UCLA or UCSF

[kiggar4l2000]

I know this topic has been discussed some time ago but I'm curious as to why someone would choose UCLA over UCSF. I think both school are amazing, esp. if you're a CA resident like myself, but why UCLA? I haven't heard anything really great about the school from doctors, current UCLA dental students, or from anyone else I know. In fact, this is no joke, everyone I know who have graduated from UCLA or is currently attending at UCLA told me to go to UCSF over UCLA. Every one of them.

Why I didn't even interview at UCLA:
- West LA is more expensive to live in than SF (i was kinda surprised to find this out from my friends there)
- UCLA has a more competitve enviroment b/c everyone wants to specialize there (plus, their students have higher stats which says something about the students attending there; not a bad thing though)
- UCLA has a slightly bigger class
- I like the Bay Area even though I grew up in So Cal (location)
- UCSF is a premiere health professional school, ranking #1 in almost every category (med, pharm, nursing, etc.); UCLA is great too but reputation wise and overall UCSF is better. If this matters to you...
- UCLA is too academically oriented (they really want you to do well on the boards..even at the expense of spending more time in clinic, etc.) whereas UCSF is more balanced. I think if you talk to any dentist currently working in CA, they wouldn't disagree. Their handskills aren't as great. At UCSF, more students do GP b/c of the balanced education they receive there and more confidence they have in their handskills.
- SF has a better patient population/demographic. Gives you more opportunities to see medically complex cases, etc. West LA? I grew up near there and its nothing but complex.

I could go on but overall I think UCSF is a better choice. People going to UCLA can may be help me understand why they chose UCLA over UCSF b/c I'm pretty sure if you ask current UCSF and UCLA students...all of them..if they could do it again in choosing btw UCLA or UCSF...I think more people than not would choose UCSF. Out of 20+ people I know attending or have attended UCSF and UCLA, not one of them told me to pick UCLA over UCSF. They said UCLA is great but nothing as to pick it over UCSF.

Thanks for your thoughts. THis is not to dogg on UCLA because it was one of my top choices afterall. I'm just curious why someone would pick UCLA over UCSF. I can only see location as a possible reason. If there are other reasons you can think of in choosing UCLA over UCSF...please DO list them!

Just so you know I didn't interview at UCLA b/c I already had my heart set on going to UCSF, which was my #1 choice. I got accepted there before the UCLA interview invite.

-
UCSF c/o 2010

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KAP]

you made the mistake of not interviewing there... either place u decide to attend, you are going to be a great dentist. it solely depends on what you want to experience during your education and where you want to live for four years. ucla and ucsf are easily among the top dental schools in the nation. cannot go wrong either way. I didn't apply to ucsf, so i have no idea what the school is all about. but theres no sense in trying to downplay UCLA. all the people with high stats go there bc thats who the committee wants to accept. the classes arent going to be that competitive since its pass/no pass system. theres a lot more to debate over this, but seriously, either school is a great choice.

 

[dat_student]

... but why UCLA? I haven't heard anything really great about the school from doctors, current UCLA dental students, or from anyone else I know....

That's your biased observation. Back in 2005, I interviewed at many universities (UPENN, Columbia, UCSF, UCONN, UCLA, UMD,...) and I heard more good things about UCLA. Originally, I felt UCSF School of Dentistry was better than UCLA School of Dentistry but I gradually noticed that UCLA is a better option. Here are my reasons:

....
- UCLA has a more competitve enviroment b/c everyone wants to specialize there....

I believe that shows UCLA is more attractive for higher caliber students. Perhaps, UCSF is better for slackers and less ambitious applicants.

- UCLA has a slightly bigger class

UCLA (88 students) vs UCSF (82 students). The difference is only 6 students. Plus, after the second year many international students will join you at UCSF. At the end, UCSF may end up having a larger class size.

- I like the Bay Area even though I grew up in So Cal (location)

Southern California is more populated. It may be better to build connections in a more populated area. Business-wise it may be a sound decision.

- UCSF is a premiere health professional school, ranking #1 in almost every category (med, pharm, nursing, etc.); UCLA is great too but reputation wise and overall UCSF is better. If this matters to you...

UCSF is not #1 in everything and it certainy isn't #1 in dentistry.
UCSF:*
DAT=20.3 (i.e. #7)
PAT=18 (i.e. #9-18)
GPA=3.46 (i.e. #37-39)
Science GPA=3.4 (i.e. #30-32)

*See http://www.predents.com

Plus, ULCA is comparable. UCLA has had more Noble prize winners in its past:
FACULTY LAUREATES:
Dr. Louis J. Ignarro
Dr. Paul Boyer
Dr. Donald Cram
Dr. Julian S. Schwinger
Dr. Willard F. Libby
ALUMNI LAUREATES:
Dr. William Sharpe
Dr. Bruce Merrifield
Dr. Glenn Seaborg
Dr. Ralph Bunche

- ...At UCSF, more students do GP b/c of the balanced education they receive there and more confidence they have in their handskills.

No, that is not true. There seems to be a nice correlation between NBDE-I scores and match rates. For whatever reason, on avg UCLA students do much better on NBDE-I.

- SF has a better patient population/demographic. Gives you more opportunities to see medically complex cases, etc. West LA? I grew up near there and its nothing but complex.

UCLA seems to have more than one dental clinic Certainly, LA is the most populated city in California. I'm 100% sure complex cases are also seen at UCLA clinics.

I could go on but overall I think UCSF is a better choice.

For you it may be a better choice. Again, for whatever reason, UCLA seems to be more attractive for higher caliber students.

