UC vs CSU and some other questions.

[Jimmy270]

Hello everyone, I am in the process of applying to a university for transfer next fall and was wondering what your thoughts were regarding UC vs CSU. For those that don't know UC is the high grade public university system in CA and CSU is the lower grade public university system in CA. basically one is more prestigious /researched based then the other(the UC). I have read the older threads on this topic and know the basic pros and cons of both. But I thought that maybe some of you might have some new insight or ideas on the topic, especially in light of the budget issues facing CA at the moment. for example, one question I am grappling with right now is. Do i take the chance that my tuition might very well double by the time i graduate at a UC? is the prestige, and possibly better research opportunities worth it?

secondly, It seems that I may not be able to complete all of my pre med courses with the two years that I have left. Based on the fact that I have only completed English so far, and unless I was to transfer in as bio major(which is not an option of me since the only science course I have completed is Geo) the chances of me getting into a basic bio class, and some of the other classes I would need, is not to good. So that means I will be doing a post bac program and I was wondering which degree I should get that would give the best chance of getting a job since I will have an extra year with the post bac. I was thinking of doing Psychology because this would include some science and math courses, and it would allow me to get in to an intro level job in social work, Rehabilitation, or maybe even some kind of job at a hospital.

your thoughts?

ps: I know I could to 5 years at the U to finish up but it all depends on price. If the post bac program in cheeper then another year at the U then I will go that route.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[the duck]

Hello everyone, I am in the process of applying to a university for transfer next fall and was wondering what your thoughts were regarding UC vs CSU. For those that don't know UC is the high grade public university system in CA and CSU is the lower grade public university system in CA. basically one is more prestigious /researched based then the other(the UC). I have read the older threads on this topic and know the basic pros and cons of both. But I thought that maybe some of you might have some new insight or ideas on the topic, especially in light of the budget issues facing CA at the moment. for example, one question I am grappling with right now is. Do i take the chance that my tuition might very well double by the time i graduate at a UC? is the prestige, and possibly better research opportunities worth it?

secondly, It seems that I may not be able to complete all of my pre med courses with the two years that I have left. Based on the fact that I have only completed English so far, and unless I was to transfer in as bio major(which is not an option of me since the only science course I have completed is Geo) the chances of me getting into a basic bio class, and some of the other classes I would need, is not to good. So that means I will be doing a post bac program and I was wondering which degree I should get that would give the best chance of getting a job since I will have an extra year with the post bac. I was thinking of doing Psychology because this would include some science and math courses, and it would allow me to get in to an intro level job in social work, Rehabilitation, or maybe even some kind of job at a hospital.

your thoughts?

ps: I know I could to 5 years at the U to finish up but it all depends on price. If the post bac program in cheeper then another year at the U then I will go that route.

Definitely go to a UC over a CSU, adcoms hold CSU people to much higher standards. Major in whatever you want, a BA/BS in psych won't get you any of the jobs you mentioned, at least in california, any psych related job requires a masters. I'm almost certain any post-bacc will cost you more than taking the courses at a UC, that said, I don't think the UCs will let you stay a 5th year.

 

[CaliGirl14]

I don't remember where I read the facts but I remember someone telling me that a single UC college sends more students to medical school than all of the CSU campuses combined.

 

[wolverinepwns]

you will get a better education in a UC, however you have to bust you ass to get a great GPA for medschool versus a CSU where it will be easier to maintain a high GPA!

 

[ILikeDrugs]

at least in california, any psych related job requires a masters.

That isn't true. Out of college I was a autism behavior interventionist applying ABA, PRT, and PECS on a one-on-one basis. The job required a BA/BS in psych/child development.

Forgot to mention that I now have enough experience to move up as a supervisor.

 

[VikingLegacy]

baleeted

 

[frescoengano]

HOWEVER, I'm a current UCSD student and I know for a fact that the UC regents are a bunch of bloody crooks. They will bleed you dry and feel no remorse about it.

👍

 

[ILikeDrugs]

I forgot to mention that I went to CSU for psych. I don't feel like the quality of my education could have been stronger if I went to UC (with the exception of better research opportunities). However, I did a lot of self-learning in areas that weren't available as classes. The UC will obviously offer more classes of different kinds. The programs also vary within both systems. For example, if I could do it all over again one option would have been to have gone to CSU Long Beach because they offered a lot more psych classes that were relevant to my interests. The other option, and the one that I would chosen in the end, would have been to have attended a UC and major in neuroscience and minor in pych. Neuroscience wasn't a major at my CSU school. Don't just look at the "prestige" of the school, look at the quality of the program that you're interested in. What' the point of going to a top school if they don't even offer a program that you want to get into or if the caliber of their program is not that great when compared to a less prestigous school that offers an excellent program. For example, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo is not an ivy league school, but it architecture program is always in the top 3-5 in the nation every single year. Of course if you're looking for research opprotunities, a UC will obviously have much more money and mot likely better opportunities.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

Definitely go to a UC over a CSU, adcoms hold CSU people to much higher standards. Major in whatever you want, a BA/BS in psych won't get you any of the jobs you mentioned, at least in california, any psych related job requires a masters. I'm almost certain any post-bacc will cost you more than taking the courses at a UC, that said, I don't think the UCs will let you stay a 5th year.

UCs let you stay a 5th year, and sometimes even more, although financial aid stops at the end of 5th year. The exception to this rule are impacted majors at UCs, such as biology, which force you to graduate in four.

Also, OP, why do you think you won't get into gen chem/bio classes at a UC? In case you didn't know, a large portion of beginning chem/ochem/gen bio classes at UCs are reserved for incoming transfers. Also, if you say you're a premed, the counselors will do their best to get you into the classes you need. Obviously having really good grades gives them an incentive to do this while having bad grades might give someone priority over you.

 

[Musclemass]

I don't feel like the quality of my education could have been stronger if I went to UC

The quality of professors and quality of fellow students are both important contributing factors to a great education. The gaps between CSU and UC in these two regards are huge. Another important characteristic of highly regarded institutions is admission selectivity, and again, the difference between the two systems is huge. You're welcome to feel however you want to feel, and I'm glad you are pleased with your education. But the differences between the two systems have long been the case, are quantifiable in many ways, and are well known nationally. People in academia (ie, adcoms) do not mistake one system for the other.

