Premed at Stanford vs. USC

[AlbinoHawk DO]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Didn't go to an Ivy League, I went to USC (Cali), and obviously a 3.4 + work experience at state > 3.4 no work experience IVY.

But all being equal, I choose the IVY leaguer, ALL BEING EQUAl

I was a terrible student growing up, turned it around in community college, and transferred to a decent Top 25 school, I didn't drink the IVY cool-aid, I simply respect the amount of stuff a student had to do to get accepted into an IVY league (or equiv school) while I was slacking off. Thats all!

But then you're not saying anything. It's never "equal." That's part of the point.

 

[lumpyduster]

The cheapest one wins. Both are good schools. Sure, one is "better" but it's not thousands of dollars better.

 

[alpinism]

Go to Stanford.

Source: I am at Stanford. I find it offensive that many of you in this thread have jumped to the conclusion that my peers and I all come from rich families or "walked on high school water." In fact, I come from a low-income family and pay less at Stanford than I would have at any of my state schools, even AFTER numerous scholarships and honors programs. Granted, a fair majority of my classmates are from well-to-do families, but as with anything, please avoid painting any population of people with one broad stroke.

And it's been touched on here probably, but do keep in mind that you have a higher likelihood of working with an expert in their field of academia than you would at a state school with less research funding. We've had 5 Nobel laureates in the past 4 years. If you're at all interested in working with the most innovative, frontier-pushing faculty, trust me, you'll want to be here.

While I don't believe in placing values on people, I will say that in general, the people I've met at Stanford are exceptionally bright and motivated-- most people are looking for ways to make a meaningful impact on society, whether that be through the humanities or sciences. I can't say that many of my friends from high school who have gone onto state schools have the same drive or passions.

+1

This is basically the difference (in my experience at least) between students at state schools and students at top private schools such as Harvard/Stanford/Hopkins (there are obviously exceptions though).

There will always be a good number of students at state schools who are smart enough to succeed at top schools but who chose to go to state schools to be closer to friends/family or to save money because that's what's most important to them (rather than the extra academic and career opportunities available at top schools).

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Go to Stanford.

Source: I am at Stanford. I find it offensive that many of you in this thread have jumped to the conclusion that my peers and I all come from rich families or "walked on high school water." In fact, I come from a low-income family and pay less at Stanford than I would have at any of my state schools, even AFTER numerous scholarships and honors programs. Granted, a fair majority of my classmates are from well-to-do families, but as with anything, please avoid painting any population of people with one broad stroke.

And it's been touched on here probably, but do keep in mind that you have a higher likelihood of working with an expert in their field of academia than you would at a state school with less research funding. We've had 5 Nobel laureates in the past 4 years. If you're at all interested in working with the most innovative, frontier-pushing faculty, trust me, you'll want to be here.

While I don't believe in placing values on people, I will say that in general, the people I've met at Stanford are exceptionally bright and motivated-- most people are looking for ways to make a meaningful impact on society, whether that be through the humanities or sciences. I can't say that many of my friends from high school who have gone onto state schools have the same drive or passions.

Oh, so you and your poverty background is the norm at Stanford? Well that concludes why such a high proportion of the student population comes from better socio-economic background. Do you understand the concept of representative samples and sample sizes?

 

[LizzyM]

Oh, so you and your poverty background is the norm at Stanford? Well that concludes why such a high proportion of the student population comes from better socio-economic background. Do you understand the concept of representative samples and sample sizes?

Once again, an example of why the Verbal section of the MCAT is important.

 

[nabilesmail]

Oh, so you and your poverty background is the norm at Stanford? Well that concludes why such a high proportion of the student population comes from better socio-economic background. Do you understand the concept of representative samples and sample sizes?

You Sound like you have an inferiority complex with how much you bash top schools.

And btw, I believe Stanford has some sort of program where if your family makes less than like 70k a year, your tuition is free. Now why wouldn't you go one of the BEST UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD for almost free?

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

You Sound like you have an inferiority complex with how much you bash top schools.

And btw, I believe Stanford has some sort of program where if your family makes less than like 70k a year, your tuition is free. Now why wouldn't you go one of the BEST UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD for almost free?

I have an inferiority complex? I'll readily admit that I'd take a seat at any top school in a second. I went to a top 50 undergrad. That's kind of top-ish considering all schools in the US. I also work in research at a top 5 school for neuroscience. The point I'm making is you shouldn't assume that someone that went to a top school must mean they are amazing. Of course these schools do attract very talented students and have amazing opportunities, but unless you take advantage of them or you can compete in that environment, it wouldn't mean anything.

P.S. free education at Stanford is relatively new. When I went to undergrad, that didn't exist. Also, when did I say not to go there?

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Once again, an example of why the Verbal section of the MCAT is important.

Have you ever taken an MCAT or just judge the people that have?