People going to UCLA can may be help me understand why they chose UCLA b/c I'm pretty sure if you ask current UCSF and UCLA students...all of them..if they could do it again in choosing btw UCLA or UCSF...I think more people than not would choose UCSF.

I did that. My faculty interviewer at UCSF was a UCLA graduate. I asked him which school (UCLA or UCSF) is better if one wants to pursue a specialty. He felt UCLA better prepares its students for NBDE-I.

...I didn't interview at UCLA b/c I already had my heart set on going to UCSF, which was my #1 choice, and I got accepted there before the UCLA interview invite...

You made a wrong decision. You should have waited to hear from UCLA. After Dec 1st I interviewed at one more university to make sure the decision that I made on Dec 1st was the right decision for me.

 

[L8DYV]

At UCLA, international students will also join the class--a total of 12 of them. So at graduation, the class size will be 100.

 

[tofufob]

PLEASE, STOP THE BATTLE OF SO CAL VS. NOR CAL. Have some considerations for us candidates who still have their interview result under the forever pending status at both schools. If you pick LA, great, time for you to go to the beach and get a tan. If you pick SF, great, eat dim-sum and go study under the golden gate bridge. Either way, just pick ONE! dammit... Give up your other spot already.

P.S. I love Penn, but just not as much as I love Cali and my mama.

 

[tofufob]

BTW, what I wrote above was strictly a personal complaint. I know the people posted on this thread so far has chosen a school already. Thank you and please understand that the comment definitely does not apply to you.
As for L8DYV,I'm sure you somewhat understand where I'm coming from, we both interviewed late. =P

 

[L8DYV]

BTW, what I wrote above was strictly a personal complaint. I know the people posted on this thread so far has chosen a school already. Thank you and please understand that the comment definitely does not apply to you.
As for L8DYV,I'm sure you somewhat understand where I'm coming from, we both interviewed late. =P

Yes, I do tofufob. Like you, I'm just waiting to make my next move as soon as I recieve that call.

Speaking of battle of no and so cal. San francisco gots serious archrivals streets apart from each other--uop and ucsf. When I interviewed at UOP, there was a lot of animosity toward UCSF and vice versa.

 

[kiggar4l2000]

Sweet thanks! although I can't say all your points were valid, but thanks nonetheless.

one thing though: your definition of "high-er caliber students" seems to reveal naivete on your part. if DAT and GPA scores are all you're considering then you should realize that both UCSF and UCLA could fill their classes with students with a 4.0 GPA and 29/30s on the DAT..or very close to it. so the discrepancy between the two schools in those stats says nothing about the students per se but says something about what UCSF and UCLA look for in its students. for the most part, UCLA wants to make sure its students do well on the board exam b/c that's what UCLA is known for: sending lots of students to specialty programs. i'll admit that UCLA is better...only slightly...in that category. UCSF ranked 4th last year and if UCLA were ranked higher say even 1st in the nation the difference in average board scores can't be more than 2.0, which ain't much. so that argument of that interviewer is weak...

what UCSF recognizes and wants for its students is to have a balanced education, to excel in all areas of dental education. certainly no school is perfect but yeah UCSF and UCLA are good for different things i guess. at UCSF, i can be sure that I could be a great GP and also a great specialist, if i so choose to pursue that path. but at UCLA, my friends tell me that it's either become a specialist or go through GPR to gain more clinical experience before becoming a GP (relatively more than UCSF). but seriously u should actually talk to students currently attending at UCLA.

having said all that, here's my stats: GPA: 3.89/3.92 DAT: 24/24/22. if i wanted to get 4.0 at Stanford, I think I could have but I was bogged down with leadership responsibilities and community service projects. sorry

I believe that shows UCLA is more attractive for higher caliber students. Perhaps, UCSF is better for slackers and less ambitious applicants.


No, that is not true. There seems to be a nice correlation between NBDE-I scores and match rates. For whatever reason, on avg UCLA students do much better on NBDE-I.

For you it may be a better choice. Again, for whatever reason, UCLA seems to be more attractive for higher caliber students.

I did that. My faculty interviewer at UCSF was a UCLA graduate. I asked him which school (UCLA or UCSF) is better if one wants to pursue a specialty. He felt UCLA better prepares its students for NBDE-I.

 

[whiskeysour]

Sweet thanks! although I can't say all your points were valid, but thanks nonetheless.

one thing though: your definition of "high-er caliber students" seems to reveal naivete on your part. if DAT and GPA scores are all you're considering then you should realize that both UCSF and UCLA could fill their classes with students with a 4.0 GPA and 29/30s on the DAT..or very close to it. so the discrepancy between the two schools in those stats says nothing about the students per se but says something about what UCSF and UCLA look for in its students. for the most part, UCLA wants to make sure its students do well on the board exam b/c that's what UCLA is known for: sending lots of students to specialty programs. i'll admit that UCLA is better...only slightly...in that category. UCSF ranked 4th last year and if UCLA were ranked higher say even 1st in the nation the difference in average board scores can't be more than 2.0, which ain't much. so that argument of that interviewer is weak...

what UCSF recognizes and wants for its students is to have a balanced education, to excel in all areas of dental education. certainly no school is perfect but yeah UCSF and UCLA are good for different things i guess.

having said all that, here's my stats: GPA: 3.89/3.92 DAT: 24/24/22. if i wanted to get 4.0 at Stanford, I think I could have but I was bogged down with leadership responsibilities and community service projects. sorry

lol. not even harvard could fill there class with stats like that, so get off your high horse you pomposs ass. nobody cares where you went to undergrad, just like no one will care where you went to dental school. with that said...go to the school thats fits you the best (i.e. location, atmosphere, students, education, etc.)

no need to apologize, we all feel sorry for you!

