<p>According to the Cornell Daily Sun, Cornell raised $778 million, so I’m not entirely sure why it wasn’t included.
[Cornell</a> Sets Record, Raises $777.8 Million | The Cornell Daily Sun](<a href=“http://cornellsun.com/node/53612]Cornell”>http://cornellsun.com/node/53612)</p>
<p>^ Probably because, if I’m not mistaken, the CAE list is based on donations actually received during the fiscal year, and does not include pledges. That would also explain why UCLA is not on the top-10 list, as asked by an earlier poster.</p>
<p>“UCB, as much as I respect Cal, UCSF is not its “de facto” medical program, or affiliated to Cal in any substantial way. Both are members of the UC system, and that is the extent of their relationship to each other. UCSF is no more affiliated to Cal than it is to any other member(s) of the UCs. Just because Cal does not have a medical school does not mean it can claim UCSF as its own. UCSF has its own Chancellor (who reports directly to the UC president, not to Cal’s Chancellor), its own budget and its own funding.”</p>
<p>UCSF has joint degree programs, and is every bit as integrated within Berkeley as, for instance, Cornell medical school is with Cornell University. </p>
<p>The larger point is that you are comparing apples and oranges, and anyone can see that.</p>
<p>UCLA has a med school. UCSD has a med school. UC Davis has a med school. Why doesn’t Berkeley have a med school? Oh yeah, it does – it’s UCSF…Berkeley specifically didn’t develop one… Since it hurts the ranking competition sweepstakes, no one ever will acknowledge this. Again, the larger point is take away the med schools from Stanford, Harvard and several others on this list and the apples to apples looks different.</p>
<p>And the whole point here is that fundraising comparisons between medical school and non-medical school containing campuses are misleading…</p>
<p>UC Berkeley and UCSF’s joint history:</p>
<p>[Chronology</a> of the Split Campus - Special Topics - A History of UCSF](<a href=“http://history.library.ucsf.edu/split_campus.html]Chronology”>Chronology of the Split Campus - Special Topics - A History of UCSF)</p>
<p>Some of UC Berkeley’s joint programs:</p>
<p>[UC</a> Berkeley ? UCSF Joint Medical Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley_–_UCSF_Joint_Medical_Program]UC”>UC Berkeley – UCSF Joint Medical Program - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[UC</a> Berkeley - UCSF Bioengineering Graduate Program ? Outstanding graduate education in bioengineering provided jointly by UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco.](<a href=“http://bioegrad.berkeley.edu/]UC”>http://bioegrad.berkeley.edu/)</p>
<p>[New</a> masters program between UC Berkeley, UCSF approved - The Daily Californian](<a href=“http://www.dailycal.org/2012/08/19/medicine-pooja/]New”>http://www.dailycal.org/2012/08/19/medicine-pooja/)</p>
<p>Repeating the same non-sense almost verbatim will not make it become true. </p>
<p>As someone explained eloquently, joint programs show “sister” relationships. UCSF and Berkeley are sisters in the happy UC family. Just like the remaining UC schools are. </p>
<p>Why establishing this “combined” fundraising appears important to some still baffles me. Have the fanboys lost all sense of self-esteem that they feel compelled to cling to such stupid arguments?</p>
<p>Glad someone sees it my way. :)</p>
<p>I’m unaware of joint degrees between Berkeley and other UCs…just Berkeley/UCSF.</p>
<p>It’s principle xiggi. Apples and apples comparison.</p>
<p>Berkeley (no med school) + UCSF (med school only) = full research university. This combo can be compared to other institutions with med schools, since a lot of fundraising goes to medical sciences.</p>
<p>UCSF is Cal’s defacto med school.History shows that. Joint programs and geographic proximity continue to show that.</p>
<p>People who say UCSF and Cal don’t have a special relationship have a limited of the UC system.</p>
<p>Cal had its chance a couple of decades back to count UCSF as one of its own; now they are independent entities whether Berkeley likes it or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know what the ‘U’ in UCSF stands for? Lol.</p>
<p>Fundraising as listed in this thread is more a function of organizations, government, military and individual contributions to special programs and initiatives. I wonder what alums actually donate. I have a list of the 20 universities that received the most money from alumni back in 2006. </p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford, $434 million</li>
