USC or UCLA for Pre-Med?

drax12
Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:26:05 +0000

The Ivies and the other schools he listed tend to have more nationally based student bodies, so I don’t find it unusual that they tend to populate m-schools…

bluebayou:

ofIMO, it is because such students are better test takers, on average. The Ivies self-select for top testers, who by definition will do well on the mcat/lsat. Since the test is ~50% of an interview, it makes sense to me that students from top schools will do well in the professional school lotteries.



You’re killing me, bluebayou… ;)

Here’s what I actually stated:

The Ivies and the other schools he listed tend to have more nationally based student bodies, so I don’t find it unusual that they tend to populate m-schools at Vandy and WUSTL in greater nos. (WUSTL is apparently the toughest m-school wrt admissions in the country.) I wouldn’t find it unusual that there are more Ivy students at a lot of the more prestigious m-schools in the nation because of things like snob-appeal and their (m-schools’) private status, whereas maybe UCLA and Cal students would just be happy attending somewhere/anywhere in their quests to become MD’s, with some cost in mind … and all the better if they can gain entry to one of CA’s m’s. The MD’s I’ve spoken to tend to discount the brandname of m-school, but rather say that how one does in m and obtaining a top-tier residency is what is key.

The way you quoted me, made it seem as though I conceded that there are more Ivy students at the nation’s m-schools, similar to what goldenboy stated. There are not. UCLA and Cal each produce much more MD’s than any of the schools he listed, probably a good 2x’s more than those said listed. But of course, when both have a good 4x’s the undergrad student-body enrollment, this is to be expected for MD producing machines that both are.

There are no other publics in the nation that produce MD’s as both do, and if you take the other UC’s into account, there are probably ~ 3,000 applicants from UC to med school in any particular year. If you go with a 55% acceptance rate ~ to the national rate (which might be bogus based on CA’s m’s being the toughest to gain entry), you have possibly ~ 1,650 of UC grads gaining acceptances to m-school in any particular year.

I don’t doubt that Ivy u students being better test-takers along with having higher grades at graduation both have a great deal with better placement to the nation’s best m’s, but other things factor in, such as cost, which UC students tend to factor in much more as the nation’s top m’s tend to be private also.

I think, too, you tend to discount the raising up factor of UC or any other u’s, including the Ivies, though the latter tend to disregard those of lower scores as you stated. A student graduating from high school might be lost in a three-part SATI format and post a low score because he/she doesn’t have funds to match his/her potential wrt the test, but if he/she does well in college in, say, a biochem department, he is likely to score well on the MCAT, putting in the background any kind of failings of his/her low SAT ~ four/five years ago.

There has to be a correlation between high SATI and MCAT, undoubtedly, but it doesn’t have to be ungodly high. A college education with the student ensconced in a rigorous life-physical sciences program can be the biggest determinant in a student doing well on the MCAT. Both UCLA and Cal have a lot of these examples, far more than the Ivies in this regard. Consequently, both do society a far bigger favor than the Ivies, because the latter take only students that manifest high grades along with scores. Boring…