 

[kiggar4l2000]

lol. not even harvard could fill there class with stats like that, so get off your high horse you pomposs ass. nobody cares where you went to undergrad, just like no one will care where you went to dental school. with that said...go to the school thats fits you the best (i.e. location, atmosphere, students, education, etc.)

no need to apologize, we all feel sorry for you!

haha that was fast. i really didn't want to reveal my stats or my school but i just wanted to make a point to dat_student that UCSF students are not "slackers" or "less ambitious"

 

[dongiovanni81]

haha that was fast. i really didn't want to reveal my stats or my school but i just wanted to make a point to dat_student that UCSF students are not "slackers" or "less ambitious"

can't we just all get along?

 

[xylashellx]

my personal opinion is that everyone that gets into ucla should go there and withdraw their ap so i can get into ucsf dammit!!! good luck

 

[drhobie7]

What's the point of this thread? You picked your school. Are you seeking validation for your choice? Are you curious why anyone would be misguided enough to choose UCLA over UCSF? Your post is both ignorant and arrogant. I'm glad you picked UCSF too.

Why I didn't even interview at UCLA:
- West LA is more expensive to live in than SF.

What area are you talking about? Bel Air? The Marina? This is too generalized to be meaningful. You can get a room down here for $600 a month. Or you can get a studio for $850. Or you can pay $10,000 for a phat penthouse. A room in San Francisco isn't going to rent for $300 a month.

- UCLA has a more competitve enviroment b/c everyone wants to specialize there (plus, their students have higher stats which says something about the students attending there; not a bad thing though)

About 50% of our students specialize. Apparently this is much more than UCSF. Frankly if I wanted to do general dentistry and live in SF I would pick UOP in a heart beat. Yes, we do have higher stats, which does say something about our students...

- I like the Bay Area even though I grew up in So Cal (location)

Good for you. Some people prefer sunshine to fog and hotties to hippies.

- UCSF is a premiere health professional school, ranking #1 in almost every category (med, pharm, nursing, etc.); UCLA is great too but reputation wise and overall UCSF is better.

Having a top 5 med school is a bad reason to pick a dental school. When I walk to class each morning there are banners up on the lightposts that proclaim UCLA was voted #1 in the west and #3 in the nation in terms of hospitals. Do I care? No. My education is not impacted by the fact that UCLA is the best liver transplant center in the country. This is just silly. You pick a dental school based on the dental school not their nursing program.

- UCLA is too academically oriented (they really want you to do well on the boards..even at the expense of spending more time in clinic, etc.) whereas UCSF is more balanced.

What kind of dentist do you want to be? A tooth mechanic or would you rather live up to your title of doctor? Dentistry is not a trade. It is a health profession and as such requires a certain amount of knowledge about the human body. UCLA does not desire higher performance on the boards at the expense of clinic experience. Our dean repeatedly tells us this as we prepare for the boards. She emphasizes getting boards over with so they don't interfere with patient care.
In fact, many people took boards after their 1st year this past cycle. From what I hear they did very well (as usual), and now boards are out of the way long before the transition to clinic. Those people who choose to take boards at the end of 2nd year have more than enough time to study during spring quarter and take the exam before clinic begins. I did this and was in clinic everyday that summer.

-Their handskills aren't as great. At UCSF, more students do GP b/c of the balanced education they receive there and more confidence they have in their handskills.

I can't believe I'm reading this. This is such a stupid statement. Have you seen me work? Have you seen my classmates work? Because I'm pretty damn good. Obviously you know nothing about our pre-clinical lab education.

- SF has a better patient population/demographic. Gives you more opportunities to see medically complex cases, etc. West LA? I grew up near there and its nothing but complex.

Do you think all 10 million people in LA are healthy? Have you ever treated a patient in LA? Have you ever treated a patient in SF? Have you ever treated a patient? I didn't think so. Do you think our patient pool is strictly from west of the 405, north of Olympic Blvd and south of Sunset? People have cars in LA. Unlike SF, the bus and railways are not primary forms of transportation. I have patients from Simi Valley, Santa Monica, Encino, Reseda, Van Nuys, Watts, Thousand Oaks, Venice, Inglewood, Brentwood, Hollywood, and many other regions of LA.

I could go on but overall I think UCSF is a better choice. People going to UCLA can may be help me understand why they chose UCLA over UCSF b/c I'm pretty sure if you ask current UCSF and UCLA students...all of them...if they could do it again in choosing btw UCLA or UCSF...I think more people than not would choose UCSF.

Yes, go ahead and survey all 800 students at UCLA and UCSF. I wouldn't choose UCSF over UCLA. There isn't a single one of my classmates who has expressed this to me. However, if you asked them if they would pick UOP over UCSF I think a preponderance would say UOP.

I picked UCLA over UCSF because I want to live and practice in southern CA. I knew it was an exceptional school that would allow me to chart any path I wanted in the future. I don't know much about UCSF's education because I have not been a student there. As such I couldn't and wouldn't make the generalizations you have made about UCLA. I'm sure it's a fine school that graduates good dentists. UCLA was my choice and I don't regret it for a second.

Just so you know I didn't interview at UCLA b/c I already had my heart set on going to UCSF, which was my #1 choice. I got accepted there before the UCLA interview invite.

Out of curiosity, were you invited to interview at UCLA?

 

[kiggar4l2000]

Out of curiosity, were you invited to interview at UCLA?

yup back in january; perhaps it was a mistake to not interview. hmm.. but my friends showed me around and i knew for sure i wanted to go to ucsf so shrugs.

 

[drhobie7]

yup back in january; perhaps it was a mistake to not interview. hmm.. but my friends showed me around and i knew for sure i wanted to go to ucsf so shrugs.

