<p>^ True, but that is more or less true for UCLA also.</p>
<p>Also at UCLA you do have a large premed population to deal with anyway. Large premed populations suck for other premeds and suck worse for non-premed biology majors (like myself) because premeds tend to have a stupid idea that bio majors get into medical school more easily (when major does not matter) and hence invade all the biology majors.</p>
<p>^^ lol not really its just that ls and some other cores overlap perfectly with pre med reqs.</p>
<p>anon5524485: Those tables are not accurate. It states that the number of applicants at both schools were in the 100’s. In reality the number is around 600-700. Berkeley’s site explicitly says that the data is collected from AMCAS applications that had released their information to the Cal Career Center. I guess it’s not “self-reporting” but the low sample size adds inaccuracy to the data.</p>
<p>"UC Berkeley data includes only those applicants who released their AMCAS information to UCB."</p>
<p>"This includes Fall 2006, Winter 2007, Spring 2007, and Summer 2007 degree recipients who released their AMCAS information to UCLA."</p>
<p>Both Career Centers got their data the same way and a subject to similar inaccuracies</p>
<p>^Two faults doesn't make it correct. </p>
<p>You can argue that Cal sends more people to medical school for 2007, if you're strictly comparing both Career Center links. But, that difference is only 3%, and I don't think one can imply that attending one university will give you a better shot at medical school than another university. The applicant pool, resources available, ECs/research available at each school can vary. </p>
<p>Biology majors tend to have their medical school requirements as their lower-division classes, so the major requirements fit in nicely with med school requirements. </p>
<p>I will agree, though: neurotic premeds are annoying. A lot tend to go for the title of MD without having a set goal as to why they are. (random tangent).</p>
<p>^Two faults doesn't make it correct. </p>
<p>You can argue that Cal sends more people to medical school for 2007, if you're strictly comparing both Career Center links. But, that difference is only 3%, and I don't think one can imply that attending one university will give you a better shot at medical school than another university. The applicant pool, resources available, ECs/research available at each school can vary. </p>
<p>Biology majors tend to have their medical school requirements as their lower-division classes, so the major requirements fit in nicely with med school requirements. </p>
<p>I will agree, though: neurotic premeds are annoying. A lot tend to go for the title of MD without having a set goal as to why they are. (random tangent).</p>
<p>so what? that just means that both data sets are inaccurate which i pointed out earlier. 160/700 is just not enough data regardless of the fact that both data sets are subject to the same inaccuracies. There may be a definite bias towards one group of the applicant pool's tendency to select the "reporting" option on their AMCAS. May be there isn't? We don't know so the data should NOT be used for a decision as important as deciding between the two school. This is further compounded by the fact that just considering 2007, the difference between the two schools acceptance rates is 3%! With all the sources of variability, it is ridiculous that people would even compare the data.</p>
<p>btw, i understand your point. it makes perfect statistical sense to assume that people selecting the release option on their amcas COULD be normal. If so, then this data could be and usable. The problem is, what if this assumption is violated and it's only the "strong" candidates that choose to release? This question is kind of addressed on the UCLA career center data where they give you a breakdown of how many applicants from each "stats" bracket applied/were accepted. But then comes the subjective aspect, which is VERY important in the application. There's no way you can account for EC's, life experiences, and ethnicity in any simple descriptive statistic. </p>
<p>im just trying to show the futility in even considering this data</p>
<p>damnit Jinobi you beat me to it!</p>
<p>anon5524485: good, nay, great surgeons should thrive under pressure. If I have a complex tangle of brain tumors, I don’t want someone who’s gonna flake out on me. I want someone who gutted it out to get the GPA necessary to get into med school, who studied more and tried harder when it mattered most. THAT is how you become great.</p>
<p>OP: UCLA has one of the most renowned pre-med programs in the nation, along with UCSD, Johns Hopkins and Duke. The competition at either of those schools will be similar, so I suggest going where you think will prepare you the best for med school, as well as other factors (campus “fit,” college town, etc). Good luck!</p>
<p>^ though most of what makes a great surgeon great is not their undergraduate experience, but more time and practice. </p>
<p>Being a biology major in college does not give one much of an advantage once they get into medical school, as most of it will be retaught to them.</p>
<p>Also the main main reason I brought up the career center links were to counter the sourceless claims that Cal's medical school admissions rates were low. Some futile data (futile on both sides) is better than absolutely no data</p>
<p>Biological sciences is probably the hardest way to get into med school although it will prepare you well for the MCAT. Med schools actually like to look at people with majors other than science as it shows a well rounded person. However you still need to take the pre-med science course (ie 1 year chem/organic chem, 1 year physics etc) route to meet requirements. Getting into med-school goes beyond gpa and MCAT. You need medical research/and or volunteer and/or working in the medical field to round out the app.</p>
<p>Amen! vc08
Anyways thanks for the advice</p>