<p>^ Sorry if my “propaganda” makes sense. Add in LBNL & LLNL as well. FWIW, UCSF is a separate research university but only focuses on graduate medical sciences. There is little to no overlap with Cal’s academic programs. UCSF has historic ties as Cal’s medical school. It would be redundant for Cal to build another med school on the main campus in Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Leave it up to goldenboy to pick out only the things that make Duke look. lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d be quite a poor propagandist if it didn’t 
</p>
<p>But still, “making sense” and being true are not the same thing.</p>
<p>I don’t think it would be redundant for Cal to add a medical school. It currently doesn’t have one. It would probably be heavily lobbied against, though, since UCSF is fairly close to it and has excellent medical facilities. </p>
<p>Ultimately, however, it still isn’t fair to add a whole university to another university and say “it’s basically our med school.”</p>
<p>Bephy, I consider a “whole university” to include an undergraduate component. Not just graduate studies in medical sciences.</p>
<p>That’s another good point. But my ‘heavily lobbied against’ argument works the other way as well. There’s “no point” for UCSF to have an undergraduate component since, arguably, the best public university is fairly close by. It would be a “waste of taxpayer money” as the detractors would undoubtedly argue. For every single major project UCLA undergoes, it has to state “no taxpayer funds were used for this project.” </p>
<p>Those projects likely wouldn’t be approved if they were, or UCLA would receive heavy criticism for them. It is true that UCSF’s undergraduate component, or Berkeley’s medical school, could be added through private funds. However, many would probably find them two be redundant, as you say, since the two universities complement each other. But complimenting each other isn’t the same thing as being a part of one another. MIT and Harvard compliment each other, which is why Harvard has a mediocre engineering department. And their ability to complement each other is irrespective of whether they have undergraduate components or not.</p>
<p>So as a result of both of those considerations, that’s why berkeley has no med. school, and UCSF has no undergraduate component. The regents would be hard pressed to justify spending taxpayer money to develop UCSF as the third elite University of California, especially when Merced still needs money to help nourish it, and Riverside has to delay its medical school due to lack of funds.</p>
<p>The issue is partially about redundancy, but i think largely about politics.</p>
<p>Sigh…UCSF historically is Cal’s medical school campus. They compliment each other and if either expanded offerings into each others territory it would be redundant. The only reason I’ve mentioned including UCSF numbers with Cal’s is due to this historic tie, Cal didn’t build another med campus and UCSF remains exclusively a medical school.</p>
<p>This isn’t the thread to debate this subject. The only reason it came up is because rjk mentioned Cal’s peer assessment score and Alexandre mentioned Cal doesn’t technically have a medical school component included in its statistics.</p>
<p>Overall Experience: Duke (Trinity CAS) > UPenn (SAS) > Northwestern (Weinberg CAS) > Dartmouth</p>
<p>World Rankings: </p>
<p>According to the Chinese ([|ARWU</a> 2010](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp]|ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp))</p>
<p>Penn (15) > Northwestern (29) > Duke (35) > Dartmouth (151-200)</p>
<p>According to some British ([QS</a> World University Rankings - Topuniversities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011))</p>
<p>Penn (9) > Duke (19) > Northwestern (24) > Dartmouth (99)</p>
<p>According to other British ([Top</a> 400 - The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2011-2012](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html]Top”>World University Rankings 2011-12 | Times Higher Education (THE)))</p>
<p>Penn (16) > Duke (22) > Northwestern (26) > Dartmouth (90)</p>
<p>You’ve been spouting that argument way too much over the years UCBChemEGrad. You’ve been refuted time, time, and time again. Why continue?</p>
<p>It’s the principle and a matter of comparing apples to apples…but I’m not going to continue my argument here in this thread.</p>
<p>Duke = Penn = Dartmouth > Northwestern</p>