from UCLA and Cal each, if you knew how many are accepted...
<p>That is the $1B question (upped due to inflation). Unless the aamc were to tell us -- here's a link detailing the number of apps [url=<a href="https://www.aamc.org/download/161114/data/table2-6-masian2010-web.pdf.pdf">https://www.aamc.org/download/161114/data/table2-6-masian2010-web.pdf.pdf</a>] according to race <a href="Asian%20student%20apps%20seem%20to%20order%20the%20UC%20schools%20best">/url</a>, I don't think we could really say what a particular school's acceptance rate is. And we know some schools restrict applicants to pump up %'s.</p>
<p>It would be so much easier if the aamc provided info on all the filled frosh med students spots by undergrad institution. And it wouldnt seem to be a very hard thing to do, being they accumulated this info for total apps. </p>
<p>UCLA's site, which only has info on 160 or so students who applied (becasue only 160 released info to UCLA)...shows a 53% acceptance of the ~ 160, of say a real, complete total of 500+ grads for 2009 (say ~ 340 who didnt release info), who applied (discounted, by say, 200+ ~ reapps (typically 1/4) + total 1st time apps who did post-grad before applying). (Theres a mismatch of years for the aamc site, 2010, v UCLAs detailing of the 160, which is for 2009. In 2009, there were ~ 767 total apps to med school from UCLA.)</p>
<p>The 53% acceptance rate for the ~ 160 UCLA documented could be conservative (low) because most of those detailed were accepted to UC schools (UC schools are toughest to gain entry as a group). (According to UCSDs site (sorry for the parentheicals), which does a better job of databasing its acceptances, but kind of mixes and matches those the school has info on and the 450+ total apps... shows most of their students were attending med school outside of CA. So we can presume this to be true wrt UCLA. Since Med schools outside of CA are easier to gain entry -> acceptance rate for UCLA undergrads could be, say, > 60%, say if the rest who applied gave info, which Im sure would be oos med intensive (being UCLA would according to common sense have info on students applying to its med school).</p>
<p>Add the 1) reapps and 2) the first-time apps who did post-grad work befor applying. What would be the acceptance rate for these? Higher or lower? Dunn intimated that it could be higher based on middling UC grads killing grad school. I think this could be true. This could apply to reapps who seemingly would upon rejection attend grad school to improve their resumes, and first-time apps who did postgrad work to do the same.</p>
<p>These same things also apply to Cal, which also only has limited info on recent grads application info to med school.</p>
<p>In short, both schools report ~ 53-55% acceptance rate to med school. With the above, it could seemingly be higher, and maybe seemingly be lower. Id give a higher probability to the former rather than the latter. But it is still pretty much a guessing game.</p>
...and second, since raw GPA is king, and it's easier to get higher GPA at USC, why do you think there fewer students applying from USC?
<p>Theres a different orientation to the schools, UCLA/Cal v USC. USC is more undergrad trade oriented; UCLA/Cal, UCLA even more than Cal, are more undergrad pre-professions related (because Cal has a few more undergrad trades than UCLA).</p>
<p>Also one person at each of the three Us would probably (not definitely) have, say, 3.8, 3.6, 3.5 at USC, UCLA, Cal, resp. But I dont doubt that the total life science majors at UCLA and Cal have higher means than USCs. Higher competition at UCLA and Cal drives those with lesser stats to higher competition -> higher grades as a whole because everyone is pulled upward. Could that one person be driven to better heights by going to UCLA/Cal over USC? Absolutely, but when we say one person will probably have a higher gpa at USC, we assume he/shell be just as studious at all three, which Im sure is the case with your daughter. ; )</p>