<p>I've gotten accepted to UCSD, MIT, Caltech, and UT Dean's scholars, and I am seriously considering med school after undergrad. I've narrowed it down for the most part to UCSD and MIT, but I don't have complete stats for med school acceptance rates from those 2 schools. Does anyone know these numbers or know where I can get these numbers? If you have UT and Caltech med school acceptance rates as well, that would be appreciated too :)</p>
<p>tough choice....MIT will DEFINATELY be harder to get a high GPA at, but MIT is much more highly respected than UCSD. However, the prestige of our undergrad college doesn't matter much for med school admissions so id go with UCSD (for a higher gpa)</p>
<p>I think you should go to MIT.Yeah its way more difficult to get high gpa at MIT but u are also gonna do so well on MCAT with a MIT education, rather than colleges like UCSD. But then again, its entirely up to u.</p>
<p>So many people underestimate UCSD its funny. It was actually recognized as the top science school in the nation by Newsweek magazine and the science courses at UCSD are very difficult. But then again I might be biased since I go there. I have acceptance rates for UCSD students...there are a lot, let me know which colleges you want. I know that about 30 UCSD undergrads get into UCSD medical school, which is a lot. About 10 get into UCLA. I could look up other colleges for you, just let me know which ones you want.</p>
<p>You are right, arahopee: so many people wrongly underestimate UCSD.</p>
<p>I was actually wondering what the stats are for UCSD premeds getting into med school. I know it's a good school, but can it compare to a place like MIT? Plus, while I'm pretty sure I want to do medicine, I'd like to have a good alternative in case I decide to switch. MIT has a good business school, but does UCSD have anything non-science that's outstanding?</p>
<p>Also, my parents have been telling me that the environment on the east coast is just different from the learning environment I'd have on the west coast. Can anyone tell me how intensive either coast is, or if there's a difference?</p>
<p>Btw, thanks for the info in the other posts.</p>
<p>arahopee, do you know how many UCSD premeds get into top med schools like Harvard, JHU, etc.? Thanks :)</p>
<p>Personally, I would have chosen none of those schools, for the following reason. If you're good enough to get into MIT, then you should have been good enough to have gotten into one of those combined BS/MD programs. And if you're sure you want to be a doctor, then those combined programs are the way to go.</p>
<p>However, looks like that choice is not on the table. So, between UCSD and MIT, that's tough. MIT is surely difficult to get top grades in, but I wouldn't say that UCSD is a cakewalk. This isn't a comparison between MIT and, say, Stanford, where the clear choice, if you want to get a high GPA, is undoubtedly Stanford. </p>
<p>I'd probably give the edge to MIT purely on the notion that if you decide you don't want to be a doctor (as many people drop out of premed), then you will have a more valuable credential from MIT than UCSD. That's not to say that UCSD is bad, but let's face it, it's not as strong as MIT.</p>
<p>Here's the link that has info on the percentage of UCSD students admitted to med school:
<a href="http://career.ucsd.edu/sa/PMedHis.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://career.ucsd.edu/sa/PMedHis.shtml</a></p>
<p>Those numbers are a self-selected sample, not a complete list. Their accuracy in painting an overall picture is unknowable.</p>
<p>All of these self-published college stats are self-selected. No school can force every one of its premeds to identify itself. Hence, the way to use this data is to compare it to similar data from other schools. It's not clear to me why the UCSD sample data would be any MORE self-selected than, say, the MIT data.</p>
<p>Well, I haven't seen the MIT numbers, but of course:</p>
<p>1.) The numbers published by most private schools are much closer to the totals we would expect, and so while it's self-selected, it's also more complete.</p>
<p>2.) Smaller schools that have premedical advising departments would be expected to collect better data.</p>
<p>3.) Schools that send premedical committee letters would be expected to at least know how many students are applying, and so their numbers would be artificially low, with no chance that they're artificially high.</p>
<p>MIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Don't be stupid, worst comes to worst you graduate from college with a degree from MIT and can get a job anywhere and also way better finicial aid at MIT and I also believe the accpetance rate at Medical school is higher and usually around 75% and the quarter that doesn't get in anywhere is the hardcore engineers with low GPAs realllllly low GPA's but if you major in Biology or Chemistry and Bioengineering even, you should be fine....Trust me MIT alll the way....</p>
<p>
[quote]