I'm sure you'll get an excellent education at UCSF, especially if you actively take control over your learning. You can get a lot more out of dental school if you take the initiative and use the resources around you to learn. What I mean by this is clinical faculty. The people who teach you are likely also the people who teach CE courses and charge thousands of dollars per attendee. Dental school is a terrific opportunity to pick their brains with no added expense. I've learned a tremendous amount from the prosthodontic instructors at UCLA, just by consulting them on various cases.

I didn't mean to be too big of a hardass in my reply, but as you can see I've got a lot of school pride and quite frankly love UCLA.

 

[madchemist2006]

That's your biased observation. Back in 2005, I interviewed at many universities (UPENN, Columbia, UCSF, UCONN, UCLA, UMD,...) and I heard more good things about UCLA. Originally, I felt UCSF School of Dentistry was better than UCLA School of Dentistry but I gradually noticed that UCLA is a better option. Here are my reasons:




I believe that shows UCLA is more attractive for higher caliber students. Perhaps, UCSF is better for slackers and less ambitious applicants.



UCLA (88 students) vs UCSF (82 students). The difference is only 6 students. Plus, after the second year many international students will join you at UCSF. At the end, UCSF may end up having a larger class size.



Southern California is more populated. It may be better to build connections in a more populated area. Business-wise it may be a sound decision.



UCSF is not #1 in everything and it certainy isn't #1 in dentistry.
UCSF:*
DAT=20.3 (i.e. #7)
PAT=18 (i.e. #9-18)
GPA=3.46 (i.e. #37-39)
Science GPA=3.4 (i.e. #30-32)

*See http://www.predents.com

Plus, ULCA is comparable. UCLA has had more Noble prize winners in its past:
FACULTY LAUREATES:
Dr. Louis J. Ignarro
Dr. Paul Boyer
Dr. Donald Cram
Dr. Julian S. Schwinger
Dr. Willard F. Libby
ALUMNI LAUREATES:
Dr. William Sharpe
Dr. Bruce Merrifield
Dr. Glenn Seaborg
Dr. Ralph Bunche



No, that is not true. There seems to be a nice correlation between NBDE-I scores and match rates. For whatever reason, on avg UCLA students do much better on NBDE-I.



UCLA seems to have more than one dental clinic Certainly, LA is the most populated city in California. I'm 100% sure complex cases are also seen at UCLA clinics.


For you it may be a better choice. Again, for whatever reason, UCLA seems to be more attractive for higher caliber students.




I did that. My faculty interviewer at UCSF was a UCLA graduate. I asked him which school (UCLA or UCSF) is better if one wants to pursue a specialty. He felt UCLA better prepares its students for NBDE-I.



You made a wrong decision. You should have waited to hear from UCLA. After Dec 1st I interviewed at one more university to make sure the decision that I made on Dec 1st was the right decision for me.

Great piece of writing, Sorry I couldn't add anything more.

 

[madchemist2006]

What's the point of this thread? You picked your school. Are you seeking validation for your choice? Are you curious why anyone would be misguided enough to choose UCLA over UCSF? Your post is both ignorant and arrogant. I'm glad you picked UCSF too.



What area are you talking about? Bel Air? The Marina? This is too generalized to be meaningful. You can get a room down here for $600 a month. Or you can get a studio for $850. Or you can pay $10,000 for a phat penthouse. A room in San Francisco isn't going to rent for $300 a month.



About 50% of our students specialize. Apparently this is much more than UCSF. Frankly if I wanted to do general dentistry and live in SF I would pick UOP in a heart beat. Yes, we do have higher stats, which does say something about our students...


Good for you. Some people prefer sunshine to fog and hotties to hippies.



Having a top 5 med school is a bad reason to pick a dental school. When I walk to class each morning there are banners up on the lightposts that proclaim UCLA was voted #1 in the west and #3 in the nation in terms of hospitals. Do I care? No. My education is not impacted by the fact that UCLA is the best liver transplant center in the country. This is just silly. You pick a dental school based on the dental school not their nursing program.



What kind of dentist do you want to be? A tooth mechanic or would you rather live up to your title of doctor? Dentistry is not a trade. It is a health profession and as such requires a certain amount of knowledge about the human body. UCLA does not desire higher performance on the boards at the expense of clinic experience. Our dean repeatedly tells us this as we prepare for the boards. She emphasizes getting boards over with so they don't interfere with patient care.
In fact, many people took boards after their 1st year this past cycle. From what I hear they did very well (as usual), and now boards are out of the way long before the transition to clinic. Those people who choose to take boards at the end of 2nd year have more than enough time to study during spring quarter and take the exam before clinic begins. I did this and was in clinic everyday that summer.



I can't believe I'm reading this. This is such a stupid statement. Have you seen me work? Have you seen my classmates work? Because I'm pretty damn good. Obviously you know nothing about our pre-clinical lab education.



Do you think all 10 million people in LA are healthy? Have you ever treated a patient in LA? Have you ever treated a patient in SF? Have you ever treated a patient? I didn't think so. Do you think our patient pool is strictly from west of the 405, north of Olympic Blvd and south of Sunset? People have cars in LA. Unlike SF, the bus and railways are not primary forms of transportation. I have patients from Simi Valley, Santa Monica, Encino, Reseda, Van Nuys, Watts, Thousand Oaks, Venice, Inglewood, Brentwood, Hollywood, and many other regions of LA.



Yes, go ahead and survey all 800 students at UCLA and UCSF. I wouldn't choose UCSF over UCLA. There isn't a single one of my classmates who has expressed this to me. However, if you asked them if they would pick UOP over UCSF I think a preponderance would say UOP.

