<p>^ silly little Bruins...</p>
<p>i highly doubt that Cal has any better or worse of a placement rate into med schools. the "60%" statistic that Cal glamorizes is extremely biased. It shows an disproportionately low number of applicants (i think UCLA does this too). There are a lot more than 120 applicants from Cal so no one truly knows who sends more people to med school (percentage wise).</p>
<p>The gpa generalizations I made were based off a huge sample of premeds i know at Cal (current and grads). Most departments at Cal and UCLA don't release average gpa data.</p>
<p>The rumors of cut-throat competition may be a little exaggerated, but MUST be based on some element of truth since a lot of people complain.</p>
<p>Here are the "sources"
Career</a> Center - Medical School Statistics
AAMC:</a> FACTS Table 2: Undergraduate Institutions Supplying Applicants to U.S. Medical Schools, by Applicant Race and Ethnicity, 2007</p>
<p>
[quote]
It shows an disproportionately low number of applicants (i think UCLA does this too). There are a lot more than 120 applicants from Cal so no one truly knows who sends more people to med school (percentage wise).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yet, Berkeley still places a higher proportion of its undergrads in med school than does UCLA. Simple as that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The gpa generalizations I made were based off a huge sample of premeds i know at Cal (current and grads).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Apparently not large enough to make an accurate generalization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The rumors of cut-throat competition may be a little exaggerated, but MUST be based on some element of truth since a lot of people complain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ad populum argument.</p>
<p>The competition is way overblown. And people often confuse "competition" with "difficulty."</p>
<p>how do you know that Cal has a higher placement rate (source?)</p>
<p>Listen, UCLA has better athletics and social atmosphere but Cal has a slight edge in terms of "prestige." Trying to argue otherwise is pretty futile.</p>
<p>^it's not an issue of prestige. Prestige matters a lot less than you think (especially with two schools like Cal and UCLA) when you apply for med school. It's a matter off misleading evidence on the Cal career center web site that people use to make assumptions.</p>
<p>^ Does UCLA's career center post stats?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Listen, UCLA has better athletics and social atmosphere but Cal has a slight edge in terms of "prestige."
[/quote]
I agree on the athletics. Social environment is very subjective and a matter of personal choice.</p>
<p>Regarding prestige, Cal is much more highly regarded...case in point, the USNWR Peer Assessment score (aka prestige to academics):</p>
<p>For 2008:
Berkeley (4.8) - tied with Yale
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
UCLA (4.2) - tied with UNC- Chapel Hill and Carnegie Mellon</p>
<p>yes
UCLA</a> Career Center
And it looks more or less accurate (much more accurate than the Cal stats)
Of course neither data take into consideration the high drop-out rate at both schools.</p>
<p>the bottom line is, it doesn't matter where you really go, just make sure you do well. anecdotal evidence shows that your chances at doing better are higher at UCLA than at Cal, however there are (and never will be) solid statistics to prove this</p>
<p>^ I agree with you, bruinboy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's not an issue of prestige. Prestige matters a lot less than you think (especially with two schools like Cal and UCLA) when you apply for med school. It's a matter off misleading evidence on the Cal career center web site that people use to make assumptions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not talking about med school, I'm talking about the overall picture. Cal is more prestigious (not by much, but certainly it is), case closed.</p>
<p>And here's Berkeley's:</p>
<p>Career</a> Center - Medical School Statistics</p>
<p>Yes, fewer students, but the idea is there. (Hey, fewer students means less competition -- so a better chance of doing well. :rolleyes:)</p>
<p>
[quote]
anecdotal evidence shows that your chances at doing better are higher at UCLA than at Cal, however there are (and never will be) solid statistics to prove this
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know that many students at Cal who do well and get into med schools. At UCLA, it's much tougher -- I have friends who failed hardcore there and didn't get into any med school.</p>
<p>There, now we have some anecdotal evidence to counterbalance yours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course neither data take into consideration the high drop-out rate at both schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you mean "drop-out rate"? Each has about a 90% graduation rate. The other 10% may or may not have dropped out; to be honest, I think it's more likely that they transferred out than dropped out.</p>
<p>first of all, im not attacking you or Cal. I think Cal is a good school, and yes it is more prestigious (i never denied that).</p>
<p>what i meant by drop out rate was not out of the college but people dropping out of prehealth and switching to something less intense. At UCLA (may be at Cal, i don't know) you get about 1000 kids in the gen chem courses. slowly the number reduces further and further as people pursue other majors because they don't like the curriculum/intensity of the courses.</p>
<p>and that career center source is NOT representative at all. The official figure for med school applicants from Cal is in the 700's (slightly less than the number of applicants from ucla). You don't know what kind of sampling bias may be involved i that 150ish figure.</p>
<p>
<p>For 2008: Berkeley (4.8) - tied with Yale 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 UCLA (4.2) - tied with UNC- Chapel Hill and Carnegie Mellon
For the biological sciences, I would choose UNC-Chapel Hill and Carnegie Mellon over Yale any day. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Thanks for the input everyone.
