<p>From Cal’s advising website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yikes, good thing Cal moved to the semester system. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing like paying $30k per year to obtain advice from other (“trained”) teenagers. :roll eyes:</p>
<p>^ “To answer quick questions about L&S requirements and policies”…not career planning advice. </p>
<p>Your post is being disingenuous.</p>
<p>Is advising really that important? I mean, come on. If you’re smart and motivated enough to get into such fine schools, you wouldn’t really need to be pampered that much. You really don’t need a second mother in the university. My experience with advising was that it became almost annoying after a while…</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>Are you asking about regular advising in regards to one’s major or advising in regards to premed?</p>
<p>Premed advising is important because some issues are counter-intuitive to young people. As I mentioned upthread, some think double-majoring or doing extra minors will impress the med schools. Some think that their low GPA will get overlooked if they spank the MCAT. Some think that their lower GPA will get overlooked if they major in a tough discipline. Many don’t know how they need to “protect” their GPA, especially their BCMP GPA. </p>
<p>There have been a number of kids posting in the premed section that really only want to major in biomedE simply because they think it sounds sexy and will impress med schools. (majoring in that is fine if that is truly your interest.) Some don’t understand why kind of ECs med schools are expecting to see. </p>
<p>And, a whole bunch of people don’t understand that getting into ANY US med school is an achievement…even if it sits on the campus of a directional undergrad. These kinds of thinking can derail a premed student rather quickly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And graduation requirements/policies are unimportant? (IMO, those items are much more important than the standard alcohol awareness videos, and in an order of timing, more appropriate than career advice.) Perhaps if the UCs did not have other teenagers ‘advising’ on “requirements” more students would fulfill them more quickly, and thus get out after four years. (Career advice ain’t so important for someone on the six-year plan – getting their butt out is…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You say tomato, I say to-mah-to. But the broader point is that UC uses teenagers for some ‘advising’. And that is a fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only if you want kids to get out on time, and thus freeing up more slots in the future for admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This could all be done in a pamphlet at a particular college, or a PDF on a website. </p>
<p>Yes, young people are dumb. But we’re in an internet age. Does it really take much effort to google ‘getting into med school’ or ‘mistakes for med school’ or some other variant? Again, lacking doing this really does, imo, sound like coddling. </p>
<p>I’m glad that it worked out for your son, but even now, someone could search for a relevant question online and stumble across your post #64 informing them of such mistakes (and i’m sure you’ve informed your nephews.)</p>
<p>
Ditto. I love how an accusation of “coddling” is used as a fig leaf for a big weakness in the UC system. </p>
<p>For that matter, I don’t see “coddling” as a bad thing. If you’re dropping $30-50K on a college education, why wouldn’t you want to be coddled? I’d want as big a leg up on the competition as I could get.</p>
<p>
The top private universities do a lot better than the top UCs for professional school placement and awards production, so I would say yes. Berkeley and UCLA have as many top students as the Ivies - probably even more in absolute numbers - so what else could it be?</p>
<p>Berkeley’s med school placement data is rather unimpressive, and disturbingly I suspect those reporting their data are the students who fared best in the admissions process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is an excellent point, warblers. And Advising is a HUGE reason why the privates do so well in competitions for Rhodes, Fulbrights and other national and international awards. Heck, it was only a few years ago that the ‘advisors’ at Cal were so pathetic as they couldn’t even get the Fulbright applications mailed/shipped by the due date. A national embarrassment, whatever the so-called excuse.</p>
<p>[Scholarship</a> Hopes Die at Berkeley - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/05/local/me-fulbright5]Scholarship”>Scholarship Hopes Die at Berkeley)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you think that those who haven’t frequented to the offices of their advisers listening whatever wisdom they can give them have not graduated on time? I think that’s a huge assumption. I don’t think even premeds/prelaw students would benefit from frequent meetings with their advisers substantially. I’m not saying advising isn’t important. All I’m saying is a once a month or once in every two months meeting with an adviser would more than suffice what I can call a good advising system. I do not need someone tells me what I’ll do every single day of my college life. That would be annoying…</p>
<p>
I cannot speak for UCLA as I’m not really familiar with it, but I’m sure it is a fantastic school and one of the most prestigious schools in the world that I can think of. But for Berkeley …</p>
<p>Only HYPSM are usually better than Berkeley in terms of representation at top med, law and business schools. Normally, Berkeley fairs well with the mid-ranked Ivies and outnumbers the lower-ranked Ivies in terms of representation to top med, law and business schools, so I do not know where you’re getting the idea that the top privates do a lot better than Berkeley for professional school placements. That is not true at all. </p>
