substantial CA disadvantage?

[gyngyn]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Darn gyngyn beat me to it.

Good follow up, though!

 

[alpinism]

To add to what others have said:

The reason why tons of people complain about being a CA resident is b/c they want to stay in CA for med school near family and friends, but a huge number end up having to leave the state b/c the schools are so competitive. There are essentially no lower tier state schools in CA.

Average school stats:
UCSF 35 /3.77
Stanford 34.8 /3.75
UCLA 34.5 /3.71
UCSD 33.4 / 3.76
USC 32 /3.6
UCI 32 /3.67
Loma Linda 31 /3.78
UCD 31 / 3.55

Average CA MCAT: 33
Average CA cGPA: 3.7

Average US MCAT: 31
Average US cGPA: 3.65


Average school stats in other states for comparison:
Arkansas 29.2 /3.66
New Mexico 26.9 /3.6
South Carolina 28.6 /3.56

There were approx. 1,134 med school seats in CA in 2012
With 5,326 CA applicants, the ratio of applicants to seats is 4.7 to 1

Ratio of applicants to seats in other states for comparison:
New Mexico: 2.8 to 1
South Carolina: 2.1 to 1
Arkansas: 2 to 1
Illinois: 1.8 to 1
West Virginia: 1.1 to 1

 

[aspiring20]

To add to what others have said:

The reason why tons of people complain about being a CA resident is b/c they want to stay in CA for med school near family and friends, but a huge number end up having to leave the state b/c the schools are so competitive. There are essentially no lower tier state schools in CA.

Average school stats:
UCSF 35 /3.77
Stanford 34.8 /3.75
UCLA 34.5 /3.71
UCSD 33.4 / 3.76
USC 32 /3.6
UCI 32 /3.67
Loma Linda 31 /3.78
UCD 31 / 3.55

Average CA MCAT: 33
Average CA cGPA: 3.7

Average US MCAT: 31
Average US cGPA: 3.65


Average school stats in other states for comparison:
Arkansas 29.2 /3.66
New Mexico 26.9 /3.6
South Carolina 28.6 /3.56

There were approx. 1,134 med school seats in CA in 2012
With 5,326 CA applicants, the ratio of applicants to seats is 4.7 to 1

Ratio of applicants to seats in other states for comparison:
New Mexico: 2.8 to 1
South Carolina: 2.1 to 1
Arkansas: 2 to 1
Illinois: 1.8 to 1
West Virginia: 1.1 to 1

jaw drops...

 

[d12]

Average school stats:
UCSF 34.5 /3.77
Stanford 35.8 /3.79
UCLA 33.9 /3.73
UCSD 33 / 3.73
USC 34.2 /3.64
UCI 32 /3.67
Loma Linda 31 /3.78
UCD 31 / 3.6

updated with newest MSAR data

 

[JJMrK]

I just looked in the U.S. News Rankings, and this is what they give for the percentage of the student body that is made up of in-state residents:
UCSF: 94.8%
UCLA: 96.3%
UCSD: 89.4%
UC Davis: 99.5%
UCI: 96.5%

You're not taking into account the fact that someone from a particular area is much more likely to matriculate after being accepted, which is going to inflate the numbers. Would be better to look at % accepted from CA, but even that is skewed because of people who are from CA applying to CA.

A few of these state on their website (or have in the past) that they have no preference based on state of residency. UCLA and UCSF come to mind.

 

[askamsky51]

nevermind 🙂

 

[JJMrK]

The last part of my post was % of OOS accepted (not matriculated) to CA schools, which is essentially the same thing.

I see it now: ~89% of all acceptances went to CA applications. Interesting, though it still doesn't account for CA residents applying to CA schools in higher numbers than out of state students. Or the inclination for CA residents to attend and follow up every single CA interview/waitlist they get, while OOS people might throw in the towel once they've already got an acceptance elsewhere.

Also, a separate issue but I bet the standard deviation for the data is pretty high with schools like UCLA/UCSF/UCSD offering a bunch of spots to OOS kids, while places like Davis/UCI/(future Riverside?) accepting mostly IS people.

 

[gyngyn]

updated with newest MSAR data

Nice job of updating!

 

[askamsky51]

I see it now: ~89% of all acceptances went to CA applications. Interesting, though it still doesn't account for CA residents applying to CA schools in higher numbers than out of state students. Or the inclination for CA residents to attend and follow up every single CA interview/waitlist they get, while OOS people might throw in the towel once they've already got an acceptance elsewhere.