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo is not an ivy league school, but it architecture program is always in the top 3-5 in the nation every single year. Of course if you're looking for research opprotunities, a UC will obviously have much more money and mot likely better opportunities.

The two Cal Poly campuses are tweeners - more selective and mostly better regarded than the CSUs, but considered lower in quality than the UC mean.

Unless you want to study architecture, there's no rub-off effect of that department on other parts of the school.

 

[Musclemass]

Look at the Med School statistics. From all the UC programs, they take mostly UC applicants. I think I saw only 1 person from San Jose State University at UCLA and that's it. I saw the numbers for Touro and they accepted 14 folks from CSU, but they accepted 67 from UC and 60 from other universities. Like it or not, college and medical school is a prestige game.

I think you may have this turned around. It's harder to get in to the UC system and harder to do well. UC students were, on average, more competitive at HS graduation with higher GPAs and test scores. These same students four years later tend, on average, to continue to have higher test scores and more competitive apps than their peers in the CSU system. There ARE exceptions in both camps.

For the OP- go to the best school you can get into and do well at. It does matter.

 

[ucsfstudents]

UCs have the name recognition, the contacts, and a wider range of opportunities to conduct research. I don't think you will necessarily get better teaching at a UC, just more opportunities, especially in research.

 

[bacalaca]

my class has 20+ from Cal, 20+ from UCLA and 20+ from UCSD... and a handful of people Davis, UCI, UCSB people.

we got one person from a CSU...

 

[Jimmy270]

Thank you everyone for your replies so far.

"a large portion of beginning chem/ochem/gen bio classes at UCs are reserved for incoming transfers"

I did not know that, thank you.

and thank you Drugs for clearing up the job issue. I mean not being able to get into any intro lvl jobs with a psyc BS does not make sense. And considering that I already have 4+ years work exp with children in a school setting I don't see finding a job being an issue for me.

its cool that a UCSD student replied as I am really considering that school(sent in a TAG so we will see if it works out) I emailed them about my concern over getting to the pre med courses if I was not a bio major and they said:

"Many of the lower-division courses: Calculus, General Chemistry, Physics and Biology can be taken at a community college. Your concern should be with the upper-division courses." "If you feel you will not be able to enter an impacted biology major you may want to declare a biochemistry/chemistry major. You MUST decide on a major." the rest of it told me about all the premed courses I should take, it looked like it was copy/paste deal. But then I am sure they are busy so I can not fault them for that.

in any case Im still on the fence about it. Im mean it may be true that more UC students get accepted more then CSU students. But this might simply come down to the student and not the school. For example, if we assume that UC students generally out perform their CSU counterparts (3.5 vs 3.7, good extracurriculars vs not so good extracurriculars) then its no wonder that more of them get in(basiclly what Musclemass was getting at). Chances are if I go to a CSU I will have to really look for some good extracurriculars and research.But I Think it can be done, especially if the CSU is near a UC.(chance for summer research at UC that way) I also imagine that the acceptance rate for CSU students goes up once you get out of California and people are not as aware of the difference.

on the plus side, I already have some good extracurriculars. going to model UN this year in Washington, and hopefully I will be able to bring in an educational program to my CC. Its called Soliya, really interesting stuff if you guys want to check it out(http://www.soliya.net/)

wish me luck, and once more Thank You all.

 

[Musclemass]

.. I also imagine that the acceptance rate for CSU students goes up once you get out of California and people are not as aware of the difference.

I not trying to be Debbie Downer, but this is a false assumption. Most US med schools, and most especially the private ones, receive from multiple hundreds to into the thousands of apps from California students each year. Admission staffs are familiar with different schools and uni systems, it's an essential part of app screening. Trust me.

a CSU 4.0 will always be thought of as inferior to a UC 4.0

I agree. A given GPA from a highly selective institution with (on average) higher achieving students will always be more highly respected (or given more "value") than the same thing from a school that is known to be less competitive whose students are thought to be relatively less accomplished. As I said, everyone knows there are exceptions, but general expectations are what they are. This is not discrimination, this is reality. Why on earth would you think it would or should be otherwise?

 

[web2linc]

• The curriculum is essentially the same.
• CSUs often have smaller class sizes, compared to UCs.
• You will have more access to professors at CSUs.
• You will have more research opportunities at UCs.
• CSUs are cheaper.
• Your education is what you make it.

 

[mjscal]

If you want to go to medical school do not transfer to a Cal state. There were tons of UC graduates in my medical school but only a few Cal state graduates.
Most of the Cal state graduates were URM. Transfer to a UC and do well and you have a shot.

 

[CoolWhipp]

This thread reminds me of the following thread:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=763821

Again, you can fight the "system" and choose to be the underdog. And, you can keep telling yourself that your education is what you make of it (which I indeed agree, in the intellectual way). Or, you can play the game the way others are playing it. Put in the work and be the best you can be... at the best place you can be.

I have nothing against CSU's. I'm not discussing CSU versus UC anything, I'm discussing professional success probability-loosely. It's simple really. If you go to a more well-known university (whether or not it's really academically better or not - who cares), then the chances of you getting a job or going to graduate school increase. You should care about the ending result.

If you are choosing a school that is less reputable (again whether or not it's really less reputable is not being questioned), then you should have a real real real good reason to do so.

 

[Jimmy270]

Maybe I will just tell them that "I got love for the game, but hey I'm not in love with all of it" anyway you guys have given me a lot to think about 🙂

 

[drdandelion]

It doesn't matter if you go to a CSU or a UC for getting into medical school. As long as the school is accredited you are good to go! Whatever undergraduate institution you do go to, you must maintain high grades in both pre-med courses and non-premed courses alike and thus a HIGH GPA in order to increase you chances for acceptance to medical school. Medical schools know that grading standards/grade inflation are different from college to college, that's where the MCAT comes in! The MCAT is a powerful test because it is an equalizer! Scoring well on the MCAT will off-set attending a "lower-tier" undergraduate institution. Also, keep in mind that there are other components that medical schools look for: letters of recommendation, clinical experience, research, other extra-curricular activities, etc. Don't forget about these!

Some post-bacc programs cost just as much as attending university, others don't. You need to do some research.