I picked UCLA over UCSF because I want to live and practice in southern CA. I knew it was an exceptional school that would allow me to chart any path I wanted in the future. I don't know much about UCSF's education because I have not been a student there. As such I couldn't and wouldn't make the generalizations you have made about UCLA. I'm sure it's a fine school that graduates good dentists. UCLA was my choice and I don't regret it for a second.



Out of curiosity, were you invited to interview at UCLA?

Rock on!

 

[Mrxle3]

It seems like there is a large battle between kigglar and DrHobie, both who have tremendous pride for their respective schools. However, I don't see the point in bashing one or the other. Both are extremely great schools, and as Dr. X who interviewed me at UCLA said, "UCLA, UCSF, and Harvard are constantly competing for the title of best dental school in the nation." Personally, if I am accepted to UCLA, the decision will be extremely difficult. I like certain things about each school, and I dislike certain things about each school. In the end, no school is perfect, so I don't understand the point in pointing out that "UCSF has a better this" or "UCLA does this better." Let's have peace and realize the one absolute truth: both schools graduate excellent dentists because both schools are comprised of excellent students.

 

[luder98]

It seems like there is a large battle between kigglar and DrHobie, both who have tremendous pride for their respective schools. However, I don't see the point in bashing one or the other. Both are extremely great schools, and as Dr. X who interviewed me at UCLA said, "UCLA, UCSF, and Harvard are constantly competing for the title of best dental school in the nation." Personally, if I am accepted to UCLA, the decision will be extremely difficult. I like certain things about each school, and I dislike certain things about each school. In the end, no school is perfect, so I don't understand the point in pointing out that "UCSF has a better this" or "UCLA does this better." Let's have peace and realize the one absolute truth: both schools graduate excellent dentists because both schools are comprised of excellent students.

I too think both are excellent schools. No need to bash one or the other. It all comes down to personal interests to pick one or the other. If UCLA accepts you, I still hope to see you be part of UCSF.

 

[food4thots]

how bout ucsf vs uop?.. j/k

 

[BigBottomGirl]

how bout ucsf vs uop?.. j/k

UOP? Whats that?

 

[PDizzle]

The caliber of these two schools are so great that the decision between the two is most likely based on geographical considerations: Fog or smog, as I have always said

You can crunch all sorts of numbers, stats and match rates but in the end the reputation, faculty and facilities of both schools will enable you to do anything you ever wanted to do in the field of dentistry.

The rivalry between these two schools will probably remain but it just doesn't matter that much to get worked up about it since after you graduate, 99% of the world won't give a rats a$$ which dental school you graduated from and that last 1% will view the two schools so equal that it just doesn't matter.

How you do in either of these schools is based on you.

And lastly, someone up there said something about more "slackers" go to UCSF....that's completely laughable! If you want to think that in order to feel better about yourself for going to UCLA, more power to you.

 

[nyching30]

The caliber of these two schools are so great that the decision between the two is most likely based on geographical considerations: Fog or smog, as I have always said

You can crunch all sorts of numbers, stats and match rates but in the end the reputation, faculty and facilities of both schools will enable you to do anything you ever wanted to do in the field of dentistry.

The rivalry between these two schools will probably remain but it just doesn't matter that much to get worked up about it since after you graduate, 99% of the world won't give a rats a$$ which dental school you graduated from and that last 1% will view the two schools so equal that it just doesn't matter.

How you do in either of these schools is based on you.

And lastly, someone up there said something about more "slackers" go to UCSF....that's completely laughable! If you want to think that in order to feel better about yourself for going to UCLA, more power to you.

nicely said.

 

[DREDAY]

That's your biased observation. Back in 2005, I interviewed at many universities (UPENN, Columbia, UCSF, UCONN, UCLA, UMD,...) and I heard more good things about UCLA. Originally, I felt UCSF School of Dentistry was better than UCLA School of Dentistry but I gradually noticed that UCLA is a better option. Here are my reasons:




I believe that shows UCLA is more attractive for higher caliber students. Perhaps, UCSF is better for slackers and less ambitious applicants.



UCLA (88 students) vs UCSF (82 students). The difference is only 6 students. Plus, after the second year many international students will join you at UCSF. At the end, UCSF may end up having a larger class size.



Southern California is more populated. It may be better to build connections in a more populated area. Business-wise it may be a sound decision.



UCSF is not #1 in everything and it certainy isn't #1 in dentistry.
UCSF:*
DAT=20.3 (i.e. #7)
PAT=18 (i.e. #9-18)
GPA=3.46 (i.e. #37-39)
Science GPA=3.4 (i.e. #30-32)

*See http://www.predents.com

Plus, ULCA is comparable. UCLA has had more Noble prize winners in its past:
FACULTY LAUREATES:
Dr. Louis J. Ignarro
Dr. Paul Boyer
Dr. Donald Cram
Dr. Julian S. Schwinger
Dr. Willard F. Libby
ALUMNI LAUREATES:
Dr. William Sharpe
Dr. Bruce Merrifield
Dr. Glenn Seaborg
Dr. Ralph Bunche



No, that is not true. There seems to be a nice correlation between NBDE-I scores and match rates. For whatever reason, on avg UCLA students do much better on NBDE-I.



UCLA seems to have more than one dental clinic Certainly, LA is the most populated city in California. I'm 100% sure complex cases are also seen at UCLA clinics.


For you it may be a better choice. Again, for whatever reason, UCLA seems to be more attractive for higher caliber students.




I did that. My faculty interviewer at UCSF was a UCLA graduate. I asked him which school (UCLA or UCSF) is better if one wants to pursue a specialty. He felt UCLA better prepares its students for NBDE-I.