Also, a separate issue but I bet the standard deviation for the data is pretty high with schools like UCLA/UCSF/UCSD offering a bunch of spots to OOS kids, while places like Davis/UCI/(future Riverside?) accepting mostly IS people.

I'm second guessing my data now. It came directly off of the site which shall not be named [due to SDN do not publish direct #'s citing from that source policy] . Though it is ~5% off when compared to somone's 90% range data earlier. One of us is incorrect.

edit: unless US news considers % of students who successfully "acquired" residency while in school. That could definitely bring those numbers up. Though my general understanding is that is incredibly difficult/rare across the board. I know my school said "fat chance" to getting in-state.

 

[sinombre]

You're not taking into account the fact that someone from a particular area is much more likely to matriculate after being accepted, which is going to inflate the numbers. Would be better to look at % accepted from CA, but even that is skewed because of people who are from CA applying to CA.

A few of these state on their website (or have in the past) that they have no preference based on state of residency. UCLA and UCSF come to mind.

UCI as well... a huge chunk of the people at my interview were OOS applicants. The dean told our group that they give no preference to in-state applicants. This may be a relatively new thing though.

 

[aspiring20]

UCI as well... a huge chunk of the people at my interview were OOS applicants. The dean told our group that they give no preference to in-state applicants. This may be a relatively new thing though.

way to look after tax-paying residents...

 

[Arbor Vitae]

updated with newest MSAR data

oh my god, are you serious?

 

[khrisskhoras]

updated with newest MSAR data

LLU is a 31! Since when?!?!?

 

[BigBear123]

I'm a CA resident, and I attended interviews at every UC school except for one. Guess how many UC schools I got accepted to? Zero. (Granted, I'm on waitlists, but still.)

Honestly, my UC interviews were the toughest I had, and I went to 12 interviews total. I'm also kind of a "great stats/ECs but limited clinical experience" applicant which definitely hurt me at UCs - I got grilled about it at some interviews. Interestingly, my clinical experience was sufficient for most of the privates that I interviewed at.

At the beginning of the cycle I was convinced that I wanted to go to a UC. But now I don't really care. I love the school that I will be matriculating at in the fall and am so excited to have new experiences in a brand new place.

It's definitely tough for us CA applicants, and I strongly recommend keeping an open mind during the cycle. There is life outside of CA too. 🙂

 

[Arbor Vitae]

I'm a CA resident, and I attended interviews at every UC school except for one. Guess how many UC schools I got accepted to? Zero. (Granted, I'm on waitlists, but still.)

Honestly, my UC interviews were the toughest I had, and I went to 12 interviews total. I'm also kind of a "great stats/ECs but limited clinical experience" applicant which definitely hurt me at UCs - I got grilled about it at some interviews. Interestingly, my clinical experience was sufficient for most of the privates that I interviewed at.

At the beginning of the cycle I was convinced that I wanted to go to a UC. But now I don't really care. I love the school that I will be matriculating at in the fall and am so excited to have new experiences in a brand new place.

It's definitely tough for us CA applicants, and I strongly recommend keeping an open mind during the cycle. There is life outside of CA too. 🙂

I was shocked when I only got invited to 1. Still haven't heard back.

 

[d12]

oh my god, are you serious?

Just showing that the averages continued to rise. Not getting any easier for us California folk.

 

[alpinism]

updated with newest MSAR data

👍

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

Average school stats in other states for comparison:
Arkansas 29.2 /3.66
New Mexico 26.9 /3.6
South Carolina 28.6 /3.56

I like how you picked the states with some of the lowest stats, rather than a range. 👎

You're not taking into account the fact that someone from a particular area is much more likely to matriculate after being accepted, which is going to inflate the numbers. Would be better to look at % accepted from CA, but even that is skewed because of people who are from CA applying to CA.

I feel that this is largely normalized across states, as this reasoning holds for all states (more in-state applicants will apply, and many will matriculate in order to stay close to family). So, if you are only going to look at the accepted (vs. matriculated) data for California schools, than you need to be comparing it to the same statistics at other state school. I think that they would likely be fairly similar.

A few of these state on their website (or have in the past) that they have no preference based on state of residency. UCLA and UCSF come to mind.

They say that, and they may not be required to accept a certain % of in-state applicants, but they definately do have a preference for in-state, or a much smaller portion of their matriculants would be California residents. It may be that they just prefer students from California schools, from which they know what they are getting with a given GPA and course load.

