UC's and USC HELPP!

College Search & Selection
21

<p>(First a correction: last and next to last p’s in my previous message should be switched. Sounds a little off when one reads the last p after my one sentence nex-to-last.)</p>

<p>I believe a very competitive atmosphere will cause those who were not as prepped for college, lesser q’ed, etc, to compete and bring themselves up.</p>

<p>I’ve read on this board taht some who have lesser quals should go the easier, less competitive route to attend med school. </p>

<p>But among the UCs, Cal and UCLA have teh highest gpas of life-science majors, a lot higher than, say, UCSB, which is not a very good premed school (at least among the UCs).</p>

<p>Good competition forces the lesser q’ed to compete and become better students. Being a better student in premed -> higher MCATs. I’m sure this is what happens at UCI, where premed is pretty cutthroat also.</p>

22

<p>

</p>

<p>Do you have any info on the average mcat by campus?</p>

23

<p>RML,
The scores I posted were not “pulled out of the air”. They can be found on the College View Forum which is now associated with this site. I commented the scores were for the class entering in 2009.</p>

<p>Go to College View. Click on Univ. of California at Berkeley. On the menu click on Testing and Scores. I took the ACT scores since all three universities use the same system on the ACT. SC also has more students submit the SAT, rather than the ACT.</p>

<p>USC posts a complete freshman profile and admission information on their website. It is an entire page of statistics and other helpful data. Admissions information from SC is also published on the UCAN website which is used by large numbers of private universities. I did not compare 2010 information since the UC profiles are not yet available until later in November.</p>

24

<p>By ‘high scores,’ I meant high SAT scores not MCAT, per Dunn’s post of t-1% SAT taking med appts. UCI takes lower scorers of SAT, puts them in pre-med track and sents a good deal to med school.</p>

<p>No, I doubt if very many universities would have that info and be able to derive averages for their schools, save for places like MIT, smaller, etc. This is because, for instance, UCLA only has info on 155 graduates or so in 2009 who released med application info to the university. </p>

<p>We know that 737 applied to med school in that year, with adjustments made on re-apps, and first-time apps who might have deferrred (about 3/4 are first-time apps nationally). </p>

<p>Because only 155 released info to UCLA out of, say 500, MCAT info cannot be determined per university, again, generally.</p>

<p>There are sites taht try to track graduates application process to med school, but it’s like Payscale’s site trying to determine average compensation per school. Averages cannot be taken from those who forward their info to the sites.</p>

<p>We know taht UCI probably sends a good deal more than USC to med school with a great amount of certainty, adjusted for UCI’s larger undergrad population ~ 22k to 17K.</p>

25

<p>*How else does one explain UCI which is one of the better premed schools in the state, but not having particuarly high scores. UCI is better in premed than higher scoring USC. *</p>

<p>I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. </p>

<p>Are you suggesting that many/most of UCI med students went to UCI for undergrad? Do we know that? Do we know the numbers? Do we know how many UCI undergrads go elsewhere for med school?</p>

26

<p>… at the aamc.org site:</p>

<p>Among UCs:</p>

<p>Cal 772 applications
UCLA 728
UCSD 479
UCD 375
UCI 326</p>

<p>USC shows 224 about the same as last year.</p>

<p>Unless USC were to have some ungodly acceptance rate for the 224, which I doubt, UCI would have more who attend med school. I would play with the numbers, make adjustments, etc, but I don’t have the time right now.</p>

<p>Expect Irvine’s acceptance, total of those who’ve received at least one acceptance/total who applied to be > 50%.</p>

27

<p>drax12, </p>

<p>I couldn’t read your post, because they look like xxxx. You need to make yourself clearer with short post. </p>

<p>One thing I know is that your vision is limited as a college product. You think a healthcare job is some end-for-all career, and it is also great being some bottom feeder scumbag lawyer. Many disagree. USC students have much more diverse career options, which results in much smaller pool of applicants to med/law schools. </p>

<p>Try to understand these, you then can go find where you were wrong with your logic.</p>

28

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe I take steps that are too incremental for you when I go about to prove something, and abbreviate… but if I don’t do the latter, my post is twice as long.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with my clarity; I don’t think you want to invest a little time in reading. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>USC claims ~ 10% of the frosh class major in “premed,” and another ~ 8% in “prelaw.”</p>

<p>If ‘limited’ includes being narrow-minded, with preconceived notions… </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Incomprehensible, I have no idea what you’re writing about…</p>

