<p>Well if not having a medical school is unfair to Berkeley, then isn’t the inclusion of certain health science schools like dentistry, nursing, and pharmacy - which most medical schools don’t offer - unfair to universities that don’t have them? USC has them, of course, as does UPenn and some others, but if you’re going to say including medical schools is a double-standard against Berkeley, then by the same token including all of UCSF is a double-standard against other universities without the health science schools that UCSF has.</p>
<p>I also neglected to mention that Berkeley’s figure includes lots of science expenditures that most other schools don’t have. For example, public health, optometry, and natural resources and agricultural sciences (which receive non-competitive research grants because Berkeley is a land-grant school) all contribute to Berkeley’s R&D expenditures in S&E. So if another university doesn’t have those, then fine - Berkeley doesn’t have a medical school and shouldn’t include UCSF.</p>
<p>My point is not to knock down or push up certain universities; it’s to show that the comparisons are necessarily difficult and ultimately there’s no ‘right or wrong’ for including or excluding certain R&D.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t know, because the NSF study didn’t separate them. ;)</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking just about the top 15 though - U Minnesota, U Colorado, Indiana U, etc. are ‘all campuses.’ The separation seems rather arbitrary.</p>