Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

The most prestigious schools to the sight of top professionals schools:


Replies to: The most prestigious schools to the sight of top professionals schools:

  • lesdiablesbleuslesdiablesbleus Registered User Posts: 746 Member
    RML wrote:
    What is silly is your inability to comprehend that while Berkeley has 25k students, only a fraction of them apply to professional schools. Do you think all those 25k Berkeley undergrads would want to go back studying again, more so, apply to top professional schools?

    Typically at UC Berkeley, two-thirds of graduating seniors enter the workforce, one-quarter pursue graduate studies, and the remainder enter the military, the Peace Corps or take a year off to travel or explore other options. Hiring surge to bring more recruiters to campus job fair
    The same can be said of Duke and Princeton's student bodies as well though. Most of these students apply for jobs and enter the workforce, military or service learning organization after graduation.

    Here's Duke's data for instance:

    Duke University | Student Affairs | Career Center | Senior Exit Survey Results for Undergraduates

    Maybe 1/3 of Duke's student body will apply to graduate or professional school immediately and I'm pretty sure the same is true of Princeton as well but I'm too lazy to dig the data up.
  • rjkofnovirjkofnovi Registered User Posts: 10,362 Senior Member
    "The same can be said of Duke and Princeton's student bodies as well though."

    Is someone trying to equate Duke to Princeton again?
  • tk21769tk21769 Registered User Posts: 10,491 Senior Member
    Admits must be computed against the # of applicants, not the size of the school, if we are to establish school prestige to the sight of these top professional schools

    Half true.
    Admits must be computed against the number of applicants, not the size of the school, to demonstrate a likelihood of admission from that school. This would establish a certain correlation (strong or weak) between attendance at undergraduate school X and admission to professional school Y. It would not necessarily tell us anything about "school prestige".

    Consider Deep Springs College, a tiny, super selective (but not very well-known) 2 year college. Over half of DSC alumni eventually earn a doctorate. This is a phenomenally high rate (much higher than CalTech, MIT or Chicago rates). I don't have the professional school admission numbers, but I assume that a high percentage of DSC alumni who apply to top professional schools are admitted (after attending a second, 4 year undergraduate institution). What would this tell us about the perceived prestige of Deep Springs College? Nothing. We don't know if law schools get weak-kneed at the sight of "Deep Springs College" on an application, or if it's sheerly a matter of high LSATs and GPAs.

    This example does illustrate that a school's alumni can have a high rate of successful outcomes despite little name recognition. Size probably does matter to "prestige" if by that we mean name recognition as well as quality or exclusivity. However, it is difficult (or impossible) to measure what role this factor, per se, plays in graduate admissions.
  • IvyPBearIvyPBear Registered User Posts: 917 Member
    "so attending Berkeley is an advantage [with regards to law school admissions]"

    Yes, but the advantage is negligible. Look at Yale's data: http://ucs.yalecollege.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Law_School_Application_Statistics.pdf Even Yale undergrads receive extremely little boost.
  • hd1990hd1990 Registered User Posts: 21 New Member
    Don't fall into RML's trap. Just ignore his posts and let him **** along. Arguing with him would only fuel his ego.
  • PeaPea Registered User Posts: 2,387 Senior Member
    Surprisingly I've gotten something out of reading this thread. I was glad to see statistics provided for schools like the University of Chicago, I hadn't seen those before and they were interesting. Yes, Vanderbilt is a first rate school with a first rate medical school. The poster who shall remain nameless who thought otherwise is hard to figure out.
  • irishevan99irishevan99 Registered User Posts: 344 Member
    Berkeley grads are overqualified for the top graduate **** schools.
  • BillyMcBillyMc . Posts: 7,753 Senior Member
    Why did you bump this?
  • lesdiablesbleuslesdiablesbleus Registered User Posts: 746 Member
    RML wrote:
    Then provide the data for Berkeley premeds and Duke premeds. Let's see if the number of applicants is that big, as you're saying.
    Look at how poorly UCB medical school applicants fare at the top medical schools.


