<p>My post #79, P1:</p>
<p>“Or your post has the appearance of disingenuousness (your being disingenuous, not the post) …” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>My post #80, Last P:</p>
<p>Make of it what you will…</p>
<p>“Both Cal and UCLA premeds desire California m-schools”</p>
<p>this is often true for premeds all over the country. Many prefer attending a med school in their own state for a variety of reasons.</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 website:”</p>
<p>That might be true, but again, I don’t think the differences are significant enough. The fact that UCLA’s curriculum is “much tougher, more competitive” should not be used to imply that being a pre-med at USC is easy, although I know that’s not what you were saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point was, that because they desire CA m-schools, this would lead to a lower acceptance rate for UCLA, Cal, UC students in general, because CA m-schools are the toughest as a group to gain entry. And a UCLA student, might accept an offer from USC Pharm, UCLA or UCSF Dental School over one from, say, Xavier of NOLA m-school.</p>
<p>You said in one of your previous posts, that your son has better pre-med counseling than your two nephews. If I remember correctly, your son attends UA-Tuscaloosa? Maybe premeds are a rarity at that school, which might indeed lead to better counseling, but I question this statement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Undoubtedly true. The bio sciences, premed, etc, are a natural weeding-out process.</p>
<p>* If I remember correctly, your son attends UA-Tuscaloosa? Maybe premeds are a rarity at that school, which might indeed lead to better counseling, but I question this statement. If I remember correctly, your son attends UA-Tuscaloosa? Maybe premeds are a rarity at that school, which might indeed lead to better counseling, but I question this statement. *</p>
<p>Good heavens, no. Pre-health majors rare at a state flagship? Hardly. lol </p>
<p>do you naively think that students at southern flagships don’t apply to med/dental/vet schools??? </p>
<p>Do you realize that The University of Alabama School of Medicine is a well-ranked med school? Ranked #12 and #31 in USNews (SOMs have two rankings). It’s ranked higher than USC’s Keck in both rankings.</p>
<p>From the aamc.org website and from the SEC, I see the following in no. of apps:</p>
<p>Florida, 741 (Tebow U is a beast in premed, one of the top in pure nos. in the country)
Georgia, 404
T-A&M, 359
Vandy, 246
So. Carolina, 169
Kentucky, 145
Tennessee, 137</p>
<p>I don’t know, maybe I missed Alabama.</p>
<p>Rankings, schmankings…</p>
<p>Keck is undoubtedly much harder to gain entry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Goldenboy, please produce data that are far more relevant that your selective (and biased) data. I’d like you to show me the numbers of the top of the top medical schools in the country, or schools that have pulling power to draw students across the nation – from East to West, NE to South. Maybe you can present to us the numbers from Harvard Med School, Johns Hopkins and Yale.</p>
<p>Blu,</p>
<p>Of course it isn’t statistically equal. But it does not mean anything either if you truly understood the nature of the award. In this case, you need to fully understand the nature of the award to be able to say something and later draw a conclusion on it. But the way I see you’re doing now, you’re as if looking at the person’s skin and then judge him based on it instantaneously – it’s a superficial process of making an analysis. </p>
<p>First of all, there involved a question of which school is better for winning a scholarship, Rhodes in the case. Then you concluded that those schools which have produced more winners are generally the better academic schools. I’m saying they do not tell exactly about the school’s academic standard. Why? Here’s why. </p>
<p>The Rhodes has criteria which seemed to favour and support private schools. In other words, some of the Rhodes’ criteria are averse, disinclined to public schools’ nature. That alone makes the whole process unfair, prejudicial, biased, and therefore, isn’t a good measure of assessing which schools are better in academics. </p>
<p>Second, there what seemed to appear a division of schools based on undergrad prestige. Whether you like it or not, there’s what they call, HYPSM. Then there’s the top 30ish/40ish, then the top 100ish, more or less. Schools that fall below HYPSM but within the top 30ish/40ish do not really set apart from each other. For example, Cornell (ranked top 12) isn’t really significantly superior to CMU (ranked # 28). Well, unless you’re overly crazy about minor details of things, then maybe there is. But most people that matter do not view college education that way.</p>
<p>Third, the Rhodes slots, aside from they’re highly specified (diverse, regional, etc.), are also limited – 30 to 32 slots only in a year. If, say, 15 of these slots are “devoted” for HYPSM that means there are now only 17 slots left for other schools to fight for. </p>
<p>The Rhodes scholarship, as specified, is also being awarded in Jamaica. Every year, one or two students from Jamaica get it. If we now have to follow your logic about using statistics to show which schools are better, etc, etc., then it will appear that Jamaican schools are more capable of winning Rhodes than American schools. But is that really true? Are Jamaican schools superior to American schools? Seriously?? </p>
<p>Therefore, to apply your statistics on this subject and make a conclusion based on it is just irrational.</p>
<p>