That being said, I think that the point has been made here that they may have recently started accepting more OOS students due to state budget issues. I looked at MSAR for last year, and if you just look at those matriculation numbers, this claim does have some standing. Here are the percentages of matriculants that were IS:

UCLA 91.4%
UCSF 80.0%
UC Davis 100%
UCSD 72%
UCI 88.5%

Obviously, this is a small n, but could be reflective of that trend. Another note - UCSF actually had more OOS applicants than IS.

 

[Loveless]

California needs a couple new medical schools. There are far too many qualified applicants who get the shaft each year and have to pay ridiculous out-of-state tuition. Merced, UCSB, and UCSC should all have medical schools IMO; despite steep initial costs to develop, it would be to their benefit in the long run.

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

With the current economic situation I find it pretty unlikely that Cali gets any more public schools (I could of course, be wrong, since UCR just opened). It seems more likely to me that private schools would realize the potential to bring in serious cash here, and open up. . . . but then again, what are we really accomplishing by opening more medical schools if we can't increase the number of residency positions?

 

[gyngyn]

California needs a couple new medical schools. There are far too many qualified applicants who get the shaft each year and have to pay ridiculous out-of-state tuition. Merced, UCSB, and UCSC should all have medical schools IMO; despite steep initial costs to develop, it would be to their benefit in the long run.

Only Merced has done exploratory assessment for a medical school and at my last inquiry I was told that it is on the shelf, probably for the next decade. The bigger picture is the lack of residency training positions for the students already graduating. There are 528 US Seniors without a residency position right now!

 

[gyngyn]

With the current economic situation I find it pretty unlikely that Cali gets any more public schools (I could of course, be wrong, since UCR just opened). It seems more likely to me that private schools would realize the potential to bring in serious cash here, and open up. . . . but then again, what are we really accomplishing by opening more medical schools if we can't increase the number of residency positions?

UCR was able to open because of a significant infusion of private capital.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

California needs a couple new medical schools. There are far too many qualified applicants who get the shaft each year and have to pay ridiculous out-of-state tuition. Merced, UCSB, and UCSC should all have medical schools IMO; despite steep initial costs to develop, it would be to their benefit in the long run.

a medical school at UCSB would be a dream, that's my alma mater, the quality of professor's there is insane for a school that isn't top tier. Due to the location and the high cost of living, you get awesome profs that could otherwise get jobs at much better universities.

I also don't think there's going to be many new schools until something is done about the residency bottleneck.

and that really screws over in-state applicants

That being said, I think that the point has been made here that they may have recently started accepting more OOS students due to state budget issues.

This situation is even worse at the undergrad level. CA highschoolers are getting shafted so that UCs can cash in on OOS tuition. I was looking at recent data to help my little sister to plan ahead. I was shocked at what it took to get into a UC now out of high school. When I started college, a mid level UC had an average high school GPA of probably 3.5ish and now it is up to 3.9. I think high schools are also inflating GPAs by offering classes that put you above 4.0 Not all high schools have that and it isn't really fair if one school allows you to get a 5.0 GPA. But I digress. CA taxpayers should be pissed off about this. I know the parents of highschoolers are infuriated.

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

Only Merced has done exploratory assessment for a medical school and at my last inquiry I was told that it is on the shelf, probably for the next decade. The bigger picture is the lack of residency training positions for the students already graduating. There are 528 US Seniors without a residency position right now!

Do you have a reference for this? I'm just curious because I see a lot of conflicting information on SDN around this topic - with many holding the belief that US Med students (especially MD) are in the clear for a while.

 

[Narmerguy]

Yeah it sucks as a California applicant sometimes, but realistically, what are they going to do? The schools are already broke enough as it is. I can't see them affording to open new schools. And as far as taxes are concerned, so long as the schools/hospitals are producing services that help the CA community, they're fulfilling that obligation as the little money they get from a few hundred medical students isn't going to change anything for anyone.

I don't think we can say that it's "unfair" not to have a strong in state preference. We're not entitled to medical school seats. I would say it's "unlucky", which is true. Let's also remember that there are still several states that don't have any medical schools.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

Do you have a reference for this? I'm just curious because I see a lot of conflicting information on SDN around this topic - with many holding the belief that US Med students (especially MD) are in the clear for a while.