As for a degree to get a "job," there is no specific degree that you would need to get a job unless you plan to change careers (which you should not be if you still plan to go into medicine). Most employers only care that you have a degree.

Hope this helps! 🙂

 

[ILikeDrugs]

It doesn't matter if you go to a CSU or a UC for getting into medical school.

I would disagree. Five of the med schools in CA are UC and UC schools will take care of their own first before they take care of the red headed step child from CSU. I also don't see why USC and Stanford would be any different. The op should play the brand name game and go with UC to better his chances at a CA med school acceptance.

I graduated from CSU and will be applying to the UC schools but only for ****s n giggles and because my apps will be free. If the apps weren't free I wouldn't even bother applying to CA schools even though I'm a resident. I know my acceptance will not come from a CA school.

I could have gone to UC but was scared of the costs. Then I realized after being accepted to CSU and filling out the FASFA that everything would be free. Chances are a UC would have been free for me, but I didn't feel like ditching the CSU and applying to the UC for the spring or next fall since I didn't see much of a difference since I was just planning on getting *a* degree and *a* job. Now it's working against me. Oh well. 😳

 

[NurWollen]

All of this is why I am so happy to be out of California.

 

[Musclemass]

All of this is why I am so happy to be out of California.

Yeah but if you'd been good enough to get into UC or a CSU, you could have stayed,

People get defensive and try to rationalize their situations when they realize they may not have made the best choices. The inane comments are what they are.

 

[drdandelion]

I would disagree. Five of the med schools in CA are UC and UC schools will take care of their own first before they take care of the red headed step child from CSU. I also don't see why USC and Stanford would be any different. The op should play the brand name game and go with UC to better his chances at a CA med school acceptance.

I graduated from CSU and will be applying to the UC schools but only for ****s n giggles and because my apps will be free. If the apps weren't free I wouldn't even bother applying to CA schools even though I'm a resident. I know my acceptance will not come from a CA school.

I could have gone to UC but was scared of the costs. Then I realized after being accepted to CSU and filling out the FASFA that everything would be free. Chances are a UC would have been free for me, but I didn't feel like ditching the CSU and applying to the UC for the spring or next fall since I didn't see much of a difference since I was just planning on getting *a* degree and *a* job. Now it's working against me. Oh well. 😳

There is no "brand" name game when it comes to applying to medical school. The only thing that counts about the undergraduate institution is that it is ACCREDITED. People come from different backgrounds and have different opportunities and life chances. Medical schools know this and only want to see that you did the best with you could do with the pre-med requirements. The only thing that truly levels the playing field is the MCAT. Even within a UC or a so-called "higher rank" college, you can have students who do better than others due to grade inflation, grading bias, and differing grading standards among professors. Again, the MCAT is the EQUALIZER.

There are people who came from CSUs who went on to become doctors. Just because there isn't PLENTY of people from CSUs in medical schools (in California, at least based on numbers) does not mean that going to a CSU automatically puts you at a disadvantage. It may be that many of the people at CSUs don't have an interest in medicine but have interests in other fields! Or it could be that many students at CSUs may not have high enough test scores and other components in their application that would make them competitive for admission. Correlation does NOT equal causation!

At the end of the day, the MCAT off-sets any academic discrepancies between applicants. If a CSU student AND a UC student both have, for example, a 3.5 GPA BUT the CSU student has a 36 MCAT and the UC student has a 29 MCAT, who looks more favorable if all other things are equal? The CSU student!!! I don't understand how anyone could fail to see this...how could anyone wanting to pursue medicine be so narrow-minded to this? At least we have a reason why there are bad doctors in the world...

If you don't get an acceptance to a CA medical school, it will having NOTHING to do with the fact that you went to a CSU!!!

 

[CoolWhipp]

There is no "brand" name game when it comes to applying to medical school. The only thing that counts about the undergraduate institution is that it is ACCREDITED.

Devry is accredited too.

Again, the MCAT is the EQUALIZER.

This is more or less true. It is admissions best equalizer, but students from high ranked universities are more likely to get into medical school with lower mcat scores than the national average.

There are people who came from CSUs who went on to become doctors.

No one is arguing this, people are this forum can attest to this as well. You can get in, it's just an uphill battle.

At the end of the day, the MCAT off-sets any academic discrepancies between applicants.If a CSU student AND a UC student both have, for example, a 3.5 GPA BUT the CSU student has a 36 MCAT and the UC student has a 29 MCAT, who looks more favorable if all other things are equal? The CSU student!!!

7 point difference? I mean seriously? Give that UC student 2 more points and the battle is won before it is fought, especially if its UCSD. All other things being equal.

I don't understand how anyone could fail to see this...how could anyone wanting to pursue medicine be so narrow-minded to this? At least we have a reason why there are bad doctors in the world...

If you don't get an acceptance to a CA medical school, it will having NOTHING to do with the fact that you went to a CSU!!!

I don't understand how you can still be living in the land of fairies and unicorns. Chances are, if you had competitive everything and didn't get in and you did everything you could, it's because you went to a CSU.

No one is arguing that there is more competitive students applying from better universities, everyone knows this is true. But can we put two and two together? An admissions committee member would have to see that you are walking on water from a CSU to be picked over the flood of well known university applicants.

 

[CoolWhipp]

Because it is a knee jerk reaction to it being that the UC student must be a better or more competitive student. You accept that there are exceptions, yet you don't seem to have a method to account for them. Also, CSU is used more by minority and poor students due to economic reasons. It is well known that in the Hispanic community many don't study because of fear of debt, so a great number go to CSU because it's cheaper. Poor students can't afford housing away from home. Some need to stay home because they have to work an extra job. Again, the true problem is the knee jerk reaction that one graduate must be better.

Do you really think an Astrophysics major at UC Santa Cruz is less than a communication major at UCLA? Either way, the MCAT is supposed to be the great equalizer, but we know that the knee jerk reaction will always be to assume the UC student is better.

I'm very adamant about the subject between choosing a CSU and a UC when given the opportunity to attend either/or.

I don't want to discuss URM issues as it is a sensitive subject, but this is why some pre-med minorities from CSU's get accepted into medical school.

There is a population of students from every university that are exceptional, no one argues this. I agree with you, I've met brilliant students that went to a CSU. You sound bitter about the "knee jerk reaction" but if you are really upset about that, then you haven't really seen the similarities in all aspects of life.

