<p>UCB, I stupidly posted this same message at your thread providing the specific u Career Center Data. I’m not one to duplicate posts, but I will in this instance.</p>
<p>According to the list of outcomes of recent UCLA bac degrees applying to m-school, U’s [U’s Med-App Outcomes](<a href=“http://career.ucla.edu/Students/GradProfSchCounseling/MedicalSchoolStatisticsForUCLAGraduates.aspx”>http://career.ucla.edu/Students/GradProfSchCounseling/MedicalSchoolStatisticsForUCLAGraduates.aspx</a>) there were 189 who applied and 111 who gained acceptances, or ~ 59%, in 2012. </p>
<p>According to the [aamc website](<a href=“https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/86042/table2.html”>https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/86042/table2.html</a>), there were 823 students who applied, who did undergrad at UCLA.</p>
<p>As I’ve said before, I’m hardly a statistician, but the total amount of apps would be as follows:</p>
<p>A. Total who applied to m-school w/UCLA bac degree, 2012, 823 (per aamc.org)
B. Total applied who graduated 2012, of those who released info to U, 189 (per U Career Center)</p>
<p>This comes to A/B of a factor of 4.4 of Total Applicants/Those Applicants Whose Outcomes We Know, or 634 applicants of which we know nothing of their outcomes. Would B’s list be the total apps of the U’s graduating seniors in 2012? Doubtful. Hard to place a no., but it’s possible would be in ~300 range, maybe 350.</p>
<p>One figures if 1/4 of apps to med school in any year are reapps (graphic, which I’m too lazy to find and link), we could break it down to the following (assuming nat’l statistics apply to UCLA wrt reapss):</p>
<p>206 Reapps UCLA, who graduated previous to 2012
617 First-Time Applicants, which would be graduates of 2012, and previous years</p>
<p>The 617 is broken down to 189 students whose outcomes we see at the UCLA Career Center, and 428 first-time applicants about whom we know nothing:</p>
<p>206 Reapps
189 2012 graduates (with 111 acceptances)
428 First-time Applicants from 2012 and previous years</p>
<p>The $1M question would be: would the 59% acceptance be fairly close to all 823 applicants?</p>
<p>If so ~ 483 would have gained acceptance to m in 2012 with UCLA bac degrees. Hard to assume this of course, but in some years, UCLA’s total > 500, so %’s have to be pretty stable if not the actual no. who gain acceptance. Small variations in % would affect nos. a lot. Also the no. who apply from UCLA is fairly stable from year to year, ~ 800 or so.</p>
<p>To somewhat disagree with LakeClouds, it’s apparent that the MCAT is most important if one looks at UCLA"s specific nos. wrt grades and MCAT scores. There are fairly pedestrian grades who had acceptances with higher scores, but some with high grades but no acceptances because they had pedestrian scores.</p>
<p>I would think that those who apply to m in the same year they graduate would be at somewhat of a disadvantage because of MCAT preparation. Perhaps a better approach would be to graduate, bide one’s time and prep well for the test. Those with high grades and fairly pedestrian scores who were rejected probably just need to post a higher score, as well as prep better for interviews.</p>
<p>This would just about mirror Cal’s situation also. It was funny to see the l-school acceptances for both u’s just about mirror each other to various specific l’s.</p>
<p>Back to m-school acceptances, is there a bigger wave that follows graduation: in other words, are there more apps, say, in 2013 for the graduating class of 2012? The no. after 2013 would have to dissipate and reduce in years 2014, 2015, to which point it reduces to ~0, I have no idea; I guess it depends on which students are more devoted to becoming MD’s. Time is obviously essential in playing the waiting game towards acceptance.</p>
<p>The thing I noticed, was the m’s for which I would have thought to be “fallbacks” in admission for both u’s didn’t appear to be such. CA m’s are hardest as a group to which to gain admission, but both u’s of med students also had pretty low acceptance rates to oos m’s. I think, what it is is neither u has the name to help the student gain admission to these sets of m’s, certainly in comparison to the Ivy u’s, which are more nationally renowned. What will help both UCLA and Berkl in this, would be as both increase the no. of oos students; ie, a student from NY who does undergrad at either, and applies to NYU med. I’m thinking in the interview process a lot of native CA students who attend UCLA or Berk are kicked out of the process because the oos m’s interviewers might not think of either u’s native CA students as being serious about their schools. This is evident in the yield of UCLA students in applying to oos m’s, and would undoubtedly apply to Berk’s also.</p>
<p>L-school is a different matter. The saying goes: one can always find an l that will take that person. The % acceptances for both u’s mirror each other pretty closely at specific l-centers; it’s uncanny how close they both are, except for that one bad year in HLS admissions for Berk.</p>
<p>Both have a lot of students who attend part-time programs: Berk’s at Golden Gate; UCLA’s at Southwestern and LMU, probably because they could work downtown SF or LA.</p>
<p>If I can gain more info, I’ll do an analysis on the UCLA board. We know, though, that most private u’s pump up their nos, by encouraging students to defer applying to l and m, after which these who do defer don’t count in the %'s of the u’s acceptances to l and m because they are no longer under the the U’s guidance.</p>