UCLA premed

<p>Hi, I got accepted into UCLA and I am super excited about it. However, I have this preconditioned reluctance to go about and tackle it head on because of it's infamous competitiveness. Becoming one of the greatest cardiologist is my ultimate goal. I know that UCLA can supply me with ample knowledge and opportunities for success; however, I am not sure if I should risk going to UCLA and possibly getting a not so competitive GPA amongst my peers and not get into a good Medical School or attend UCSD and attain a higher GPA to get into a good Medical School. Both schools are great but I know the competition may be greater in one than the other. Do you have any advice before I enter as an aspiring premed student? Is there more opportunities I do not know about for each of the two schools related to premed? How should I prepare? What should I plan for my freshmen year in college? i.e. join clubs? sports? intern? Are there specific G.E. courses I should take to further my future more towards medicine? I know it's a lot, sorry and thanks!</p>

<p>Go to ucsd, or better yet irvine or davis. My good friend rues the day he came to LA over USC and the midtier UCs. His GPA is in shambles while his friends from high school who he knows are less intelligent than him are getting excellent gpas without breaking a sweat at the mid-tier ucs. It might also interest you that I know several people from sd and davis who've gotten into "good" med schools(ucsd med school, northwestern, baylor, even washu at st. louis) without going to a top 25 university. I honestly don't think the admissions people at med schools care too much about where you did undergrad. I mean, it's all well and good if you do well but if not you're ****ed, which is why i say if you ca get into a comparable private, go there as you'll be helped by grade inflation and more opportunities, or put your pride on the backburner and go lower. Why make life harder than it already is?</p>

<p>I'd like to disagree. Med school admission officers KNOW that a 3.5 GPA at UCD is different from a 3.5 GPA at UCLA. They've got the stats from the colleges, you know. You should go to a school that will challenge you and prepare you well academically. I don't see why anyone would choose UCI or UCD over UCLA just because they don't think they can get a good GPA at UCLA. If you were good enough to get into UCLA and want to go to med school, I don't see why you'd want to take the supposed "easy way out" now.</p>

<p>You could also just be a pre-med history major :rolleyes:</p>

<p>And to answer all of those questions, you should look to talk to a mentor of some sort (at whichever school you decide to attend), the pre-med societies will have them, if you're a Regents Scholar you can probably pick up a mentor. There are lots of things you're going to have to figure out, and the truth of the matter is that there's no single path to success. Everyone is going to do their own thing, you'll have to find your own niche too - Me telling you what to do won't help so much as you figuring it out yourself. The permutations of the path to medschool are endless, so do what you like, and just put yourself out there and join a club or some other organization.</p>

<p>SD and LA are equally competitive (or equally uncompetitive)</p>

<p>go where you feel you'll be happiest</p>

<p>(btw, it is a misconception that graduate programs look at the school you come from and add weight to your gpa if you're from a well known university. your gpa will not be weighted, regardless of the UC you come from)</p>

<p>^Cuz being a history major just helps so much with the MCAT's you know...</p>

<p>It's not that your GPA will be "weighted", your GPA will be taken in context. Everybody knows that UCB's got the worst GPA deflation ever.</p>

<p>tell that to the countless Cal grads with average to low gpas that get rejected every year. The truth is, no one really knows what the admissions committee is looking for. Additionally, individual undergraduate schools do not provide reliable information on "average gpa of admits" or "percent of first year premeds that make it to medical school." Most of information on Cal's career center website is self-reported.</p>

<p>Yea, Cal's got a low medical school acceptance rate, i agree. I'm thinking the MCAT's are pretty important, along with GPA. I just don't see why people think of it as "wasted effort" if they go to a school where it's slightly harder to get a higher GPA.</p>

<p>You don't have to be a science major to do well on the MCATs - it only tests so much of the material.</p>

<p>i kinda agree. i remember three years ago when i had to make this same decision (LA vs SD), and I used the same logic of "where will my gpa be the highest?" So I guess it's excusable that everyone is so worried (especially since like a quarter of the incoming class will be premed). </p>

<p>I honestly think that if you work hard, you can do well at any college. And honestly, if you cant do well during your undergraduate study, how the hell do you expect to make it through medical school which is like 10000x harder?</p>

<p>^^^ haha a lot of med schools are only pass/fail.</p>

<p>but anyways, ucsd will NOT be any easier LOL. uci or lower will be less competitive probably (uci is still pushing it though...everyone ends up there).</p>

<p>and yea obviously a 3.5 at ucla will look better than a 3.5 at ucd, but the OP is trying to get a BETTER gpa, not the same. if he gets the same gpa as he would at ucla, well then that sucks, but if he has a better gpa then its worth it.</p>

<p>usually the prestige vs. gpa argument favors the gpa side ie a 3.7 at ucd vs 3.5 at berkeley. its gets tricky in these situations, but from what ive heard from others it usually goes to the higher gpa.</p>

<p>you guys are missing another factor though which is the MCAT. if you get a 3.9 at a cal state but you get a super high mcat score like 40+, NO ONE is going to doubt your intelligence, and NO ONE is going to care what school you went to anymore. but if you have a 3.9 at an "easy" school and a low mcat score...then you and your school start to lose credibility.</p>

<p>many are pass/no pass, however these are usually the toughest schools to get into (UCLA, Yale, etc.) The vast majority are not pass/no pass. Some even have a gpa system similar to undergrad. You don't know where you'll end up...heck, how do you know you'll even pass at one of the pass/no pass schools??</p>

<p>yea im just trying to say that basically everyone who makes it to med school graduates if you look at the statistics, so its kinda pointless to talk about "making it" through med school. granted, you might do worse at med school, but if you got in, youre going to graduate from it.</p>

<p>that's true, but im also just trying to make a point. ugrad is not supposed to prepare you for med school. it's simply there to make sure that people who are accepted into med schools will make it through. Thus, the logic that med school is harder than ugrad is implicit in the way medschools make decisions on who to take...and from what you've pointed out, medschools do a pretty good job of taking the best students</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Well, actually, History majors learn critical analysis skills that are beneficial on the verbal portion of the MCAT....</p>

<p>Yea, but you don't have to be a history major to learn those skills</p>

<p>I didn't say you had to be. I just said that it's not a waste to be a History major, and that it can indeed help you on your MCAT.</p>

<p>Why anyone would chose sd over irvine is beyond my imagination...</p>

<p>
[quote]
tell that to the countless Cal grads with average to low gpas that get rejected every year. The truth is, no one really knows what the admissions committee is looking for. Additionally, individual undergraduate schools do not provide reliable information on "average gpa of admits" or "percent of first year premeds that make it to medical school." Most of information on Cal's career center website is self-reported.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Cal has higher than average medical admission rates
Career</a> Center - Medical School Statistics</p>

<p>Also, Cal has a higher rate than UCLA
UCLA</a> Career Center</p>

<p>None of this self-reported, it comes from AMCAS from people who released their information.</p>

<p>anon2528462, The table has incomplete data. According to AAMC, Cal had 722 applicants for 2008. The table has 117 applicants for 2007. This data don’t tell much.
[FACTS</a> Table 2-6. Undergraduate Institutions Supplying 35 or More Asian Applicants to U.S. Medical Schools](<a href=“http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/masian08.htm]FACTS”>http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/masian08.htm)</p>