- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi all,
I just found out today that I was taken off the waitlist for UCLA. I had already committed to going to Michigan but now I'm debating whether I should stick to my original choice or take things in a new direction. I was hoping some of you guys could help me with my decision.
Just a quick intro. I am an in-state resident of CA but completed by BA in a school on the east coast. At the moment, I am seriously interested in pursuing neurosurgery (though this, of course, may change) so UCLA edges out Michigan in that regard because Reagan is famed for its neurosurgery/neurology. However, because I want to do my residency in the east coast, preferably NY, I am slightly concerned that going to UCLA will increase the likelihood that I will have to remain in CA for residency (this is based on the observation that many CA students seem to end up in CA).
I apologize if my reasoning or knowledge is flawed, so please correct me if I am wrong. So with that in mind, I'll list below what I perceive as the pros/cons of each school:
UCLA:
Pro: metropolitan area with tons of things to do, lower tuition due to being an in-state resident, excellent hospital with wide variety of patients, excellent for neurology/neurosurgery, already have many friends in the area
Con: did not feel as though they were a student-oriented program based on the interview day, costs of living could be high, would prefer not to be in CA for residency.
Michigan:
Pro: Cold weather (yes I prefer the freeze), an extremely student-oriented program, excellent match list, top five among residency directors (according to the admissions office), great hospital system, excellent curriculum and clinical training
Con: Ann Arbor feels too much like a college town, few neighboring towns with lots to do, never lived in the Midwest before, got nothing in financial aid even though both parents are unemployed (i.e. loan city) and no merit scholarships.
I have to admit that the information I have is biased in favor of Michigan. On the interview day, they gave me all the information I could possibly need whereas UCLA did not. I noticed a difference in attitude between teh two schools regarding applicants. I felt that Michigan made every effort to make every effort to share information and keep us informed whereas UCLA made it seem as though we were lucky to interview in the first place. These are just my feelings so obviously they are not fact.
Thanks all. I look forward to your help!
I just found out today that I was taken off the waitlist for UCLA. I had already committed to going to Michigan but now I'm debating whether I should stick to my original choice or take things in a new direction. I was hoping some of you guys could help me with my decision.
Just a quick intro. I am an in-state resident of CA but completed by BA in a school on the east coast. At the moment, I am seriously interested in pursuing neurosurgery (though this, of course, may change) so UCLA edges out Michigan in that regard because Reagan is famed for its neurosurgery/neurology. However, because I want to do my residency in the east coast, preferably NY, I am slightly concerned that going to UCLA will increase the likelihood that I will have to remain in CA for residency (this is based on the observation that many CA students seem to end up in CA).
I apologize if my reasoning or knowledge is flawed, so please correct me if I am wrong. So with that in mind, I'll list below what I perceive as the pros/cons of each school:
UCLA:
Pro: metropolitan area with tons of things to do, lower tuition due to being an in-state resident, excellent hospital with wide variety of patients, excellent for neurology/neurosurgery, already have many friends in the area
Con: did not feel as though they were a student-oriented program based on the interview day, costs of living could be high, would prefer not to be in CA for residency.
Michigan:
Pro: Cold weather (yes I prefer the freeze), an extremely student-oriented program, excellent match list, top five among residency directors (according to the admissions office), great hospital system, excellent curriculum and clinical training
Con: Ann Arbor feels too much like a college town, few neighboring towns with lots to do, never lived in the Midwest before, got nothing in financial aid even though both parents are unemployed (i.e. loan city) and no merit scholarships.
I have to admit that the information I have is biased in favor of Michigan. On the interview day, they gave me all the information I could possibly need whereas UCLA did not. I noticed a difference in attitude between teh two schools regarding applicants. I felt that Michigan made every effort to make every effort to share information and keep us informed whereas UCLA made it seem as though we were lucky to interview in the first place. These are just my feelings so obviously they are not fact.
Thanks all. I look forward to your help!