 

[mrh125]

Grand inflation is ridiculous and should be taken into account. just because you got into harvard or stanford doesn't mean you deserve all As. that's the epitome of false entitlement and nobody deserves a free pass just for getting into an ivy or pseudo-ivy school (stanford is not an ivy league school). It's like saying you should make 500k/year just for having a medical degree and not practicing.

I'd definitely recommend USC over stanford. I've spent multiple summers there in classes and there's a lot of ugly elitism and snobbish just because it's stanford. Also, don't go to a school bc of grade inflation. What is important is doing well, but KNOWING the material. The mcat will test most of the stuff you have done as undergrad and grade inflation can be a huge disadvantage in that regard.

 

[nabilesmail]

I have an inferiority complex? I'll readily admit that I'd take a seat at any top school in a second. I went to a top 50 undergrad. That's kind of top-ish considering all schools in the US. I also work in research at a top 5 school for neuroscience. The point I'm making is you shouldn't assume that someone that went to a top school must mean they are amazing. Of course these schools do attract very talented students and have amazing opportunities, but unless you take advantage of them or you can compete in that environment, it wouldn't mean anything.

P.S. free education at Stanford is relatively new. When I went to undergrad, that didn't exist. Also, when did I say not to go there?

Top50 doesn't mean much, Getting into a top50 (depending on the school) isn't too much harder than getting into an unranked state school. While doing research at a top 5 is cool, you DO NOT attend, nor did you earn your place to attend. I see internships at Cal Tech all the time, if I applied and researched there, does that mean I attended or took classes with the highest SAT scoring students in the nation?, would I be in a position to compare myself academically? No.

You're wrong, for the most part, they did attract amazing students, did they continue to be amazing once in college? I don't know, but they were nothing short of extraodinary in high school, and that DOES deserve some credit. You need to go to collegeconfidential and look at the profiles of students who get into top10-top15 schools/IVY league schools, hell, even USC rejects people with 2200 + SAT's all the time.

 

[nabilesmail]

Have you ever taken an MCAT or just judge the people that have?

LizzyM is a faculty member at a top medical school, she has earned her own merits that would, at this point, put you to shame. And she is also here to help us on her own time...

 

[nabilesmail]

Lol

Grand inflation is ridiculous and should be taken into account. just because you got into harvard or stanford doesn't mean you deserve all As. that's the epitome of false entitlement and nobody deserves a free pass just for getting into an ivy or pseudo-ivy school (stanford is not an ivy league school). It's like saying you should make 500k/year just for having a medical degree and not practicing.

I'd definitely recommend USC over stanford. I've spent multiple summers there in classes and there's a lot of ugly elitism and snobbish just because it's stanford. Also, don't go to a school bc of grade inflation. What is important is doing well, but KNOWING the material. The mcat will test most of the stuff you have done as undergrad and grade inflation can be a huge disadvantage in that regard.

Cornell, a lower IVY league school, reported some time ago an average MCAT of 34 for their undergrad students. They are learning the material with or without grade inflation.

A friend of mine went to Yale (grade inflating school) and got a 3.4ish ->> 39 MCAT. On average, the IVY leagues produce extremely high MCAT averages.

I don't think anyone really mentions High GPA IVY League low MCAT problems, where that is mentioned all the time for unranked state schools (High GPA low MCAT)

 

[sourdoughllama]

Lol


Cornell, a lower IVY league school, reported some time ago an average MCAT of 34 for their undergrad students. They are learning the material with or without grade inflation.

A friend of mine went to Yale (grade inflating school) and got a 3.4ish ->> 39 MCAT. On average, the IVY leagues produce extremely high MCAT averages.

I don't think anyone really mentions High GPA IVY League low MCAT problems, where that is mentioned all the time for unranked state schools (High GPA low MCAT)

Just because you're good at standardized testing (ie top colleges/Ivy acceptees), it doesn't mean you're more brilliant. Now, I'm fairly certain there's a big correlation between the two, but a high MCAT is not a good measure of how "good" a student is.

(I'm on your side in thinking that top undergrad students are very impressive, but that's because they are the ones who are good at the system that is in place right now to determine what is impressive).

And to OP, I would go to Stanford for sure. Why live with "what ifs" later?

 

[orangeman25]

Just because you're good at standardized testing (ie top colleges/Ivy acceptees), it doesn't mean you're more brilliant. Now, I'm fairly certain there's a big correlation between the two, but a high MCAT is not a good measure of how "good" a student is.

(I'm on your side in thinking that top undergrad students are very impressive, but that's because they are the ones who are good at the system that is in place right now to determine what is impressive).

