Sorry in advance for the rant, but you've touched a nerve...
You're right; they don't make many medical students.
Looking at
this table it is clear that not many people from CSU's are applying to medical school. The table lists schools that supplied 100+ white applicants for the 2010 cycle, but also gives the total number of applicants (all ethnicities) from those schools.
The following UC's supplied 100+ white applicants for the 2010 cycle: Los Angeles, Berkeley, San Diego, Davis, Irvine). Stanford and USC also supplied 100+ white applicants each. Counting all ethnicities, these schools together supplied 3,205 of the applicants, which is about 7.5% of all applicants (or about 1 out of every 13 applicants nation wide).
According to MSAR data, UCSF matriculated 131 students out of 3,159 resident applicants from California. The base rate odds of
matriculating as an in state applicant are therefore about 4%.
As I said, there were 3,205 applicants from just those seven schools above. If we momentarily assume that every single one of them applied to UCSF, then using the base rate for California applicants we'd assume that 0.04*3,205 = 133 of them would matriculate to UCSF. Just two more people than the 131 California residents who did matriculate.
Although I admit that this argument obviously makes some major assumptions, it is nonetheless statistically plausible for UCSF to fill all of its in-state seats with applicants from UCLA, UCB, UCSD, UCD, UCI, Stanford, and USC based solely on the fact that so many of the applicants merely happen to have come from those schools. It is not necessary to invoke some idea about these schools being "superior" to explain why their alumni are so common at UCSF (if that's even the case).
I was not able to find statistics showing how many AMCAS applicants come from CSU schools, but in the absence of more compelling data I feel that the most simple explanation for CSU alumni rarely being admitted to UCSF is that not many apply. I think that the burden of proof falls to those people who claim that CSU alumni are specifically at a disadvantage to show that this is due to admissions officials' opinions of the schools themselves, rather than the low rate of application.
---
As separate matter, the median MCAT of accepted students to UCSF is 34. Why would UCSF require something like a 37+ from their CSU applicants?
If CSU's are really such inferior schools, then wouldn't a 34 from a CSU applicant be viewed as a greater badge of honor than for a UC student with the same MCAT score? If UC schools are really such high caliber schools, then isn't it just expected for a UC student to get a 34, and doesn't that make it more remarkable that a CSU student could achieve the same score despite the education that is presumed to be subpar?
---
Furthermore, the argument that some of you folks are making is paradoxical. You're saying "If you go to SFSU then you can kiss UCSF goodbye." But at the same time, you're saying "A good life story and a year or two outside of college can trump anything." Which is it?!