Is a purse from coach better than a purse from Ross? Is it tougher or more reliable? Does it function any better? No, but it is generally assumed to be more valuable, right?

Is a Benz a better car than a Honda? Is Samsung LCD TVs better than Vizio TVs? Is a Sony laptop better than an HP laptop? Is Lacoste polos twice as better as a ralph lauren polo?

My point is this, play the game with the best hand you can get. You live once, give yourself the best chance at success.

 

[drdandelion]

Devry is accredited too.



This is more or less true. It is admissions best equalizer, but students from high ranked universities are more likely to get into medical school with lower mcat scores than the national average.




No one is arguing this, people are this forum can attest to this as well. You can get in, it's just an uphill battle.



7 point difference? I mean seriously? Give that UC student 2 more points and the battle is won before it is fought, especially if its UCSD. All other things being equal.



I don't understand how you can still be living in the land of fairies and unicorns. Chances are, if you had competitive everything and didn't get in and you did everything you could, it's because you went to a CSU.

No one is arguing that there is more competitive students applying from better universities, everyone knows this is true. But can we put two and two together? An admissions committee member would have to see that you are walking on water from a CSU to be picked over the flood of well known university applicants.

I don't appreciate your telling me that I am "still living in the land of fairies and unicorns." You don't know me, and you don't know the sh** I've been through, so how dare you say I'm living in a fantasy world?! I happen to attend one of the nation's TOP 25 universities (in fact, people covet my school VERY much as it is one of the most sought after schools in the country!), so if I can come on here and state that going to a CSU will not make a difference, that says A LOT.

Oh, um you mention DeVry being accredited? Last time I checked, DeVry is a technical/vocational school, so how could the pre-med classes be fulfilled there?! I think you're taking what I am saying COMPLETELY out of context INTENTIONALLY to be rude.

The person who originally posted to this forum has serious concerns about his future which are heavily influenced by his financial resources (CSU is cheaper than UC), and I am giving him an honest and sound judgment on what he should think about and do, and here you are making snotty jokes and remarks...such a shame, it's people like you who go on to be arrogant doctors who think their sh** don't stink.

Gaining acceptance into medical school is a challenging endeavor no matter the undergraduate institution you attend. The only things that will make it MORE difficult is when certain components of your application aren't strong. The only thing one can do to increase their chances for admission is to make their entire application as strong as possible and do their best on the interview if they get invited for one. There is no hard proof that anyone can provide that absolutely proves that attending a UC puts one more at an advantage at gaining acceptance to a CA med school than attending a CSU DESPITE the differing numbers. Correlation does NOT equal causation. PLUS, if we are speaking of CA PUBLIC medical schools, this even more applies! It is illegal for public schools to have discriminatory quotas! If we are talking of PRIVATE medical schools, then by all means, the "brand name" could easily apply!

 

[ILikeDrugs]

I happen to attend one of the nation's TOP 25 universities so if I can come on here and state that going to a CSU will not make a difference, that says A LOT.

Actually, it doesn't mean 5h!t. 😉

it's people like you who go on to be arrogant doctors who think their sh** don't stink.

Oh, the irony.



BTW: You mad, bro?

 

[LuciusVorenus]

I'm very adamant about the subject between choosing a CSU and a UC when given the opportunity to attend either/or.

I don't want to discuss URM issues as it is a sensitive subject, but this is why some pre-med minorities from CSU's get accepted into medical school.

There is a population of students from every university that are exceptional, no one argues this. I agree with you, I've met brilliant students that went to a CSU. You sound bitter about the "knee jerk reaction" but if you are really upset about that, then you haven't really seen the similarities in all aspects of life.

Is a purse from coach better than a purse from Ross? Is it tougher or more reliable? Does it function any better? No, but it is generally assumed to be more valuable, right?

Is a Benz a better car than a Honda? Is Samsung LCD TVs better than Vizio TVs? Is a Sony laptop better than an HP laptop? Is Lacoste polos twice as better as a ralph lauren polo?

My point is this, play the game with the best hand you can get. You live once, give yourself the best chance at success.

😡

Too far sir!

 

[ArthurIhde]

😡

Too far sir!

yes,it is soo far

 

[DancingThruLife]

ah.. the age-old question of CA elitists everywhere. To consider the CSU's as a legit system or not?

OP: ultimately, it's going to depend what you are shooting for. I have a hard time believe that top med schools will take a good CSU applicant with the overabundance of equally qualified UC applicants. If you want to go to lower-tier schools, then maybe a CSU would be ok? I have no numbers to back this up, so I'll call it a hunch, albeit biased.

Yes, the experience is going to be what you make of it. That being said, you should look at the track record for accepted pre-meds at the UC's and the CSU's that you are considering transferring into. Did those pre-meds get in on the first try? How many years did it take them to graduate? These are all questions that you need to be asking in order to make your most informed decision.

In terms of the post-bac: if you're going to do that, what you want to do (to minimize costs) is get a job at a local university. Most universities have tuition benefits (you only pay a small percent or sometimes nothing) to take any night courses of your choice. Yes, you will inevitably have very little free time, but if your supervisors/work are flexible, then I would definitely suggest looking into this route once you get to that point.

 

[kobebryant]

i know a girl at a csu i go to who got into harvard. college is what you make out of it

 

[Carbon inc]

Having recently graduated from a large CSU, I can say that I'm happy with my education and I realize that the competition is definitely lower than at a UC. I don't feel I'm any less prepared for med school than a UC graduate and I've had access to opportunities equivalent to those available to UC students. There's definitely bias against CSU students in this application process but that doesn't mean an excellent CSU student cannot get into a top program. I know current medical students and doctors from my alma mater who attended top medical school programs including Harvard, UCSF, UCSD, UCLA and USC. The name of your undergrad can only help or hurt you to a limited extent.

It ultimately boils down to your academic performance and what you do with the opportunities available to you. One of the main reasons why there's a significantly greater number of UC grads over CSU grads is because there are a lot more UC applicants than CSU applicants. Like I said before, the competition at CSU's just is not as stiff as at the UC system. My school was pretty large (35,000+ students) but not many of the students who set out as "pre-meds" ever made it to even submitting an application. When the UC applicant pool is ten times as large as the CSU pool, there will inevitably be far more UC grads in med school.