<li>Yale, $271 million</li>
<li>Cornell, $216 million</li>
<li>Harvard, $201 million</li>
<li>Tufts, $159 million</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins, $134 million</li>
<li>Princeton, $134 million</li>
<li>Columbia, $131 million</li>
<li>Penn, $126 million</li>
<li>Michigan-Ann Arbor, $124 million</li>
<li>Notre Dame, $100 million</li>
<li>USC, $97 million</li>
<li>MIT, $91 million</li>
<li>UC-Berkeley, $82 million</li>
<li>Virginia, $82 million</li>
<li>Dartmouth, $78 million</li>
<li>UNC-Chapel Hill, $75 million</li>
<li>Wisconsin-Madison, $68 million</li>
<li>Purdue-West Lafayette, $63 million</li>
<li>Texas A&M-College Station, $61 million</li>
</ol>
<p>Does any body have more recent figures.</p>
<p>Bephy, you do know it’s graduate-only medical programs, right? To me, that’s more of a medical campus than full research university. It just happens to have independent oversight. </p>
<p>I would agree not including UCSF’s totals with Berkeley if there were competing academic programs and overlap between the campuses. That is not the case.</p>
<p>That’s why I’m not arguing for other UCs, including Hastings be included since other campuses have competing programs. I would argue you need to include LBNL fundraising as well, since that is entirely run and staffed by Berkeley faculty and grad students for an even truer picture. Just like Hopkins numbers include their Advanced Physics lab. Caltech can add JPL. Stanford can add its linear accelerator lab.</p>
<p>UCSF is not Cals Medical School anymore for several decades now. Just like UT Southwestern is not UT Austin’s.</p>
<p>Cornell medical school started independently in New York City, later went looking for an affiliation with a university, and has a hell of a lot more to do with other universities than Cornell in terms of joint programs. And yet no one claims that it is separate from Cornell.</p>
<p>Meaningfully speaking, in terms of history, in terms of linkages, UCSF is a hell of a lot more obviously the de facto med school of UC Berkeley than Weill Cornell College is the med school of Cornell.</p>
<p>[Cornell</a> University - Search Cornell](<a href=“Cornell University | Search Pages”>Cornell University | Search Pages)</p>
<p>The meaning of de facto is that of what derives from reality – real history and real relationships.</p>
<p>The meaning of de jure is that of what derives from laws and administrative edicts often in distinction from reality.</p>
<p>This has fallen into a meaningless discussion. Of course, UCSF is de jure a separate campus. And it is a hell of a lot more a de facto med school of UC Berkeley than Cornell’s med school is of Cornell. There are probably other similar examples, but this one was the most obvious.</p>
<p>Also, any idiot who knows the UC system knows that stability redounds convincingly to the following schools: UC Berkeley, UCSF, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The others have less stability, perhaps. All of them are superlative institutions. The fundraising figures vary widely, however…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh dear, of course other universities have more joint programs with Cornell medical school than Cornell University itself because you don’t have a “joint” program with yourself. LOL!</p>
<p>So the more you repeat those links about JOINT programs (are you UCBChemEGrad making a new account and posting the same links?), the more you shoot yourself in the foot.</p>
<p>By the way, there’s no point to differentiate de facto and de jure; it doesn’t somehow strengthen your argument. </p>
<p>But just so you know, the GAAP treatment of consolidation is substance over form (de facto).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Welcome to this forum and we especially welcome you the small group of idiots who derail threads all te time. Actually, while we like to mess with their low self-esteem and the predictability of their contributions, we also cherish them and find them adorable. You know like some like the beauty of bulldogs.</p>
<p>I am sure they will enjoy a bit of support as they rarely if ever succeed in convincing anyone, but are usually good sports about it. And, by the way, that group needs to replace their biggest filipino loudmouth who vanished after being exposed for the fraud he was.</p>