<p>Okay, back to choosing between UCLA and Northwestern (I think I've mostly ruled out UCSD), how about if cost completely doesn't matter? And I think I can probably handle Calculus at UCLA, but a doctor I talked to who sits on some medical admission boards says that it would be easier to get into medical school from Northwestern.</p>
<p>I think that UCLA is definitely the best choice, although if you don't want such a large school, then Northwestern might be best.</p>
<p>it is definetely easier to get into a med school from Northwestern. Two things. There is more inflation at Northwestern. With that said, the student body at Northwestern is substantially stronger than is UCLA's.</p>
<p>Collegeboard:</p>
<p>Northwestern: 1320-1500
UCLA: 1280-1410</p>
<p>so if you are a med school, does a 4.0 at UCLA compare with a 4.0 at Northwestern?</p>
<p>you be the judge</p>
<p>I doubt they see a dimes worth of difference. Go look at the med school admit data by school available on another website and you decide.</p>
<p>Barrons (i know you went to Wisconsin or have some affiliation with it), how can you discount a 100 point difference in student body. By your analysis, Boston University is no different from Tufts?</p>
<p>They are not admitting the entire student body. They are looking at the what, top 1 to 5 % of the class that has high science grades at a good school. UCLA has as many smart kids as NU. It just has some education and phys ed majors that might not be so smart but they are not applying to med school either.</p>
<p>Most freshman wind up changing their majors. Although it seems like you will always love science, look around at the other opportunities offered by these schools. If your only objection to UCLA is the advanced calculus class, you know you can find a way to deal with it. Many others have. And, if you switch majors, your one objection will subside.</p>
<p>Northwestern is a great school with a terrific pre-med program. One of our family members is in pre-med now. And it is tough, right from the first year. She loves the campus and social life, and has learned to adjust to the academics. Will you be able to deal with the climate, the quarter system, and the distance from your family? Only you can tell.</p>
<p>I checked a few students from UCLA and NU on
<a href="http://mdapplicants.com/selectschool.php%5B/url%5D">http://mdapplicants.com/selectschool.php</a></p>
<p>33 MCAT 3.5 gpa NU--Loyola Chi, OSU Med (instate)
33 MCAT 3.5 gpa UCLA USC and U of Ill</p>
<p>38 MCAT 3.88 gps NU Baylor, Texas SW
37 MCAT 3.62 gpa UCLA UC Davis </p>
<p>39 MCAT 3.5 gpa NU Chicago, Med C Wis
39 Mcat 3.5 gpa UCLA USC PSU</p>
<p>36 MCAT 3.86 GPA NU Tufts NYU
36 MCAT 3.73 gpa UCLA Harvard, Cornell, Pitt</p>
<p>I see no major advantage either way.</p>
<p>A few from Wisc.</p>
<p>38 MCAT 3.76 Wash U Uminn
33 MCAT 3.5 gpa Tulane UW MCof Wis
37 MCAT 3.81 Chicago, UW, Yale and UCSF waitlist but withdrew app after Chicago with $$$</p>
<p>"If Chicago had been on the West or East coast - it probably would be considered the best city in the US."</p>
<p>I dont know about that. I highly doubt Chicago would be considered more desirable or a better city than San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle. Or on the East Coast better than New York or Boston. Theres no way. I love Chicago and all, but that is not realistic.</p>
<p>Out side of location Chicago>>>>SD, Seattle and easily on par with LA and SF. Restaurants, sports, museums, music scene all are top notch.</p>
<p>"I highly doubt Chicago would be considered more desirable or a better city than San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle. Or on the East Coast better than New York or Boston. Theres no way. I love Chicago and all, but that is not realistic."</p>
<p>is that supposed to be a joke? los angeles? seattle?</p>
<p>^^^what? i dont get what your trying to imply. are your trying to imply people would rather live in chicago than southern california? have you been to chicago lately? you meen you honestly think more people would rather live in chicago than los angeles or san diego or san francisco. while there are some very nice areas of chicago, as a whole the area is not even close to los angeles, san diego, san francisco, or even seattle. i was just in chicago last month, everyone there was talking about how they wanted to move to california. rarely do i hear people in southern california say they wish they lived in chicago. while they are cleaning up the city slowly by surely, you cant honestly say most people would rather be in chicago than in southern california or san francsico or seattle. why would what i posted be a joke? i think it is more common knowledge.</p>
<p>"Out side of location Chicago>>>>SD, Seattle and easily on par with LA and SF. Restaurants, sports, museums, music scene all are top notch."</p>
