UCs pull in a lot of talent.</p>
<p>And @dman44, your network and resume do matter, but while alums of private schools tend to help each other out more, I’ve seen alums of good public schools (or departments) pull their friends in to startups and become millionaires.</p>
<p>Here’s the hard truth that nobody wants to hear:
Yes, going to a top ivy school (or Stanford/MIT) will change one’s course in life. Proportionally, top companies (be it in finance, consulting, tech, or engineering) will recruit from top schools at a much higher rate. That isn’t to say that it’s impossible to get to top companies from other schools, but it’s going to be much, much harder. Those top companies then provide much better exit oppurtunitues, funding their employees to go to top MBA/Law programs or providing the company name for one’s resume which will ensure they don’t get looked over… From there, the sky is the limit. Many will go on to create amazing companies because they’ll receive investments (from their school/company name). Others will work at top positions at either the same company or a different company. Students that go to a HYPSM school will also be able to utlize the network they establish which will be, proportionally, filled with more students in higher-up postions. If you want to be part of the “in” group, it’s much easier through a top school. Life isn’t fair at times, but that’s the way it is. That’s why I believe even 100-200k in debt is well worth it for the right school.</p>
<p>
I used to hang around a lot of Wharton kids. There is no guarantee with an Wharton degree. Out of the 2 brothers that I used to know graduated from Wharton, one ended up working for his sister who graduate from Smith. The other brother graduated from Cornell engineering and then did Wharton MBA(IIRC) still working for some investment banking firm last time I googled him.</p>