<p>Aaaahhhh, shucks! I know you are passionate about those debates, so I don't take it seriously! hehe! </p>
<p>But back to the original point, the only reason Yale was not in group II for Professional programs is because I consider Engineering an important professional program. If one is looking purely at Business, Law and Medical schools, then I would have definitely placed Yale in group II. But I really don't believe in those overall graduate rankings because graduate programs are insular and independent in nature. A Medical school applicant will value Johns Hopkins, UCSF and WUSTL over most other medical schools, even if they aren't good in most other graduate fields. For those interested in Engineering, UIUC, Caltech and Purdue are amazing, and they could care less if those schools don't have other major graduate professional programs. NUY is a mecca for Law school-bound students, and they won't mind if their other graduate programs aren't quite as strong. A person seeking a PhD in Philosophy would dream of attending the University of Pittsburgh, although its other graduate programs aren't necessarily that great. Bottom line, it really makes no sense to come up with a grouping of universities for overall graduate programs.</p>
<p>The methodology that determines the rankings changes slightly every year so that the rankings change every year. Afterall, the purpose of the rankings is actually to sell magazines - and if the rankings were the same every year, there would be no reason to buy the magazine every year. </p>
<p>Frankly, the information used in the rankings is provided by the school - and not completely verified by an outside auditor. I know this as I used to be the person who submitted the data at a professional school (in my case, always ethically which cost us ranking points).</p>
<p>The difference between #1 and #10 if you look closely at the methodology is small - and, in fact, may make absolutely no difference for what you're looking for. For example, do you really care if the faculty average 4 publications a year versus 3? </p>
<p>If a program is ranked at all in the popular press, you can consider it to be one of the best - there are 1000s of programs out there. Choose your program based on the things that matter to you:</p>
<ul>
<li>how active and involved is the alumni base in providing post-graduate opportunites</li>
<li>how strong are the support services for students (Career Services, student services, academic advisement, et.c)</li>
<li>does it have industry connections in the geographic area you want to be in when you graduate</li>
<li>are there faculty members that you respect, admire and want to work with doing research that you're interested in</li>
<li>are your potential classmates ones you'd like to hang out with, ones that you'll build a lifetime network with</li>
<li>what "feels" like the right fit? You'll spend a LOT of time there - you'd better like it</li>
</ul>
<p>
[quote]
I think it'd be easier to bundle Berkeley and UCSF than Harvard and MIT. The former two were founded around the same time (five years difference); the latter two, a few hundred years difference. Not only do Berkeley and UCSF share programs/faculty/students/facilities/funds/whatever, but they've always gone hand-in-hand, by general view it seems. Why would Berkeley, a very well-rounded university, not have a grad school for medicine, one of the most popular areas? Was it because they just didn't want it? Didn't have the resources? Didn't think it was relevant? Or did they find that they didn't need it, since UCSF fulfills that role anyway? I think that, for the most part, every program that MIT has, Harvard has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'll put it to you this way. </p>
<p>*How far apart are UCSF and Berkeley? MIT and Harvard are literally just a 10-minute (or less) subway ride away. To get from Berkeley to UCSF, you have to take about a 30-minute BART ride, then transfer to the Muni N line. That's * at least * a 45 minute total commute, probably more like an hour or so. </p>
<p>*Given the above, how feasible is it really to cross-reg between Berkeley and UCSF? Now, it is true that there is a cross-reg agreement between the 2 schools. However, I would not characterize as being as easy to use as the Harvard- MIT cross-reg agreement. To take a class at the other school basically takes up half the day due to the commute time. </p>
<p>But the point is this. I think most people don't realize just how closely aligned Harvard and MIT really are, mostly due to their sheer proximity as welll as their extensive sharing agreements. In fact, I would argue that a Harvard engineering student can actually get a superstar engineering education just by extensive cross-regging at MIT. In fact this is so common at the graduate level that I have heard of Harvard grad students remarking that Harvard engineering is in some ways a backdoor to MIT's grad engineering programs (in that some people who aren't good enough to get admitted to MIT grad engineering will just go to Harvard, and then end up taking a slew of MIT classes anyway, and end up working on joint Harvard-MIT engineering research projects, and hence, in some ways, it's a backdoor way for them to get a quasi-MIT education).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Funny that you should mention it. In the late 80s and early 90s, the USNWR ranked Michigan law #2 or #3 in the nation. Jack Gourman also ranked Michigan Law #2 in the nation throughout the 80s and 90s. The Insider's Guide to Law schools generally ranks Michigan Law #3 in the nation. In the 70s, 80s and early 90s, when people in the Legal professional used the term "holy trinity" of Law Schools, they were refering to Harvard, Michigan and Yale. So there was indeed a time when Michigan Law was ranked 2nd or third in the nation. Of course, that isn't the case today.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's very interesting. Do you have links to that?</p>
