UCLA has too many guaranteed slots to unqualified applicants through it's uc riverside, drew univesrity, and prime programs. That's why it's averages are below those of other top tier cali schools (stanford, ucsf, ucsd). don't get me wrong, ucla is a great place to study and you'll be happy. but if you're looking for an environment with the strongest caliber students to work and learn with, sf is better than la
I don't think a few points on the mcat or gpa makes one a stronger caliber student. A S.D. is a different story.
Are you kidding me? These are very important programs for our state to ensure that there are medical students out there getting trained to treat the underserved. These students are anything but "unqualified". I can't believe you would say that. I would much rather be in a class with students from a variety of backgrounds than those that are just the "strongest caliber". UCSF has a PRIME program too.
Word, you tell them.
To the OP this topic is discussed almost every year go hear for last years thread:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=389174&highlight=Ucla
I'll cut and past some of my reply's from last year here:
Dude at UCLA you only have 2 hours of lecture a day and normally out by 3 pm tues-thurs, and on mondays and fridays you get out by noon. You'll have all the time in the world to go check out the hotties on north campus. During my first 2 years of med school I went clubbing in LA every thurs-sat, and you can bump into Paris, Linsey, and Britney or better yet you can bump into jenna jammison, tera patrick, jessica darling etc. Can't find those hotties in SF. only in SF (san fernando) valley.
First of all you can't loose ether way both great schools and all the great things Dr. Dodger Dog said about UCSF can also be said about UCLA. So I just cut and pasted what Dr. Dodger Dog said about UCSF and just inserted UCLA instead: balanced student body, very diverse class, the curriculum was really cutting edge, on residency interviews, people always commented that "UCLA students are so great" etc etc, these past 4 years have been the happiest and most fulfilling years of my life, your fellow students to the pre-clinical professors to the attendings in the clinical setting, everyone is focused on medical student education in a very supportive and collegial environment, I love the Bruins, there are plenty of other students here- dental, pharm, nursing, grad, etc, UCSF is an excellent institution-- I have friends who are very happy there.
As to whether UCLA is significantly less competitive in residency directors eyes, I wouldn't say significantly less, but maybe a little less, given all things being equal. If 2 students given the same exact stats, applying for same spot, having gone to the bigger name/higher ranking school would help, but I think charming them at the interview would be a bigger tie braker.
As for 11 derm this year, it's not a fluke. You can't get much when comparing/looking at match lists cause it doesn't tell you how many people were interested in applying to that field that year. In 2006 only 2 derm but I heard only 3 applied, and as for this year 11 derms but 12 applied. A better measure is where did people match, and then taking into regional biasis and preferances.
Yes all 4 years is p/f which is a good thing, and we have letters of distinctions in year 3 for which there is no quota for how many students can get them, in essence =to honors, but w/o the limit how many students can recieve them.
These are quotes from the derm board from people who don't go to ucla:
http://p220.ezboard.com/fdermatology...art=21&stop=27
"ucla's deans letters do not distinguish students from each other very well. it is my understanding they don't use code language like outstanding vs. excellent vs. very good. also, they have "letters of distinction" instead of honors, and the deans letter does not say what percent of students got the letter of distinction in a particular rotation. thus, it may sound really impressive that you got a letter of distinction, but it may be that 90% of students got it (or it may be that only 10% got it). "
"i agree that clinical grades and dean's letters are bs. however, the way ucla does it puts their students at an advantage compared to students at other schools, because ucla's students don't directly compete with each other as they do at other schools. for example, an applicant from a school who was deemed to be "excellent" vs. an applicant at a school who was deemed to be "outstanding" would have been seen as a worse candidate (even though we know this is probably not true). or an applicant from a school who didn't receive honors when 25% of the class did would have looked worse than an applicant who did receive honors. it is harder to distinguish applicants when reading ucla's deans letters, so the "worst" applicants don't get weeded out as easily as they do at other schools."
There is no added pressure to do alot of ECs, I didn't do any except my research. Research is gonna be a big deal in any of the more competitve fields or even the none competitive fields at the big name institutions. I actually did my derm research at UCSF and the big name guy I got my letter of rec from actually helped me alot and was talked about at every interview.
So now back to the more important stuff like where are the hotties and dopest parties, I say in Los Angeles/OC and only Las Vegas and Miami can come close.
. 
