See I'm not interested in academics at all... that's the thing....
OK here is the email to me in full.... what do you guys think? I've already made up my mind but I get really frustrated by these sorts of claims.
-------
UCI and UC Davis have never been in the same league as UCSF, UCLA, and UCSD.....all three of which have consisently ranked in the top tier (top 20) of medical schools by both academic and clinical medical faculty across the country. For the 2005 rankings, UCSD was ranked 17 among research medical schools and 7 among primary care medical schools. I did not see UCI in the top 50 rankings for either research or primary care medical school rankings....that is NOT good. For this reason, I would caution you about accepting UCI over UCSD since the reality in medicine is that a school's longstanding reputation can carry it through tough times and vice versa. Stanford is a good example of a medical school that has consistently been overranked.....because it has the name, Stanford. Were the medical school part of another university, it would not be ranked nearly as high. So, even though the recent statistics may look like UCI is doing a better job of matching for competitive residencies, I would look at results for the last 10 years. Often times, schools will do better for awhile but in the longrun, these turn out NOT to be sustained trends. UCI has a longstanding reputation as a second tier or lower school whereas UCSD has a longstanding reputation as a top tier medical school. Also, do not listen to rumors (even though they may help to reduce your cognitive dissonance).....check out the actual statistics for yourself...after all, this is probably the most important educational choice you will make with regard to your medical training and you should leave nothing uninvestigated.
Board scores are not a good indication of the quality of a school's medical training. Beware of schools that promote their board scores as indicative of superior clinical training. As you will see when you actually take the National Boards, Parts I and II, there is not a strong correlation between superior clinical training and board scores. For example, the University of Hawaii medical school in the 1980's had a reputation for having high board scores on Part I. Why? Because they tailored their entire basic science curriculum to the boards so that all the basic science exams were board style questions. What this amounts to is they have turned the first two years of medical school into a Henry Kaplan course. Although students may end up with high board scores due to forced familiarity with board style questions, in the end, they still don't get superior medical training.....and frequently, do not know how to problem solve very effectively around clinical cases.
Furthermore, the reputation of schools DOES have significant value in the non-academic, clinical setting. Your degree from UCSD will carry greater weight than a degree from UC Irvine. It does make a difference when you are applying for a salaried position somewhere or trying to join a group practice or being considered for an appointment as medical director of a clinic. Medicine is still very much governed by the world of appearances; and medical centers and clinics get more "prestige points" when their attending physicians have M.D. degrees and residency training certificates from top tier medical schools. Also, with the rising use of the internet by the AMA which provides you with a practice web page, patients are influenced by rankings of medical schools and will see UCSD as clearly superior to UCI, and this will influence which physician they choose or which practice they sign up with. Clinicians and practioners know this so having credentials from a top tier medical school will give you an advantage when competing against your peers for positions in private practice since this typically equates with increased practice revenues.
As for the "happiness" coefficient...this has always puzzled me. Medical school is like a prolonged rite of passage...it is hard work, at times abusive, and requires more endurance and stamina than academic prowess. It will stress you in ways you thought were not possible. Remember that the abuse coefficient was NOT reduced by the medical profession itself which knew for years that the long on-call hours amounted to significant abuse. It did nothing to police itself because the enormous financial gains of maintaining a cheap labor pool of interns and residents who worked abusively long hours for less than minimum wage far outweighed any moral or ethical obligations that such practices severely compromised patient safety. Despite many years of mistakes and errors on the part of sleep deprived residents, it took a legislative mandate that was initiated by people OUTSIDE the profession as a result of patient deaths, to limit the maximum number of hours per week and the number of on-call nights within a certain period of time. Having said all of this, and when you think about the delayed gratification, the loan debt; the amount of substance/ETOH abuse; the prolonged adolescence that being in school for that long fosters; and the personal toll the training takes on your significant other/partner/family....I don't think anyone would say that "happiness" is a term that really belongs in the descriptive nomenclature of the medical school experience.
My advice is to pick the medical school that will maximize your opportunities and in my opinion, UCSD is the clear winner here. Make sure you do not base your decision about medical school choice upon career choices you think you are interested in doing NOW. Trust me when I say that your career choices will largely be determined by your experience during your clinical rotations and the quality of the clinical mentors that you have. In my opinion, training at UCSD will give you a very well respected M.D. degree and leave more doors open for you than UCI........ and this is what you want at this stage of your medical training.
No. Seriously. 