And yet UNC and UVA are public but do extremely well with 45+ winners each, matching colleges like Brown and Chicago. Each of them has extremely strong local competition, moreover - Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Davidson, and Wake for UNC, for example. In contrast, Stanford is Berkeley’s only real competition in NorCal/Hawaii/Nevada.</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting that UNC and UVA are better than Berkeley, mind you – simply that they have better advising for the Rhodes, and it shows. Advising is likewise important for med admissions.</p>
<p>
Oh goodness! Make up your mind. Confusingly, you like making sweeping statements like the following:
Which is it? Are they the same after HYPSM or not? Is it only Berkeley of the top 30 universities that is “way more prestigious” than other universities?</p>
<p>To the person or persons who think simply having a pre-med advising brochure is enough:</p>
<p>Students aren’t cookie cutters. Advice isn’t one size fits all. </p>
<p>Even the making of the med school app list takes into acct different things. The white male with a balanced MCAT 33 and 3.7 GPA will have a different app list than the AA male with the same stats. An informed advisor will be able to help with that. </p>
<p>Even if a school can’t provide one-on-one premed advising for all premed students, they should be able to provide monthly meetings with topics and open Q&A sessions for those in the early process (first couple of years), and then provide one-on-one advising for those in the last 2 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please show me where I ever made such a claim. (Quite the contrary, actually.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, let’s assume that I concur with your suggestion that HYP has a lock on the majority of 35 Rhodes schollies. (After all, the Brits are big on pedigree, right?) Now then, how does your pov work with Fulbright of which over 1,000 are awarded? Are they too, targeted towards HYP first and foremost? (Does that make political sense for the Senators and Congresspeople in the non-HYP states to continue to fund such a program?)</p>
<p>warblersrule, please take note of my usage of the word, significant. </p>
<p>For undergrad education, Berkeley and Emory are top 40ish schools, even if I say that Berkeley carries a much bigger brand cachet as a whole or that is a good feeder school for banking/finance and top grad programs, etc., than is Emory, the fact remains that they are only top 40ish schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, okay. So, your complain about Berkeley not being able to win more scholarships is largely due to its somewhat having a poor advising. If that’s the case, then we do not have a point to argue about anymore other than the methods and schedules of advising that would benefit the students more. Like I said, I got plenty of advising time by at least 3 people during my undergrad years at Cambridge. I didn’t believe it was that helpful for me. In fact, after a while, I found it annoying…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just think that goldenboy worded things oddly, because of his more generalized, ‘…how poorly Berkeley and UCLA do … in terms of med school representation.’</p>
<p>It has to be apparent that both UCLA and Cal produce a good deal more MD’s than any of the u’s he stated, and both would undoubtedly produce more MD’s than each of the the schools he listed produce applicants. Obviously this is because both UCLA and Cal have significantly larger amt. of undergraduates.</p>
<p>The question becomes: where do Cal and UCLA make up the difference and which m-schools take the larger portions of both schools (vis-a-vis, Ivies, and others mentioned)?</p>
<ol>
<li>CA Med schools</li>
<li>Probably less prestigious oos med schools. (Again, undoubtedly both schools’ undergrads will have to attend oos m-schools in greater proportions than in-state.)</li>
<li>There will be some semi to fully prestigious m-schools that have more Cal and UCLA undergrads (besides CA’s). Perhaps, those based in the west like UW-Seattle med school.</li>
</ol>
<p>The Ivies and the other schools he listed tend to have more nationally based student bodies, so I don’t find it unusual that they tend to populate m-schools at Vandy and WUSTL in greater nos. (WUSTL is apparently the toughest m-school wrt admissions in the country.) I wouldn’t find it unusual that there are more Ivy students at a lot of the more prestigious m-schools in the nation because of things like snob-appeal and their (m-schools’) private status, whereas maybe UCLA and Cal students would just be happy attending somewhere/anywhere in their quests to become MD’s, with some cost in mind … and all the better if they can gain entry to one of CA’s m’s. The MD’s I’ve spoken to tend to discount the brandname of m-school, but rather say that how one does in m and obtaining a top-tier residency is what is key.</p>
<p>I agree, though, listing two med schools is not proof of UCLA and Cal’s poor representation, when we know the opposite is true. And between the two, Cal’s students have to travel a bit more because of UCB’s lack of m-school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a complaint really, just stating an opinion. And yes, my opinion is that the UCs would do much better in national competitions if they had better advising. </p>
<p>(But they don’t and will not have in the distant future, primarily because the Regents and powers-that-be are not into merit, so that is why it is not a complaint per se.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I understand the connection between advising at Cambridge vis a vis UC, but ok. And yes, I agree, ‘forced’ advising can be annoying. But personally, for my money, I’d rather have that situation that the sink-or-swim attitude pervasive at UC. When UC was dirt cheap, poor advising was readily understandable. But as the COA is climbing towards $30k, I’d rather spend my money at a private.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO, it is because such students are better test takers, on average. The Ivies self-select for top testers, who by definition will do well on the mcat/lsat. Since the test is ~50% of an interview, it makes sense to me that students from top schools will do well in the professional school lotteries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh!? Just because of advising you’re going to give away a Berkeley diploma for a no-name private school of the same price? Seriously???</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Where did Blue state that the private was a “no-name”? A student who could get accepted at Cal could likely get accepted to a known private. Right???</p>
