<p>California owns in med school...UCSF!!! (great grandpa was dean), UCLA, and Stanford med</p>
<p>ucsf is one of the premiere medical schools in america, they hardly cancel out. also add stanford and ucla's top notch med schools.</p>
<p>Let's face it considering it's size (and weather) Massachusettes has some great schools. Considering California's population and economy it would make more sense to compare California to other countries.</p>
<p>harvard med school, harvard business school, and harvard law school ;).</p>
<p>wait... i forgot about stanford.</p>
<p>UCSF would crush U Worchester in medical school.... it is literally one of the elite medical schools in the country.. I would say the private schools just about cancel out. But the UC System simply dominates and crushes the UM system. No competition.</p>
<p>its worcester, not worchester!</p>
<p>I concur with Private Joker...can't draw a straight line of comparison when the concentration of schools in CA differ from MA. It comes down to preference and which is the best fit for each student...not which is "better!"</p>
<p>UCSF primarily is a research medical school. It ranks 6th in US News and World Report.
UMass-Worcester primarily is a primary care medical school, ranking 3rd in US News and World Report. I believe some years it has even ranked first for primary care. UCSF has also ranked high for primary care, placing 8th.
These two are great medical school but UMass tends to focus more on primary care than research. If you want to talk about top research schools, then mention Harvard med which is first and this argument is done.
Cali wins for quantity of top med schools. However, MA definitely wins for quality of top med schools, in both primary care and research.</p>
<p>usnews might not be the greatest indicator of best med schools- especially in primary care.</p>
<p>when you generally talk about elite med schools, ca has stanford, ucsf, ucsd, usc, ucd and ucla. ma has harvard, bu, and tufts. i personally wouldn't consider worcester at the same level of those schools.</p>
<p>California has the best state system by a mile, even school for school.
Mass State is rather poor.
But per capita it's not even close over-all.
It's apples and oranges.</p>
<p>The east coast state systems take a big hit from all of the private universities, colleges, lac's and thus few of them could even hold a candle to Cali.</p>
<p>Ok then Ace what is a good indicator of primary care med schools? </p>
<p>Personally, I, too, would not consider worcester to be at the same level of the schools mentioned...when it comes to research. Primary care was another story since it actually placed emphasis on the doctor-patient relationship. UMass went to great lengths to introduce its students to the clinical world not the lab by creating programs, such as rural health scholars program. With that said UMass is not a terrible research med school. It has placed 53rd for research. It is considered one of the fastest growing research-med schools because of the endowment it recieves by NIH and one of the cheapest med schools in the nation. What I like about UMass is its plan to improve its facilities and expand.<br>
Except for UCSF, many of those schools from MA and Cali are not even close to being a highly-esteemed primary care med schools.</p>
<p>actually, ucsd is ranked 7th, davis is at 17th, and ucla is at 23rd. but then again, those rankings are trash. seriously, when it comes to top primary care medical centers, you think of duke(39th), UCLA(23rd), Mayo(unranked), Harvard (32nd), Johns Hopkins(46th), and Emory(32nd). i can't really trust a ranking system that ranks those hospitals so low.</p>