Well, I like UCSF and I like UCLA too. I can't really say which one I liked more, but I am definitely a socal person for what that is worth. I know the rankings and I have done a fair amount of studying about the posted curriculum styles, but my only hangup is whether or not there is any real difference between the way that the two run the first four years. What is it that gives UCSF the ranking. Why are they 4th and 11th respectively. Is there something that makes the UCSF graduates more capable in general? Or does it have more to do with the graduate medical school programs that they have to offer? If the way that the undergrad medical schools are run is similar in both schools, then it would be a clear choice for me, I would go to UCLA cause of family and money. However, if there is something at UCSF that I would be giving up by going to LA, that is what I want to know and I don't know how to look for that information. The schools don't release USMLE scores or anything like that, so I feel like there is an information gap there. As far as what specialty I am interested in, I feel like a kid at a candy store. Everything I see seems interesting, so I can't decide based on anything like that. I want to know what does UCSF have to offer med students that UCLA doesn't. Can anyone help me with that one?