<p>curmudgeon,</p>
<p>Please show a modicum of respect.</p>
<p>lol. Respect is earned, ma. I have shown plenty of restraint. You really don’t want to hear what I really think. ;)</p>
<p>You post rude and disrespectful comments and insult posters who are trying to be helpful. I have called you out on it and now you want to get all holier than thou. I don’t play that game. </p>
<p>But let’s get past the childishness. It bores me. Whatever you think of me, I happen to be right. Give your child the best chance at success and let her know.</p>
<p>TBF, curm, marana is someone seeking advice, but just doesn’t like the answer. And part of that is lack of knowledge because the counselors/programs in California refuse to be transparent with the reality of med admissions. The powers-that-be just don’t want to scare off potential (hooked) applicants. (And politically, they like to hide their heads in the sand wrt competitiveness per campus – in their way of thinking, all publics are created equal: Merced is just as good at Cal; grads of Cal State Riverside has the same options as grads from UCLA.)</p>
<p>However, is the low medical school admission rate from a typical CSU due more to medical schools disdaining the typical CSU, or due to a typical CSU serving a narrow band of students that does not include very many top students who typically choose to go to a mid-to-upper-selectivity UC (or SLO)? Unlike states like Arizona, California has a very large number of state universities, which means that each tends to serve a narrower band of students than (for example) Arizona State does. Arizona State’s baseline level of selectivity appears similar to (or perhaps even lower than) minimum CSU eligibility, but it also appears to have more students at the top end than most of the CSUs. If the top end students are largely absent at typical CSUs, then it is unlikely that those CSUs will produce a lot of medical school worthy applicants in terms of MCAT/GPA baselines, without even getting into whether the medical schools disdain the CSUs.</p>
<p>grads of Cal State Riverside</p>
<p>When did UCR become a CSU? </p>
<p>You may not think much of UCR, but it hasn’t been “demoted.” ;)</p>
<p>That’s absolutely correct, but there is no (public) answer, and never will be.</p>
<p>A decade ago, Boalt released (or was leaked?) its listing of colleges where applicants to its law school received a GPA boost (Swat, HYPS and their ilk) and those colleges that received a GPA decrement – all CSU’s and directional colleges. If I recall, even Riverside was on the list for a decrement. It was clear that the second best law school west of the Mississippi River ranked the value of the undergraduate degrees. (And it would be illogical to think otherwise. Academics are what they are: prestige-driven.)</p>
<p>Of course, the political hue and cry was immediate once the LATimes got ahold of Boalt’s list. That mistake won’t happen again! It would be political suicide. </p>
<p>So, now all we can do is look for the anecdotes of unhooked CSU grads.</p>
<p>However, is the low medical school admission rate from a typical CSU due more to medical schools disdaining the typical CSU, or due to a typical CSU serving a narrow band of students that does not include very many top students who typically choose to go to a mid-to-upper-selectivity UC (or SLO)? Unlike states like Arizona, California has a very large number of state universities</p>
<p>Personally, I think it’s because (traditionally) premeds don’t go to the CSUs. When I was a Calif high school student, the thinking was that premeds go to a UC, period. They don’t go to CSUs. Perhaps that thinking still exists? </p>
<p>More to the point, while there is the odd example of the poorly-performing Calif high school student getting his act together in college and going to med school, the truth is probably that most of the Calif students who end up in med school were the top of their high school classes…and went to UCs.</p>
<p>If a student graduates from UCR with six consecutive quarters at UCR, 24 of the 50 spots at the new UCR School of Medicine are reserved for them. I don’t know of any other UG school that explicitly favors it’s own UG students in med school admissions.</p>
<p>And yes, the top California high school students use that guaranteed admission to the UCs. Top 9% are guaranteed admission to one of the UC schools. </p>
<p>There is also a wealth disparity involved. My wealthy friends are sending their kids (who didn’t make the UC cut) to OOS schools like Oregon, Washington, Colorado etc. They can afford to avoid the CSU stigma.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>bluebayou et al.,</p>
<p>Just to set the record straight, I have paid close attention to ALL the comments made in this thread, and my daughter and I have begun our dialog. It is eminently clear that going the CSU route is not a good idea, and that the post-bacc idea in general is very likely not an intelligent solution, period. Once again, I thank all who have so generously shared their experiences and insights. </p>
<p>I have not directly addressed each and every point other posters have brought up simply because there are so many, but that does not mean that I don’t accept or don’t agree with what people have said. This has been a fact-finding mission, and a lot of new facts have been brought to my and my daughter’s attention. For the uninitiated, the pre-med and applications process has a pretty steep learning curve, and we are incredibly grateful for the perspective that veteran parents and applicants have provided in this forum. </p>
<p>Wellesley has a dedicated pre-med advisor, but from what my daughter tells me, it appears that this advisor is pretty busy with upperclassmen. Hence we are looking for information in other places, as well, in order to avoid silly mistakes, false expectations or wrong assumptions early in the game. It has been hard for me to broach the subject with my daughter prior to now because I didn’t have much to add to the conversation. </p>
<p>As you and other posters have so rightly pointed out, each school tries to say it’s as good or better than the next one and that graduates of their various programs will fare exceedingly well in the admissions cycle. We must be informed consumers and do our homework. And as regards California, you’re also right, all publics are not created equal. As a graduate of UC, I’m well aware of the difference in undergraduate prestige between different campuses and between the CSU and UC systems. </p>
<p>I am sorry that curmudgeon seems to have formed such a low opinion of me, however I will continue to refrain from dignifying his comments with a reply. All I ask is that he respect the bounds of decorum.</p>
<p>N.B. I have and will continue to use all of my available resources to help my daughter succeed in life. The reason I would like to find a financially favorable solution to my daughter’s pre-med formation is so that I can pay for all her activities myself rather than make her take out extra loans before medical school or, worse still, miss out altogether on something that might benefit her. For example, this summer she is doing a six-week stint as a volunteer EMT in Latin America rather than in the more far-away place she originally wanted to go because it was more affordable for me. (She can’t get paid EMT work yet because she is only 19.) It’s not that I am cheap, I’m just not as affluent as some others.</p>
<p>Huh. There must be a new definition of “continue”, marama. I’ll go check. 
