USC or UCLA for Pre-Med?

bluebayou
Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:39:42 +0000

Scores are just a ephemeral achievement; grades are much more lasting. Grades show the student’s effort in the classroom, which with this effort can overcome whatever SAT shortcomings.



That’s nice and all, but professional schools…just…don’t…care. And the reason for that is that there are 3000 4 year colleges. A 3.8+ is a dime a dozen.

Obtaining admissions to LS is at least 50% LSAT score – higher at many law schools. Obtaining an interview for med school – and you have to interview to get accepted – is ~50% mcat score. Just because UC does not place a high weight on test scores, they are critical for professional schools. And strong standardized test takers are strong standardized test-takers.



Four years of college will help said student become more mature in taking these types of tests…



Do you have any evidence to support your thesis?



This idea resides under the… “we all have pretty much the same potential, but there are those who have the funds to buy better scores if not grades.”



That’s poppycock. A 100 IQ does not have the same potential as a 130 IQ who doesn’t have the same potential of a 150 IQ. (It is the latter group who will can score 40+ on the mcat. A 100 IQ person could spend 4 straight years studying for the mcat and never clear a 30. Raw brain processing power matters in standardized testing, as does reasoning skills – none of which are taught in college, which perhaps the exception of Organic Chem.)

btw: not sure of your definition of ‘smaller’, but the VR on the mcat is 33% of the total, with a floor; essentially, no score below a 9 for the unhooked.