Undergrad Biology at UCLA or UCSD?

[Psalm55]

I'm in a bit of a quandary here:

As a future college freshman, I've been accepted to the undergraduate Biology Major at UCSD, and Pre-Psych Major at UCLA (I will petition to change it to Biology my second quarter) and I cannot decide on which school to go to.

The main question is: Which school is better at Biology?

I have seen rankings that put Biomedical Engineering at UCSD higher than any other UC, research funds and progress at UCSD are higher than any other UC, and I have heard (by word of mouth) that the biology program at UCSD is harder than that of UCLA.

However, UCLA has the bigger name, and supposedly the stronger medical school.

Considering medical school in the future, would it be easier to get into medical school by going to the "harder" school and get so-so grades - as opposed to going to the "easier" school and get good grades?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Chronotropic]

U.S. News ranks UCLA as the 20th best school for graduate biology. I don't think UCSD is ranked but I'm sure it's a fine school. If you feel comfortable at both I say go to UCLA. You never know when you might have to change gears and pursue some grad work before med school.

 

[scifi]

honestly i don't think looking at ratings to decide where to go for undergrad is a good idea. criteria used for ratings will have little to nothing to do with what makes an undergrad institution right for you. besides, the differences between sd and la are probably not very significant in terms of ratings. if you were to accept a job as a researcher/faculty it would probably make more of a difference to you.

both schools probably have good faculty for biology and have a lot of similar things to offer. and remember, just because someone is a nobel laureate or started a hugely successful biotech company does not mean that he/she is a good teacher.

in terms of prestige that is more of an ego thing for yourself and you should ask yourself how important that is to you (ie, if you decide to go to the less prestigious school will you always feel like you have to tell people that you got into a more prestigious school--if so then go with what the rankings tell you).

do your own research and find out where you will be more comfortable learning. talk to students there and ask questions about student support services, research opps for undergrads, campus activities and organizations etc. these should be more important than a list of numbers that USNews puts together.

 

[Godspeed]

I think UCLA Biology department is very good. If you are going for Bio E, then go to UCSD; otherwise, go to UCLA.
Premed students at UCLA are pretty competitive. I dunt know about that in San Diego, but the list of med students at top med schools (where I was interviewed) showed more UCLA students than UCSD.
Also, you should consider the location. If you like the beach, UCSD is the best choice. On the other hand, UCLA offers you more of the city-life activities.

I personally think that either one is good for you. It is more important to perform well at school than to rely on the school prestig.

 

[cinnameenah18]

I'm in a similar situation and I didn't want to start another thread so I'm posting here..hope you dont mind Psalm55..

I'm trying to decide between ucla under premed microbio/imun/mol gen and ucsd under molecular bio. For med school, is it better to go to undergrad at a more prestigious school? In my opinion, I see ucla and ucsd as pretty similar in their competiveness and quality of their bio programs, so does it really make that big of a difference when applying to med schools? I've heard that gpa and mcat scores are more important overall than a slightly lower gpa at a more prestigious school, but I have also heard the opposite. What's holding me back from choosing ucla is the area and atmosphere of a big city. I really like the six-college system at ucsd and the low-key atmosphere there but know that ucla also has a great bio program with the prestige.

Also, I was wondering if anyone could comment on the difficulty getting the classes you want or need for pre reqs at both schools.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated!!! I'm hoping to send in my SIR to ucla or ucsd sometime this week..

 

[UCLAstudent]

I'm a second year biology major at UCLA... I love it! I don't know much about UCSD, so I can't really compare the two for you, but, basically, I don't think you would be disappointed with UCLA. I have had wonderful professors and classes, and, overall, have been quite pleased with the biology major at UCLA. If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me or post a reply. Good luck with your decision!

 

[Joe Joe on da Radio]

toss a coin. ucla heads, ucsd tails. ready, set, go!

 

[osler]

when i was interviewing...my interviewer, a neuroscientist, was very impressed that i go to UCSD.

on the other hand, one director of admissions at a small new york med school, who was not a scientist, have never heard of UCSD.

in terms of total funding for the sciences (from all sources), especially the biomedical sciences, UCSD is top five in the USA.

U.S. News and World Report crap...routinely gets about 50% or less in terms of replies to their surveys. don't trust the amateur world when it comes to Academics!!

 

[Doctor&Geek]

***in terms of total funding for the sciences (from all sources), especially the biomedical sciences, UCSD is top five in the USA.***

It's kind of cheap to say that, especially since the Salk, Scripps, & Burnham are all included in that funding calculation, even though they're separate institutions with their own endowments, management, etc.

***U.S. News and World Report crap...routinely gets about 50% or less in terms of replies to their surveys. don't trust the amateur world when it comes to Academics!!***

I wouldn't trust any schools PR department either.

