lightnk102 said:
i think from a medical student perspective, it's more important to get exposure to lots of things. So, in the case of UCLA vs. USC, i'd go with USC. i'd say the big name top-ranked hospital is more important for residency. so get your training somewhere where you can actually -do- things, and then apply for residency at a top-ranked hospital.
Yes, but how do you get that top residency? There are ortho programs that will not interview you if they haven't heard of/don't know your recommenders. (This isn't a rumor, by the way--it's coming from someone on a residency committee). As someone from an unprestigious public undergrad, I find this kind of it's-who-you-know process disturbing, but apparently it's reality.
There are a ton of people from less highly ranked med schools who get great residencies, but that's not necessarily the norm. If you really want that superstar residency, I would go to a top med school if you have the option. Keep in mind, though, that there is no correlation between attending salary and residency prestige. If you want to go into private practice, just go where your cheapest/happiest options are.
As for the OP's question, as someone mentioned, the top programs tend to have multiple hospitals affiliated, so you get to watch (not handle) the fascinating, rare cases (which is still better than reading about them), and you get more hands-on experience with bread-and-butter cases in the community hospital.
In a nutshell, I would not base the decision on either a) what you think you want to go into now, or b) what you think you will be allowed to "do," as this will vary greatly even within an institution depending on the case, the clerkship, and your teachers.