Incest at UCLA?

[Jaded03]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Haha great advice Jaded03! If you don't mind me asking, what year are you? You are very well versed in premed at UCLA. As of now, I have taken LS1 (hated it). Currently taking LS2 (should be studying for my final on friday). Overall, the course has been really enjoyable. I guess I'll just wait to see how LS3 turns out. Although I'm really good at memorization, I'd rather do more..

So, psychobio you say? I'll keep that in mind if I get scared of MCDB. Honestly though, the topic sounds somewhat dull.

I graduated MIMG with Neuro minor. I'm just very well versed in what UCLA has to offer in life sciences academically.

 

[annihilatorpro]

Just wanted to add to what Jaded03 has said...

There really is a major difference between LS1/LS2 and LS3 and it's exactly what Jaded03 mentioned; LS3 is an experiment based class that requires you to not only know the details of molecular biology, but to understand the concepts from which the researchers found those details (how this experiment showed that this protein is implicated in this process, etc). Some people hate this, others love it and find it fascinating. I personally hated it initially because it's a different way to look at science, but ended up loving that kind of stuff. And, I think Jaded's outline of class to major is pretty accurate; LS1=EEB, LS2=physci/neurosci, LS3=MCDB/MIMG. LS4, however, is a totally different beast...

To address the OP, I think the whole deal with UCLA not accepting its own students is a myth perpetuated by the many high achieving students here who did not get accepted and placed the blame not on luck of the draw, but that UCLA is biased against their own students. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I know a handful of students from here who got in (super high GPA and MCAT, but nothing ridiculously different about these students), so I don't really feel that it's true.

 

[heymanooh1]

Just wanted to add to what Jaded03 has said...

There really is a major difference between LS1/LS2 and LS3 and it's exactly what Jaded03 mentioned; LS3 is an experiment based class that requires you to not only know the details of molecular biology, but to understand the concepts from which the researchers found those details (how this experiment showed that this protein is implicated in this process, etc). Some people hate this, others love it and find it fascinating. I personally hated it initially because it's a different way to look at science, but ended up loving that kind of stuff. And, I think Jaded's outline of class to major is pretty accurate; LS1=EEB, LS2=physci/neurosci, LS3=MCDB/MIMG. LS4, however, is a totally different beast...

To address the OP, I think the whole deal with UCLA not accepting its own students is a myth perpetuated by the many high achieving students here who did not get accepted and placed the blame not on luck of the draw, but that UCLA is biased against their own students. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I know a handful of students from here who got in (super high GPA and MCAT, but nothing ridiculously different about these students), so I don't really feel that it's true.

meh.....ls3 and ls4 were't that bad. all one needs to do is supplement their textbook material with molecular cloning (sambrook) and/or current protocols in molecular biology "cookbooks".

many of the pre-meds, imo, aren't very intuitive especially when it comes to the physical science requisite pre-med courses. also, ucla's kinda lame for having a different lower div series for math, chem and physics to accomodate the ls based majors 👎

 

[Jaded03]

meh.....ls3 and ls4 were't that bad. all one needs to do is supplement their textbook material with molecular cloning (sambrook) and/or current protocols in molecular biology "cookbooks".

many of the pre-meds, imo, aren't very intuitive especially when it comes to the physical science requisite pre-med courses. also, ucla's kinda lame for having a different lower div series for math, chem and physics to accomodate the ls based majors 👎

I don't think I said it was difficult. I said it required critical thinking. YOu actually have to do what you're saying. It's pretty simple on doing well, but most people are into straight memorization. You can study everything about a stupid gel and never know when to use it properly. Does that make sense? Some people are JUST LIKE THAT. 😛

UCLA is kind of lame with respect to the life-science major series.

 

[JoeBruin]

Hey, quick question... is taking the labs (i.e Chem 30AL and 30BL) necessary for the MCAT?

I know for phy sci., it's possible to delay the lab.

I'm a newbie. Enlighten me with your wisdom 🙂

So are the curves really that crazy?

 

[Phoenix.]

Hey, quick question... is taking the labs (i.e Chem 30AL and 30BL) necessary for the MCAT?

I know for phy sci., it's possible to delay the lab.

I'm a newbie. Enlighten me with your wisdom 🙂

So are the curves really that crazy?

I'd recommend checking out the MCAT Discussion Forum.

 

[Dulcina]

Man, this thread was disappointing. Way to get my hopes up, a$$hole! 😡

indeed!! i was expecting a raunchy thread!

 

[Mace1370]

Smart statement. I wouldn't go throwing out "easy A" at UCLA, but you have the right idea. UCLA is a curved-based school. I can't say anything too much about any major without questioning that kind of institution.

PhySci is memorization heavy. It is a crowd favorite for those who just can't think outside the box. This does not mean that they cannot necessarily, but many never need to do so. (similarly Neuro)
MIMG is the opposite spectrum. It is for people who are forced to think experimentally and apply what they've learned. You can study all night and fail. (similarly MCDB)
Both are valid in the way they teach. You need both to learn medicine properly. Memorization comes a lot easier to people than critical thinking. This is why PhySci is THE most competitive major on campus, if you're trying to find a bell curve of students with the ability to memorize a set amount of information, you won't find many stragglers. Whereas MIMG has always been 70 averages, perfect bell curves. You wonder if we learned anything with the way they curve. You decide what you want to make out of your education. I just didn't want you to fall into thinking that there is an excuse for a lower GPA like the ADCOM rep mentioned. The proof is in the number.

I really recommend taking a look at your LS courses. They really are evident of the way they approach things. The difference between LS2 and 3 are memorization and critical thinking.

Having said ALL of that. Psychobio has self-proclaimed themselves as the easiest major in the life sciences. I don't think they're even ashamed. 😛 My friends are psychobio. 🙂

LS3 was a complete joke. All you had to do was memorize the ten or so "experimental procedures" and you could answer 90% of the questions on the midterm/final.

I went PhySci simply because I enjoy the material more. It is just memorization, and I wouldn't say that the PhySci classes I have taken are any harder/easier than any other LS courses I have taken at UCLA. And I don't think that MCDB/MIMG are any harder than PhySci. This description that they teach "critical thinking" and "thinking outside of the box" is really just fluff, IMO. In the end, the difficulty of a class really depends on who is teaching it.

 

[OCPreMed]

Whats up guys, I did not read through this whole thread, but I wanted to comment. I'm an MS1 here, (Loving life, best school), and UCLA loves their undergrads, there are over 45 UCLA undergrads in our program. We have over 30 Cal kids as well. Hope this helps.

 

[estairella]

I just want to say this is possibly the best post title I've seen at SDN yet.

 

[mindquick]

I know schools like UCSD and UCLA also have TONS of pre-meds, so part of the reason that they accept many of their own could be that a large amount of their applicants are from their own schools. And since when did UCSF have an undergrad institution?

 

[Revenant]

edit