<p>Excerpted from the same page:</p>
<p>"Meanwhile, the University of California moved from Oakland to its permanent campus at Berkeley in the summer of 1873."</p>
<p>It's quite clear they were talking about UCB.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? I never claimed that UCSF wasn't a part of the UC system... after all "UC" is its first name.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Meanwhile, the University of California moved from Oakland to its permanent campus at Berkeley in the summer of 1873.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, so what? So Cal moved from Oakland to Berkeley in 1873.</p>
<p>And UCSF stayed in SF. </p>
<p>1) I've never claimed that UCSF and UCB have never interacted in history.
2) This only goes to prove that they were indeed separate entities.
3) When you use and bold University of California, what does that prove? It only proves the absolutely painfully obvious - that both UCSF and UCB are all a part of the UC system. Nobody is disputing this.</p>
<p>I'll state again, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A University of California, BERKELEY MEDICAL SCHOOL.</p>
<p>Guys, as fascinating a topic as this debate <em>yawn</em> is.... it's not that interesting. UCSF is sorta kinda but not really but really but only sorta kinda associated with Berkeley.</p>
<p>Does it really matter? Does it really affect the fact that Cal is a fantastic institution, on par with schools 3 times older and 10 times richer? Seriously. There are way better issues to debate. Like if Cal's poli sci department is slipping or not. </p>
<p>I say yes, it's slipping. For one, they're losing a lot of their older faculty (to age and the creeping plague of death.)</p>
<p>That's way more pressing than minced words regarding a medical school, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Please, just stop. It's making me sad.</p>
<p>I'm issuing a timeout on this thread. I'll reopen it later.</p>
<p>Okay guys, get back to it. Just play nice...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre -</p>
<p>Do you really feel UT wouldn't still be Tier III without engineering? Except for business at #20, all the other programs (law, public affairs, education) are in the top 15 or higher, with public affairs ranked the same as engineering. Even if the programs aren't in the top 5, it still takes a lot of resources to maintain that many diverse academic programs all in the top 20 in the nation. That seems like a significant accomplishment. And weighing in on the med school debate - UT-Austin doesn't have a medical school either, but if we're counting alliances/affiliations with system universities, it does have affiliations with UT-Southwestern in Dallas (which has more Nobel Laureates on faculty than any other medical school in the country), as well as the Texas Medical Center in Houston, the largest medical complex in the world with numerous hospitals and research institutions. </p>
<p>And the actual resources on the Austin campus are astounding... one of the largest academic libraries in the country (5th largest in US), one of the top/largest law libraries (Tarleton), one of the greatest humanities rare book/manuscript/art/photography library/cultural archive in the WORLD at the Ransom Center (a library that the only other universities that come close to matching are Harvard and Yale), one of the most significant Latin American collection in the world (Benson), and even a presidential library. In fine arts, the Performing Arts Complex is one of the finest and largest concentrations of venues on any university campus, and the Blanton Art Museum is the largest university art museum in the country. And on the tech side, it was recently announced that UT will once again have the fastest academic supercomputer in the world once the $59 million NSF grant is implemented, providing unparalleled computing power to UT, as well as universities and institutions around the world. I find it hard to believe that just because all of UT's programs aren't ranked top 10 that it's any less than Tier III...</p>
<p>JWT, you should know from my posts that I have a great deal of respect for UTAustin. </p>
<p>The first thing I should clarify is that mine weren't tiers, they are groups. All three groups are tier I. </p>
<p>And I was not counting UT-Southwestern in favor of UT-Austin, just as I was not counting UCSF as part of Cal. Yes, those institutions are very closely related, and if considered part of the same institution, they would certainly bolster each of their overall standing. But I don't think they are part of the same university...not any longer anyway. </p>
<p>So, if one conveniently decides to exclude Engineering from the equation (which I disagree with), then I am affraid that UT-Austin, USC and UCSD fall out of Group III. Their Business, Law and Medical schools just aren't strong enough to compete with the likes of NYU, Northwestern, UCLA, UVa or Yale. Just to break down those 6 universities:</p>
<p>MBA PROGRAMS: Clearly, Kellogg (Northwestern) is the strongest of the group in Business. Anderson (UCLA), Darden (UVa) and Stern (NYU) are also considered a notch above McCombs. I'd say of those universities, Yale is the only Business school that isn't better than UT-Austin's, but they are equal. </p>
<p>LAW SCHOOLS: For Law, Yale the best, not just in this group of 6, but in the entire nation. NYU is also considerably strong and Northwestern and UVa are also considered a notch above UT-Austin. UCLA is comparable to UT-Austin in Law.</p>
<p>MEDICAL SCHOOL: Here's where things break down. UT-Austin doesn't have a medical school. The UT system does, but it is, at this point anyway, an independent entity. The other 5 universities above all have top 25 medical programs. </p>
<p>So if Engineering is left out of the equation, I don't think UT-Austin is quite as good as other Group III universities. </p>
