<p>mom2collegekids:
</p>
<p>With all due respect to someone with over 30,000 posts, this simply isn’t true. Now it may not matter where you go to medical school if you want to just practice medicine but it will make a difference if you want an academic career. At least one-third of the admitted class at my “prestigious” medical school came from the Ivy League. I would be hard pressed to say that looks like the admissions office didn’t care where you went to undergrad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some would say that the California has as many as five or six “flagship quality” public universities – not necessarily because it is inherently better, but because California’s population is huge compared to other states, so that scaling up a the size of the public university system results in having that capacity (but split into five or six campuses instead of one flagship campus with over 100,000 students).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or is it merely because the students who got into undergraduate Ivy League in the first place were passed through a higher selection gate for undergraduate admissions than those from other undergraduate schools? Or because some of the Ivy League schools have pretty high levels of grade inflation?</p>
<p>No university in Georgia offers my intended major, urban planning (which, if you’ve ever been to Atlanta, is not surprising to say the least…). The only schools here I would even think of considering are Georgia Tech or Emory. But both of them still have a problem (besides not having my major): they are in the state of Georgia, which I am more than ready to get far far far away from.</p>
<p>Total cost was the same regardless of where I went. What sealed the deal was when I got a letter from my flagship telling me I was one of the lucky students who would actually get into the classes I needed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you sure about that? </p>
<p>How do you define a flagship campus?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of people are referring to UCLA as a ‘flagship,’ not just the Los Angeles Times. I don’t really care – I know you’re just trying to incite UCBChemE and bluebayou to action, to respond – but one can say wrt NorCal and SoCal, each is a flagship.</p>
<p>Or that according to Bluebayou’s reference of UCLA as The Southern Branch, we can say that UCLA is an extension of Berkeley … not that I would want to go there either (wrt conversation). ;)</p>
<p>ucbalumnus:</p>
<p>I didn’t have a chance to answer your last post about UC fees, enrollment, ‘revenues,’ etc. If it bubbles up again – hopefully not – I’ll answer because I disagree with at least some of it.</p>
<p>beyphy:</p>
<p>I think you’re more of a UCLA personality. Your meeting someone new out of inconvenience seems to affirm this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i define it as a a university of very high quality within the system. It usually has a fairly high financial endowment, and is perceived to be of extraordinary quality within the system, and in comparison to other flagships, and maybe even private universities. (i think if there is any real difference between H/Y/P it’s probably fairly negligible)</p>
<p>Most public universities can only support one flagship one. It’s usually also the first campus. However, because the UC system had a ■■■■■■■■ amount of resources at its inception, it’s been able to create two high quality public universities: UCLA and Berkeley. UCSD came close to becoming one as well, but the budget cuts hurt it pretty bad. Much worse, imo, than UCLA and Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your first point is almost certainly true and yet this is widely disputed on CC where many posters say that these highly selected kids will have similar opportunities anywhere. If that is the case we would not see so strong a selection bias. As for grade inflation, these kids are taking the MCATs the same as everyone else and if they appeared more accomplished on paper because of grade inflation and they were less impressive in practice, then this admissions bias would have ceased. I can assure you it has existed for decades since I trained (and likely before) until the currently admitted classes.</p>
<p>drax12, I questioned the poster who said “UCLA is also a flagship campus” because I don’t think the poster understood the meaning of the word. Even if you say UCLA has gotten more popular these days, it would never become the flagship campus because it is not the original UC, the oldest and the model from which the university system grew. Aside from that, there could only be one flagship in each university system.</p>
<p>DD wanted a liberal arts college and got into our public honors college and so she is not going to our flagship. Our flagship has become more difficult to get into these days. Dd did get into the university and in a special program but she did not want attend the flagship. She wanted to be a big fish in a little pond. </p>
<p>What I find strange is that your state flagship is ranked higher than ours but you SATs range is lower. I think I don’t understand this ranking stuff myself.</p>
<p>[Flagship</a> - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary](<a href=“http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flagship]Flagship”>Flagship Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)
</p>
<p>*Quote:
Med schools don’t care where you went to undergrad. Many kids from my kids’ flagship get accepted to “prestigious” med schools.</p>
<p>=============================
… this simply isn’t true. … At least one-third of the admitted class at my “prestigious” medical school came from the Ivy League. I would be hard pressed to say that looks like the admissions office didn’t care where you went to undergrad. *</p>