<p>
Berkeley’s data are transparent. I guess being public forges it to act that way. </p>
<p>At Berkeley, they do not prohibit their students from applying to med schools, regardless of what one has to back him up on his med school application process. People at Berkeley do not tell you, “Hey, you shouldn’t apply to such and such med school because your GPA is not that strong enough, etc, etc…” At most top privates, OTOH, they will discourage you from applying to med schools if they think your stats wouldn’t stand a chance on getting into med school. They’ll tell you where to apply as well. “You don’t apply here, you should only apply there and there…etc, etc…” These schools are more concerned about protecting their records, not so much to the benefit of their students – from the way I understand it. Berkeley does not do that so they can “fudge” their record.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with you on this as well. Which private school has produced more Fulbright scholars than Berkeley? From what I’ve gathered, Berkeley consistently ranks in the top 5 for producing Fulbright scholars. In addition to that, four Berkeley grads won the Cambridge-Gates this year - a number shared only with Harvard and Stanford(??). Berkeley has also produced one grad who won Rhodes this year. That said, I still think that you’re right about Berkeley performing poorly on Rhodes. But when I checked out on Rhodes, it came out that every slot is awarded per region/State. It explains then why a school like Berkeley - which has over 70% in-state students - does not fair well in such kind of a selection process.</p>
<p>[Four</a> from Berkeley win prestigious Gates Cambridge Scholarships](<a href=“Berkeley News | Berkeley”>Berkeley News | Berkeley)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cal does decently, yes, due to its large size. But where is the UC-Southern Branch?</p>
<p>Also, do a per capita calculation and then compare Cal’s 18 awards with Pomona’s 15, or even smaller Pitzer with 12… Heck, those two two LAC’s combined easily beat Cal which has a student body consisting of thousands’ larger.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, Northwestern. Chicago. Brown. Stanfurd. Yale. Columbia. Harvard. Boston College. George Washington. Heck, this is a softball question, no? :D</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cies.org/download/Top_Fulbright_Producing_Schools_Stories.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cies.org/download/Top_Fulbright_Producing_Schools_Stories.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry. I should have made that clearer. My mistake. </p>
<p>I mean, for this year: [Top</a> Producers of U.S. Fulbright Scholars by Type of Institution, 2012-13 - Global - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-US/135456/]Top”>http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-US/135456/)</p>
<p>blue, you cannot do a per capita calculation on a scholarship that awards so few slots. It does not work that way. That’s quite unfair to large schools like Cal and UCLA. </p>
<p>The Rhodes has only 35 or so slots. If 5 of these slots are taken by Harvard, Berkeley would need to win 25 slots to be able to just even out with Harvard, and we all know that such scholarship does not and will not work that way. And, I’m not saying Berkeley = Harvard. If one school will take 25 of the 35 slots, you’re only giving HYPSM 10 slots to fight for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know there are plenty of statistics out there that show how poorly Berkeley and UCLA do vis-a-vis the other Ivies, Stanford, Hopkins, MIT, Duke, and Northwestern in terms of med school representation right?</p>
<p>Vanderbilt School of Medicine Undergraduate Representation 2009-12
<a href=“https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/admissions/undergraduate-schools-represented[/url]”>https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/admissions/undergraduate-schools-represented</a>
Duke: 11
Harvard: 10
Penn: 10
Hopkins: 8
Stanford: 6
MIT: 5
Yale: 5
Cornell: 4
Dartmouth: 4
Princeton: 4
UCB: 4
UCLA: 4
Northwestern: 1</p>
<p>Wash U Medicine Historical Undergraduate Representation
<a href=“http://medadmissions.wustl.edu/HowtoApply/selectionprocess/Pages/WhoChoosesWU.aspx[/url]”>http://medadmissions.wustl.edu/HowtoApply/selectionprocess/Pages/WhoChoosesWU.aspx</a>
Harvard: 88
Duke: 79
Stanford: 72
UCB: 51
Northwestern: 48
Cornell: 46
Yale: 46
Princeton: 41
MIT: 39
Brown: 38
Penn: 36
UCLA: 36
Dartmouth: 28
Columbia: 12</p>
<p>Given the size of the UCB/UCLA and the fact that these schools have 2-3x as my premeds as the Ivies and other private schools, they should be avoided by serious medical school applicants at all costs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Do you mean to say that a college with 50,000 undergrads at 5 Fulbrights should be considered equal to a LAC with 800 undergrads and 5 Fulbrights? (Just made up numbers to make the point.) </p>
<p>Seriously?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And they are regional. I get that.</p>
<p>But I don’t believe Fulbrights are regional, or am I mistaken?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Fulbright awards 1100 every year…</p>
<p>You can tell this is devolving into a typical USC vs UCLA thread when the last 20-25 posts end up overemphasizing one point or bringing in other schools. FWIW, here are my two cents:</p>
