<p>Let’s say a kid goes to a third tier under grad school that happens to have a med school, lets use Virginia Commonwealth University as an example. So, let’s say a kid goes to VCU so he can be around the med school and rack up volunteer hours at the hospital, meet some of the med professors and all that sort of stuff, and the only reason he chose to attend VCU was in hopes of making it easier to get into med school afterwards.</p>
<p>Would a kid who did very well at VCU (great grades, lots of time spent in the hospital, great recs, great test scores, etc.) have an advantage into the VCU Med School compared to most other kids? let’s say a UVA kid applies and has everything but the hospital hours and recs from professors that the people at the med school know, how will the UVA kid fare compared to the VCU kid for admission into the VCU med school?</p>
<p>As a rule, being at the undergrad institution with which a med school is affiliated in no way helps you get accepted to the medical school. Getting hospital hours is expected of all med school applicants; where you get them is not terribly important. I could see a possible advantage if med school professors wrote recs, but such an advantage would only apply at the med school where the professors are emplyed, if that. I have actually heard that in many instances going to a given undergrad school HURTS your chances of being accepted at their med school, because of the large number of applicants coming from the undergrad school.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I am very much against the idea of lowering the bar for one’s undergrad education in the hopes that getting into med school will be easier, an idea that comes up frequently on this board. The student who goes to a so-called ‘tier one’ school like UVA in this case and excells will ALWAYS be at an advantage over an identical student at a lesser known institution. The argument often goes that one can get a higher GPA at a worse school, and so appear more competent for admission to med school. What this view neglects to mention is that a better school will have more rigorous classes that better prepare you for the MCAT, and have a better advising program for applying to graduate programs, since they are used to having more students that go on to such things. Also, a large, well-known institution like UVA will in all likelihood have better research opportunities, another important part of developing your application.</p>
<p>people also tell you to go where you will feel most comfortable for under grad and lets say the kid feels most comfortable by far at VCU. besides its not like VCU is horrible, it does have a nobel prize chemist on its staff. anyways a lot of my high school teachers have told me that college is only as hard as you make it, a kid can go to a third tier uni and end up with the same education that he would’ve gotten at harvard if he works and studies hard enough and a kid at harvard might end up getting the same education that he would’ve gotten at a lower ranked school if he slacks and works only to get by… i can’t argue with the research, big name institutions just get more opportunities for that type of stuff…</p>
<p>but anyways how much importance does the prestige of a students under grad school come into play when admissions officers look at a med school application?</p>
<p>It could be possible that it could give someone an advantage. If someone mantained respectable grades at the undergrad, the medical school would be very familiar with their curriculum. Plus, someone on the admissions committee might even know the applicant . . . maybe . . .</p>
<p>It’s not as much an issue of prestige as it is the quality of the program. Particularly for premed, top-ranked schools have much higher rates of getting their students into at least one med school. Hopkins, Duke, Penn, WashU, and other institutions known for their premed advising programs have success rates approaching or exceeding 90% for admission to med school on a student’s first or second try, whereas nationally 50% of those who apply to medical school get rejected everywhere they apply each year. This can in part be chalked up to the calibur of the students, but I don’t think an argument can be made that students at elite schools are inherently more driven or smart to the extent such a difference requires (I don’t know about UVA’s success rate off hand, but I’m sure it’s online somewhere). The discrepancy arises because of preparation. Saying that college is what you make of it holds true in many instances, but if you’re premed the opportunity to slack off is nonexistent if you want to succeed, and I would submit that the student who works hard for fours years at harvard comes away with a better education than someone who works hard at a lesser-known school, espcially in the sciences, where research opportunities and the rigour of classes are greater at more competitive universities.</p>
<p>I find it much more difficult to argue with the issue of comfort. If you don’t feel comfortable at UVA, then you should not attend there; it’s that simple. If you are unhappy at a school, it will be much more difficult for you to have success there, to say nothing of wasting some of the best years of your life being miserable (but you’re premed, so that’s a given anyway ).</p>
<p>The issue of the presitge of a school playing a role in admissions is debated a lot on this forum, and there seems to be a mix of opinions and evidence; so I’m not going to go into it and hope someone with a lot more detailed knowledge of it than I steps in.</p>
<p>Since you haven’t even applied to college yet, I would encourage you to broaden you search for places to apply; limiting yourself to two schools is not a good way to get a feel for what you want out of your undergraduate education.</p>