    Columbia: 12/259= 4.6%
    Duke: 5/258= 1.9%
    Harvard: 5/448= 1.1%
    JHU: 12/391= 3.1%
    Stanford: 14/599= 2.3%
    UCSF: 74/735= 10.1%
    Penn: 6/297= 2.0%

    Notice that for the Berkeley students who are lucky enough to get into these top medical schools, their average MCAT scores are generally higher than the national average MCAT scores for these institutions. This is one of the strongest indicators of a school that is simply not good for premed since it has strong grade deflation, a decently intelligent student body and terrible advising.
  • bluebayoubluebayou Registered User Posts: 25,656 Senior Member
    ^^ a problem with using self-reported data, les. Cal (and the UCs) has horrible advising, and no med committee. Most premeds do not even use the Career Services at Cal since it is focused on jobs. Thus, this report is missing ~70% of med school applicants.
  • drax12drax12 Registered User Posts: 1,407 Senior Member
    ... if this is what you feel compelled to do, and it's not hurting anyone...other than for some bruised egos, then do it.


    I think, too, that UCB can't release the data because they hadn't received permission, so only a fraction of Cal students' apps to med school are reflected in these surveys.


    1) Public school kids are more apt to find the cheaper option for grad professional school because of $$ constraints. There are obviously some exceptions, no matter what the debt, Harvard B, L, M school, etc. I wouldn't even argue that Hopkins Med is in this class (so maybe subtract H's M school, say, for CA students).

    2) Public school kids are more apt to find local grad professional programs because they want to practice locally. PS kids (no NYC references intended) are more tied to native geog.

    3) If there's a good grad program at one's native U, then this will draw students from this school away from other prestigious grad prof programs. This is why UCLA grads don't travel as much as Cal grads for med school (please don't argue that UCSF somehow belongs to Cal). Probably most UC students aspire to one of the five or so med schools, but most will be attending outside of the UC med-school consortium, and mostly oos.

    4) Add: And UC schools don't restrict applicants from applying to med school or try to dissuade them from such because the schools are not into reporting artifically raised acceptance rates.
  • barronsbarrons Registered User Posts: 24,862 Senior Member
    Without knowing how many even apply it's pretty useless info. Many large publics also have very good professional schools at instate rates. Why pay huge $$$$ to go to an expensive private professional school? Unless maybe your goal is the Supreme Court.
  • bluebayoubluebayou Registered User Posts: 25,656 Senior Member

    UC can release aggregate data; there is no privacy violation as long as it cannot be identified with a single person. But the simple fact is that UC does not have the data. Nearly 800 apply every year from Cal, but Career Services only has data on a fraction of those. (Table 2.6, amcas)

    If someone hangs around the premed forum on cc (and perhaps sdn), s/he'll receive all the advice needed to apply to med school. Many, many UC students do not use the Career Services office -- there is no need, and little value. Everything that they tell you is online.
  • drax12drax12 Registered User Posts: 1,407 Senior Member
    ... and I think the cutoff is 1-5 people. If it's 5, then maybe they think we could figure out who's who if it were < 5.

    Here's the aamc.org info.

    772 Cal, 728 UCLA, wrt apps, ~ 500 from each graduating class. Last year 686 Cal, 767 UCLA.

    Now, to figure acceptances for all of these. If Cal reports a 55% and UCLA 53% from their limited info, and if all were considered, would rates be higher or lower?

    UCLA's site of its limited info is heavily UC med-school intensive, which as a group would be harder than the whole group of oos m schools.

    I have no idea...especially when one mixes in those who've gone for post-bac CV enhancement. What do you think bluebayou?
  • AlexandreAlexandre Registered User Posts: 24,600 Senior Member
    The data provided by Cal's career center is horrible. Cal is one of the most effective universities in the nation at placing students into top graduate schools. According to JHU medical school, there are currently 17 Cal alums enrolled in its Medical program. Only JHU, Yale, Harvard and Stanford have more. Michigan Medical school currently has 20 Cal alums enrolled in its program. I would hate to see how many Cal alums are enrolled at Stanford, UCLA and UCSF medical schools, but it probably runs at 100 or so at any point in time.
This discussion has been closed.