You made a wrong decision. You should have waited to hear from UCLA. After Dec 1st I interviewed at one more university to make sure the decision that I made on Dec 1st was the right decision for me.

UCLA board scores is not that diff from UCSF. UCSF ranked 4th last year nationally. UCLA ranked 3rd.

 

[deejay]

who ranked 1st and 2nd? and more importantly, how do you know?

 

[DREDAY]

who ranked 1st and 2nd? and more importantly, how do you know?

IT was said at a UCLA interview. Uconn or Harvard took top 2 spots they dont know.

 

[mitosis]

actually, according to the dean at UCLA, UCLA ranked 2nd for part I boards.

"I am ending this message on a very high note. The July 2004 Performance Summary of the Part I, National Board Dental Examinations, ranks our School as number 2 in the nation. The difference between our average score and that of the first ranked school is an infinitesimal 0.8 while the difference between our average score and the third ranked school is now greater by 2.8. This is wonderful news and I am proud of our students who did so well."
http://uclasod.dent.ucla.edu/NewsEvents/main.asp?id=514

 

[DREDAY]

actually, according to the dean at UCLA, UCLA ranked 2nd for part I boards.

"I am ending this message on a very high note. The July 2004 Performance Summary of the Part I, National Board Dental Examinations, ranks our School as number 2 in the nation. The difference between our average score and that of the first ranked school is an infinitesimal 0.8 while the difference between our average score and the third ranked school is now greater by 2.8. This is wonderful news and I am proud of our students who did so well."
http://uclasod.dent.ucla.edu/NewsEvents/main.asp?id=514

Thanks for correcting that. Thats what happens when you hear things through the grapevine.

 

[dat_student]

...for the most part, UCLA wants to make sure its students do well on the board exam b/c that's what UCLA is known for: sending lots of students to specialty programs.

I believe it's great that UCLA makes sure its students do well on the board exams. That's exactly what my UCSF interviewer who was a UCLA graduate told me.

...the difference in average board scores can't be more than 2.0, which ain't much. so that argument of that interviewer is weak...

Apparently, the difference is more than 2.0. Again, last year UCLA students did a lot better:

http://uclasod.dent.ucla.edu/NewsEvents/main.asp?id=514

Please, read the 5th paragraph:
I am ending this message on a very high note. The July 2004 Performance Summary of the Part I, National Board Dental Examinations, ranks our School as number 2 in the nation. The difference between our average score and that of the first ranked school is an infinitesimal 0.8 while the difference between our average score and the third ranked school is now greater by 2.8. This is wonderful news and I am proud of our students who did so well.

...at UCSF, i can be sure that I could be a great GP and also a great specialist, if i so choose to pursue that path.

Anything is possible but UCSF just doesn't seem to have good numbers. Around 10% of UCSF students specialize every year but 50% of UCLA students specialize. ~30% of UCSF students go beyond DDS whereas 75% of UCLA students go beyond DDS. UCSF numbers aren't too impressive. Harvard, UCLA, UCONN, UPENN, Columbia, University of Washington, even UMD etc etc seem to do better. 10% is just a low number. Even UOP seems to generate more than a dozen specialists.

...but seriously u should actually talk to students currently attending at UCLA.

Obviously, current UCLA students (e.g. DrHobie, Jk and others) seem to be very satisfied.

...having said all that, here's my stats: GPA: 3.89/3.92 DAT: 24/24/22...

There are exceptions everywhere. I hope you recognize that's not the norm for UCSF. For every 24 there must be four 19s or two 18s to make the average ~20. A 20 average means that there are many UCSF students with AA < 20. Again, here are the stats for UCSF (The stats are not as impressive as you may think):
UCSF:*
DAT=20.3 (i.e. #7)
PAT=18 (i.e. #9-18)
GPA=3.46 (i.e. #37-39)
Science GPA=3.4 (i.e. #30-32)

*See http://www.predents.com

 

[L8DYV]

interesting...what's in the water at ucla?

 

[tofufob]

dyam!
dat_student, are you sure you are not a recruiter from UCLA? if you are not getting paid for this, you seriously should send in your resume to the adms office. It might also be a good idea to consider a part time job working for Dr. Bibb. I'm sure she wouldn't mind an assistant who knows as much about UCLA as you do.
Wow, what a character.

 

[EyeAmCommi]

dyam!
dat_student, are you sure you are not a recruiter from UCLA? if you are not getting paid for this, you seriously should send in your resume to the adms office. It might also be a good idea to consider a part time job working for Dr. Bibb. I'm sure she wouldn't mind an assistant who knows as much about UCLA as you do.
Wow, what a character.

If only dat_student can tell us whether or not we're accepted, he would be even more amazing!

 

[crazy_sherm]

interesting...what's in the water at ucla?

It's all the water they steal from NorCal.

 

[Mrxle3]

I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, but I don't really understand why the number of students who go on to specialty programs is an indicator of how great a school is. dat_student, perhaps you can clear this up for me, because I'm truly curious.

 

[crazy_sherm]

I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, but I don't really understand why the number of students who go on to specialty programs is an indicator of how great a school is. dat_student, perhaps you can clear this up for me, because I'm truly curious.

I think it's because dat_student believes that by trying to be smarter than everyone, having OCD, and not having the ability to get laid before she's 40 will result in becoming a successful dentist. Only ~20% of dentists are specialists. Hopefully, if everyone went to UCLA, we could rid the world of those pesky jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none GPs.

 

[tofufob]

Dat_student's a girl, you guys....you should follow the forum more closely like the rest of us. checking threads 5 times a day would be a good start.