<p>I repeat that this exercise is meaningless anyway since graduate programs are self-standing entities. People should chose a program based on the strength of the department, not on the strength of other graduate programs withing the university. But this thread tries ot establish which universities have the highest rated professional programs accross the board. The main issue has been determining what constitutes "professional program". I personaly think UT-Austin should definitely be in Group III because I consider programs such as Dentistry, Engineering, Education, Nursing, Pharmacy and Public Affairs to be important professional tracks. However, if one decides to include just Business, Law and Medicine, I don't think Texas (or USC or UCSD) falls into Group III.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale is the only Business school that isn't better than UT-Austin's, but they are equal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><em>larfs</em></p>
<p>Yeah, if you want to live and work in Austin, TX. Anywhere outside of TX, I'm afraid Yale wipes the floor with UT-Austin. </p>
<p>Frankly, if you never mentioned it, I would never have even known UT-Austin had a b-school.</p>
<p>the_prestige,</p>
<p>I'm not at a b-school, and I know that UT-A has a good MBA program. At least one of the three major rankings puts it ahead of Yale.</p>
<p>Businessweek ('06): Yale is higher
USNWR ('06): Yale is higher
FT ('07): Yale is higher
WSJ ('06): Yale is higher
Forbes ('05)<em>: Yale is higher
Economist ('05)</em>: Yale is higher</p>
<ul>
<li>(I'm not aware that Forbes or Economist did an '06 MBA ranking)</li>
</ul>
<p>so, which ranking has UTA higher and what year was it? </p>
<p>i was thinking that it was a minor ranking that had UTA ahead of Yale, but after a little research, there isn't a single ranking that I could find that had UTA higher than Yale, and that's including rankings I've never even heard of like Whitefield Consulting Worldwide - American Ranking 2007 and Consus Composite MBA Ranking.</p>
<p>I don't know the_prestige. There are more UT-Austin alums working for the Carlyle Group (9 vs 3), Goldman Sachs and Citigroup than Yale alums...FAR more. Whether you like it or not, Yale is a good but not great B-school and as I have said many times, things aren't looking up for the Yale SOM. In fact, Yale SOM was ranked higher in the last 1980s than it is today. I think they should stick to non-profit! As UCLAri points out, according to every major MBA ranking, McCombs and Yale SOM are ranked within 3 spots of each other. The fact that UT students end up working in the Southwest is natural. The majority of Chicago and Northwestern alums end up working in the Midwest, the majority of Duke MBAs end up working in the Southeast and the majority of Stanford, Haas and Anderson MBAs end up working in California. But the statistics are pretty clear when it comes to those two programs. </p>
<p>Yale SOM
450 Full time MBA students
82% received job offers before graduation
94% received job offers three months after graduation
Average starting basic salary $92,000
Average signing bonus and "other guaranteed compensation" $43,000
Biggest employers:
Credit Suisse 6
IBM 5
Microsoft 5
S&P 5
Washington Mutual 5
Lehman Brothers 4
Merrill Lynch 4
United Technologies Corp 4
American Express 3
Citigroup 3
HSBC 3
JP Morgan 3
Morgan Stanley 3
PWC 3
Procter and Gamble 3</p>
<p>Texas McCombs
600 full time MBA students
84% received job offers before graduation
95% received job offers three months after graduation
Average starting basic salary $88,000
Average signing bonus and "other guaranteed compensation" $36,000
Biggest employers:
Dell 13
Deloitte Consulting 8
PWC 6
American Airlines 5
Intel 5
Microsoft 5
Booz Allen 4
D&B Hoovers 4
Johnson & Johnson 4
3 M 3
Exxon Mobil 3
Frito-Lay 3
Goldman Sachs 3
H. J. Heinz 3
IBM 3
JP Morgan 3
Lehman Brothers 3
McKinsey 3</p>
<p>If one takes into account cost of living, those two MBA programs are identical in most respects.</p>
<p>I have to issue a mea culpa.</p>
<p>UT-A was ahead of Yale in 2000 in BW. Not now.</p>
<p>Still, UT-A is by no means some no name school, nor is their b-school no name.</p>
<p>Alex, you can diss Yale SOM all you like brother, but UTA is a total second tier MBA program.</p>
<p>It will never be considered a Top 10 MBA program in my lifetime or yours, whereas Yale has a shot... oh what am I saying? FT's 2007 Global MBA Ranking already has it ranked as a Top 10 program.</p>
<p>UCLAri, no worries --> only goes to prove that Yale SOM is on the rise as I have been saying (i.e. it is better regarded today than it was in 2000, despite Alex's protests).</p>
<p>"If I could look into the seeds of time and say which grain would grow and which would not..." We all know how that story ended! Anyway, I have no idea how MBA programs will be ranked in the distant future. For now, McCombs and Yale SOM are peers. And the_prestige, you and I both know that Yale SOM has not risen in the ranks in the last 20 years.</p>
<p>Either way, WHO CARES???</p>
<p>Seriously, it doesn't matter. At all. Some would call Anderson 2nd tier, but I don't see too many students there complaining. This obsession with tiers is just silly. A program is only as good as what you get out of it. You can go to HBS and get nothing. Or you can go to Anderson and get the job of your dreams.</p>
<p>In the end, its all about what YOU need as an individual. </p>
<p>Now seriously, guys, you're arguing nanometers when the scale is measured in kilometers.</p>
<p>the_prestige,</p>
<p>I don't think that Alexandre is arguing that Yale isn't growing.</p>
<p>Actually, at this point, what are you two arguing?</p>
<p>Alex, those stats are totally stale, btw:</p>
<p>The latest stats (2005) have totally different numbers (e.g. Citigroup-5, McKinsey-5) -- so what years did you use? 1975 for Yale and the best year ever for UTA?</p>
<p>
[quote]
you and I both know that Yale SOM has not risen in the ranks in the last 20 years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It hasn't? How do you explain that it is now a Top 10 MBA program according to the Financial Times? And before you totally discount that ranking with some lame excuse, remember, let's stick to your original statement that it hasn't risen in the ranks in the last 20 years...</p>