Having said that, if I could do it over again and I knew I wanted to pursue medicine right out of high school, I would go for a UC. I think having a more competitive student body makes for better preparation for med school and it doesn't hurt to have the UC reputation backing your degree. Nonetheless, you can still receive an excellent education and college experience at a CSU. If you work hard and do it right, you can potentially land a spot in any med school regardless of where you went for undergrad.

 

[CoolWhipp]

The only thing one can do to increase their chances for admission is to make their entire application as strong as possible and do their best on the interview if they get invited for one...

...If we are talking of PRIVATE medical schools, then by all means, the "brand name" could easily apply!

My aim at responding to this thread is to help other students make an informed decision when choosing a CSU or UC undergraduate education with plans on going to medical school. I want students to have the best chance they can possibly have when applying. This is what SDN is all about.

Regarding your remark about me knowing your past, I never assumed I did. I do not know your history, but remember you also do not know mine. Look at my signature, there is a reason why I have that quote posted there. And, congratulations on attending a top 25 university, but that alone does not make your opinion on CSUs stand any higher than mine. I'm not an arrogant person at all and I do not feel that my comments on this forum make me seem so either.

I apologize for my remark regarding fairies and unicorns. You are correct about DeVry and pre-med prereqs. I simply mentioned DeVry as a means to say that being an accredited program doesn't really mean much.

We're not playing in the pond anymore, there's sharks out there (i.e. ivy league grads). Brand name always applies. University brand name is one of the things that belong in the "entire application."

 

[xpanchox]

Just gonna throw my opinion out there since I went to both a CSU school and a UC school (transferred out of a top 3 among the CSU schools to UCLA).

The education I got during the time I was at the CSU was a joke. My freshman biology, chemistry, and physics classes covered so little material, that I had no idea on about 50% of the material I needed to know for the MCAT. Luckily, I majored in Physiology at UCLA when I transferred, so I was able to fill in the gaps for biology, but I had to learn new material for chemistry and physics.

In addition, I was able to ace most of my midterms/finals by spending a few hours studying the night before. Thus, I was not motivated to study more/harder since there was no competition to begin with. My first few quarters at UCLA were rough due to the intensity of the competition and the huge amount of material covered before exams...something wayy different than the CSU system.

I see some people say that "it's what you make out of it", but it's kind of hard when there's not much you can make out of. I guess in the end, the MCAT will be the equalizers for highly motivated and driven students that attended a CSU.

 

[CoolWhipp]

Maybe it's just me, but I think comparing a human being to a TV or a car is insulting and a logically fallacious.

I'm not "bitter" about it. I'm a graduate from the University of California, so if anything, it works to my advantage to have CSU students be thought of as lesser in capability. I just happen to be one of those folks that believes in social justice.

The day you walk into the workforce and see that college background is thought of largely as a joke and capable people come from all walks of life, you might change your mind.

Logically fallacious? No. Fallacious? Maybe. It was only a tool to prove a point. I'm not putting a human being and a TV on two different sides of a scale and attempting to calculate a numeric value.

You say "I just happen to be one of those folks that believes in social justice" as if I don't (you did quote me in the reply to this thread). I'm all about social mobility, I believe the best person for a job can be found from all walks of life, absolutely. And that those people, should get the job/position.

And since you quoted me, it would be logical that you were refering to me when you mention the day I would walk into the workforce. I've been in the work force since I was 15 and never did I experience any notion that college was thought of as "largely as a joke." In fact, funny that you should mention that because I'm interviewing 2 post-doctoral candidates this Friday. Guess what was mentioned on their CV first? If you guessed "education," you're a winner!

Did you read anything that I wrote in this thread regarding that capable people come from better ranked universities?

This isn't about capability, I know that capable people come from all walks of life. When you are looking for a job or getting into graduate school, you are just a piece of paper before you are a person. You replied to me with some assumptions that I didn't remotely notion in this thread.

 

[murfettie]

I graduated from UCLA.
Did my postbac work at a Cal State.
Let's just say UCLA says their rate is about 45%
at this CSU I go to right now, it's about 40% acceptance rate..
I must say, I personally know so many whose dreams were crushed at UCLA. However, UCLA was great to me though. I am glad to have UCLA's name to back me up.
Take this into consideration though, there were only 15 people who applied to med school this year at this particular CSU. 15 more people were post-bacs who applied to med school.
so, 30 total. at an average batting score at 50% (the postbacs have a better record)
How many undergrads applied to med school from UCLA this year? I bet more than 15..

 

[ILikeDrugs]

I wonder if the SUNY system takes as much heat as the CSU system. 🙁

 

[CoolWhipp]

Sorry if it seems hard to believe that you are all for social mobility when you call UC graduates a Benz and CSU graduates a Honda. You're simply full of **** and can't just accept that a lot of what goes on in schools is elitism and that the system is set up to keep those below remaining below.

Perhaps my words do lend themselves to misinterpretation, but I'm not trying to state that a college education is thought of as a joke. Instead, what particular college you went to is largely thought of as a joke since being a well rounded person and your work accomplishments are the ones that take precedent. I've seen UC graduates work for CSU employers and vice-versa. Doesn't mean the UC graduate must be a better worker.

I'm not calling UC graduates a Benz and CSU graduates a Honda, it was simply a tool to prove my point. I'm referring to what another poster had mentioned, and it is that so called "knee jerk reaction." Before even looking into specifications, people are likely to assume that the Benz is better than the Honda. If it makes any difference, I don't like Benz.

Accomplishments and being a well rounded person weigh far more heavily in the work field than they do in the academic field. When applying for work outside of academia, it is common to put your work experience first, but you never do that when applying to graduate school or applying for jobs within academia. Why do you think this is so? Academic elitism, probable.

I never argued that what a lot of what goes on in schools is elitism or not. In fact, I agree with you, it is indeed elitism. People from good schools like to hire people from good schools, that's the way it is. That is not how I want it to be, that is just the way it is.

Hence the reason why I urge those who have a choice in going to a UC versus a CSU, to go to a UC. Use everything in your arsenal to have the best chance you can have at success, sounds logical right?