It was from this match where we are starting to see the effects of the residency bottleneck. I forget the exact stats, but highest match ever due to sheer number of applicants, and the consequently about 2x as many unmatched students as last year.

 

[anguisette]

Do you have a reference for this? I'm just curious because I see a lot of conflicting information on SDN around this topic - with many holding the belief that US Med students (especially MD) are in the clear for a while.

http://www.nrmp.org/pressreleasepostmatch2013.pdf

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

http://www.nrmp.org/pressreleasepostmatch2013.pdf

Thanks!

 

[sinombre]

With the current economic situation I find it pretty unlikely that Cali gets any more public schools (I could of course, be wrong, since UCR just opened). It seems more likely to me that private schools would realize the potential to bring in serious cash here, and open up. . . . but then again, what are we really accomplishing by opening more medical schools if we can't increase the number of residency positions?

As of now, all LCME accredited medical schools are not-for-profit (not that that actually says anything about how much cash schools bring in). It looks like that will be changing soon, because the LCME now recommends the following:

The LCME recommends that the following accreditation standard be deleted: IS-2. The parent institution of a medical education program should have not-for-profit status.

http://www.lcme.org/

I wish I could find more about the rationale of deleting a requirement that has been central to their accreditation process for so long (they don't reveal much of anything on their website).

It seems AAMC has made an assumption that if they reached their goal of increasing medical school admissions by 30% from 2002 to 2017 that congress would vote to increase medicare funding of GME. I don't know what kind of lobbying has been done in support of lifting the cap, but I do know that the two bills that I've seen in recent times that would have lifted the cap have died.

https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/335244/050213.html

 

[sinombre]

Yeah it sucks as a California applicant sometimes, but realistically, what are they going to do? The schools are already broke enough as it is. I can't see them affording to open new schools. And as far as taxes are concerned, so long as the schools/hospitals are producing services that help the CA community, they're fulfilling that obligation as the little money they get from a few hundred medical students isn't going to change anything for anyone.

I don't think we can say that it's "unfair" not to have a strong in state preference. We're not entitled to medical school seats. I would say it's "unlucky", which is true. Let's also remember that there are still several states that don't have any medical schools.

Well, maybe. But they are public institutions, largely subsidized by California tax payers. So when they don't give preference to tax paying residents, many see it as unfair. Of course, OOS students make public schools much more tuition money.

 

[Narmerguy]

Well, maybe. But they are public institutions, largely subsidized by California tax payers. So when they don't give preference to tax paying residents, many see it as unfair. Of course, OOS students make public schools much more tuition money.

They are subsidized by California tax payers, and therefore I would be disappointed if they didn't provide services for their surrounding communities or produce physicians that will work in California. California has no such shortage of physicians. In fact, if anything they have too many and it's become crazy competitive to get a job there.

I understand the sentiment. But at the end of the day, we are not entitled to a seat. They do not actively discriminate against California applicants, and thus we are just as capable of presenting an attractive application as someone from Topeka, Kansas. I wish they gave a greater in-state preference to their applicants, but I would hardly call it "unfair" not to.

 

[sinombre]

They are subsidized by California tax payers, and therefore I would be disappointed if they didn't provide services for their surrounding communities or produce physicians that will work in California. California has no such shortage of physicians. In fact, if anything they have too many and it's become crazy competitive to get a job there.

I understand the sentiment. But at the end of the day, we are not entitled to a seat. They do not actively discriminate against California applicants, and thus we are just as capable of presenting an attractive application as someone from Topeka, Kansas. I wish they gave a greater in-state preference to their applicants, but I would hardly call it "unfair" not to.

Great points. I suppose when Californians see residents of other states getting priority at their own state schools, it tends to invoke feelings of jealousy. But I absolutely agree that no one is entitled to a seat at any school--as long as the surrounding communities are benefiting from the services provided and the physicians being produced, there doesn't seem to be any reason why any school should give preference to its own residents, except that applicants that live close to a school are more likely to matriculate there (i.e. yield protection).

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

Great points. I suppose when Californians see residents of other states getting priority at their own state schools, it tends to invoke feelings of jealousy. But I absolutely agree that no one is entitled to a seat at any school--as long as the surrounding communities are benefiting from the services provided and the physicians being produced, there doesn't seem to be any reason why any school should give preference to its own residents, except that applicants that live close to a school are more likely to matriculate there (i.e. yield protection).