<p>"In the late 80s and early 90s, the USNWR ranked Michigan law #2 or #3 in the nation."</p>
<p>I have been looking for the historic rankings of Law schools and actually stumbled on one. I guess there was just one ranking of Law Schools conducted by the USNWR in the 80s and Michigan was ranked #3, behind #1 Harvard and Yale (they were tied). </p>
<p>"Jack Gourman also ranked Michigan Law #2 in the nation throughout the 80s and 90s. The Insider's Guide to Law schools generally ranks Michigan Law #3 in the nation."</p>
<p>Admitedly, the Insiders and Gourman rankings are outdated. I think Gourman last ranked Law schools in the mid 1990s, same goes for Insider's. But in their day, their rankings were respected.</p>
<p>"In the 70s, 80s and early 90s, when people in the Legal professional used the term "holy trinity" of Law Schools, they were refering to Harvard, Michigan and Yale."</p>
<p>Although I cannot find a link that says as much, I think the rankings above pretty much show that in the 70s and 80s, Michigan Law was generally ranked among the top 3 Law programs. I actually quoted Barron's when I used the "holy trinity" analogy. They were referring to Harvard, Michigan and Yale.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if it's fair to bundle UCSF with Berkeley, then it's also fair to bundle MIT with Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sakky: What do you think the point of my initial question was? I think you're smart enough to figure it out, given the context in which it was stated.</p>
<p>By the way, UCSF's new campus is close to San Francisco's Ball Park, not at the end of the N line. A $1.5 billion gleaming giant that Harvard's trying to emulate. (And with its money, undoubtedly will except for the fact that it'll be in Boston not San Francisco.)</p>
<p>And how easy is it for any standard university student to cross-register in a med school affiliated with that university? At Berkeley,UCSF, it's not easy unless you enroll in the joint medical degree that they offer (and I would guess the numbers of students in that program is very small, given its unusual focus.)</p>
<p>And in the PhD programs offered at UCSF, for the most part Berkeley has better programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky: What do you think the point of my initial question was? I think you're smart enough to figure it out, given the context in which it was stated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not disputing your point, I am just offering an additional elaboration. </p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, UCSF's new campus is close to San Francisco's Ball Park, not at the end of the N line.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, Mission Bay isn't exactly that much closer to Berkeley than the UCSF main campus is. Either way, you're stuck taking BART, then transferring to Muni. It's a long ride either way. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And how easy is it for any standard university student to cross-register in a med school affiliated with that university? At Berkeley,UCSF, it's not easy unless you enroll in the joint medical degree that they offer (and I would guess the numbers of students in that program is very small, given its unusual focus.)</p>
<p>And in the PhD programs offered at UCSF, for the most part Berkeley has better programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe you can ask molliebatmit about how it might work. She's in a PhD program at Harvard Medical School. Perhaps she can offer some insight as to what exactly is the difference between taking bio PhD programs at HMS, at Harvard proper, or at (nearby) MIT.</p>
<p>Probably because it would be less meaningful to do so. The truth is, most undergrads don't end up taking careers that are related to what they majored in anyway. Whether we like or not, most undergrads view their undergrad major as just something that they have to complete, perhaps for fun, before they head off to their 'real jobs'. For example, I know countless people who majored in one of the liberal arts in order to satisfy their general interest, before running off to jobs in investment banking or management consulting, or head off to law/med school. So frankly, who cares how good (or how bad) your undergraduate program is, if you're not going to pursue a related career anyway? </p>
<p>In contrast those who get graduate degrees actually have a somewhat high percentage of actually embarking upon careers that are actually strongly related to their degree.</p>
<p>sakky: my point was that it's easier to lump Berkeley and UCSF simply be definition: UCSF is a specialized grad school; Berkeley, a very well-rounded university, doesn't happen to have that (very popular) grad school. Why's that? Contrast that with MIT and Harvard, which are both full-fledged undergrad and grad schools that don't specialize (though one might argue that MIT is "specialized," despite its burgeoning social science programs). I realize that MIT and Harvard have very close ties, but I still think it's easier to say Cal+UCSF than MIT+H, simply because of what the universities are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCSF was the medical branch of UCB for years before being made independent. I think they are still essentially one comprehensive entity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was? Which years were that exactly? I looked into UCSF's own website and looked on its historical timeline, and I couldn't find anything that stated that UCSF was the official medical branch of Cal Berkeley.</p>
<p>That's not a "claim". Cal was founded in 1868. It opened its medical school in San Francisco in 1873. At that point, the Medical school was already in existence, but primarily as a hospital and a medical training college. It sought to be affiliated to a larger entity and accepted to merge with Cal. At that point, there was only one University of California. The second UC campus opened in Davis in 1905. For close to 40 years, there was just one University of California (in the city of Berkeley) and its medical school was located in San Francisco. Until the early 20th century, UC's medical school in San Francisco was just a department of UC-Berkeley. Its faculty members were professors of UC-Berkeley and it was run by the UC-Berkeley administration. </p>
