Ranking American Universities By Strength of Professional Programs

College Search & Lists
41

<p>^And this [MIT</a> Sloan/Harvard Kennedy School - MBA Program](<a href=“http://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/dual/mitsloan-hks.php]MIT”>http://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/dual/mitsloan-hks.php)</p>

<p>^And this
[url=&lt;a href=“http://hst.mit.edu/servlet/ControllerServlet?handler=PublicHandler&action=browse&pageid=1781]MD-PhD[/url”&gt;http://hst.mit.edu/servlet/ControllerServlet?handler=PublicHandler&action=browse&pageid=1781]MD-PhD[/url</a>]</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>Straight from the horse’s mouth :D</p>

<p>Harvards medical school isn’t called ‘cambridgeU’; UCLA’s medical school isn’t called westwoodU. Each medical school is part of the university it’s affiliated with. Berkeley isn’t simply ‘the exception.’ It just doesn’t have a med. school. And that’s precisely why it isn’t listed in the med. school rankings by US News.</p>

<p>It’s obvious that both institutions are clearly distinct from one another. UCSF is no more a part of berkeley than UCLA is. Sure, they’re universities that shared some relationship with one another (and to some degree still do) but they’re still two distinct institutions.</p>

<p>I have not been persuaded. You have, however, made me chuckle and shake my head. Happy F13 UCB :)</p>

43

<p>

UCB, according to the very link you posted, there were just a dozen. None of them (the ones from Berkeley) are core or primary faculty. Big deal. So you are trying to claim UCSF under Berkeley because of some loose affiliations by maybe less than 0.5% of Berkeley staff?</p>

<p>You seem easily fooled by schools’ marketing: “joint appointment” is often just a fancy way of saying a professor from department A is teaching a class under department/school B or collborating on a project with other researchers in department/school C. </p>

<p>“Joint appointment” makes everyone involved happy from the marketing standpoint: the department looks like it has more faculty than it really has (full-timer) and the professors can put them on their resumes. </p>

<p>

I think that’s precisely why these “joint appointments” (a.k.a. side-job) are allowed. Neither sees the other as competitor. It’s not the kind of intimate relationship you romanticize. Yes on no overlap with Berkeley. Glad we both agree on that. ;)</p>

44

<p>Someone should do a professional school ranking of business, law, medicine, engineering and education. I think those five fields alone are universally offered at most universities and are among the most common occupations. I know education receives a lot of negative flack around here but it is one of the oldest established professions in the country (going back to the early 1900s).</p>

45

<p>All I’m gonna say is UCSF was founded as the medical campus of Berkeley’s main campus. It was built in San Francisco to serve the larger population. It gained some autonomy in the 60s like other UCs did. However, it is still only a medical school…it has not expanded its offerings, doesnt enroll undergrads, and offer competing academic programs and is still largely considered Cal’s medical campus.</p>

46

<p>

Nobody except you considers it that. What UCSF is “considered,” since it is, is the UC system’s medical campus, not Berkeley’s.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>It didn’t gain just “some automomy”, it gained full independence just “like other UCs did”. Please look at the finanacial statements again. It’s that obvious, as mentioned already. If UC Berkeley is in control, the fin stmt would need to be consolidated, per US GAAP. </p>

<p>Please look at the UC system org chart and reporting chain:
UCSF is not only a medical center but also one of the 10 UC campuses. The Chancellor of UCSF is at the same level as the Chancellor of UC Berkeley and both report to the President of the entire UC system, just like the Chancellors of other UC campuses do. Let’s repeat this: UCSF is <em>not</em> a medical center of Berkeley campus.<br>
<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/busops/images/uc-chart.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/busops/images/uc-chart.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/busops/images/chancs.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/busops/images/chancs.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So as for “it’s still largely considered Cal’s medical campus”, looks to me you are the only one that considers such.</p>

48

<p>Sam, I’ve never said Cal controls UCSF. They decided way back in the 1960s that UCSF would be a medical only campus and have separate control. Fine. Perhaps a medical school is run better with separate control.</p>

<p>I’m just providing some history here. When schools are compared with medical components, Cal’s numbers need to include UCSF for apples-to-apples comparison. </p>

<p>

Berkeley was the main campus of the University of California. Davis was the agricultural campus, San Francisco was the medical campus, Los Angeles was the southern branch. Davis and L.A. fully developed into full-fledged universities. San Francisco was founded and remains a graduate only medical campus and has not developed into a full-fledged university. Cal didn’t develop a medical school on the Berkeley campus because it would be redundant…just like the San Francisco campus didn’t develop into a full fledged university. Geography and history have dictated this. </p>