The exceptions are states that have a shortage of physicians. In this situation, it greatly benefits the public to give preference to applicants that are likely to remain in-state. Some even have requirements for the number that they have to get out of each region, with the hopes that this will result in more physicians that desire to practice in these rural areas.

As a side note (mostly in response to the lower stats posted for more rural states earlier in this thread), this generally creates a misleading representation of what the average statistics needs to be for matriculants/acceptances at these schools. As an example, Arkansas has region-specific requirements. Their average stats are 29.2/3.66, but that doesn't mean that any applicant with comparable stats will be competetive. Many of the applicants from some of the more rural regions (where there will inherently be less applicants due to a lower population and a pretty low % of the population that graduates from college/aspires to be a physician) will bring these stats down significantly, but are admitted because they are the most competetive from their region up to the X number of spots that need to be filled for that region.

Applicants from urban areas or OOS applicants will be competing with other applicants with much higher stats.

 

[The Beyonder]

California needs a couple new medical schools. There are far too many qualified applicants who get the shaft each year and have to pay ridiculous out-of-state tuition. Merced, UCSB, and UCSC should all have medical schools IMO; despite steep initial costs to develop, it would be to their benefit in the long run.

I always think it is funny when Pre-meds say this. They should not open anymore med schools. The job of a med school is to meet the countries demand for physicians, not to make it easier for medical students to go to school in their desired location.

With the current economic situation I find it pretty unlikely that Cali gets any more public schools (I could of course, be wrong, since UCR just opened). It seems more likely to me that private schools would realize the potential to bring in serious cash here, and open up. . . . but then again, what are we really accomplishing by opening more medical schools if we can't increase the number of residency positions?

Great point. This is the only thing that saves physicians from going down like lawyers.

I also don't think there's going to be many new schools until something is done about the residency bottleneck.

This situation is even worse at the undergrad level. CA highschoolers are getting shafted so that UCs can cash in on OOS tuition. I was looking at recent data to help my little sister to plan ahead. I was shocked at what it took to get into a UC now out of high school. When I started college, a mid level UC had an average high school GPA of probably 3.5ish and now it is up to 3.9. I think high schools are also inflating GPAs by offering classes that put you above 4.0 Not all high schools have that and it isn't really fair if one school allows you to get a 5.0 GPA. But I digress. CA taxpayers should be pissed off about this. I know the parents of highschoolers are infuriated.

Once you start practicing you will be very happy there is a bottleneck.

I always hate when someone says they have a 4.2 because I never know how that translates into a real GPA. I know some schools ignore the elevated grading scale.

Yeah it sucks as a California applicant sometimes, but realistically, what are they going to do? The schools are already broke enough as it is. I can't see them affording to open new schools. And as far as taxes are concerned, so long as the schools/hospitals are producing services that help the CA community, they're fulfilling that obligation as the little money they get from a few hundred medical students isn't going to change anything for anyone.

I don't think we can say that it's "unfair" not to have a strong in state preference. We're not entitled to medical school seats. I would say it's "unlucky", which is true. Let's also remember that there are still several states that don't have any medical schools.

Always the voice of reason.

They are subsidized by California tax payers, and therefore I would be disappointed if they didn't provide services for their surrounding communities or produce physicians that will work in California. California has no such shortage of physicians. In fact, if anything they have too many and it's become crazy competitive to get a job there.

I understand the sentiment. But at the end of the day, we are not entitled to a seat. They do not actively discriminate against California applicants, and thus we are just as capable of presenting an attractive application as someone from Topeka, Kansas. I wish they gave a greater in-state preference to their applicants, but I would hardly call it "unfair" not to.

One has to wonder about the competitive job market and if it will get worst with PPACA.

 

[supafly0]

I just looked in the U.S. News Rankings, and this is what they give for the percentage of the student body that is made up of in-state residents:
UCSF: 94.8%
UCLA: 96.3%
UCSD: 89.4%
UC Davis: 99.5%
UCI: 96.5%

Other than UCSD, those are all pretty high, so I don't think you can really say that California schools done give preference to California residents. I don't have any numbers on this (may go search some out to stave my curiosity), but I always assumed that the issue was that there are a great deal more people from California that are applying to medical school than many of the other states (for whatever reason). Additionally, from conversations that I have had, many of the UC schools seem to have a preference for students that come from the UC system vs students that are educated outside of California, but are now residents (me🙁).

Just my thoughts. . .

You gotta remember that after first year oos people become Californians though, so in reality the only oos people that this accounts for is first years if my logic is sound.