I'm not even touching the "keep those below remaining below" topic at all in this thread. I don't know why you brought it up.

I never said UC graduates are better workers than CSU graduates.

I never said UC graduates won't work for CSU employers.

This isn't about being actually smarter, better, or more intelligent in the least bit. Going to a UC over a CSU, is about playing the game. Using that "Knee-jerk reaction" to your benefit to get you closer to your goals. This is about strategy, use those alumni networks that UC's have and those research opportunities.

 

[barcoderider]

I guess I'm biased because I went to a UC, but I don't think they're even comparable. One of my friends went to a CSU then transfered to a UC and said that the CSU schools are a joke compared to the UCs.

Also, UC Berkeley isn't THAT bad for premeds, and it's worth it in the end because adcoms and interviewers recognize it's a great school...or so I delude myself. 🙂

 

[drdandelion]

I'm not calling UC graduates a Benz and CSU graduates a Honda, it was simply a tool to prove my point. I'm referring to what another poster had mentioned, and it is that so called "knee jerk reaction." Before even looking into specifications, people are likely to assume that the Benz is better than the Honda. If it makes any difference, I don't like Benz.

Accomplishments and being a well rounded person weigh far more heavily in the work field than they do in the academic field. When applying for work outside of academia, it is common to put your work experience first, but you never do that when applying to graduate school or applying for jobs within academia. Why do you think this is so? Academic elitism, probable.

I never argued that what a lot of what goes on in schools is elitism or not. In fact, I agree with you, it is indeed elitism. People from good schools like to hire people from good schools, that's the way it is. That is not how I want it to be, that is just the way it is.

Hence the reason why I urge those who have a choice in going to a UC versus a CSU, to go to a UC. Use everything in your arsenal to have the best chance you can have at success, sounds logical right?

I'm not even touching the "keep those below remaining below" topic at all in this thread. I don't know why you brought it up.

I never said UC graduates are better workers than CSU graduates.

I never said UC graduates won't work for CSU employers.

This isn't about being actually smarter, better, or more intelligent in the least bit. Going to a UC over a CSU, is about playing the game. Using that "Knee-jerk reaction" to your benefit to get you closer to your goals. This is about strategy, use those alumni networks that UC's have and those research opportunities.

If you don't like the way it is, then why not be the first to stop promoting it? Change begins with you. Hypothetically (not reality), if every person who applied to medical school came from so-called lower rank undergraduate institutions, then medical schools would have no choice but to choose applicants from there (otherwise, there would be no doctors!). Thus, the "brand name" notion would come to a screeching halt.

If people like you continue to advance this "elitist" notion, it will always continue. Another poster mentioned the idea of "keep those below remaining below" and you brushed it off acting as if it has no relation to this forum, but it has EVERYTHING to do with this forum. UC vs. CSU is the debate over "name" and "prestige." By subscribing to the "brand name" game, one is subscribing to the notion of "keeping those below remaining below." Why? Because it is punishing those who may have had lesser beneficial life chances to attend a "better" school by putting a barrier on their ability to move up.

Harvard University recognized this, and that's why almost a decade ago, they decided to provide FULL tuition to students whose parents earned $60,000 or less. They knew that by not doing this, they were continuing to contribute to the increasing social divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots." They knew that the change started with them.

 

[wanderer]

I wonder if the SUNY system takes as much heat as the CSU system. 🙁

I don't think so. NYS doesn't really have a two-tiered system though. Sure there are the better schools within the SUNY (like Binghampton), but the stronger applicants from the lesser known SUNYs have been quite successful. My guess is that being a borderline SUNY applicant (like ~31, ~3.7) would hurt though, but who knows.

 

[Musclemass]

It seems at the end of the day we aren't arguing about anything then because I never suggested the OP go to CSU. I was merely making a point about elitism and knee-jerk reactions by academia, which you agree on.

I don't agree with your comments. You seem to not understand things that are blatantly obvious to others. And you continue to argue when someone points out clearly how you don't get it.

Same for drdandelion. Are you two buds?

 

[CoolWhipp]

If you don't like the way it is, then why not be the first to stop promoting it? Change begins with you. Hypothetically (not reality), if every person who applied to medical school came from so-called lower rank undergraduate institutions, then medical schools would have no choice but to choose applicants from there (otherwise, there would be no doctors!). Thus, the "brand name" notion would come to a screeching halt.

If people like you continue to advance this "elitist" notion, it will always continue. Another poster mentioned the idea of "keep those below remaining below" and you brushed it off acting as if it has no relation to this forum, but it has EVERYTHING to do with this forum. UC vs. CSU is the debate over "name" and "prestige." By subscribing to the "brand name" game, one is subscribing to the notion of "keeping those below remaining below." Why? Because it is punishing those who may have had lesser beneficial life chances to attend a "better" school by putting a barrier on their ability to move up.

Harvard University recognized this, and that's why almost a decade ago, they decided to provide FULL tuition to students whose parents earned $60,000 or less. They knew that by not doing this, they were continuing to contribute to the increasing social divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots." They knew that the change started with them.

Yea, it is all my fault for that california has a two tier system right now. I should have been the first to stop promoting it because I can create a wave of enlightenment by the time you guys are ready to apply for medical school. If only you had been there to show me the way earlier, I could have saved the entire population of CSU pre-meds from climbing the uphill battle. Damn the hundreds of thousands of UC graduates supporting the two tier system and keeping those below remaining below!

Your hypothetical example of "lower ranked institutions" only applying to medical school doesn't make sense, BTW.

I brushed off "those below remaining below" because if you get into that subject it deserves another thread. There are so many social, economical, and political reasons for that kind of injustice that deserves it's own thread, not one belonging under "UC or CSU for medical school." I'm trying to stick to this thread as much as possible, while adding information relevant to choosing a UC over a CSU when given the option and if they have plans on going to graduate school. Getting into the topic of "those below remaining below" as a topic of discussion for choosing a UC or a CSU is grasping for straws.

If you don't get it, this is never going to happen. We don't live a society where we like to put two things equal, corporate America trains us to find differences way before we find similarities. There's a ton of research on this by a blind professor at Columbia.

Never am I talking about "changing the system" and "doing what is right for the general population" and "breaking the wall that separates the rich and the poor."