<p>San Francisco is not the UC system’s medical campus. Los Angeles, Davis, Irvine, San Diego and Riverside (in progress) all have their own medical campuses.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry, ucb, but I don’t believe that to be correct. SF was just merged into the University of California way back when, which at that time was only Berkeley. But the new SF campus maintained its own managers. It did not “report” to Berkeley. It became an “affiliated college.” It was not “founded” as Berkeley’s med school. If my recollection is correct, there were many at sf Berkeley who opposed the merger at the time. (The reason that UC was originally offered the SF hospital in the first place was bcos it was failing financially, and some/many faculty at Cal didn’t want to be dragged down.)</p>

<p>Yes, there are significant ties between the campuses, but SF is still a separate entity. Back at the turn of the century, the Rockefeller Fdn was offering big bucks if UC would merge the SF medical department with Berkeley. UC refused. UCSF has had it’s own chancellor since the 1950’s.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>On this, we’ll have to agree to disagree.</p>

50

<p>[UCSF</a> History | <a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu%5B/url%5D”>www.ucsf.edu](<a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu/about/history-1]UCSF”>History of UCSF | UC San Francisco)</a>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“UC” was Berkeley in the late 1800 and early 1900s.</p>

51

<p>"By the 1960s, the campus had shed its identity as “Cal’s Medical Center” and gained more autonomy as the entire UC system moved to decentralize. Each of the four schools by this time had been renamed “school of” in alignment with other UC campuses, and in 1961 the Graduate Division was established.</p>

<p>In 1964, the institution, operating under the name University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, was given full administrative independence, becoming the ninth campus in the UC system and the only one devoted exclusively to the health sciences. Provost John B. de C.M. Saunders, MD, was named the first chancellor."
[UCSF</a> History | <a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu%5B/url%5D”>www.ucsf.edu](<a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu/about/history-2]UCSF”>History of UCSF, Part 2 | UC San Francisco)</a></p>

52

<p>

Sorry, your “history” was kinda off anyway (I didn’t bother to point it out because it’s really irrelevant here anyway). You tried to include UCSF’s ranking into Berkeley and that made people shake their heads. That’s why control, ownership, management…etc were discussed here. Even if you were totally right about the history (and you weren’t), its totally irrelevant to this thread.</p>

<p>If you really insist on including UCSF’s rank into Berkeley because of the historical ties, maybe you should just include (average) all the other UCs rankings and lump that into Berkeley’s just to be consistent. :rolleyes:</p>

53

<p>^ I’m not disputing that. I’m saying history ties UCSF as Cal’s medical campus. Cal didn’t develop a medical school with one already across the bay. UCSF hasn’t developed into full fledged universities like the other branch campuses have.</p>

54

<p>Sam, I’m just comparing apples to apples here. Berkeley (no medical campus) + UCSF (a medical campus only that happens to have strong ties, historically and currently with joint degrees) = Research university with a medical campus for comparison purposes.</p>

<p>Thank God I’m not bringing in LBNL (which Cal fully runs). :)</p>

<p>

Again, Los Angeles and Davis have developed into full separate research universities. UCSF is medical only; Cal doesn’t have a medical campus. That’s because its medical campus is a separate run entity across the Bay.</p>

55

<p>I do not think it is necessary for a university to have (or excell at) all four major professional programs in order to be considered well rounded. Schools like Cal (no medical), Harvard (good but not great engineering), MIT (no law or medicine) or Yale (so-so Engineering) are strong enough in multiple professional fields to be considered.</p>

56

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh…, no it wasn’t.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[UCSF</a> History | <a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu%5B/url%5D”>www.ucsf.edu](<a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu/about/history-1]UCSF”>History of UCSF | UC San Francisco)</a></p>

<p>i know this might be hard for you to believe, but i think UCSF is a more reliable source of its history than you are. It’s fitting that UCSF didn’t stay berkeley’s medical school, considering that it wasn’t founded as its medical school to begin with.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You keep referring to it as a “medical school” or “medical campus.” It’s clear you’re doing so to try to imply that it isn’t a “full-fleged university” and stilled berkeley’s “medical campus.” But it isn’t a medical school, it’s a UNIVERSITY. University HAVE medical schools, they aren’t parts of one. This is from UCSF’s about page:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>See how many times it says “university”? Also, the ten campus claim, which is made by the University of California officially, would make no sense if UCSF wasn’t taken as a university.</p>

<p>

No it doesn’t. In fact, that’s unfair and deceitful. UCSF probably raises, and spends, more money than any single medical campus would (surely its endowment is high enough.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And berkeley doesn’t.</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For the sake of you, I’ll mail you boxes of apples so you will no longer keep <em>stealing</em> others. :D</p>

58

<p>

</p>

<p>According to wikipedia, princeton has no Law, Bus. or Med. Schools. I doubt most people would say that that makes princeton less prestigious though.</p>

59

<p>You guys are all just jealous Cal has an awesome medical school that’s separately run. :D</p>

60

<p>bephy, I’ve read that before. I misspoke about the founding. If you read though, the school became affiliated with UC (Berkeley) in 1873…46 years before the southern branch was founded.</p>