Being good at standardized testing does mean your are intelligent. It doesn't mean you are a hard worker or that you have tremendous work ethic, which are ultimately more important traits for a physician. But having a high mcat score for sure means you are brilliant, if only that. What else could it mean? I don't understand what it means to be "good at the system"; that's a vague phrase.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

LizzyM is a faculty member at a top medical school, she has earned her own merits that would, at this point, put you to shame. And she is also here to help us on her own time...

I know who she is.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Top50 doesn't mean much, Getting into a top50 (depending on the school) isn't too much harder than getting into an unranked state school. While doing research at a top 5 is cool, you DO NOT attend, nor did you earn your place to attend. I see internships at Cal Tech all the time, if I applied and researched there, does that mean I attended or took classes with the highest SAT scoring students in the nation?, would I be in a position to compare myself academically? No.

You're wrong, for the most part, they did attract amazing students, did they continue to be amazing once in college? I don't know, but they were nothing short of extraodinary in high school, and that DOES deserve some credit. You need to go to collegeconfidential and look at the profiles of students who get into top10-top15 schools/IVY league schools, hell, even USC rejects people with 2200 + SAT's all the time.

The point I was making is that I don't have a reason to feel an inferiority complex. I honestly don't care at all about your opinion or anyone else's of my place in some imaginary prestige ladder. I speak my opinion anyway.

Having been a "great" high school student is not worth much. Having been a "great" college student doesn't mean much either. Life is a progression. It is what you do with each opportunity. To the good high school student presently: good! To the good college student presently: good! But if they come years later and that was it, well, nice piece of paper you got, I guess.

 

[XmedBarney]

The point I was making is that I don't have a reason to feel an inferiority complex. I honestly don't care at all about your opinion or anyone else's of my place in some imaginary prestige ladder. I speak my opinion anyway.

Having been a "great" high school student is not worth much. Having been a "great" college student doesn't mean much either. Life is a progression. It is what you do with each opportunity. To the good high school student presently: good! To the good college student presently: good! But if they come years later and that was it, well, nice piece of paper you got, I guess.

Ever heard of "Accumulation of Advantage"?

 

[nabilesmail]

Just because you're good at standardized testing (ie top colleges/Ivy acceptees), it doesn't mean you're more brilliant. Now, I'm fairly certain there's a big correlation between the two, but a high MCAT is not a good measure of how "good" a student is.

(I'm on your side in thinking that top undergrad students are very impressive, but that's because they are the ones who are good at the system that is in place right now to determine what is impressive).

And to OP, I would go to Stanford for sure. Why live with "what ifs" later?

But its not only GPA/SAT, they also have amazing EC's. Once again, check out collegeconfidential and look at the profiles of these guys. I tutor a highschooler that didnt get into a single IV or top school (aside of Uchicago) and she had a 2290 >4.0 + Very Good EC's (but even those weren't enough).

 

[nabilesmail]

The point I was making is that I don't have a reason to feel an inferiority complex. I honestly don't care at all about your opinion or anyone else's of my place in some imaginary prestige ladder. I speak my opinion anyway.

Having been a "great" high school student is not worth much. Having been a "great" college student doesn't mean much either. Life is a progression. It is what you do with each opportunity. To the good high school student presently: good! To the good college student presently: good! But if they come years later and that was it, well, nice piece of paper you got, I guess.

I just see that as a pessimistic way of looking at things, your right, life is a a progression, but an amazing HSchooler is likely to be an amazing college student, who is likely to be an impressive person. I choose to praise accomplishments in the past present and future!

BTW, I didn't mean to be offensive about your school, I was just trying to prove that a top50 really isn't comparable to a top10

 

[nabilesmail]

Also, back to the original topic. I would rather go for an A at a unranked-state school where only the top 15% get A's than go for an A where the average is curved at an A- at a school like Harvard. I see the latter being much more difficult.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I just see that as a pessimistic way of looking at things, your right, life is a a progression, but an amazing HSchooler is likely to be an amazing college student, who is likely to be an impressive person. I choose to praise accomplishments in the past present and future!

BTW, I didn't mean to be offensive about your school, I was just trying to prove that a top50 really isn't comparable to a top10

Likely? I definitely agree. Yes, in proportion kids at Stanford will do more amazing research and stuff compared to kids from random state U. That's not the case with everyone at Stanford and everyone at State U. That's why I keep saying that it's the entire package and not the degree.

I also agree that top 50 is not top 10, and yes, a job in a top 5 is not exactly like attending. However, you have to admit there is real competition for jobs in science out there. I competed with kids from great places for this job.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Ever heard of "Accumulation of Advantage"?

Definitely, but again, I'm arguing that degree alone is nothing. It's the total package. Is it likelier to attain the total package if all your previous steps were great? Absolutely. I have never argued against that.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Being good at standardized testing does mean your are intelligent. It doesn't mean you are a hard worker or that you have tremendous work ethic, which are ultimately more important traits for a physician. But having a high mcat score for sure means you are brilliant, if only that. What else could it mean? I don't understand what it means to be "good at the system"; that's a vague phrase.