I'm talking about gaming the system, so that you can have a chance at success. So that, people will listen to you when you want to make a change. You have to play the game, to change the game.


But to address your sociopolitical concerns (not relevant to choosing a UC vs a CSU read on), here are my thoughts:

I have two cents about the "political" aspect of what you were talking about, but I'm no means an expert in this subject. This is all speculation. Here is my personal opinion, the reason why the system is so hard to change is because "those below" don't have anyone to represent them in high level places. "Those below" that are trying to change the system are asking "those above" to change the system for them. This is why I like affirmitive action. It puts minorities in positions of power and respect, and in turn will start a cyclic/positive feedback and continue to push minorities into an equal playing field. I think a big problem for minorities groups is that they rarely see someone successful that physically look like them or culturally the same as them when growing up. How many "Dr. Gonzales" or "Dr. Jimenez" have you seen? From a young age, this creates it's own psychological barrier.

Yes, I know there are a number of research power houses giving free tuition and room/board to excellent students in financial need. This is pretty recent and is a step in the right direction, but it won't address the main problem because "those below" still don't start off at an equal playing field.

I happen to believe it is extremely important for children to be educated and stimulated as it will have huge effects on them developmentally later on. I lived in east los angeles for a large part of my life, and I've attended school down there before college. We had nothing, we didn't even have basketballs for the basketball courts. I had to bring my own chalk, and kids were bringing in their own marbles. The teachers were way underqualified, and didn't know how to deal with us because we were supposed to be learning at a certain grade level, but none of us were there. The system failed us. Have you seen some of these posh elementary schools?

The main problem isn't that minorities aren't getting into the best colleges, it's that they aren't going at all. The number of resources straight from the beginning is keeping "those below remaining below" before college even starts for mainly "those above."

This is how the system is.

Look at jails for example, jails are a huge business. Look at the type of people employed by jails and those within those jails. It's a billion dollar industry, you want to know why we don't get rid of jails? You said it yourself, it keeps "those below remaining below."

 

[bigbad]

So then how do adcoms react when they come across an app from a school they've never seen before? Besides state schools, there are a TON of private schools and you can bet there are significant differences between them.

Do they research it to get a better idea or toss the application if it doesn't have anything special?

 

[CoolWhipp]

So then how do adcoms react when they come across an app from a school they've never seen before? Besides state schools, there are a TON of private schools and you can bet there are significant differences between them.

Do they research it to get a better idea or toss the application if it doesn't have anything special?

I have no idea.

If you happen to be the first student who applied from a particular private school? However unlikely, I would believe/hope they would obtain information of how many people attended your school, the average GPA at matriculation, and the average GPA within your major. Then compare your GPA with the average GPA in your major, and also look at your MCAT strongly as well as extracurricular activities. They will probably search for students that graduated at the same institution and check on how they did throughout medical school (if there happens to be one).

This is different from CSUs applicants because CSUs have been around for a long time and medical schools are well acquainted with them.

 

[drdandelion]

Yea, it is all my fault for that california has a two tier system right now. I should have been the first to stop promoting it because I can create a wave of enlightenment by the time you guys are ready to apply for medical school. If only you had been there to show me the way earlier, I could have saved the entire population of CSU pre-meds from climbing the uphill battle. Damn the hundreds of thousands of UC graduates supporting the two tier system and keeping those below remaining below!

Your hypothetical example of "lower ranked institutions" only applying to medical school doesn't make sense, BTW.

I brushed off "those below remaining below" because if you get into that subject it deserves another thread. There are so many social, economical, and political reasons for that kind of injustice that deserves it's own thread, not one belonging under "UC or CSU for medical school." I'm trying to stick to this thread as much as possible, while adding information relevant to choosing a UC over a CSU when given the option and if they have plans on going to graduate school. Getting into the topic of "those below remaining below" as a topic of discussion for choosing a UC or a CSU is grasping for straws.

If you don't get it, this is never going to happen. We don't live a society where we like to put two things equal, corporate America trains us to find differences way before we find similarities. There's a ton of research on this by a blind professor at Columbia.

Never am I talking about "changing the system" and "doing what is right for the general population" and "breaking the wall that separates the rich and the poor."

I'm talking about gaming the system, so that you can have a chance at success. So that, people will listen to you when you want to make a change. You have to play the game, to change the game.


But to address your sociopolitical concerns (not relevant to choosing a UC vs a CSU read on), here are my thoughts:

I have two cents about the "political" aspect of what you were talking about, but I'm no means an expert in this subject. This is all speculation. Here is my personal opinion, the reason why the system is so hard to change is because "those below" don't have anyone to represent them in high level places. "Those below" that are trying to change the system are asking "those above" to change the system for them. This is why I like affirmitive action. It puts minorities in positions of power and respect, and in turn will start a cyclic/positive feedback and continue to push minorities into an equal playing field. I think a big problem for minorities groups is that they rarely see someone successful that physically look like them or culturally the same as them when growing up. How many "Dr. Gonzales" or "Dr. Jimenez" have you seen? From a young age, this creates it's own psychological barrier.

Yes, I know there are a number of research power houses giving free tuition and room/board to excellent students in financial need. This is pretty recent and is a step in the right direction, but it won't address the main problem because "those below" still don't start off at an equal playing field.

I happen to believe it is extremely important for children to be educated and stimulated as it will have huge effects on them developmentally later on. I lived in east los angeles for a large part of my life, and I've attended school down there before college. We had nothing, we didn't even have basketballs for the basketball courts. I had to bring my own chalk, and kids were bringing in their own marbles. The teachers were way underqualified, and didn't know how to deal with us because we were supposed to be learning at a certain grade level, but none of us were there. The system failed us. Have you seen some of these posh elementary schools?

The main problem isn't that minorities aren't getting into the best colleges, it's that they aren't going at all. The number of resources straight from the beginning is keeping "those below remaining below" before college even starts for mainly "those above."

This is how the system is.

Look at jails for example, jails are a huge business. Look at the type of people employed by jails and those within those jails. It's a billion dollar industry, you want to know why we don't get rid of jails? You said it yourself, it keeps "those below remaining below."