And lighten up a little. No blood was spilled. Good luck to your daughter.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, we must be careful when citing this list. My research has found that the school was successfully sued within a year of releasing this list, because it discriminated against historically black colleges. They no longer use this list. Furthermore, I have never heard of a magical list at any medical school (beyond the usual ivy league whoring). My undergrad school likes to bring this list up again and again because we were on the top of it, but I cannot respect a list that disadvantaged minorities and those who cannot afford to attend top grade deflated schools. It is clearly a much more complicated question than Boalt or any of us expected, because we are only considering schools that are grade deflated, versus considering why some state schools and historically black colleges are grade inflated (and who attends them).</p>
<p>Are you insane? lol I was talking about you saying you would “continue to refrain from dignifying” my comments. Sheesh. Victim much?</p>
<p>See. You said “continue to refrain” yet you hadn’t refrained from diddly… ahh. Never mind. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, some of the OOS schools like flagship public universities in Oregon and Arizona are not necessarily any more difficult to get into than the CSUs. But then the presence of some top students in a wide band of students makes their selectivity-based-prestige level higher than that of most CSUs (though not as high as the more selective UCs, which have narrow bands of students at the top).</p>
<p>Even among the CSUs that are not all that selective, and even in a local area with several CSUs, there appear to be hierarchies of preference, at least among the more traditional students. For example, in the Los Angeles area, CSULB, CSUFULL, and CPP appear to be preferred over CSUN, CSULA, and CSUDH. This may keep their students within relatively narrow bands of entry criteria.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, Just plain wrong. EMTs are eligible for licensing at age 18. Licensing specifics vary from state to state, but the minimum age requirements are national.</p>
<p>If she can’t find work as an EMT (Basic, I assume?) It’s because she’s never taken her state licensing tests, is looking in the wrong places or isn’t willing to work as an entry level volunteer.</p>
<p>I know you said paid, but in highly populous areas where there is significant competition for these jobs, organizations want a track record of competency and reliability before they hire. She’ll need to get some volunteer experience before she can reasonably expected to be paid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well yeah, sure, and by definition, it also resulted in disparate impact – not necessarily discrimination – against students in the CSU’s (and UCR), who comprise a lot of instate URMs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No we are not, or at least I am not. Some of the schools on the list that received bonus points (for rigor?) have the highest mean GPA’s. But this digresses, from my main thesis: academics are prestige-hounds; it’s in their DNA.</p>
<p><a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm[/url]”>http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm</a> is the Boalt law school chart that people have been discussing. Note that this was from 1997.</p>
<p>Supposedly, it was derived from comparing student undergraduate GPAs to LSAT scores. It does appear to show some differences from what a purely prestige-based ranking would produce.</p>
<p>Perhaps more interesting would be if they compared undergraduate GPAs to law school GPAs (not LSAT scores). Perhaps it would also be interesting if undergraduate colleges and universities did a similar comparison with respect to high school GPAs. (However, even if such information were not considered in admissions, the political ramifications would likely be too uncomfortable for too many vested interests.)</p>
<p>P.S. We “must be careful” when using the “d” word. Boalt was aggressively using affirmative action in admissions way before it became popular in a certain athletic league in the NE. :)</p>
<p>I should note for the record that Boalt’s list was based upon a mathematical formula and not the subjective opinions of its admissions staff. LSAC makes available information about average GPA and LSAT of law school applicants, and from there it was easy to calculate schools that were “grade inflated” and “grade deflated.” I ran the same calculation myself in another thread on this very forum; cadriethiel seems understandably discomfited by this and I’ll refrain from posting a link. Of course, mathematics is not necessarily a defense. The list still had a disparate impact (BB is right to use this phrase) on certain races and is no longer officially in use.</p>
<hr>
<p>Marama, if your daughter were here I would strongly, strongly, strongly urge her not to do a post-bacc at all. I strongly suspect that it will be possible for her to balance her activities, her general requirements, and her premedical coursework within the next two years, because I strongly doubt Wellesley would structure its curriculum otherwise.</p>
<p>However, if she has somewhat eclectic academic interests, this WOULD cut back on the classes she could take “for fun.” This constraint would be most burdensome on somebody who had a lot of interests in one particular field which was not a natural science, and which she did not wish to major in. Alternatively, it might be constraining if she wished to study abroad AND be a non-science major AND was a late premed (e.g. no prerequisites taken during freshman or sophomore year).</p>
<p>If she’s not in one of the above two categories, I would be SHOCKED if Wellesley’s curriculum made it impossible for her to finish everything.</p>
<p>Admittedly, there is some tradeoff in her ability to take fun classes. In my view, that is not worth the price – in time, in application strategy, and in finances – of having to do a post-bacc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. That’s why she WAS able to become a national registry EMT upon successfully completing her training course and passing the NREMT exam last August, and she can get her California state license any time she wants as long as it’s within two years of when she passed the National Registry exam. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Logically so. She’s working on that. But, for now, she hasn’t had enough time to accrue sufficient experience to make her a competitive applicant for paid EMT work. Everything in due time.</p>