- Joined
- Jun 28, 2005
- Messages
- 526
- Reaction score
- 4
Hey guys. I have an acceptance to both uic and rush at the moment. I was all set on going to rush but a week and a half ago UIC suddenly sent me an acceptance packet out of the blue after showing a "decision pending" on my status page for so long. I don't exactly want to dismiss uic as an option yet I am still leaning heavily towards rush. I have done some research and I know friends that goto both rush and uic med schools but I am still having a hard time letting go of the UIC acceptance.
From what i can gather, students are spoon fed the first two years at rush and the faculty definitely seems to be quite responsive. Whereas, at UIC, the students have to scrape and compete (class size is upwards of 200 in chicago) amongst each other and have to have a very independent attitude overall in order to do well. Also, the thing is, uic and rush seem to be rival schools or something. I can never get straight answers out of people that attend either school cuz they are obviously biased.
I want to know if the statement: "The clinical years at uic are far better and greater learning experiences than those compared to Rush's" is a valid one. I am posting this in the allopathic forum in hopes that someone can answer my questions as well as provide some additional insight into both schools - not just for the basic science years but for the clinical years as well. I have already decided that money is not an issue when comparing the two schools.
Any help, suggestions, or comments would be much appreciated. Thanks.
From what i can gather, students are spoon fed the first two years at rush and the faculty definitely seems to be quite responsive. Whereas, at UIC, the students have to scrape and compete (class size is upwards of 200 in chicago) amongst each other and have to have a very independent attitude overall in order to do well. Also, the thing is, uic and rush seem to be rival schools or something. I can never get straight answers out of people that attend either school cuz they are obviously biased.
I want to know if the statement: "The clinical years at uic are far better and greater learning experiences than those compared to Rush's" is a valid one. I am posting this in the allopathic forum in hopes that someone can answer my questions as well as provide some additional insight into both schools - not just for the basic science years but for the clinical years as well. I have already decided that money is not an issue when comparing the two schools.
Any help, suggestions, or comments would be much appreciated. Thanks.