<p>You’re misusing stats. Of course 1/3 of your elite med school classmates came from prestigious undergrads…there’s a lot of self-selection going on. Those who go to elite undergrads tend to want to go to elite SOMs and therefore will apply and a number will get accepted. Those kids weren’t accepted because they went to elites…they were accepted because they apply en masse and are a group with typically super high stats (which is what got them into elite undergrads in the first place)…so a good number get accepted and are in the seats. That does not translate into…SOMs care that you went to an elite undergrad…not.</p>
<p>What you’re not taking into acct is that many top kids who go to undergrad elsewhere do NOT BOTHER applying to elite SOMs because they have NO INTEREST in them…for a variety of good reasons. Many are thrilled to go to their instate SOM simply because their need to borrow/pay may be considerably less. (If our son goes to one of our instate SOMs, his total cost will be about $150k…compared to $300k+ for a private or OOS public…that’s quite a difference in cost. And if he gets into instate UAB, then the cost to attend an elite SOM would be hard to justify. The same could be argued for many kids who have very good SOMs in their own states. ). </p>
<p>That said, I would change my original quote a bit. SOMs don’t care where you went to undergrad unless you went to some weak unranked undergrad with crappy sciences…that would likely give them pause.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The rankings are based on entirely arbitrary and mostly meaningless criteria with weightings that make even less sense.</p>
<p>State flagship is often a pretty subjective term, with different programs being better at different schools for different individuals. I know that some states even consider themselves to have a “flagship” institution, but I’ve never been a big fan of the term.</p>
<ul>
<li>Bart C., AUA rep
<a href=“http://www.auamed.org/ecfmg-usmle-information[/url]”>http://www.auamed.org/ecfmg-usmle-information</a></li>
</ul>
<p>YaleGradandDad, </p>
<p>mom2collegekids is in fact correct. You assume causation when, in fact, all of your “evidence” only supports correlation. </p>
<p>(1) If top students get into top schools
(2) If top med schools take top students
Then,
(3) Many students will come from top undergrad schools</p>
<p>This is correlational evidence as it could be the case that a top student went a not-tops-school, scored the same MCAT score as someone who did go to a top school. Then, the two applicants, assuming the non-top-school applicant didn’t go to Podunk state, will in fact be weighted equally. It’s the same for law school, and admissions boards, adcoms, etc. to these schools even say that this is the fact. Be careful when viewing statistics as you may incorrectly assume causation when, in fact, it’s only correlation.</p>
<p>NYU2013 has done well in his/her Philosophy Deductive Logic course.</p>
<p>Salute!</p>
<p>student 1017- it does seem odd to me that you wouldn’t consider applying to your in state flagship. I think that you should. Also, you should visit, to see what its like. After you have acceptances and financial/merit aid offers from other schools in hand you can compare them to UW’s costs. At this point, you should just keep your options open and apply to UW.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13386233-post1.html]#1[/url]”>quote</a> I’ve recently been wondering why I want to go to some expensive and prestigious out of state college when I have an excellent in-state university that I could attend…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Food for Thought:</p>
<p>[ul]
[li][Prestige</a> Versus Education by Thomas Sowell](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/5382846-post12.html]Prestige”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/5382846-post12.html) [/li][li][Response</a> to: “I still do not get the meaning of prestige”](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/10912538-post8.html]Response”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/10912538-post8.html)[/li][/ul]</p>
<p>Thanks M2ck, I actually passed both of my logic courses with an A lol.</p>
<p>Looking back over my post though, I noticed it could use a bit of an edit, but as the time to edit has expired, I’ll post it here.</p>
<p>(1) If top students score good MCAT scores
(2) If top students get good GPAs
Then,
(3) The school they attended plays no factor in their performance. </p>
<p>A better argument might be,</p>
<p>(1) Top students do well in general
Thus,
(2) Top students get into top schools
(3) Top med schools are filled with top students
Then,
(4) Top students get into top med schools. </p>
<p>Premise (2) is actually completely unnecessary in the conclusion (4). Conclusion (4) actually only requires premise (1) and (3).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are a few possibilities here: the definition of flagship has changed, or i’m falsely trying to claim UCLA as a flagship when it is impossible for it to ever be one. </p>
<p>It could also be that the definition is ‘the most important campuses in a system’ and most systems only have one. The UC system is the only system i know which people say has two flagships. It’s up in the air imo. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that Berkeley is ‘better’ or ‘more important’ than UCLA or vice-versa. They’re just both good at different things.</p>
<p>
I take it that you aren’t aware that definite descriptions can fail; I should know, i’ve completed one class on them, am taking another now, and will be taking a final one probably this winter. This particular definite descriptions fails because there isn’t only ‘one’ such campus. So we either alter our definition to say that it can be the most important campuses associated with a university, or that the UC system simply has no flagships.</p>
<p>additionally, RML, you’ll note that the definition for flagship that UCBChemEGrad provided says nothing about the institution being the oldest.</p>