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

You gotta remember that after first year oos people become Californians though, so in reality the only oos people that this accounts for is first years if my logic is sound.

Is that really true for California schools? I know almost all state schools have been removing that option, and making you carry your residency status on the date of matriculation through the entirety of med school.

 

[Goobs]

Is that really true for California schools? I know almost all state schools have been removing that option, and making you carry your residency status on the date of matriculation through the entirety of med school.

You need to be in California with an intent to stay, not just for school:

Acts that may indicate your intent to make California your permanent home include, but are not limited to: establishing a home in California in which your personal belonging are kept; designating California as your permanent address on all records; registering to vote and voting in California elections; registering your vehicle in California and obtaining a California driver license; paying California income taxes on all income since the date you moved to California; remaining in California during non-instructional periods; establishing bank accounts in California; and the absence of these and any other indications of residence in other states or countries during any period for which you claim California residence.

Source: http://registrar.ucsf.edu/registration/residency

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

You need to be in California with an intent to stay, not just for school:

Acts that may indicate your intent to make California your permanent home include, but are not limited to: establishing a home in California in which your personal belonging are kept; designating California as your permanent address on all records; registering to vote and voting in California elections; registering your vehicle in California and obtaining a California driver license; paying California income taxes on all income since the date you moved to California; remaining in California during non-instructional periods; establishing bank accounts in California; and the absence of these and any other indications of residence in other states or countries during any period for which you claim California residence.

Source: http://registrar.ucsf.edu/registration/residency

Interesting - it seems odd that they wouldn't change that with all of their financial troubles - a lot of other states are. This could also help explain the disparity between the figures for percentage of the student body which is currently IS vs. the percentage of 2012 matriculants that were IS (see below).

I looked at MSAR for last year, and if you just look at those matriculation numbers, this claim does have some standing. Here are the percentages of matriculants that were IS:

UCLA 91.4%
UCSF 80.0%
UC Davis 100%
UCSD 72%
UCI 88.5%

Obviously, this is a small n, but could be reflective of that trend. Another note - UCSF actually had more OOS applicants than IS.

 

[Loveless]

I always think it is funny when Pre-meds say this. They should not open anymore med schools. The job of a med school is to meet the countries demand for physicians, not to make it easier for medical students to go to school in their desired location.

You completely missed the point. It's not about making it easier than it should be for applicants to get into medical school. It's about letting more qualified applicants in. You don't need a freakin' 3.8+/36+ to be an excellent doctor. 🙄 When qualified applicants have to go out of state and pay nearly double the cost of tuition, you know you're doing it wrong.

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

You completely missed the point. It's not about making it easier than it should be for applicants to get into medical school. It's about letting more qualified applicants in. You don't need a freakin' 3.8+/36+ to be an excellent doctor. 🙄 When qualified applicants have to go out of state and pay nearly double the cost of tuition, you know you're doing it wrong.

There are lots of "qualified" applicants that would make excellent doctors, but don't get into medical school AT ALL every year. What would get you into medical school 10 years ago, won't cut it today, but there are lots of great doctors that matriculated 10 years ago.

Are you suggesting that we close private or public schools in other states, so that we can open up another in California just to allow more Californians to remain in-state and pay in-state tuition?😕 If not, then you are saying that we should increase the number of seats available in CA, thereby increasing the number of graduates with the same number of residency positions available. It just doesn't make any sense to let more people into medical school than the market can support.

 

[Loveless]

Are you suggesting that we close private or public schools in other states, so that we can open up another in California just to allow more Californians to remain in-state and pay in-state tuition?😕 If not, then you are saying that we should increase the number of seats available in CA, thereby increasing the number of graduates with the same number of residency positions available. It just doesn't make any sense to let more people into medical school than the market can support.

I'm not at all informed on how medical school development is funded, but I would think that state, county, city, and private funding plays a much larger role than federal funding does, so I don't see how other states development of M.D. and D.O. schools affects developing new schools in California.

Of course, if opening new schools would create a residency bottleneck (or worsen an already existing bottleneck), then that has to be worked on first. Unless I'm grossly mistaken, there's plenty of demand for more physicians and surgeons in California, and there's plenty of qualified applicants desperately wanting an in-state spot. The only reason I can see why this shouldn't happen is that there's simply no money for it, which seems to be the case right now, no?

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

I'm not at all informed on how medical school development is funded, but I would think that state, county, city, and private funding plays a much larger role than federal funding does, so I don't see how other states development of M.D. and D.O. schools affects developing new schools in California.