What if the target is for graduate school (MSc or PhD) and not the medical school?
Are there any statistics available on how many made to high ranking graduate schools from UCLA and UCB?</p>
<p>^ The difference in getting into high ranking graduate schools from UCLA and UCB will be negligible.</p>
<p>The key is to do well in your classes to get a strong GPA. You'll also need strong GRE/MCAT scores.</p>
<p>You'll likely do better in the environment you're most happy. Visit both campuses and make your decision...the environments are very different.</p>
<p>I know for paleontology grad school, picking LA is a bad idea. Their fossil collections are a lot smaller and a lot less broad, which makes it harder to get undergrad research done.</p>
<p>Are there any statistics available on how many made to high ranking graduate schools from UCLA and UCB?</p>
<p>honestly, do you think that will be the deciding factor? how large are the schools? ok which disciplines? ok what nuances between resources and profs affect on students will make it a severe determining factor? which programs...? which graduate programs? </p>
<p>there are a wide range of graduate programs by topic - going to study byzantine history at harvard is different from stanford - but by how much? im mostly addressing your qualifying point about the phd aspect . . . it is so nuanced! to suggest that a huge bureaucratic top research university makes the difference -- requires a lot of parsing . . .</p>
<p>
[quote]
Regarding prestige, Cal is much more highly regarded...case in point, the USNWR Peer Assessment score (aka prestige to academics):
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering the multitude of stories I've heard/read about the weakness of the PA scoring, I've decided to throw it out as a viable metric. Here's one of them:</p>
<p>Colleges</a> Pull Out of 'U.S. News' Rankings : NPR</p>
<p>Essentially, the story goes that even those who fill out the PA forms don't always feel comfortable with their results.</p>
<p>But anyway, here's my take on all this hullaballoo that we get every year.</p>
<p>Every single year.</p>
<p>It really doesn't matter that much. The Cal-nuts will say that Cal is OMGBETTER and that UCLA is the BABY BEARS and rah rah rah.</p>
<p>The UCLA-nuts will counter with how UCLA has better athletics (so what?) and a better social environment. Oh, and prestige doesn't matter anyway and the edge is slight.</p>
<p>Every time.</p>
<p>In circles.</p>
<p>Year after year after year.</p>
<p>I really wish it would stop. It won't, but I wish it would.</p>
<p>So here's my take on it. It matters a little. Yes, Cal has slightly better numbers for med school admission, but none of us have the aggregate data to really say why, so we all ought to shut up before we make blanket statements about the WHY. Seriously. SHUT UP IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE DATA. This is rule number one about statistics/quantitative analysis, and we should ALL know better.</p>
<p>Secondly, none of us knew exactly where life would take us when we first started undergrad, and heck, even after 2 years of grad school I have no clue. Deciding to go to Cal or UCLA because you want to be a micropaleobotanist with a specialty in prehistoric acacia fernabobs is just silly. Seriously. Go to the college you get the feeling will serve your overall experience best and the rest will fall into place.</p>
<p>The whole, "BUT CAL HAS FOSSILS AND LABS AND DOODADS! SO MANY DOODADS!" argument fails miserably, I'm sorry. If it matters so much, then why are the LAC grads kicking all of our sorry asses left and right? You heard me, guys. The LACs. If it's all about the precious labs and research and doodads and tokens and rankings and super duper awesome facilities, then why do the LAC grads kick us all from here to oblivion? </p>
<p>Maybe because it's not the facilities. Maybe it's not the rankings. Maybe it's not the PA score. Maybe it's not what Joe Schmoe or your Taiwanese aunt who works for a firm in Bangalore thinks about your school. Maybe it's the friggin' teaching quality.</p>
<p>And in that, I hate to say it, but both Cal and UCLA are probably not as good as many other schools. But that's a different story.</p>
<p>The end of this argument is and always should be: go where you'll be happy. It's four years of your life that you're paying for, and you ought to be enjoying it. Otherwise, what's the point?</p>
<p>And this is just my opinion as someone who's spent some time away from undergrad and is starting his career. Take it with whatever sized grain of salt you wish.</p>
<p>^ I'd say LACs attract a different type of student. </p>
<p>I don't have any stats to back this up, but I say students that go to a university vs. a LAC are more career-focused than academic-focused.</p>
<p>The Cal/UCLA jabs are always there...the schools are rivals.</p>