<p>How many more premeds does Ucla have?</p>
<p>From what I have heard on CC and outside sources, UCLA has one of the largest pre-med populations in the nation.</p>
<p>UCLA has THE largest premed population in the United States. That means you have far more premeds to compete with than at any other university. If you are just taking in to account the numbers, UCLA would be the most competitive place to go to as a premed. In the free market competition may be a good thing, but not when you dealing with medical school admissions.</p>
<p>uc dad is correct. To think that one campus is more competitive than the other is just plain silly. Now it can be that some impacted majors are more competitive, say biz-econ and UCLA and Engineering at Cal. But, premeds are premeds are premeds. They've (almost) all have taken APs in Chem, Physics and Calc and scored a 4-5, but are retaking the class for the "easy" A. In such an environment, trying to earn an A in Frosh Chem when had a crappy HS teacher, makes ANY campus competitive.</p>
<p>If premeds were strategic, they'd take the (almost) guaranteed Regents and attend Merced where they'd be a star.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA has THE largest premed population in the United States.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh, source please? </p>
<p>btw: I have to believe (but no source) that Hopkins HAS to have the largest premed matriculating Frosh, on a percentage basis.</p>
<p>Bluebayou is right; fml for being a premed at UCLA...</p>
<p>They're both hard though, depending on major. Actually, anything math/science related for both schools is hard work, don't take any of it lightly. Humanities aren't too bad; not saying they're easy, but they're definitely no Chem class with Lavelle...</p>
<p>:-P</p>
<p>Visit both schools, look up information - figure out which school is more "you" not just academicwise, but holistically.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I guarantee u that if an employer is faced with the choice of choosing between two equal candidates, one from UCLA and one from Cal, he or she would choose the Cal person because Cal graduates are more individual thinkers(I know i am stereotyping here, but I am comparing an average grad from Berkeley and LA).
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>LOLLLLLL. Donald Trump here are you??</p>
<p>There is absolutely no statistical basis for that, and one employer (Administrator for a hospital in the Bay Area) that I talked to actually told me that between UCLA, Cal and Stanford students, on an all-equal basis, he tends to pick the UCLA student. This was because "they aren't as arrogant as Cal grads, and need the money more than Stanford alums." Cal students are very wrapped-up in prestige; they can't stand thinking that another UC even rivals them in academic quality. So that might be something to consider if you're looking at the people at the two schools. Some of my Cal friends make it very obvious an entire year later that they're still bitter toward me for choosing UCLA over Cal, because, in the words of one person, "it's a lesser school."</p>
<p>The academics are basically equal, with Cal having the edge in engineering, and UCLA having the edge in pre-med (so what there's "more competition," that's the price you pay for being at the top). I'd look outside the academia to find your fit (eg weather, students, whether you really want to commute on BART to volunteer at a hospital, etc). Both are great schools, and no employer that you'd want to work for would be ignorant enough to consider one academically superior over the other in undergrad.</p>
<p>"LOLLLLLL. Donald Trump here are you??"</p>
<p>Hahahahha! You are totally right, but in high school, everything is about the prestige, the name of the school...once you actually get to college, you realize how unimportant that is, how you are going to an AMAZING school and people in the real world do NOT always stereotypically choose the Cal student or the UCLA student or the Stanford student. Hence why we have interviews and supplemental applications and resumes...</p>
<p>To help you out, I have MANY friends who chose UCLA over Berkeley (myself included) for varying reasons, none of which were "UCLA is easier" cuz it's not really...it's two completely different lifestyles with different courseloads.
Also, keep in mind, UCLA is quarter, Berkeley is semester. After having done CC courses in HS that were semester and quarter-style at UCLA, I would argue that quarter system is a b**** in that after week 3, it is constant midterm after essay after test until finals week. It is FAST and a lot of work at times. I feel like my friend at Berkeley goes out to party even more than I do ironically enough...she goes out almost every weekend...and she's a nuclear engineer major...</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I feel like my friend at Berkeley goes out to party even more than I do ironically enough...she goes out almost every weekend...and she's a nuclear engineer major...
[/Quote]
HAHAHA go figure. Those nuclear-E majors....wild things, watch out!</p>
<p>I guess the good thing about the quarter system is that should you have to take any nuclear engineering courses, they're over in 10 weeks vs 18 (?). And you get to choose classes three times in one year, versus twice, so you definitely get more variety.</p>
<p>I thought I would hate quarter (hs was on semester), but it's really forced me to do my work on time, and as I mentioned earlier, I have more variety in classes. Also, if you're social sciences/humanities, you only have one midterm during 5th/6th week, unlike math/engineering/science majors who usually have two sets, one during 3rd week and one during 8th/9th week. So that part kinda depends on what you end up majoring in. Most people go in thinking they'll dislike quarter, and the above poster is actually the first one I've heard complain about it (my roommates are chem-E majors, and even they don't mind). I suppose it's personal preference and study habits, but it is something you should consider as well.</p>
<p>Berkeley is definitely more competitive for engineers.</p>
<p>And the worst of the math/science middies is that for SOME odd reason, they tend to all fall during the same week... >.<</p>
<p>no one knows which one is more competitive. they are different schools. how on earth would you compare them? anecdotal evidence? freshman class profile (that's high school!)? </p>
<p>there's no real way unless someone can provide stats on what the distribution of grades are like in specific classes and comparing the distributions to similar classes here at ucla.
