<p>vc08: Fission Mailed</p>
<p>dt_: Yes, that plus research</p>
<p>
What do you mean, “mission failed” lol? Berkeley has a joint med program with UCSF, which I directly stated in the beginning. If you read the links, you’ll notice that Cal has a program through their public health dept. where you study at Cal for the first 3 years, then move on to UCSF for the remaining 2. None of the other schools have this same program with UCSF.</p>
<p>Or, read hominid’s last sentence ;)</p>
<p>whether Cal has a DIRECT affiliation with the REGULAR MD program or not (there is no affiliation but it’s so hard to deal with you guys) it doesn’t matter. You can’t go to Cal because you want to go to UCSF, because med school admissions are extremely volatile. Similarly it is PLAIN STUPIDITY to go to UCLA-undergrad because you think you’ll have a better shot at UCLA-med. There is NO LINK and NO FAVORITISM for any public-california med school. </p>
<p>As for the JMP program, ANYONE can apply to that program (not just Cal students, and Cal students don’t have an advantage over other applicants). I don’t understand why JMP was even brought up because it has nothing to do with the undergraduate experience…</p>
<p>As for Cal, the area around Cal has TONS of volunteering opportunities, and the school itself is wold-renowned for life science research. The main difference between Cal and UCLA is the campus/surrounding area and the student body. norcal and socal are different in MANY ways. the education and the “application-related” opportunities you get will be more or less the same. Your decision should be more based on the “social” factors.</p>
<p>LA has a medical center</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>thats how you conclude ucsf is berkeley’s med school? by your superb logic, both ucr and cal tech own ucla’s medical school because they have joint programs with them.</p>
<p>^^wow, then Cal has TWO med schools?!?! sweet deal!</p>
<p>jk, I think most people get the drift that UCSF is most closely affiliated with UCB. UCLA has its own medical center, and UCSD has another renowned one as well. Most UCB students aren’t going to fly down to UCLA to do internships 3 days a week, and thus practice/study at UCSF, in the joint program.</p>
<p>what’s UCLA got over Berkeley?
weather, attractiveness of student body, culturally centered area, and athletics.</p>
<p>what’s Berkeley got over UCLA?
academics, prestige, intellectual environment, unique culture.</p>
<p>they are both excellent schools, no doubt. it really depends on your major and how you feel personally: no one can make the decision for you but yourself. if you feel that you’ll definitely be happier at one school than the other, go to that one school, because you’ll be more motivated to do better in your classes and have a better time overall. :)</p>
<p>congratulations and good luck with your decision!</p>
<p>I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, Berkeley doesn’t have “academics” on UCLA. I’ve been to 3 big schools in my day, ucla, a state univ outside the top 100, and a school on par with the top ivies and there hasn’t been a difference in academics in the slightest sense among them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about “intellectual environment?” All the same or different?</p>
<p>At the schools I went to it was different</p>
<p>So the gist of this thread is that Berkeley has an academic “advantage” over UCLA, but since undergraduate rankings are ambiguous at best, Berkeley doesn’t really have anything over UCLA?</p>
<p>The gist of this thread is that Berkeley has no academic advantage over UCLA. Where have you been the past 5 posts?</p>
<p>well of course it still depends on the department. other than that you cant really generalize…at least i wouldn’t</p>
<p>UCLA has an environment that is more conducive to actually getting into graduate schools (less cutthroat students, less bureaucracy, a medical center that’s actually in walking distance). :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Berkeley has a more intellectual environment. Certain departments at Cal are better than UCLA, and vice versa (speaking on the undergraduate level). Berkeley has more “prestige”, a bigger name outside the West Coast, and a better graduate program. At the undergrad level, you will get out of those schools what you put into them. I know people who say UCLA is very competitive and cutthroat, and I know people who say the same about Cal. You should go for the atmosphere and weather you like, as they vary drastically in this regard. Both schools are great, you really can’t go wrong. Best of luck!</p>
<p>And I would tend to disagree with Flopsy; Cal sends more students on to earn their PhDs than graduates of any other university in the country.</p>
<p>There are departments where Cal has a huge advantage over UCLa.
One example, paleontology and evolutionary biology.
UCLA, despite being right next to La Brea, does not have a broad collection of fossil mammals (or fossils in general)
Cal has the UC Museum of Paleontology and Human Evolution Research Center (HERC).</p>
<p>You cannot get substantial undergraduate research for these fields as an undergrad at UCLA and at least in this field you need those resources to get a good understanding of the materials. The resources just aren’t there, even though UCLA has one of the last undergraduate in Paleobiology (that fact almost made me go to LA, but then I talked to a professor at HERC and my supervisor at the La Brea Tar pits museum; they lead me to choose Cal).</p>
<p>And to connect with vc08’s point, Cal has better graduate programs. The benefits of those better graduate program do at least marginally spill over into undergraduate experiences. Remember who run lab sections and discussion sections, GSIs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>anon5524485,</p>
<p>This is your most common criticism of UCLA, but outside of maybe a few dozen or so students at either campus, is this really a huge problem?</p>
<p>I mean, I understand that YOU’RE interested in it, but how important is this to the broader experience at UCLA or Cal? Sure, you’re one of the few who has a good idea of what he wants, but for the average “undecided” undergrad, this seems like a non-issue. It’s like being deterred from attending Cal because it lacks hospitality as a major if you’re not even interested in the field.</p>
<p>I think that the strength of the grad programs is a big thing in Cal’s favor, but if that matters so much, why do LAC grads usually beat both UCLA and Cal grads to the best grad schools, controlling for population differences?</p>
<p>Guys, I’ve said this many times and I’ll say it many times more: it’s the individual to an extent, and it’s the school to an extent. But on the margin, it’s more the individual than the school. When you’re talking about perhaps marginal differences between Cal and UCLA, go where you’ll be happiest. It’s really not that complicated, despite what people on this site believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not really. Did you not read my previous post? There was no difference in the “academics” between the 3 schools I’ve attended, despite one of them having amazing programs and the other ones not so much so. I think you confused big names with quality of education. My friend took Brinkley at Columbia, the guy publishes the HS textbooks many of us used for history, said he was one of the worst teachers he’s ever had. Confusing, disorganized. The point is that on an undergraduate level I see no difference in terms of academics between the top 100 schools…at least not the 3 I went to.</p>
<p>UCLA people look better. I will not back this up whatsoever, it is purely my opinion, if you need to be convinced more, there are tons of threads on this. Use the search function.</p>
<p>Well, UCLA seems like the best fit for me because it’s got all types of kid, not just the nerdy and studious ones. I definitely like a school with that sort of balance, and UCLA’s got it.</p>