1.) The numbers published by most private schools are much closer to the totals we would expect, and so while it's self-selected, it's also more complete.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Might that have to do with the simple success rate of private schools in general? Like I said, if you get rejected by all your med-schools, you probably aren't champing at the bit to report this fact. And the fact is, public schools tend to have a greater percentage of premeds who get rejected by all their med-schools. </p>
<p>Hence, I would surmise that it's not really private vs. public, but rather about success that causes people to respond to surveys.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2.) Smaller schools that have premedical advising departments would be expected to collect better data.</p>
<p>3.) Schools that send premedical committee letters would be expected to at least know how many students are applying, and so their numbers would be artificially low, with no chance that they're artificially high.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT does not write these committee letters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
usually around 75% and the quarter that doesn't get in anywhere is the hardcore engineers with low GPAs realllllly low GPA's but if you major in Biology or Chemistry and Bioengineering even, you should be fine....Trust me MIT alll the way....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think that there are quite a few MIT students in those majors who end up with quite low grades.</p>
<p>As a case in point, molliebatmit is one of the "top" MIT bio students, having gotten admitted to almost every single Bio PhD program she applied to, including Harvard, MIT, and Stanford. Yet her GPA was "only" a 3.5/4. So if she is one of the top Bio students at MIT, just think about what a mediocre MIT bio student is getting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Might that have to do with the simple success rate of private schools in general? Like I said, if you get rejected by all your med-schools, you probably aren't champing at the bit to report this fact.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So we're in agreement that:</p>
<p>1.) For whatever the reason may be, private school numbers are MORE complete (less incomplete?) than the public school numbers.
2.) The public school numbers are possibly too high.</p>
<hr>
<p>And whoa, MIT doesn't write letters? That's actually quite a big deal. (I doubt UCSD writes them, either - but most private schools do, I think.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And whoa, MIT doesn't write letters? That's actually quite a big deal. (I doubt UCSD writes them, either - but most private schools do, I think.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, no. I said that MIT doesn't have a committee. Just like Harvard doesn't have a committee. I also don't think that Yale or Stanford have committees (but I have to check on that).</p>
<p>What these schools do have are advisors who will compile all of your rec's into one consolidated "super-rec". But there is no "committee". Each premed has just one advisor. That is, unless you want to say that that advisor is a one-man "committee". However, I have never heard of a committee consisting of only one person.</p>
<p>Oh, sorry sakky - a misuse of premed terminology on my point.</p>
<p>According to the English language, you're right - a "committee" does not comprise one person. But in premed technospeak, a consolidated letter - no matter how many people are involved in the act of consolidation - is referred to as a "committee letter". Duke also has only one person doing the job - but it's definitely referred to as a "committee letter".</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a case in point, molliebatmit is one of the "top" MIT bio students, having gotten admitted to almost every single Bio PhD program she applied to, including Harvard, MIT, and Stanford. Yet her GPA was "only" a 3.5/4. So if she is one of the top Bio students at MIT, just think about what a mediocre MIT bio student is getting.
[/quote]
Sakky gives me way too much credit! :)</p>
<p>I certainly don't think I'm in the top quartile for MIT bio GPAs, if only for the fact that I'm not premed and hence never really cared about my grades all that much. I've always been under the impression that the premeds were getting much better grades than I was -- I mean, somebody is getting all those A's that I wasn't getting sophomore year.</p>
<p>It's also possible to sort of work the GPA system at MIT, by taking lots and lots of undergrad research for credit (because you'll always get an A). My favorite premed friend made rather liberal use of this tactic to boost her GPA, and I guess it worked just fine, because she'll be off to UT Southwestern for medical school.</p>
<p>Grad school admissions and med school admissions are two different things. A GPA worthy of a top grad school (certainly a 3.5 at MIT is very good) may be only average for med schools. </p>
<p>I'm taking a graduate bio course next sem so after that I will be able to judge whether it's "easier" to take a course with grad students or premeds. I have a feeling courses with lots of grad students will be easier.</p>