 

[WestCoast]

I didn't mean to be too big of a hardass in my reply, but as you can see I've got a lot of school pride and quite frankly love UCLA.

Its perfectly fine and even encouraged to be a hardass. I too love UCLA, although, there were times I was frustrated when I was a student. Then again, who doesn't? But in hindsight, UCLA is an excellent school, and from my experience, most people have praises for UCLA's reputation, except of course those who didn't get in.

 

[L8DYV]

It's all the water they steal from NorCal.

That's right, NOCAL represent!! hehe

 

[kiggar4l2000]

Anything is possible but UCSF just doesn't seem to have good numbers. Around 10% of UCSF students specialize every year but 50% of UCLA students specialize. ~30% of UCSF students go beyond DDS whereas 75% of UCLA students go beyond DDS. UCSF numbers aren't too impressive. Harvard, UCLA, UCONN, UPENN, Columbia, University of Washington, even UMD etc etc seem to do better. 10% is just a low number. Even UOP seems to generate more than a dozen specialists.

Obviously, current UCLA students (e.g. DrHobie, Jk and others) seem to be very satisfied.

There are exceptions everywhere. I hope you recognize that's not the norm for UCSF. For every 24 there must be four 19s or two 18s to make the average ~20. A 20 average means that there are many UCSF students with AA < 20. Again, here are the stats for UCSF (The stats are not as impressive as you may think):
UCSF:*
DAT=20.3 (i.e. #7)
PAT=18 (i.e. #9-18)
GPA=3.46 (i.e. #37-39)
Science GPA=3.4 (i.e. #30-32)

*See http://www.predents.com

again, not all valid but thanks nonetheless.

can you tell me where you got those stats and please don't give me unofficial, unconfirmed numbers from predents.com (no offense pdizzle, the site is great. haha). if I enter in my stats and others alike to that website you might think differently. again, i'm kinda surprised how UCLA doesn't give out official stats of its entering students (c/o 2009), unlike UCSF. maybe they did it at UCLA interivew. ha, the irony.

but again, i want to reiterate the point that if UCSF wanted to have a class with high academic-caliber students to help them get those board scores, they could. so i don't see the point of your argument. stats doesn't = quality of education at ucsf (or ucla). ucsf seem to want more well-rounded students in its classes than ucla, relatively-speaking.

in regards to the specialty rate, you might want to double check 1) if those figures are correct and if you can back them up with official stats from each respective school 2) if you're not unfairly manipulating the stats (i.e. not including GPR and AEGD as part of the specialty rate for UCSF but for UCLA so you make it seem like UCLA has a higher "specialty rate"). 50% specialty rate at UCLA, without including GPR & AEGD, seems a bit outrageous for me to believe without official data.

yup, there are exceptions. but that's true w/ UCLA as well so your argument of "one student w/ 24 on DAT and 4 others with 18 and 19" apply to both schools...even though UCLA might have slightly higher average DAT scores.

and who said anything about UCLA students not being happy at UCLA? haha. if u read my OP, my point was that more students than not would choose UCSF over UCLA (if they could do it again and had gotten into both schools) b/c UCSF is more "chill" than at UCLA. again, my friends at UCLA said that the environment is pretty competitive even though it's P/NP b/c everyone wants to specialize there. personally, i didn't want to spend 4 years in that kind of environment. could i excel at UCLA? no doubt but i don't want to be in that kind of environment for 4 years.

dont mean to be argumentative but i figured we should get things straightened out here.

 

[whiskeysour]

again, not all valid but thanks nonetheless.

can you tell me where you got those stats and please don't give me unofficial, unconfirmed numbers from predents.com (no offense pdizzle, the site is great. haha). if I enter in my stats and others alike to that website you might think differently.

those are official stats from the ADEA guide to dental schools, buddy...

"This information was taken directly from the ADEA Guide to Dental Schools, 44th Ed. This is only a fraction of the useful info contained in the book and is almost mandatory for every dental applicant." (predents.com)

please, let this thread die at this....it is pointless. UCLA and UCSF are both great schools. those that are arguing over which is greater are being very arrogant. i agree that you all have school pride, but it really comes down to one thing when deciding between UCLA and UCSF: fog or smog as one poster said....pick your poison j/k

 

[nothen2do]

I believe it's great that UCLA makes sure its students do well on the board exams. That's exactly what my UCSF interviewer who was a UCLA graduate told me....

Well, I bet our intramural beginners futsal team can kick your teams ass. Seriously, I've never seen a person so intent on number crunching and competition. You remind me of a famous Seinfeld qoute "Oh ya! Well the Jerk Store called and they're all out of you!"

 

[KAP]

again, not all valid but thanks nonetheless.

can you tell me where you got those stats and please don't give me unofficial, unconfirmed numbers from predents.com (no offense pdizzle, the site is great. haha). if I enter in my stats and others alike to that website you might think differently. again, i'm kinda surprised how UCLA doesn't give out official stats of its entering students (c/o 2009), unlike UCSF. maybe they did it at UCLA interivew. ha, the irony.

but again, i want to reiterate the point that if UCSF wanted to have a class with high academic-caliber students to help them get those board scores, they could. so i don't see the point of your argument. stats doesn't = quality of education at ucsf (or ucla). ucsf seem to want more well-rounded students in its classes than ucla, relatively-speaking.

in regards to the specialty rate, you might want to double check 1) if those figures are correct and if you can back them up with official stats from each respective school 2) if you're not unfairly manipulating the stats (i.e. not including GPR and AEGD as part of the specialty rate for UCSF but for UCLA so you make it seem like UCLA has a higher "specialty rate"). 50% specialty rate at UCLA, without including GPR & AEGD, seems a bit outrageous for me to believe without official data.

yup, there are exceptions. but that's true w/ UCLA as well so your argument of "one student w/ 24 on DAT and 4 others with 18 and 19" apply to both schools...even though UCLA might have slightly higher average DAT scores.

and who said anything about UCLA students not being happy at UCLA? haha. if u read my OP, my point was that more students than not would choose UCSF over UCLA (if they could do it again and had gotten into both schools) b/c UCSF is more "chill" than at UCLA. again, my friends at UCLA said that the environment is pretty competitive even though it's P/NP b/c everyone wants to specialize there. personally, i didn't want to spend 4 years in that kind of environment. could i excel at UCLA? no doubt but i don't want to be in that kind of environment for 4 years.

dont mean to be argumentative but i figured we should get things straightened out here.

