<p>
[quote]
Wow ... and therefore by induction, the pool of out-of-country
applicants are 'higher quality' than US resident applicants!
Perhaps they spend more time hitting the books?
Or their brains are better developed due to learning by osmosis
in early childhhood? Not sure where you're going with this!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do I have to go anywhere with this? I am stating a fact. The fact is, lots of California residents, even those that are not that good, will try to shoot for UC professional schools as 'reaches', because they figure that if they luckily get in, they will be able to enjoy instate tuition. However, out-of-state residents have no such incentive and therefore no incentive to treat them as reaches. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example. Let's say I'm a California resident with decent, but not spectacular, GPA and MCAT scores. I might treat the UC med-schools, even the "less prestigious" UC med-schools, as reach schools? Why not? If I get in and matriculate, I get the tasty instate tuition. However, if I'm a Nevada resident, I would not enjoy the same benefit. Hence, I'd be far more likely to treat Harvard and Johns Hopkins as reaches. In my case, other than a Nevada med-school, I don't have any cheap yet highly prestigious med-school option available to me. </p>
<p>I mean, seriously, look, California residents know that they get admissions preference to many UC professional schools. Hence, knowing that, they know that they might have a shot even if they're not all that good. Ouf of staters have no such luxury. It is therefore only logical that the instate pool of applicants would be of lower quality. Again, honestly, do you think that the level of California residents applying to a UC med-school is the same as the level of Florida or New York residents applying to that same UC med-school?</p>