<p>You seem to be coming to that conclusion on size and factors such as museums and restaurants. the city of chicago has 2.8 million people in it. so obviously its gonna have more venues than the city of san fransisco with 700,000 people and the city of san diego with 1.3 million people or the city of seattle with around 600,000 people. obviously large venues come with size. but even places smaller than chicago like sd, sf, and seattle (not that these are small, i believe san diego is the 7th largest city in the country and san fransisco is the 13th or 14th largest in the country) have an ubundance of venues and such, with not only obviously a nicer location but lower crime rates, and all three, especially seattle and san diego are far far cleaner cities than chicago. take a look at crime, quality of life etc. i would say that there is no way that chicago comes close to la, sd, sf and seattle. and chicago's shrinking population and los angeles and san diego's growing population clearly backs up my point as to what cities people want/desire to live in. but everyone has their own opinion. im sure plenty of people from chicago love it and would swear by it. but realisticly, i highly doubt you can find many people who would rather live in chicago than in sd, la, sf.</p>
<p>It's the metro area that really matters. City borders are more historic artifacts than meaningful. Some cities were aggressive about annexing and others were not. It hardly matters in the overall picture. Have you taken a hard look at LA recently--it's looking very rundown and dirty along Wilshire and downtown. </p>
<p>The question was "if Chicago were on the coast" so weather is out of the equation in this scenario. The Chicago metro area does not have a shrinking population. The most recent data from economy.com shows growth from 7.6 Million to 7.9 million from 2000-2006. The crime rate for violent crime is lower than LA's. People think they want to move until they get one look at the Cal home prices and taxes.</p>
<p>No, Metro Areas are huge and often bare no resemblence to the actual areas in question. such is the case in los angeles, which shares little with orange county, however the metro areas are lumped together. obviously when looking at los angeles, the metro area, which also includes over 4 million people from orange county is not particularly helpfull, especially when discussing the city and its immediate surroundings. i dont think we really want to discuss areas over an hour away, as that is not particularly relevent to what we are talking about or to are conversation. back the the fact, were talking about cities, not metro areas. that was clearly defined. </p>
<p>ill also shoot you the question in terms of location only, where would you rather be (this part does include location):</p>
<p>La Jolla (Part of the City of San Diego)
Westwood (Part of the City of Los Angeles)
Evanston (Part of the City of Chicago)</p>
<p>I meen come on, Westwood and La Jolla are amonst the most desirable and wealthy areas in the entire country. Many people would give their front teeth to live in these two areas.</p>
<p>I can afford a house in Evanston and Evanston is a separate city.. And nobody said city limits only. I can't even tell where Seattle ends and Shoreline begins. Tha's just playing dumb. 80% of the people who work in Seattle live in the burbs. Same for SF. Even sprawling LA has lots of commuters from the burbs. It's an economic unit.</p>
<p>when we are talking about cities and list san diego, san fransisco, los angeles etc... i think its clear what we are talking about. if you think when we are discussing the CITY of los angeles, that we are also discussing orange county as part of that then you are the one manipulating stats and playing dumb. furthermore, if you think the chicago metro area offers as much as the los angeles metro area, you are crazy. that is just simply incorect. 80% of the people who work in los angeles, san diego, and san fransisco do not live out of the city boundaries. while im not that familiar with seattle, this is deff not the case with the other three large west coast cities.</p>
<p>ucchris--
No offense, but I imagine that a lot people would rather live in Chicago than Los Angeles, (sprawl, smog, superficiality, etc.)</p>
<p>Chicago's comparable to the US' other great cities: NYC, Boston, SF DC, etc. (I've lived in all of them.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"If Chicago had been on the West or East coast - it probably would be considered the best city in the US."</p>
<p>I dont know about that. I highly doubt Chicago would be considered more desirable or a better city than San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle. Or on the East Coast better than New York or Boston. Theres no way. I love Chicago and all, but that is not realistic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Evidently, ucchris has a problem w/ reading comprehension.</p>