29

<p>“USC students have much more diverse career interests, which results in much smaller pool of applicants to med/law schools.” </p>

<p>There, I fixed it for you. Reading the IPEDS data for 'SC, it becomes clear that Arts & Sciences (where most premed) is not that large relative to other mid-sized Unis. For example, 'SC reports 166 Bio majors out of 4300 grads. Duke has that many Bio majors with a class size that is less than half of that of USC.</p>

30

<p>USC > UCs. Nuff said :)</p>

31

<p>… would like to forward.</p>

<p>The school and several of those affilitiated with the u would like those here to believe that USC is a great premed u. </p>

<p>Duke would probably be a good premed school if one cares to be stuck in Durham, NC, but in defense of those who care to promote USC as a premed school, bio majors would probably be in the minority these days of those who are premed.</p>

32

<p>Berkeley > UCLA = USC > Other UCs</p>

<p>fixed it for you, MrPrince. ;)</p>

33

<p>I"m sure a lot of those premed majors at USC are actually pre-dental or pre-pharmacy, the ~ 10% “premed” majors.</p>

<p>USC is big on producing general practicioner dentists on the undergrad and grad level. Its dental school is huge, and it also has a pharm school.</p>

34

<p>For attys:</p>

<p>UCLA > Cal >>> USC</p>

<p>MDs:</p>

<p>UCLA ~ = Cal >>>> USC</p>

<p>Bulge Banking per the RML link:</p>

<p>Cal > UCLA > USC</p>

<p>Accountants:</p>

<p>USC > Cal > UCLA</p>

<p>General atmosphere:</p>

<p>UCLA > USC > Cal</p>

35

<p>@drax12 Ohhh that was good! I totally agree</p>

36

<p>

Cal has better representation at top law schools than UCLA. Berkeley Boalt > UCLA Law.</p>

<p>for engineering:
Cal >>>> USC > UCLA</p>

37

<p>^Drax12’s talking about “feeding”, the number of undergraduate students who end up at top graduate schools. Graduate school performance (ex. Boalt vs. UCLA) is not relevant in this case. More specifically, he’s really ranking “pre-law” and “pre-med”.</p>

<p>I don’t have any of the figures so I cannot comment regarding whether you or him is right in this case and to what degree.</p>

38

<p>^ Ah yes, the old “grad’s not relevant” argument… I stand by my statement. I believe Alexandre posted undergrad representation data for the top 14 law schools…don’t wanna search for it now.</p>

39

<p>Re, engineering:</p>

<p>The technology officers at Microsoft and Cisco were at one time at least UCLA grads. The latter is a woman…</p>

<p>There are some prominent chip makers representing UCLA.</p>

<p>I think your ranking of USC > UCLA is based mainly on grad rankings. And I wouldn’t put Cal >>>> than either UCLA or USC.</p>

<p>I would say generally by recruiters in SoCal, and undergrads UCLA > USC</p>

<p>Re, Law:</p>

<p>Here’s the [url=<a href=“http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/demographics.aspx]link[/url”>Attorney Demographics]link[/url</a>] to the CA Bar-certified attys. Page down down about 1/2. Admittedly, there’s a relatively thin margin between Cal and UCLA. Even though oos isn’t represented, I would imagine there would be decent NYC representation by UCLA (as well as Cal). Grads who’ve attended Cornell, NYU, Columbia Law who were recruited by NYC firms.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So true, UCLA grads are stuck at Southwestern and Cal grads attend Yale, etc. </p>

<p>Actually, both UCLA and Cal are doubtlessly represented well at top law centers - large universities, many grads pointing towards law. HLS when they still showed the undergrad representation a few years ago listed UCLA and Cal as ~ even, and two of the top public u feeders. I’m sure they stopped linking this list because people were using the site against other u’s.</p>

<p>Entertainment:</p>

<p>Generally…</p>

<p>USC> UCLA>>> Cal.</p>

<p>Depends on what facet of the field:</p>

<p>Entertainment Law:</p>

<p>UCLA> USC> Cal</p>

<p>Production, Directing:</p>

<p>USC>UCLA>>>Cal</p>

<p>Writing/Screenplays:</p>

<p>UCLA possibly > USC >>> Cal (one can’t teach creativity even with the best film program)</p>

<p>Theatre/Drama/Acting:
USC ~ = UCLA >>> Cal</p>

40

<p>Regarding entertainment, I think sentiment said it best in another thread, and I’m paraphrasing, UCLAs best strengths are not in any rigorous academic field. Same could be said of its cross town rival.</p>