<p>And a pre-med graduating from USC, Santa Clara, LMU, or similar isn’t going to be thought of as being “lesser” than a Cal grad by the SOM adcoms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Youre killing me, bluebayou… ;)</p>
<p>Heres what I actually stated:</p>
<p>The Ivies and the other schools he listed tend to have more nationally based student bodies, so I don’t find it unusual that they tend to populate m-schools at Vandy and WUSTL in greater nos. (WUSTL is apparently the toughest m-school wrt admissions in the country.) I wouldn’t find it unusual that there are more Ivy students at a lot of the more prestigious m-schools in the nation because of things like snob-appeal and their (m-schools’) private status, whereas maybe UCLA and Cal students would just be happy attending somewhere/anywhere in their quests to become MD’s, with some cost in mind … and all the better if they can gain entry to one of CA’s m’s. The MD’s I’ve spoken to tend to discount the brandname of m-school, but rather say that how one does in m and obtaining a top-tier residency is what is key.</p>
<p>The way you quoted me, made it seem as though I conceded that there are more Ivy students at the nations m-schools, similar to what goldenboy stated. There are not. UCLA and Cal each produce much more MDs than any of the schools he listed, probably a good 2xs more than those said listed. But of course, when both have a good 4xs the undergrad student-body enrollment, this is to be expected for MD producing machines that both are. </p>
<p>There are no other publics in the nation that produce MDs as both do, and if you take the other UCs into account, there are probably ~ 3,000 applicants from UC to med school in any particular year. If you go with a 55% acceptance rate ~ to the national rate (which might be bogus based on CAs ms being the toughest to gain entry), you have possibly ~ 1,650 of UC grads gaining acceptances to m-school in any particular year.</p>
<p>I dont doubt that Ivy u students being better test-takers along with having higher grades at graduation both have a great deal with better placement to the nations best ms, but other things factor in, such as cost, which UC students tend to factor in much more as the nations top ms tend to be private also.</p>
<p>I think, too, you tend to discount the raising up factor of UC or any other us, including the Ivies, though the latter tend to disregard those of lower scores as you stated. A student graduating from high school might be lost in a three-part SATI format and post a low score because he/she doesnt have funds to match his/her potential wrt the test, but if he/she does well in college in, say, a biochem department, he is likely to score well on the MCAT, putting in the background any kind of failings of his/her low SAT ~ four/five years ago. </p>
<p>There has to be a correlation between high SATI and MCAT, undoubtedly, but it doesnt have to be ungodly high. A college education with the student ensconced in a rigorous life-physical sciences program can be the biggest determinant in a student doing well on the MCAT. Both UCLA and Cal have a lot of these examples, far more than the Ivies in this regard. Consequently, both do society a far bigger favor than the Ivies, because the latter take only students that manifest high grades along with scores. Boring…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, my bad. It was not intended in that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Huh?” Exactly.</p>
<p>“Seriously?” Negative; I don’t play with straw men.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pure speculation on your part. And quite frankly, not necessarily logical. VR is a chunk of the mcat, and a biochem major ain’t likely to ace it. But that is just speculation on my part. :)</p>
<p>Regardless, those that hail from sub-standard high schools with sub-standard preparation with sub-standard tests scores, tend to do worse on average. And without a hook, those C’s during Frosh year will tend eliminate allo med school.</p>
<p>I think you also mentioned interviews… The last thing, I’m sure, m-schools want to add to their rosters is a bunch of high-scoring, high-grade robot kids who have nothing in regard to bedside manner.</p>
<p>I see you’re playing games with the edit function:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Four years of college will help said student become more mature in taking these types of tests, along with gaining a foothold in a more specialized test like the MCAT. VR would be a smaller portion of the test, with a lot of the premed stuff taking the greater portion. </p>
<p>Add, that we’re probably talking about someone who was an outstanding student in the classroom, but just didn’t have the funds to match his/her potential wrt the SAT. This idea resides under the… “we all have pretty much the same potential, but there are those who have the funds to buy better scores if not grades.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I’m speaking of someone who manifested high grades… and say, pedestrian scores. Scores are just a ephemeral achievement; grades are much more lasting. Grades show the student’s effort in the classroom, which with this effort can overcome whatever SAT shortcomings.</p>