In any class, you have the highest probability of hitting the mean, so if the mean is set to a C at Cal and a B at UCLA then, yea, Cal is harder. but i doubt anyone can show this kind of information to allow valid comparisons</p>
<p>(and even then, there is variability in which professor is teaching)</p>
<p>again, do not use difficulty (or supposed difficulty) as a factor in determining where you want to go...</p>
<p>god i don't know how many times I (as well as others) have said this...</p>
<p>also, the AAMC provides data online on how many medical school applicants are submitted from each university. UCLA, at least recently, has had the most applicants (not sure how this even relates to this thread, but i saw someone demanding a source)</p>
<p>i got into UCLA for Electrical Engineering..dunno if this is what i want to do but my goal is for some engineering degree. So comparing the Engineering of CAL and UCLA what would be the preference? I'm not talking about rankings or anything, just an experience and whether the semester system would be better..</p>
<p>I actually don't know what hospital you talked to, but I have also talked to a lot of employers. As a matter of fact, my dad is a director for one of the big 5 consulting firms, and he has told me that he would choose a Cal grad over a LA grad any day. Also, he works in SoCal, so there is none of that norcal bias that someone might mention. </p>
<p>When i was choosing between LA and Cal, I posed this same question repeatedly to multiple employers, and many said they would choose the Cal grad. My Uncle is a neurosurgeon at UCSF, and even he told be it would be better to attend Cal because they really teach you how to think individually here, and so if you do well there, anyone would want you.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley is better for engineering. UCLA is better for economics. A high GPA at either school is much respected.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i got into UCLA for Electrical Engineering..dunno if this is what i want to do but my goal is for some engineering degree. So comparing the Engineering of CAL and UCLA what would be the preference? I'm not talking about rankings or anything, just an experience and whether the semester system would be better..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In an engineering perspective, I would definitely choose Berkeley over UCLA. I would assume that they have better professors (the professors in the UCLA engineering department aren't that good since a lot of them focus on their research). Also, by going to Berkeley, you have more opportunities of landing an internship/job.</p>
<p>However, it is highly competitive over there and the coursework is a lot more difficult than at UCLA.</p>
<p>Unknown4ever: What you are saying (about "thinking independently") is not true. First of all, how independently one thinks depends not on which university one goes to, but on the individual. How on earth does a MASSIVE university teach you to think "independently" when class sizes are huge and the textbooks used are pretty much the same as those used at most UC campuses? </p>
<p>Additionally, i would say 90% of undergrads want to go to graduate school. Most graduate and professional programs don't place emphasis on where you attend undergrad, but more on how well you did, what ECs you have, and how well you performed on standardized tests (MCAT, LSAT...).
Employers will NEVER care where you went for undergrad. It is MUCH more important where you go for GRADUATE school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA is better for economics
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha are you kidding me? All the econ profs here do a fantastic job of making you despise a once interesting subject. berkeley econ>>>> ucla econ</p>
<p>
[quote]
In an engineering perspective, I would definitely choose Berkeley over UCLA. I would assume that they have better professors (the professors in the UCLA engineering department aren't that good since a lot of them focus on their research). Also, by going to Berkeley, you have more opportunities of landing an internship/job.</p>
<p>However, it is highly competitive over there and the coursework is a lot more difficult than at UCLA.
[/quote]
You're saying engineering profs at UCB don't do research?</p>
<p>Why do you say there are more opportunities for internships/jobs if one goes to UCB? There are so many opportunites for these at UCLA (and UCSD for that matter) that I doubt the opportunities 'due to attending UCB' are significantly greater.</p>
<p>Regarding coursework difficulty of one versus the other, have you compared the specific courses in a particular engineering program at one versus the other to compare the difficulty of the material? For competetiveness, again, the pool of students between the two is almost identical and that's where the competition is. An example is my D - she turned down UCB for UCLA and she would have presented the same level of 'competition' to the fellow students at one college versus the other and the same would be true for many other students. If the stats of incoming students at one of the colleges were significantly higher than the other then I'd tend to agree with you.</p>
<p>I can't believe someone said UCLA economics> UCB economics. I think in terms of opportunities and freedom, UCLA offers more. Prestige wise, UCB > UCLA economics.</p>
<p>Seriously there's no need to fight or anything. I think UCB and UCLA are both great schools! I don't think you can really say one's more competitive over the other, because they're both great in different aspects.</p>