<p>I would like to add that the "founder" of Cal, Governor Frederick Low, modeled Cal after the University of Michigan. Hehe!!! Yes, yes, I know, I am shameless!</p>
<p>
[quote]
For close to 40 years, there was just one University of California (in the city of Berkeley) and its medical school was located in San Francisco.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That may very well be true, but this doesn't mean that UCSF = UCB.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Until the early 20th century, UC's medical school in San Francisco was just a department of UC-Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCSF's website clearly states that it is, was and has been a separate entity from UCB. They may have shared some facilities, they may have shared faculty, they may have even shared parts of their campuses.</p>
<p>But its pretty clear that UCSF was and is UCSF and UCB is UCB.</p>
<p>BESIDES... who cares about what may have happened 100 years ago?</p>
<p>It obviously depends on one definition of indpendence. UCSF did not have a budget, faculty, president/chancelor, etc... until the 1900s. From 1873 until then, it was purely a Berkeley run institution and UCSF was merely referred to as the "Medical Department". </p>
<p>This from the UCSF website: "...The first move towards significant structural change came from Dean D'Ancona, who began transforming the Medical Department from an affiliated proprietary college to a truly university-supported institution. In 1900, he requested that the regents provide financial support to the Medical Department for equipment and maintenance. In his appeal, he acknowledged the changes occurring within the University itself as it matured as an institution, and pointed out that "it has been the misfortune of the Medical Department that it was established as a private institution. It became an integral department of the University at a time when in fact the University was a mere experiment...it is time for the University to realize that its active support and care should be given freely to its department of medicine. There is no better way in which the University can make a better return to the people for the people's generosity to the University than in fostering that science which means the preservation of the health and lives of the people." The regents promptly recommended that the University assume financial responsibility for the Medical Department, although actual financial support was not forthcoming until 1906...." </p>
<p>As you can see, UCSF was merely refered to as a department (not a university) within the University (Cal).</p>
<p>If it takes a 27 sentence paragraph, its totally clear that the history is anything but. Forget medical school, you need to go to law school and get a law degree just to sort out that mumbo jumbo. Nothing in that novel of a paragraph states:</p>
<ul>
<li>UCB had a medical school and then it became UCSF. UCSF was UCSF and UCB was UCB.</li>
</ul>
<p>Look, simply put, if UCSF used to be UC Berkeley Medical School then why doesn't UCSF's website just come right out and state as such? In 19xx, UC Berkeley's Medical School became UCSF.</p>
<p>Because this simply wasn't the case. </p>
<p>Obviously, UCSF is proud of its own history (perhaps in Berkeley's shadow) but proud nonetheless - as well as it should be. </p>
<p>So let's stop beating around the bush with these half-truths. Let's talk fact.</p>
<p>FACT: There has NEVER BEEN a University of California, Berkeley Medical School.</p>
<p>Er, I don't see how that was very difficult to understand...</p>
<p>It clearly states: "... began transforming the Medical Department from an affiliated proprietary college to a truly university-supported institution" and "It became an integral department of the University at a time when in fact the University was a mere experiment." It was never formally called "UC MED SCHOOL." Do you find that something is only valid in name? I should hope not.</p>
<p>In any case, why are you quibbling over such an inane distinction? UCSF is widely regarded as Berkeley's med school. In addition, ask yourself this, and think about it hard: why would Berkeley, an extremely well-rounded university (top 10 in most of its fields), not have a college for an extremely popular major like medicine? It's pretty easy to see that UCSF, although an independent grad school, can be lumped with Berkeley (facilities/programs/funds/students/faculty/etc.).</p>
<p>
[quote]
It was never formally called "UC MED SCHOOL."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you very much.</p>
<p>Look, the University of California State System can claim 100% of UCSF.</p>
<p>Cal Berkeley? Do you guys have such an inferiority complex that you have to leech onto anything and everything that could possibly put you in a positive light?</p>
<p>This is the problem I have with the Cal fanatics - they claim that UCSF was UCB and then it broke off. NO. UCSF had its own history, its own founding, its own evolution into one of the world's premier medical research universities. Sorry, Cal, you can't just slap your name on it and pretend you're not getting get called on it.</p>
<p>Let's put it another way, if UCSF had an alternate history and ended up becoming a complete and utter failure, do you think all of the Cal fanatics would be coming out of the woodworks to put their name on it? No, if you even mentioned it in the same sentence they'd consider it a slap in the face.</p>
<p>"In March 1873, the trustees deeded the Toland Medical College to the University Regents and the faculty minutes for the first time bore the heading, "The Medical Department of the University of California.""</p>