My god, this is sooo exhausting...you seem to always misunderstand my remarks or purposely respond facetiously. When did I ever say that you are completely responsible for any problems with the system? I merely stated that in order for people to change the system, they need to change themselves first. Ever hear of the quote, "Be the change you want to see in the world"? But you know, I'm willing to bet that if you were on an admissions committee, you probably would judge an applicant if you were on an admissions committee if they came from a CSU even if they had stellar test scores and numbers.

Yes, any changes that elite institutions have made do NOT entirely fix the problem, but it is a start. It is better to do something about the problems than to do nothing at all, so I give them some credit.

Clearly, the only reason we continue to debate is because you disagree that going to a CSU would make no difference in success of admission to medical school. And your disagreement is clearly at odds with your support of affirmative action in some ways. You keep mentioning this so-called "uphill battle" but if you get a nice GPA and nice MCAT scores plus great letters of recommendation, plenty of clinical and other experiences to back it up, and do well on the interview AND you happen to be a CSU student, you're quite bound to get an acceptance to an MD-granting school. There is only an "uphill battle" if parts of your application aren't strong REGARDLESS of the undergraduate institution you came from. You're forgetting to realize that medical schools accept human beings (this is why NO decision is officially made about your application until you've done your in-person interview). UC, CSU, Harvard, or what have you, when it all comes down to it, if you mess up on the interview, coming from a UC or a top school will NOT recover you.

If you want to talk about even making the final cut to the interview and coming from a lower ranking school, like I said before, high MCAT scores are key to getting your foot in the door. Do not underestimate the significance of MCAT scores. There are reasons why this test is given: it is STANDARDIZED (this makes up for any bias in grading that may have occured in your school; plus a high GPA cannot make up for a low MCAT score--having a high GPA and a low MCAT says that there was most likely a lot of grade inflation), it is an EQUALIZER (whether you come from a top school or a lower-ranking school, it levels the playing field; plus, going to a top school does not equal doing well on the MCAT and vice versa; your performance on the MCAT is all about YOU), and it STRONGLY predicts one's scores on the first step of the medical licensing board exam (and there is significant statistical evidence of this). If you don't pass the boards, you don't become a doctor. It's that simple. You can ace/pass all of the courses you took in medical school, but if you don't pass the board exam, you will not be licensed to practice medicine.

If I still haven't convinced you that going to a CSU makes no difference in your success in getting into medical school, but rather your application itself and your interview is the deciding factor, then I give up. This is going nowhere. I'm not even a CSU student!

 

[SmartBruh]

The common mythology is that attending a college or university higher up the status ladder will improve one's chances for medical and other professional schools.

The facts belie this perception, but the myth persists. CSU's do not have the hundreds of applicants per year typical of the larger University of California campuses, so in raw numbers CSUs send far fewer students on to medical school. Their rate of acceptances, however, compares favorably. This is due, at least in part, to the more highly personalized classes and counseling they are able to provide to upper-division students. If MCAT scores are acceptable (10's and above, with an occasional 9 sneaking in), then most serious applicants, i.e., those who by their senior year have demonstrated work of high quality in the sciences and have the support of the faculty, obtain admission to medical school.

 

[CoolWhipp]

I merely stated that in order for people to change the system, they need to change themselves first. Ever hear of the quote, "Be the change you want to see in the world"?

What are you, my counselor?

I wasn't about changing the world at all. That's not what I'm about, I'm about gaming the system first and then, when in position of power, change the system. I'm not making the rules, I'm telling you the way they are set out right now.

EDIT: It seems like you believe CSUs are regarded in the same light as UCs, and the popular belief still favors UCs as being better. I guess changing one's own belief first doesn't really work out if you want to get into medical school in one life time because it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the adcom thinks.

But you know, I'm willing to bet that if you were on an admissions committee, you probably would judge an applicant if you were on an admissions committee if they came from a CSU even if they had stellar test scores and numbers.

And who cares how I would act if I was an Adcom, am I one now? No. That is so irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I do disagree that CSUs are held in the same regard as UCs. This is because, this is the way it is. People generally see UCs as better institutions. I'm not making the rules, this is the way it is. And, my support for anything (i.e. affirmative action) won't change the way it is right now. For whatever reason you believe they are at odds with each other, why can't they be? Are you saying I have to believe that CSUs are regarded in the same light as UCs to support affirmative action?

You're forgetting to realize that medical schools accept human beings (this is why NO decision is officially made about your application until you've done your in-person interview). UC, CSU, Harvard, or what have you, when it all comes down to it, if you mess up on the interview, coming from a UC or a top school will NOT recover you.

Again, before you are human being you are a piece of paper. And, they go through a whole lot of papers. I mean the applications come by the thousands right? At that point, efficiency is important and efficiency in many cases leads to the opposite of humanization.

I'm not talking about making the final cut, or interviews at all. The main problem CSU pre-meds have is getting recognized and getting that interview invite because they came from a CSU.

I think everyone knows that you must go through an interview process before being accepted.

No one is arguing that if you mess up an interview, regardless of undergraduate education, you are likely to be rejected.

If you want to talk about even making the final cut to the interview and coming from a lower ranking school, like I said before, high MCAT scores are key to getting your foot in the door. Do not underestimate the significance of MCAT scores. There are reasons why this test is given: it is STANDARDIZED (this makes up for any bias in grading that may have occured in your school; plus a high GPA cannot make up for a low MCAT score--having a high GPA and a low MCAT says that there was most likely a lot of grade inflation), it is an EQUALIZER (whether you come from a top school or a lower-ranking school, it levels the playing field; plus, going to a top school does not equal doing well on the MCAT and vice versa; your performance on the MCAT is all about YOU), and it STRONGLY predicts one's scores on the first step of the medical licensing board exam (and there is significant statistical evidence of this). If you don't pass the boards, you don't become a doctor. It's that simple. You can ace/pass all of the courses you took in medical school, but if you don't pass the board exam, you will not be licensed to practice medicine.

No one is arguing in this thread the importance of an interview, especially not me. No one is arguing that the MCAT is the attempted equalizer. No one is arguing anything in the quoted paragraph that you so elaborately decided to touch up on.

Everyone knows the MCAT is standardized. Everyone knows if you don't pass the boards, you don't become a doctor.

Your reply had too much extraneous and implied information that wasn't necessary.

 

[murfettie]

You guys have a lot of time..
It's also not that helpful for the OP.