<p>Here are things that Chicago has better than all of those other cities - </p>
<ol>
<li><p>better architecture - pretty much most architects would say that Chicago has the best architecture of any large city in the US (for smaller cities, I would say maybe Pittsburgh).</p></li>
<li><p>great parks - while all of these cities do have some great parks - no other city has more great parks spread throughout the city that are easily accessible by nearly everyone. In addition, Chicago has an uninterrupted public waterfront that isn't marred by commercial interests - something that can't be said for any other large city.</p></li>
<li><p>the summer block party/street fair scene is the best of any city I've been to.</p></li>
<li><p>it's the right size - NYC, at times can be a bit much and smaller cities like SF (another city I think that is great) and Boston can be a bit claustrophobic (running into the same people; going to the same places).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I'm a New Yorker and I love the city - but even I have to admit there are many things better about Chicago.</p>
<p>As for SD and LA - as far as cities go - there isn't much beyond the weather and beaches (and Chicago's weather can be fixed by it being on the West Coast and it already has beaches - beaches, btw, that are like a 5-8 minute walk from the John Hancock tower).</p>
<p>wow...im not sure what to even say to this. i am not arguing that Chicago is not a wonderfull city. my father grew up in chicago. i have been there many times. nice place. however, everyone keeps avoiding the point of what i posted if you ask the general population where they would rather live Chicago or LA/SD... obviously the majority of the population would state LA/SD. </p>
<p>"ucchris--
No offense, but I imagine that a lot people would rather live in Chicago than Los Angeles, (sprawl, smog, superficiality, etc.)
Chicago's comparable to the US' other great cities: NYC, Boston, SF DC, etc. (I've lived in all of them.)"</p>
<p>Ok, what are you not getting.... did i ever state that i was talking for the entire population of the united states. no. i even stated than many people would rather live in chicago, i believe my words were some people would swear by chicago.... but you are ducking my question. i said where would the majority of people want to live if asked. obviously some people would choose chicago. but clearly southern california is in higher demand. period. the majority of the populous in the united states would prefer, given the choice, to live in LA/SD. no one on this board has ever repsonded to this. people, who are obviously bias towards chicago, keep stating other points such as many people would rather live in chicago, which i have never refuted.</p>
<p>k&s, i love your hostile town. </p>
<p>"it's the right size" </p>
<p>-haha thats not objective at all. </p>
<p>you still didnt respond to my question. do you honestly feel that the majority of americans would prefer to live in chicago over LA/SD. Honestly. I was not dissing chicago, no need to be rude. Chicago is a great city, with i agree the most beauitful architecture in the country. Furthermore, if you are honestly trying to say LA/SD have nothing going for them other than the beach, you are ignorantly biased on this matter, which seems obvious by your post. I could list 20 things awesome about both LA and SD and also 20 things that are horrible about them. The same thing goes for Chicago. Im not sure why you are listing a small list of things you think are good about chicago. Anyways, Chicagos beaches are really similar to SD/LA's beaches. haha come on. answer my question honestly, do you feel that the MAJORITY of americans would prefer to live in the city of chicago over the cities of LA/SD. The answer to this question is obvious. And for juju, i am not saying everyone, i emphasize the majority. all of these east coast/mid west posters are ragging on my post, however no one seems to answer my question, just bag on my post.</p>
<p>"As for SD and LA - as far as cities go - there isn't much beyond the weather and beaches"</p>
<p>-how interesting. you post a list of random things you think are great about chicago and then state there isnt much beyond the weather and beaches good about san diego and los angeles. wow. you must not know southern california too well if your listing great things about chicago and then make a statement like that about LA/SD.</p>
<p>"it already has beaches - beaches, btw, that are like a 5-8 minute walk from the John Hancock tower"</p>
<p>-ya cause chicagos beaches are every bit as wonderfull as san diego and los angeles' beaches. come on. even trying to compare chicagos beaches to SD/LA's beaches is a bit ridiculous.</p>