I'm not saying your a *******, you are obviously intelligent... but you sound like the biggest idiot EVER. no offense

 

[crazy_sherm]

Well, I bet our intramural beginners futsal team can kick your teams ass. Seriously, I've never seen a person so intent on number crunching and competition. You remind me of a famous Seinfeld qoute "Oh ya! Well the Jerk Store called and they're all out of you!"

Hey man, numbers is what makes a great dentist. What is a patient but just another number, right?

 

[Revellian]

50% specialty rate at UCLA, without including GPR & AEGD, seems a bit outrageous for me to believe without official data.

and who said anything about UCLA students not being happy at UCLA? haha. if u read my OP, my point was that more students than not would choose UCSF over UCLA (if they could do it again and had gotten into both schools) b/c UCSF is more "chill" than at UCLA. again, my friends at UCLA said that the environment is pretty competitive even though it's P/NP b/c everyone wants to specialize there. personally, i didn't want to spend 4 years in that kind of environment. could i excel at UCLA? no doubt but i don't want to be in that kind of environment for 4 years.

UCLA's specialty rate is generally around 50% each year, and 60% if you include GPRs and AEGD. I'll see If I can find the newsletter we were given about this, but don't cross your fingers. I believe 15 matched into ortho this year. That number is just sick.

Contrary to what you've heard from your friends, my class isn't competetive at all. Since the beginning of our first year, my class has continued to work together to achieve our ultimate goal. There really hasn't been any of the cut-throat, gunner behavior I was expecting, and I couldn't be happier with my choice of school. During midterms and finals, class notes and study materials are emailed to the entire class by anyone who has them, encouraging everyone to excel. And it doesn't make sense to do otherwise. It's p/np and we're not ranked. It doesn't make sense to kill each other for grades when our Board scores are what count towards our chances of specializing. It seems to me you've been misinformed.

 

[kiggar4l2000]

UCLA's specialty rate is generally around 50% each year, and 60% if you include GPRs and AEGD. I'll see If I can find the newsletter we were given about this, but don't cross your fingers. I believe 15 matched into ortho this year. That number is just sick.

Contrary to what you've heard from your friends, my class isn't competetive at all. Since the beginning of our first year, my class has continued to work together to achieve our ultimate goal. There really hasn't been any of the cut-throat, gunner behavior I was expecting, and I couldn't be happier with my choice of school. During midterms and finals, class notes and study materials are emailed to the entire class by anyone who has them, encouraging everyone to excel. And it doesn't make sense to do otherwise. It's p/np and we're not ranked. It doesn't make sense to kill each other for grades when our Board scores are what count towards our chances of specializing. It seems to me you've been misinformed.

Thanks everyone for making me understand better about UCLA. Certainly UCLA is a great school and I think I'd have loved it there (it was my #2 choice afterall). Sorry for this nonsense of a forum thread.

I'm still happy about my choice at UCSF. And I think certainly all of us would agree that we hit the Dental Admissions jackpot for getting into a UC dental school for many reasons (affordability, great education, great connection, great location, great everything)

Gluck to rest of yall who are still waiting to hear back from the UCs.

 

[L8DYV]

I personally would choose UCLA over UCSF in a heartbeat!

 

[nothen2do]

Contrary to what you've heard from your friends, my class isn't competetive at all. Since the beginning of our first year, my class has continued to work together to achieve our ultimate goal. There really hasn't been any of the cut-throat, gunner behavior I was expecting, and I couldn't be happier with my choice of school. During midterms and finals, class notes and study materials are emailed to the entire class by anyone who has them, encouraging everyone to excel. And it doesn't make sense to do otherwise. It's p/np and we're not ranked.

Thats great, its the same thing here at SF. If it weren't for my classmates help, I would be in a big pile of doodoo. I guess great minds think alike And btw, I hope UCLA goes all the way this year in the tourney, its been way too long since theyre last championship in 1994 was it?

 

[drhobie7]

I believe 15 matched into ortho this year. That number is just sick.

17 (out of 21). And yes, yes it is.

 

[madchemist2006]

who ranked 1st and 2nd? and more importantly, how do you know?

who cares about stats?

 

[DREDAY]

17 (out of 21). And yes, yes it is.

DUDE I have written this before just because UCLA has a higher percentage of students specializing doesnt mean they are better at doing so than UCLA. It just so happens that UCLA has more students taht want to specialize and UCSF picks more students taht want to become GP.

THis year's match rate for UCSF =

OMFS: 6/6
Perio: 1/1
Endo: 1/1
Ortho: 5/6
Pedo: 13/16 (not 100% sure on this figure...)


THats a MATCH RATE OF 87%!!!! THATS AWESOME! If the majority of our class wanted to specialize SUCH AS HAPPENS AT UCLA, i guarantee our board scores would be higher. But it just so happens that UCSF's focus on its selection criteria is diff. BTW does UCLA have this summer off? or do you guys go to school this summer?