<p>
</p>
<p>[No</a> it’s true.](<a href=“http://health.usnews.com/health-news/best-hospitals/articles/2012/07/16/best-hospitals-2012-13-the-honor-roll"]No”>http://health.usnews.com/health-news/best-hospitals/articles/2012/07/16/best-hospitals-2012-13-the-honor-roll) RRMC is ranked top 5 falls in the top 1% of hospitals. (UCSF is ranked #13)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but Geffen is expanding. That should have an increase on its rankings.</p>
<p>The verdict is out for 2013: Berkeley is ranked #21 this year while UCLA and Cal fall at #24!</p>
<p>How is Berkeley #21 and Cal is at #24 at the same time?</p>
<p>He meant USC instead of Cal. And UCLA didn’t ‘fall’ to 24; it was ranked 25 last year. What happened is that there were two universities ranked at 23 last year (USC and CMU) and this year there was only one, rendering the other three universities to the #24 spot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hope so, but academics move VERY slowly. UCSF has been a top ~5 med school for 40+ years. Only WashU Med has broken into the top ranks, with a very focused plan, starting at the President’s office, with big bucks. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, for UCLA (and Cal and UCSF), the Regents harbor no strong feelings about keeping up; instead, the Regents are focused on UCR-Med and UCM-Med, particularly trying to justify their investment in the latter. Thus, IMO, while UCLA’s Chancellor maybe going full bore trying to beat 'SC, he’ll receive little support from the Regents to that end.</p>
<p>Just my observation; others will disagree.</p>
<p>^UCM-Med? You serious?!
They should build up their other academic departments first…or convert to a teaching CSU to save money.</p>
<p>The campuses should become autonomous and dump the expensive Regent administration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think UCLA has two very distinctive sides: it’s public side, and its private side. UCLA prides itself on its ‘diversity’ and on enrolling the ‘most students of any university in California.’ I’m a huge fan of their public mission; if it wasn’t in place, for example, there’s a good chance that i wouldn’t have gained admittance into the university. </p>
<p>However, UCLA’s private side doesn’t care about its public mission at all. In addition, this private side isn’t supported by the regents. Its private side includes the hospital (whose budget is massive), its professional schools like Anderson (which is trying to become independent from public funding) and the various projects that are going on on campus like The Luskin Center and, as i already noted, Wasserman. All these things are mostly (or wholly) independent for state funds. </p>
<p>Even Geffen earned its name from a 200 million dollar donation from its namesake; This can also be seen with the Terasaki life sciences building (60 million); and, more recently, the Fielding school of public health (50 million) Even today, the freaking department of history received a 10 million dollar donation. (Teofilo Ruiz anyone?)</p>
<p>But again, although UCLA does amazingly with its private side, none of these things are used to pay for the core of the university (faculty pay, students scholarships, etc.) That’s where state funding comes in. To make up for it, UCLA’s probably going to have to at least partially renege its public mission by admitting more international/OOS students at the expense of in-state students. This is a trend which i doubt will change. UCLA and Berkeley, it seems, are bound to take the path of UVA and Michigan.</p>
<p>The states now, mistakenly, view higher education as primarily a private benefit. The top publics need to adapt to the new environment.</p>
<p>Your example of Andersen only reinforces my point. The power-that-be shot down that proposal very quickly due the fear that the “private” side would become less inclusionary. The Regents and many faculty are more concerned with inclusion than with rankings.</p>
<p>Again, IMO.</p>
<p>From what i was reading, it was shot down because Anderson failed to meet any of the criteria necessary to become autonomous.</p>
<p>Perhaps you ought read the whole thing…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And note the fact that Yudof enacted this edict while UCLA’s privatization proposal was underway. In essence, Yudof setup a requirement that they could not pass. Auto-reject.</p>
<p>And of course, look at the program requirements: “enroll “non-traditional” students…” which again, reinforces my point of what the powers-that-be really care about.</p>
<p>This was in my UCLA alumni magazine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[FEMBA</a> Flex | UCLA Anderson School of Management](<a href=“http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x39831.xml]FEMBA”>http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x39831.xml)</p>
<p>looks like Anderson’s trying to meet the ‘non-traditional students’ requirement.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that Anderson will gain autonomy. The only question is when.</p>
<p>^^or, ‘in who’s lifetime?’ :D</p>
<p>With Prop 30 in the works, the top UCs would have to be stupid not to consider privatization. The mission of public access is great and all, but with California failing to adequately support that mission, there’s a high chance the state is going to lose its crown jewels.</p>
<p>From a student standpoint, I do support higher tuition if it translates into autonomy and a better student experience. Cal as of now seems content with maximizing accessibility while chipping away at the undergraduate experience. People talk about how great Cal is, but being an undergraduate here is an absolutely horrible experience.</p>