No, standardized tests are not a measure of intelligence, there isn't one test that accurately assesses that. Like I said, it is very likely that high scoring people on standardized tests are highly intelligent, but not always. There are different measures of intelligence across different cultures. Just because we stress using shortcuts and looking for tricks/not getting tricked on the SAT/MCAT, it doesn't mean it's the best, or correct of assessing "intelligence." Other countries use knowledge based tests more similar to what you would find on the USMLE. You think it's a coincidence international students who can't even speak English score perfect on the reading and writing on the SAT and get accepted into American colleges? These standardized tests mainly test your ability to take a test under the pressure of time.

And nothing "for sure" means anything. That never wins arguments

 

[darkjedi]

Top50 doesn't mean much, Getting into a top50 (depending on the school) isn't too much harder than getting into an unranked state school.

I agree, my undergrad was technically "top 50", but it is probably middling at best. Personally I still think its poo, but I am bitter towards the administration.

 

[sourdoughllama]

But its not only GPA/SAT, they also have amazing EC's. Once again, check out collegeconfidential and look at the profiles of these guys. I tutor a highschooler that didnt get into a single IV or top school (aside of Uchicago) and she had a 2290 >4.0 + Very Good EC's (but even those weren't enough).

I was commenting on your "Ivy leagues produce high MCATs." People who score well on standardized tests will be aggregated at the top schools, and hence will produce the top MCAT scores. This may or may not be a function of the quality of education they are getting or whether their grade inflation is deserved or not. That is not a sound conclusion

 

[lmn]

Definitely, but again, I'm arguing that degree alone is nothing. It's the total package. Is it likelier to attain the total package if all your previous steps were great? Absolutely. I have never argued against that.

Lol degree means a lot, take two completely equal applicants to a job, one from Stanford, one from some random State Univ, who do you think has the instant bias advantage to get the job? Try to get a top consulting job coming out of your random state univ instead of an Ivy league, good luck with that. Hell, tell someone on the street you went to an ivy vs. state, guaranteed that nearly everyone you ask will perceive you are smarter if you said you went to an ivy. The degree means a lot, whether or not it is right.

Jeez this thread is just full of you hating on ivy's, whether or not you like them, join reality in realizing it makes a difference all the time of whether or not you went to a top school or not.

 

[MDforMee]

This thread is ridiculous. Its main premise is that the med school admissions system can be played, and it has nothing to do with quality of education. Also, it's a parent doing research for their kid; this parent is probably pushing their kid into medical school. Why do I even bother?

 

[XmedBarney]

This thread is ridiculous. Its main premise is that the med school admissions system can be played, and it has nothing to do with quality of education. Also, it's a parent doing research for their kid; this parent is probably pushing their kid into medical school. Why do I even bother?

Quality is subjective, and people should always consider diminishing returns for relatively heavy expenditures of time and effort. Medicine is in the end a guaranteed paycheck, it doesn't matter if your Harvard or the Carribean, you are reimbursed equally for the same consult/procedure, this reduces the value of having an education from a top school vs. a school where you would be at the top. It's important to stay cognizant of this, when we select an undergrad institution. If getting to just any med school is your only goal it might not be worth it to attend the Princeton's of this world, the effort saved on academics could be spent building up other aspects of your application.

Parent's do have a very legitimate interest in their child's well being, and that is the basis of our modern society. To think that it would somehow stop at an arbitrary age is foolish, certainly independent growth needs to occur, but there is nothing wrong with taking/giving advice, even well into adulthood.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Lol degree means a lot, take two completely equal applicants to a job, one from Stanford, one from some random State Univ, who do you think has the instant bias advantage to get the job? Try to get a top consulting job coming out of your random state univ instead of an Ivy league, good luck with that. Hell, tell someone on the street you went to an ivy vs. state, guaranteed that nearly everyone you ask will perceive you are smarter if you said you went to an ivy. The degree means a lot, whether or not it is right.

Jeez this thread is just full of you hating on ivy's, whether or not you like them, join reality in realizing it makes a difference all the time of whether or not you went to a top school or not.

We're going back in circles to what has already been discussed. In the real world, you don't get two people with the exact same qualifications.

I see that on these forums not readily saying that Ivy League = Human God becomes "hating on ivy's." I'm not going to argue against that. I know it's not real. Persist on your delusion if you wish.

 

[lmn]

We're going back in circles to what has already been discussed. In the real world, you don't get two people with the exact same qualifications.

I see that on these forums not readily saying that Ivy League = Human God becomes "hating on ivy's." I'm not going to argue against that. I know it's not real. Persist on your delusion if you wish.

You should talk to some people involved in hiring at major firms in all types of areas, you would be surprised how many applicants are exactly the same/equally qualified on paper.