<p>I got into UCLA but I also got into a couple of small colleges/universities, like Reed College and Loyola Marymount University. I know UCLA has a well-deserved name, but can it offer me the attention and support that Reed and LMU would give me because of its smaller size and closer student-teacher relationships? I plan to be a bio major with a pre-med focus. At UCLA would I expend more energy trying to be accepted into a research project than actually doing research?</p>
<p>You would definitely get much less attention at a large public university. There is absolutely no disputing this.</p>
<p>Regarding opportunities, I feel you have some misconceptions. Do you think recruiters will be super excited to visit LMU? How much research do you think goes on in a liberal arts college compared to a research university? (On a different tone, some students complain professors care more about their research than teaching.) I think you’re more likely to find an internship or research opportunity here than LMU. Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (the 3rd best hospital in the US) is situated right on campus. </p>
<p>I would not necessarily pick UCLA over Reed, however. Reed is a successful liberal arts college with a high percentage of students who go on to earn pHDs.</p>
<p>It comes down to money. If learning for the sake of learning was of interest, I’d pick Reed over UCLA. However, reed also has a very specific student body which may not fit everyone.
One of my cousins is headed to Med School in Chicago after having attended LMU. He didn’t have issues doing research since obviously he’s off to medical school.</p>
<p>Also, take into consideration that part of your application process for medical school involves grades and scores. It might be harder to achieve a higher gpa at Reed and UCLA than LMU. Reed is an intense school, and UCLA is large and competitive. Some posters on here, mainly in the parent’s section, have advised or mention that if they could go back in time they probably would have selected a less prestigious school where getting a high gpa wouldn’t be difficult.</p>
<p>I think you have a good point liek0806. However, a teacher that I highly respect also made a good point a few days ago. If a prestigious graduate school was looking at two students with the same grades and the same MCAT scores but one from UCLA and one from LMU, which would they choose? Wouldn’t it probably be the student from UCLA.</p>
<p>Grad schools don’t play the rankings game. They only vaguely apply the prestige of an university to their decisions. Depending on how big the gap difference is viewed, yes, perhaps they would choose the UCLA student; however, its not dependable and most likely not going to be worth your while relative to how much harder you would work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA’s a big research university. You shouldn’t have any problems getting doing research if you want to.</p>
<p>iome14, gpa and mcat are just the starting point for admissions. gpa and mcat are a huge aspect of the application process, but there are other factors involved that don’t have to do with gpa and the perceived prestige of a school. There are more prestigious schools out there than UCLA, who have grade inflation. Is one going to argue that if colleges knew the grade inflation of a particular Ivy or top 20 school, and two applicants, one from ucla and the other from a top 20 or an ivy, were applying with the same gpa and same mcat scores, that the one from the top 20 or an ivy would get in just because of the “prestige”?
Even though LMU may not have the prestige of UCLA, there are schools like Reed, which to grad schools and academia are known as intellectual gems(more so then I think UCLA undergrad could ever be).</p>
<p>
Seems like a straw-man argument to me. It is not at all how med school decisions are made. A lot deal of attention is paid to the personal statement. No mention of that. A great deal of attention is paid to experience in a medical setting; volunteer or paid positions in a medical setting are an unofficial requirement to get in since they want to know that the applicant has explored the career and really knows what she/he is getting into. Again, no mention. Letters of rec are also huge; and, once again no mention. I could go on and on, but the point is that decisions are not made based just on grades and scores. </p>
<p>And even if applicants are matched on all the things that matter, you know what happens? They both get invited for an interview (also not mentioned). Which makes the whole argument by iome14 besides the point; everyone who looks pretty good on paper gets an interview invitation.</p>
<p>
Absolutely not. And this is why it is important to know yourself and be honest with yourself. UCLA has an amazing amount of resources compared to some smaller schools. Every week every one of the profs teaching your classes has office hours, time put aside just for the students in the class. TAs do the same. There are advising resources, volunteer opportunities, I could go on and on. But there’s one BIG hitch – nobody is going to ask you to take advantage of any of this. You can sit in the class with 200 students and never say a word to a prof, never make the effort to find a research position, never talk to an advisor, etc.</p>
<p>For some students, they go out and do it. Others, for whatever reason, do not. Clearly UCLA is a fit for one type and not the best fit for the other.</p>
<p>I recommend everyone read the thread <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-los-angeles/903092-business-economics-major-must-read.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-los-angeles/903092-business-economics-major-must-read.html</a> Even though it is not about premed, it talks a great deal about how you need to take ownership of your time at UCLA. If you’re deciding between UCLA and a smaller school, read thru that post and decide if you’re the kind of person it talks about.</p>