Of course, if opening new schools would create a residency bottleneck (or worsen an already existing bottleneck), than that has to be worked on first. Unless I'm grossly mistaken, there's plenty of demand for more physicians and surgeons in California, and there's plenty of qualified applicants desperately wanting an in-state spot. The only reason I can see why this shouldn't happen is that there's simply no money for it, which seems to be the case right now, no?

This is what I was referring to. IMO, it would be irresponsible to build more medical schools when there aren't enough residency positions available to support them. "Then that has to be worked out first" is easier said than done. Residency programs are largely funded by the federal government (i.e. Medicare - which is doing SUPER right now🙄), and from everything that I have heard, it is much more likely that they are going to decrease this funding than increase it.

Therefore, in order to get new schools in California, we either need to do so with the knowledge that the number of unmatched graduates will likely increase by the number of seats that institution can support, or we need to close down another school to compensate. I realize that this is a hypothetical scenario, since the latter would not occur (at least not immediately), but I think that it is appropriate to realize that 1 of these would be the outcome if your wish to build another med school in California were to be granted.

 

[Non Pizza Lunch]

There are lots of "qualified" applicants that would make excellent doctors, but don't get into medical school AT ALL every year. What would get you into medical school 10 years ago, won't cut it today, but there are lots of great doctors that matriculated 10 years ago.

+1 to this. Opening new schools to get in these "qualified applicants" is not the solution. There are plenty of people with decent MCAT and GPA who don't get in to any school. I personally already think there are too many medical schools as it is, and don't like how they continue to vastly increase the number of medical schools without doing anything about the residency positions.

The bottleneck should be before you get into the massive amount of debt.

You can already see the effects into other professions, not just lawyers, but same for the glut of pharmacists and optometrists. It screws the person who can't find the job, decreases demand, and brings down the entire profession (except those running the schools).

 

[JJMrK]

I feel that this is largely normalized across states, as this reasoning holds for all states (more in-state applicants will apply, and many will matriculate in order to stay close to family). So, if you are only going to look at the accepted (vs. matriculated) data for California schools, than you need to be comparing it to the same statistics at other state school. I think that they would likely be fairly similar.

Agree with the first part; I'd bet that a similar phenomenon with local students occurs in other places (more applying and more matriculating). Not really relevant, though, as whether or not it occurs elsewhere doesn't say anything about the fact that it is occurring in CA, and is the reason the "% accepted" numbers seem to so strongly favor CA residents.

They say that, and they may not be required to accept a certain % of in-state applicants, but they definately do have a preference for in-state, or a much smaller portion of their matriculants would be California residents. It may be that they just prefer students from California schools, from which they know what they are getting with a given GPA and course load.

Nope. At least not all of them:

Residence: No preference is given to state of residence. However many applicants come from California. Acceptees from California are more likely to matriculate at UCLA. Out of 145 freshman, 85 percent were from California.

Does the School of Medicine give preference to California residents?
No. The Admissions Committee uses the same criteria to evaluate applicants whether they are in-state or out-of-state residents. Preference is given to US citizens and applicants who have been granted Permanent Residence and have a Green Card.

Some do:

Preference is necessarily afforded to California residents when all other selection factors are equal, and consideration is given only to applicants who are either U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Bottom line, IMO: It's tough to get into a CA school, and many of them don't give preference to in-state students. On the other hand, many of them are world class institutions trying to recruit the best and the brightest, which is hard to find fault with.

 

[deleted393595]

Dem's fightin words. Hopefully no Texans view this thread.

😡

 

[alpinism]

I like how you picked the states with some of the lowest stats, rather than a range. 👎

Touché.

Although I never even mentioned Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, Indiana, Vermont, Tennessee, Nevada, Utah, or the Dakotas.

I could go on...

 

[Wipeout416]

I think the "disadvantage" majorly lies in the fact that there is no "fall-back state school" type of thing.

 

[phunky]

ITT: Entitlement

 

[nabilesmail]

I had a 3.74/34 and didn;t get a single cali II, but I was also a late applicant and my PS sucked lol

 

[MVP]

california is the land of dreams, man. theres not a single soul here that wants to leave for medical school. that is why its so hard. you might think your friends have strong apps, but the UC system literally produces hundreds of similar cookie cutter premeds with 3.8+/36+. its a total crapshoot unless you got something else that can catch the eye