USC or UCLA for Pre-Med?

<p>So out of the 108 seats, they take 20 kids from UCLA? Out of how many UCLA pre-meds that applied? Hundreds probably, if the total applicant pool is 8,000. If you are choosing UCLA because you think it’s a ‘feeder’ for their med school, you are making a mistake. That isn’t to say you can’t get good pre-med prep at UCLA and won’t get into med school somewhere - but the ‘feeder argument’ has no substance.</p>

<p>*@mom2collegekids</p>

<p>USC’s med school is at a different location than the undergrad campus, about 10 miles away, so it’s more difficult to intern there especially if you don’t have a car.
*</p>

<p>Hey, it’s Calif…everyone has a car. lol Just kidding. I can see your point. </p>

<p>If you’re talking about volunteering during the school year, then that may be an issue, but certaining volunteering at Keck isn’t the only way to get med-related ECs for a med school applicant.</p>

<p>BTW…don’t any of the USC Shuttle buses go from campus to where Keck is?</p>

<p>UCLA is far more rigorous and therefore much more competitive in its premed tracks (and the school in general). UCLA is a far better undergrad-to-MD factory; there are a lot more MD’s who’ve done undergrad at UCLA than USC by far. Does this point to UCLA being a better choice for you in premed? Of course not. You’re you, and if you’re averse to things like competitiveness then UCLA wouldn’t be for you. You could in fact have a better chance for med school if you chose USC under these circumstances.</p>

<p>With anticipation towards USC supporter saying that UCLA has much more undergrads… Yes it does, a good 1.5x’s more. With this factor in mind, UCLA probably produces a good 3x’s more MD’s than USC, or a good 2x more adjusted for size of student body. I would say 2x would be somewhat conservative. </p>

<p>It’s just that UCLA is much more of a STEM school than USC. Students at UCLA will study within this STEM and use their degrees for med school, as well as research and other fields pursuing PHD’s. Even those who study engineering at UCLA will often have med school as a first option.</p>

<p>I attended UCLA as a premed. You are correct that there is a bell curve and it is statistically difficult to get those A’s when so few are given. Most of your peers in premed at UCLA are exceptionally strong students. It is extremely challenging to finish all the prereqs with a very high GPA. The USC fsh program mentioned earlier is a good option. The classes are smaller & the profs are excellent. One of the fsh physics profs has won best teaching awards several years. You may be considered for a presidential or trustee scholarship at USC with your excellent stats. Consider an excellent LAC such as Pomona, Williams, Haverford, Wesleyan. The grads from these schools are well prepared for med school & GPAs run higher than what many can achieve at UCLA. I loved undergrad at UCLA but it was extremely hard for me to max out my premed GPA. Some of the profs were not the best either especially for bio and chem prereqs. Best of luck to you!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Even ignoring the size difference, until very recently, USC was seen as a terrible school by most Californians, a school that only dumb rich people went to. UCLA, by contrast, has for most of its history, been extremely well respected, and a school where the top students would gladly go to. Since doctors were almost always the top students in high school and college, it makes sense that more doctors would hail from UCLA rather than USC, since the latter school, historically, attracted much less intelligent students.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For those who maybe don’t have the background or the pre-indications of being as competitive in the premed tracks, yes. But then, the way competitiveness works, is that those of lower standing (wrt, say, hs grades) tend to be boosted upward – they jump into the competitive waters, or they end up leaving the U or switching to another major. The average gpa of a graduating senior at UCLA is ~ 3.3 (2009), with the bio majors having a bit higher, or ~ 3.4, not contrary to a very high gpa. Not as high as the Ivies, certainly, but very few u’s have ascended grades as they do. A 3.4 on average is actually pretty good.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I can’t dispute the first part, nor would I try. I would, though, question going to a U for a specialized “honors” program, because that wouldn’t be the essence of the school. A university isn’t for honors students and “regular” students, with the best offerings, profs, etc, for the former; it’s about offering the same things for all students. If this is what USC has to do to compete with the rest of California’s universities, then this is flat-out bogus.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Great choices…</p>