Yours,

 

[weirdo700]

UCLA has a better national rep than UCSD, and it is true that there is a UCLA grad at almost every medical school. UCSD is good at basic biological research, but if you are more interested in medicine or clinical research then UCLA would be the best choice. I mean UCLA will probably also have great opportunities for basic science research as well, but I'll give SD the benefit regardless of the fact that most of their research funding comes from those off campus institutes. UCLA also has better departments outside of biology, more cultural diversity, and a better location (in my opinion). All my friends that went to UCSD said that it was because they didn't get into LA or Berkely. In fact my lil sis goes to SD now and is looking to transfer to LA.

 

[Jet915]

I think I can give some unique insight:

I got into UCLA and UCSD for undergrad. I chose UCSD for several reasons.
1. I really liked the weather/environment. La Jolla is a great place to live.
2. From what I heard, UCSD is top 5 in NIH funding and was ranked top 5 in calibre of faculty a couple years ago. Again, these are rankings and you can decide how important they are to you. Both schools have great bio departments.
3. I wanted to go to a school that was "less competitive" so I figured UCSD would be easier.

Overall, I'm really happy I chose UCSD. There are some things you should consider when choosing a school. For one, UCSD is ultra competitive, there is not much of a campus life so everyone studies day and night. I learned that UCLA is probably not more competitive than UCSD. This is just based on what I've heard from others, a friend of mine went to UCSD for two years, then transferred to UCLA and in the end, he told me UCLA was actually easier than UCSD........I was kinda peeved when he said that. He told me at UCLA, he got graded for doing lab research, at UCSD, you only get Pass/No pass so that can definitely pad your gpa at LA. But again, this was just one experience, I dont know if that's true or not. Also, UCLA is more prestigious than UCSD. Even though we might get more NIH funding and have a higher calibre of faculty, we dont get the rep. that UCLA does. Maybe that's cause we dont have much when it comes to athletics (we are div II.). Another point is that at UCSD, undergrads can ta (i dont think they can at LA). This is a great way to gain some teaching experience and to also get paid too. Also, at UCSD, there is an B.S./M.S. program here. I decided to do this because I didnt think I was ready for medical school yet and decided that doing some real research would be a great experience. Also, UCSD medical school accepts alot of their own applicants (like 35 last year). I dont know if UCLA does the same. Overall, I'm happy I went to UCSD, seems to have worked out great for me.

Jetson

 

[Cambrian]

Originally posted by JPaikman
***in terms of total funding for the sciences (from all sources), especially the biomedical sciences, UCSD is top five in the USA.***

It's kind of cheap to say that, especially since the Salk, Scripps, & Burnham are all included in that funding calculation, even though they're separate institutions with their own endowments, management, etc.

Yours,

It is true that Salk, Scripps (the biomedical institute, not the oceanography one) and Burnham are separate entities from UCSD. However, there is a lot of faculty crossover between Salk, Burnham, and UCSD. Many Salk and Burnham researchers also hold appointments in the UCSD faculty. So if they get NIH funding, it is also correct to say that the funding goes to UCSD as well. Scripps biomedical institute does not have close ties to UCSD. The only two mentioned above that have joint programs/faculty with UCSD are Salk and Burnham. My guess is that Scripps' funding are never included in the NIH equation.

Although, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, which is part of UCSD does bring in research money but it's probably scraps compared to the biomedical funding.

 

[weirdo700]

Hey Jet maybe your friend had it easier at UCLA cuz he did all the pre-reqs at UCSD. The most competitive courses at UCLA are usually in the first two years, and usually not in the last two. During the first two years you compete against all premeds and engineers (if you take the higher series courses). Yes we get graded for lab research, but that only counts usually as a 4 unit class. You can get a max of 12 units for research, but after 4 units the last eight basically do nothing for graduation purpose. Its not like research at UCLA is the easiest thing either. You have to commit a certain number of hours and you have to produce a paper by the end of the term. Your PI also decides whether your accomplishments warrant a good grade. Oh yeah, the weather at La Jolla and Westwood are very similar (contrary to popular belief). Both are very coastal and both are very posh. However, Westwood is more city and La Jolla is slightly suburban. Also UCSD is proabably less competitive than UCLA in the first two years. The last two years which are mostly upper divs depend on how well a person works by themselves. Usually upper-divs are not as competitive, but more collaborative. Upper divs are sometimes only ten people and thus profs makes a point not to breed competition. I hate to be so bias, but there is a reason why UCLA gets the most apps of any school in the nation. In an "unbiased" ranking of colleges by Kaplan, UCLA ranked first, and Stanford second overall. If you look at their criteria they use alot of things more useful than Alumni dollars given. Here's the link:
http://uclabruins.ocsn.com/genrel/072802aaa.html

 

[Jet915]

Weirdo,
That's possible that the first years at UCLA are the toughest. For UCSD; however, I felt that the upper division science were the toughest. During the first two years, there are alot of people taking the gchem, physics, lower division bio who werent really premed material and they helped bring down the curve. During the my first two years at SD, I found it pretty easy to get A's. By the time I started the upper division ochem and bio, only the really good premeds who "made the cut" were in my classes and competition seemed to get tougher and I had to work harder to get A's...........

Jetson