<p>So I’m transferring from a CSU to a UC. I’m from SJSU and I’m a Biological Sciences major. </p>
<p>Sadly, I didn’t get into UCSD, which is my number one choice. I know UCSD is THE best for biosci. However, I did get accepted to UCLA, UCD, UCI, and UCSB. I didn’t apply to UCR and UCSC, and I got rejected to UCB as well. (To those of you who are <em>thinking</em> of transferring from a CSU to a UC: let me tell you–it IS possible.)</p>
<p>So I’m contemplating between UCLA and UCD. I hear that UCD has a great bio dept. But UCLA is considered a more prestigious school. My sister looked up the biosci grad rankings and found that UCLA is ranked #20, while UCD is ranked #24. As you can see, 20 and 24 is not a very big gap. My SIR deadline is 6/1, which is in a couple of days! I can’t decide between UCLA or UCD. I hear UCLA is very competitive and I’m afraid I won’t be able to have a superb GPA or graduate with honors. But if I go with UCD, I feel like I am giving up my once in a lifetime offer to UCLA. Honestly, I don’t care about the campus life, the social life, or the atmosphere. I’m only going to study. So I only want to take into account which school is better for my future and will get me into a better medical school.</p>
<p>What a great choice to make, both schools are winners. I would want UCLA because it is better known and is more prestigious. I would want Davis because I would want a life. UCLA's medical school is right on campus, Davis's is in Sacramento, a half hour and a parking fee away.</p>
<p>For me, after getting past the fact that UCLA is the giant it is, I would choose Davis.</p>
<p>Personally, I know too many people that I considered geniuses that are struggling a lot at UCLA. The pressure is too much and the competition is even worse, it's simply just too hard to get ahead and look competitive to med schools.</p>
<p>If it makes any difference or invalidates my opinion, I really don't care, I'm going to Davis next year.</p>
<p>I think people haven't really hit on the fact that UCLA and CAL both admit many people who are underqualified in many respects, purely because they come from a disadvantaged background... Since witnessing this first hand at my school, my family and I both hold UCD above UCLA and CAL.</p>
<p>Maybe... How many inner city kids though want to go to "cow pastures" and "ranchos"? I was the only person at my school to go... and 1 of only 2 to apply. Whereas 15 applied to UCLA with about half of those getting accepted...</p>
<p>What you have is anecdotal evidence the only way to fairly evaluate the student body of the schools is to look at the statistics for enrolled students. For all the low performers you see accepted at UCLA there are matching ones accepted at Davis.</p>
<p>"Latinos with low SAT scores are admitted to the University of California at rates only slightly higher than whites and Asians, while blacks who score poorly are significantly less likely to get in, according to a Times analysis.</p>
<p>All told, the groups underrepresented on UC campuses African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans are admitted with below-average SAT scores at the same rates as whites and Asians.
....
Taken together, low-scoring blacks, Latinos and Native Americans were just as likely to be admitted as Asians and whites. The admission rate for both groups was 63%.</p>
<p>In all, 67% of low-scoring Latino applicants were admitted to at least one UC campus, compared with 65% of Asians and 60% of whites.</p>
<p>But only 49% of black applicants with similarly low scores were admitted."</p>
<p>"The picture was different at the university's two most competitive campuses, where Latinos and blacks who make up a smaller share of the student body relative to their numbers in the state's population were more likely to be accepted.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley, the original focus of the admissions debate, admitted low-scoring blacks and Latinos at twice the rate of Asians and whites with similar scores.</p>
<p>UCLA was about a quarter more likely to admit low-scoring African Americans and Latinos than whites and Asians."</p>
<p>I would venture a guess that that LA Times study was conducted under the assumption that students with comparable SAT scores will similarly have comparable GPAs.</p>
<p>Edit: To answer the OP's question, I would imagine, if you plan to go onto med school, you value undergraduate GPA. That said, I think you should sacrifice prestige at the undergraduate level in order to secure a GPA which will help your chances of admittance to med school when you graduate. Therefore, I would pick Davis personally. But I am also biased in that I will be attending Davis this fall, so take my advice with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>^I've actually heard that GPA really doesn't hold THAT much weight in getting into grad school.. research and recommendations are way more important</p>
<p>I would probably pick Davis too though.. just because I wouldn't want to go crazy with all the competition at UCLA (if I were an incoming freshman though, I would pick UCLA)</p>
<p>GPA is important for graduate school, what you have to realize is that just about everyone is going to have good reccomendations so if you have a bad GPA your chances are shot. Research is also important probable moreso than GPA. But a bad GPA tells the people reviewing your application that you are either not smart or didn't spend the time you should have on your classes.</p>
<p>Ohhhh, so which one is it, have you chilled at both schools for a significant amount of time? Or have you seen both schools through the individual perspective of all the different types of people attending looking for different things, respectively?</p>
<p>Apparently, your well respected and research-supported opinion automatically gives you the credibility to confidently state such a bold opinion that everyone will readily accept, right? So please tell me, I'll be attending Davis this fall, what night club is the most hopping, since you obviously have the expert opinion.</p>
<p>"I think people haven't really hit on the fact that UCLA and CAL both admit many people who are underqualified in many respects, purely because they come from a disadvantaged background... Since witnessing this first hand at my school, my family and I both hold UCD above UCLA and CAL."</p>
<p>I whole heartedly agree, FROM MY EXPERIENCE. To describe my experience, lets pretend UCD, UCLA, and CAL are sports teams who hold tryouts. The people who apply are the "players." I've seen "above average and stellar players" get accepted to UCD. UCLA seems to be consistent as well but they only accept "superstars." However, Cal seems to accept "superstars" as well as "third stringers who have bad backgrounds."</p>