<p>But if someone is of high standing and is confident, then he/she can just as well attend UCLA and be in the upper tier of that 3.4 mean. And the OP can just as well attend UCLA and enjoy all the excellent ancillary things the U has to offer: great area of LA to experience, great weather, great social climate, great campus activities, great sports … as well as great scholastics.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The same thing happens to students at these schools: students not able to handle the premed climate switch to another department/major. The finished product, those who make it through tend to do well in med school placement. But in fact, most of these LAC’s will often cull those through the application process to med school to bump up their % placements, asking the lower standing applicants to defer so they wouldn’t be counted in the %’s. This is atypical of a public U like UCLA to massage the numbers.</p>

<p>I don’t like the absolute fail of your bold. I read all the time of persons, who attended UCLA for premed, who came in with low standing, but studied all the time, and I mean all the time, and went to med school, achieving their dreams. There’s a very famous orthopedic surgeon who originally came from poverty and poor academic standing, who graduated from UCLA with a paltry 2.7, (also played football, I believe. Also found himself in grad school before attending m-school). UCLA has a heck of a lot of more bootstrap examples than any of these schools. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The bold is a cheapshot. There are good and bad professors everywhere.</p>

<p>whenhen:</p>

<p>UCLA is to this day a much greater STEM school. It has lesser to do with strength of students in a general sense. It’s the orientation of the school wrt departments and their perceived strengths. UCLA (and Cal) are premed and STEM beasts; always have been, will be for the perceived future. Cal is tops in the country for STEM to PHD in things like paleobiology, and other esoteric sciences, but also top-notch in producing professionals in medicine. UCLA is top10 in STEM bac to PHD completions, but matches Cal in bac to MDs. USC isn’t in the same class. But the road less traveled to USC doesn’t mean it’s a worse choice than UCLA. A lot of it is the competitiveness of the student. </p>

<p>Also please note my first P of #24 wrt size differences.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s the most they accept from any university that applies (and i don’t think it’s due to them having the most applicants from UCLA.) They did note that most of the applicants (~80%) are from California though (certainly a mix of Stanford, UCLA, Cal, probably USC and maybe some Caltech) and everybody else.</p>

<p>The applications will get even MORE competitive next year due to David Geffen’s $100 million donation. It will give FULL RIDES for up to 33 students, annually, who are the best and brightest at the DGSOM. Applications, i imagine, are going to explode.</p>

<p>[David</a> Geffen gives $100 million to create scholarship fund that will expand opportunities for top UCLA medical students / UCLA Newsroom](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/100-million-david-geffen-scholarship-241543.aspx]David”>David Geffen gives $100 million to create scholarship fund that will expand opportunities for top UCLA medical students | UCLA)</p>

<p>

I’m not a pre-med, but as someone who teaches primarily science majors at UCLA, I can verify that it’s a stressful environment. Many of them do quite well after graduation and get into great med schools, but pre-meds at UCLA seem much more intense than those at my alma mater. There is no question that UCLA grades rigorously in the sciences, and it’s a pretty sink or swim atmosphere. I’ve had more than a few students come to me almost in tears over grades, which always troubles me. The quarter system in general can be very intense, as a lot of material is covered very quickly, and much of the quarter is filled up with papers and midterms.</p>

<p>I am not at all familiar with USC, so I haven’t the faintest idea if it’s better in this respect. Certainly somewhere like Brown, with its lack of +/- grading, relative high grades, and liberal pass/fail and drop policies would probably be a bit less stressful for a pre-med.</p>

<p>I want to reiterate an earlier point that LACs are often ‘friendlier’ places to do pre-med. The “sink or swim” attitude that warblersrule points to just isn’t there in most cases. Classes are so much smaller, taught by faculty (who have to write recs for those committee letters) and generally all the pre-meds know each other pretty well by junior year which precludes some of the more cutthroat behaviors you find at larger, more impersonal places. S was a pre-med at Grinnell and the org chem class when out for Chinese food together on Thurs nights. It would be unheard of to refuse to share your notes with someone who missed class because they were sick or your lab results (with prof’s permission) with someone whose lab didn’t didn’t work out - behaviors we have heard of at other larger schools where sharp elbows are part of the survival tactics that evolve. No, you don’t have as many research opportunities, but there are still plenty to be had at most schools and elsewhere (S didn’t do any during the school year because his other ECs were too demanding) and it’s a rare school that doesn’t have some kind of medical-related facilities near enough to do some volunteering, so that shouldn’t preclude choosing a LAC (unless you are planning a career in academic medicine - then, a large research university is probably the better choice.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>They’re probably in tears over having experienced their first non-A, B+ grade ever.</p>