<p>I’m a sophomore at USC and I’m pre-med. I can tell you a lot about the pre-med system at USC – quality of certain professors I’ve had, difficulty of pre-med courses, volunteering/researching opportunities, quality of advisers, etc. I can’t really tell you anything about UCLA because I don’t go there and I don’t know how the pre-med system is over there (I have quite a few friends from HS who go there and are pre-med, but that’s about it). And even if I knew enough about pre-med at UCLA, I’m sure the differences would be negligible to the point that you can’t really say one way or the other that UCLA is better or USC is better.</p>
<p>My overall point is that the school REALLY doesn’t matter in the long run. Yes, there are differences here and there between the schools, and with differences come different opinions. People will say that UCLA has a better hard sciences department with more distinguished faculty. Others will say USC is better because the class sizes are generally “smaller.” But take a look at the statistics presented on the first page. Does it REALLY make a difference that the average pre-med course at UCLA is ~350 students while its USC counterpart is ~250?</p>
<p>Absolutely not. It’s not a significant difference, and the only thing you can say from that is that both numbers are pretty darn large. </p>
<p>I have numerous friends and family members who are either in medical school currently or have completed medical school, and they’ve all reiterated the same point that the school really doesn’t matter at all. What matters is how YOU navigate the pre-med process and to what extent you’re able to take advantage of the resources that your school has to offer. When adcoms look at your application, they’ll care little about what school you attended. Good grades are good grades. Bad grades are bad grades. I’ve also attended panels featuring adcoms of top medical schools in the country (Stanford, USC Keck, UC Irvine, etc) and they all said that they don’t distinguish much (or at all) between majors. So, a 3.0 in BME won’t make you look better than a 3.0 as an English major. </p>
<p>Let’s take grades for example. Regardless of whether UCLA might have better faculty or USC has smaller class sizes, the approach doesn’t change. You have to attend class, pay attention, and take good notes. You have to work at the subject consistently and do the homework. You have to seek the professors’ help when you’re stuck. And, most important, you have to study very hard, solve all problems, and cover all concepts for the exams. </p>
<p>I realize my post is getting long, but the same goes for everything else. You have to take many practice exams and study hard to do well on the MCAT. You have to contact hospitals and send in applications to start volunteering. You have to contact professors for research. You have to apply to internships. All this is the same regardless of where you go. </p>
<p>Bottom line – when you’re choosing each school, you should put more importance on finances/cost, campus environment, and personal fit, and of course, you have to be accepted to both schools. But at the end of the day, it’s not going to matter where you go. USC and UCLA are so similar (especially for pre-med) that it’s not even worth trying to discuss which one is better. There’s no real answer. The more important question is – how are YOU going to take advantage of your school’s opportunities and resources to build as competitive and well-rounded of an application that you can? You can surely do this at either school quite well if you push yourself and work hard.</p>
<p>goldenboy, your post #75 is as UCB would say, being disingenuous, though, maybe unintentionally, certainly without any malicious intent. 
</p>
<p>Both Cal and UCLA premeds desire California m-schools, much more than oos m’s. This is true of all UC premeds in general. We know, though, that the vast majority of all these premeds at UC will be attending oos m’s for grad, as CA’s m’s as a group are the hardest to obtain entry, and there aren’t enough m-school spots in the state.</p>
<p>You see it all the time, a UCLA grad choosing, say, UCI m=school over Columbia’s or Georgetown’s. I’ve even seen a few UCLA grads choose UCLA or UCSF dental-school over a lesser known oos m-school.</p>
<p>This is one of the reasons why both UCLA and Cal have lower acceptance rates. If there were a group of m-schools in CA that were as hard to gain entry as some of them in, say, the south, both would have higher acceptance rates. </p>
<p>Add, that most private schools artificially massage their nos. of acceptance rates, by suggesting the applicant defer if he/she has lower quals. This is why you see some schools with 90% acceptance rates. This no. is culled downward significantly by med-advising, with mainly the slam-dunk applicants being advised to apply in the same year of graduation. Those who defer don’t count against the %'s; the %'s only relate to current-year grads. There is no school in the nation that has a naturally derived rate as high as 9 of 10 acceptances, not even close.</p>
<p>thankyou4flying:</p>
<p>I agree pretty much with your post. I don’t think it will matter in the long run in choosing one school over another. But I do disagree with both UCLA’s and USC’s premed curricula, approximately … as ‘being the same.’ </p>
<p>UCLA’s curriculum is much tougher, more competitive. It also has a lot more premeds, surpassing any adjustment for enrollment differences between the two schools (~ 1:1.5), per [aamc.org](<a href=“https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/86042/table2.html”>https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/86042/table2.html</a>)website:</p>
<p>Applicants in 2011:</p>
<p>UCLA 820 (which appeared to lead the nation in that year)
Cal 754 (both often trade the first spot in pure applicant nos. in different years)
USC 278</p>
<p>In fact for the despite the size of USC, it tends to lag in premed nos.</p>