<p>philly, I know the med school acceptance rates from undergrad places like Hopkins and some other schools are so high because you have to have above a certain gpa and/or test score to even get a letter of recommendation from the school. that means that only the really “qualified” people are able to apply, meaning that the overall acceptance rate will be higher.</p>
<p>when i visited hopkins, the students were aware that people with low gpa’s were discouraged from applying, but no one actually knew of anyone to whom this occurred. my host was a neuroscience premed with a 3.3, and she was still getting the committee to write her a letter. of course, people with <3.0s probably don’t bother with trying to get past the committee, but that would probably also be true of premeds with low GPA’s at other schools who don’t bother applying. while their screening practice might help boost their numbers, i don’t think it would account for the 50 to >90% gap.</p>
<p>in response to the OP, i’ve heard that it’s considered academic “incest” to complete your graduate studies at the same school you did undergrad. however, med schools like harvard and jhu accept the most applicants from their own undergrad schools, and i know berkeley engineering favors EECS graduates. strictly speaking, which undergrad school you go to should have no effect, but i’m unsure as to whether or not that actually holds true.</p>
<p>Twyla, that’s true only at Hopkins, among the schools Philly mentioned.</p>
<p>On the original question:</p>
<p>1.) Some schools it’s easier, some schools it’s harder. Of course most schools will have the most matriculants from their own institution; this does not imply that it’s actually any easier to be admitted. I can tell you that Duke, WashU, Stanford, and Columbia tend to put their own kids at a mild disadvantage.</p>
<p>2.) For career purposes, it’s actually slightly frowned upon to do them at the same place.</p>
<p>Philly - the issues and arguements you bring up fail to take note of a couple of things that are not a function of the undergrad institution: motivation and general aptitude.</p>
<p>A student motivated enough in HS to go to Harvard is more like to work harder in undergrad and get better grades. Further, b/c of the selection process of tier I schools not only rewards motivation but also intelligence (need for high SAT scores) and time management (multiple extracurriculars while maintaining GPA), then the students going to these places are more prepared for the rigors of a premed curriculum or really any sort of competitive admissions process further down the line…It was widely said around the Kaplan office I worked at that if youre good at one standardized test, your good at them all…This is certainly true with the MCAT and USMLE, and it doesn’t seem outlandish for SAT/ACT -> MCAT. </p>
<p>So the combination of those things are probably the greatest influence on why it appears top schools have better placement rates.</p>
<p>I’m going to have to argue, BRM, that selection is only part of it. If you took Stanford’s entire student body’s premeds and enrolled them at UC Riverside, I bet you they’d do better than UCR’s current student body but worse than they currently do at Stanford.</p>
<p>^^^ Agreed. Clearly the caliber of students is the single biggest reason for why schools like Duke or Stanford have a higher acceptance rate than state schools but that doesn’t discount the obvious advantages of going to a top school.</p>
<p>I agree with this. I would say the single biggest factor is the social motivation factor. People tend to copy what they see around them. Top schools tend to be filled with hard-working achievers and if you see lots of people around you studying hard and achieving impressive goals, then you will tend to want to study hard and achieve goals. But if you go to a school where lots of students are being lazy, and are more interested in lounging around and wasting time, then you will tend to become lazy.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I’d suggest that working “smarter, not harder” can be acquired socially, too.</p>
<p>I know a ton of kids at very prestigious but “worse” premed schools (think Berkeley) who study a ton harder than my friends at one of the best premed schools in the country (Duke) and yet get predictably much worse results because they go about the process in an unfavorable manner - they apply to the wrong schools for the wrong reasons, they can’t answer basic interview questions well, they have foolish expectations about their MCAT scores, they send their apps in late, they don’t understand that you’re supposed to have research and clinical experience in addition to good grades, etc.</p>
<p>These things are socially expected, too - Duke kids may not pressure you to study harder than Berkeley kids for organic chemistry, but they’ll sure put you in an environment where you’re socially expected to dress well for your interview, seek out high-powered internships, get your apps in early, and apply to the right schools.</p>
<p>I’ll agree with the culture aspect of a school, and things like better advising certainly do exist. Although pre-med advisors can vary greatly in skill and understanding - even at top schools. I certainly think that the “copying” mechanism certainly comes into play when choosing schools to apply to, for my friends at Nebraska, Iowa was always a reach, while for BDM, I’m sure that places like JHU were the stretch applications.</p>
<p>I think what it comes down to is that for the average student at a state school vs one at a top school, the advantage certainly goes to the top school. But if you are savvy to the process, a student who could go anywhere for undergrad, and paying attention to the things you are doing with an eye towards medical school admission, then the advantage attributable to the top school is minimal. It’s my sociology mind set that makes me want to look at the group as a whole and determine the differences that exist only between the groups.</p>
).</p>