<p>You have to remember that for a lot of immigrant parents, being an MD is probably first and foremost the ultimate dream profession of their offspring. This is true of Armenian, Asian, Indian, Jewish, Persian, parents of kids that encompass much of UCLA’s South Campus. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I would guess that this cutthroat atmosphere between students is probably vastly overstated. Study groups and get-togethers by fellow students in the same classes is very popular at UCLA. Of course it only takes one nutcase to bring this to the fore again.</p>

<p>The existence of study groups doesn’t mean there isn’t cut-throat competition.</p>

<p>Certainly there is cutthroat competition, as we stated before, in that students in UCLA’s premed will study all day and all night if need be to obtain that A grade. I’m speaking more of the way M’s Mom describes things at a school like UCLA as students being combative towards one another, not associating with one another, etc. </p>

<p>And as far as sink or swim … the UCLA administration is always telling students that there is significant help by mentors by the academic services center, etc. So there is help.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d agree with you. There’s strong competition, but people still tend to work and collaborate with one another.</p>

<p>Hardcore study students, those who spend a disproportionate amount of their time after class in the library, ended up forming library social groups with each other. I saw this in at least two different libraries on campus, one which was in a very secluded area of the library.</p>

<p>The fact that there are social groups like that doesn’t mean that cut-throat students don’t exist. A very good friend of mine is very cut-throat. I got the feeling that she wouldn’t feel comfortable sharing her notes with me for fear that it would be to her academic disadvantage (we were both top students.) Some people might be offended by that, but being her good friend i understand and accept that part of her, although, as a result of that, i’d probably never engage in any professional relationship with her. </p>

<p>My lack of caring about the situation, and our strong compatibility, is largely why we’re still good friends. But even if we continue speaking to each other for the rest of our lives, i’ll never forget how cut-throat she is, and how that will always negatively affect how i view her.</p>

<p>I think it was at Universal Citywalk, about a decade ago – I was wearing a UCLA tee – where a couple of parents of former UCLA students told me that their offspring were doctors, had started out at UCLA, but dropped out because it was too competitive. They both made the point that their offspring were indeed doctors, in kind of a “what’s UCLA’s deal, anyway?” I kind of laughed, and said, “Yeah, I guess so.” I guess they needed some catharsis, and they just unloaded, not angry at me, but at UCLA.</p>

<p>Despite being a huge advocate of the UCs, I would not advise doing pre-med at Cal or UCLA. The two schools serve as the main backups for very high-scoring Asians/Whites who were rejected by the ivies. There are also lots of professionals going to undergrad courses in the summer to renew their credentials. I took O-chem at Berkeley for fun, because in HS, I was so interested in science. Big mistake. There were at least five or six professional researchers who usually got the top scores. Most other people were intent on getting into med school. Given that the classes were curved, high grades were very tough to get. I spent more time in that class than any finance/business course and barely got a B- (despite being the all-round best science student at my competitive HS).</p>

<p>I later went to the UCI campus to take another class. The less competitive atmosphere was immediately palpable.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As a science teacher, I’m surprised with that statement.</p>

<p>Frosh Chem is Frosh chem, whether taught on a semester, trimester or quarter. Ditto Frosh Calc and Soph Physics and Bio. All are typically taught over 30+ weeks. The only difference, if any, is the test schedule. A quarter system will have a couple of quizzes, a mid-term and a final. Do that 3 times.</p>

<p>A semester will have a couple of quizzes = 2, a midterm x2 and one final. Rinse and repeat for the next semester. But the end result is that the material covered is essentially the same over 30+ weeks.</p>

<p>(The big difference in the calendars, IMO, is in the lit/hume courses, where writing a 15 page research paper is difficult in a 10 week term.)</p>

<p>bubbles: while the other UCs may appear less competitive, they also have a lower curve than Cal or UCLA, which award more A’s, on average, than the so-called lower tier UCs. So, in reality, not sure how it all plays out.</p>

<p>Re: 'SC is no cake-walk for pre-health either. Don’t forget that 'SC literally pays top students to attend (via merit discounts), so it too is extremely competitive.</p>

<p>UCLA, but really it should come down to cost. These are peer schools,although UCLA has a better pre-med program.</p>

<p>UCLA, but really it should come down to cost. These are peer schools,although UCLA has a better pre-med program.</p>

<p>Based on what? The UCs are notorious for poor premed advising and they don’t do committee letters.</p>