UCSF and Cal-Berkeley have several joint programs. Why wouldn’t they, given their close historical relationship? Decades before UCLA/UCSB/UCD/UCSD and so forth even existed, there was just one public institution known as the University of California, located in Berkeley. Right after that founding, it quickly affiliated with the Toland Medical College across the bay which was promptly renamed the Medical Department of the University of California. One university, one medical department. Not a separate entity. UCSF may have more “independence” today given the realities of the very-large UC-system (something that simply didn’t exist in the 1860’s and 70’s when the school known today as UC-Berkeley was founded). Nevertheless, it’s fair to say that UC-Berkeley can claim UCSF as its medical school. Those of us who knew Cal-Berkley well back in the day certainly thought of UCSF that way. Given that Cal-Berkeley has long been considered the best public university in the country (even before modern-day rankings systems confirmed that consensus), it certainly hasn’t been hurt by not having a medical school on the east side of the Bay.
Edit to add: “UCSF” wasn’t even named that till 1974. It was the Medical Department of the University of California for about 100 years prior to that time. (and, just to be doubly clear, “University of California” in this context refers to the school now referred to as UC-Berkeley, NOT the University of California System. That system didn’t actually exist till 1954. Hard to realize that UCLA was, at one point, just the “southern campus” for the University of California, not really it’s own separate flagship. A lot has changed in recent decades in terms of how these separate UC schools are viewed, and that can contribute to a lot of confusion).
Well Historically Imperial College was part of ULondon. Not anymore!
Historically, Istanbul was part of the Roman empire. Not anymore!
Historically, Venice was its own country and it ruled tons of the Greek islands. Not anymore!
Then is then and now is now. UCSF is not part of Berkeley. Legally. Organizationally. It just is not. Just because you still think of it that way does not make it true though does it?
It is so funny how you guys stretch your timeline as if the late 80s and 90s did not happen. And then by ignoring that, you then conclude that “Oh it all stayed flat”.
Without the recent meteoric rise of UChicago recently, you would be talking about the meteoric fall of UChicago and mourning its demise since it would be #32 in all rankings in all disciplines.
And even if we use the long-run timeline that you systematically use to obfuscate the recent meteoric rise, let me say this unequivocally : If UPenn did move from 15 to 7, that is NOTHING compared to UChicago moving from 6 in 1983 to 3 in 2017. The level of effort and accomplishment to do the latter is magnitudes more than the former.
True, Stanford is the best success story. I agree. That is why it is #1 and Harvard is #2. No argument there.
Oh and its also funny that this whole thread started with an allegation that The Law School, BSchool, College and Med School are ALL declining. After everyone refuted and that the B, Law and College are surely NOT declining. And that everyone agreed that the Med school is comparatively weak when compared to how Business, Law and College have been rising, all of a sudden the story became “The Sky is falling because the Med School is not as good as the rest, and no matter how good the rest of the university is it is doomed”.
The point of dialogue is to inform and change views, right? It’s a good thing if the starting point (post #1) isn’t the same as the end point.
From the thread, it looks like UChicago’s biz, law, college, english, and history depts are doing well/improving. Med school is not in a good place. Oh, and here is what you conveniently left out:
For UChicago, NIH funding plummeted, earth sciences, sociology, political science, and computer science dropped in standing, and endowment has been stagnant/declining.
(Look at my post #137.)
That still doesn’t look like a meteoric rise to me!
(Also, as U. of Penn has higher overall rankings in med, nih, endowment, etc. etc. why wouldn’t it be above Chicago? Also, if going from #6 to #3 is so monumental, how do you feel about Penn Med going from #7 to #4? How about Penn undergrad from going UNRANKED to a high of #4, and a current standing of #8? Your arguments for Chicago’s meteoric rise actually lend more support to Penn!)
And if you are leaving this discussion - see ya later, and happy you’re taking your cherry picking out the door.
@Cue7 Med is only one aspect of the university. You seem to equate it as being the end all and be all. Also, NIH funding is not equal to med school ranking. Med school ranking is 15 and NIH 34. If NIH were dispositive, med ranking would be Much lower…
@Cue7 with that projection I’d be surprised if UChicago is even around in the next couple of decades, clearly you have issues with UChicago, but I am still unclear as to what they are? Disappointed in the leadership? Let you down somehow? Barring the east coat and west coast falling off into there respective oceans, Harvard and Stanford will be continuing to duke it out over who’s number one. The rest will jockey for position behind them, but in the end does it really matter, after all there are more than 3200 or so brilliant prospects in the world today and most will not graduate from either.
@Cue7 Computer science is due for a major rise with recent hire. Sociology is still superb. Endowment will get a huge boost with the current campaign already bearing fruit. QC ranking just put UChicago 9 in the world and 5th in US ahead of Yale, Princeton, Columbia and Penn. and this from a ranking that is STEM biased ( hence MIT 1st and Caltech 4). To me the college’s meteoric rise is the key story!
@Chrchill - whoa, be careful to speculate about the future! Remember what happened to CalTech - it was ranked #1 in US News in 1999, and the very next year, fell to #4. UChicago’s spot at #3 may indeed be precarious. Don’t look too far ahead, because more decline rather than rise may be in the future…
Also, @JBStillFlying said Chicago is an odd duck, because it always seem to be “on the precipice of disaster.” Well, that’s what you get with a school that has Harvard-like aspirations, and Emory-like resources. If you read the balance sheet, Chicago should look more like Emory than Harvard. And, being Emory is basically Chicago’s nightmare…
@Zinhead - absolutely nothing - Emory is great, but it’s research footprint and impact doesn’t match Harvard, Stanford, etc. - which is exactly what Chicago has either done, or aspired to do.
And that’s Chicago’s problem. I doubt there is much talk at Emory about being “one of a handful of the world’s best research centers,” but this talk permeates Chicago, right down to this board. I don’t think there is conversation at Emory about how to have the nation’s best law school, or business school, or college, or medical plant. That aspiration for ultimate pre-eminence isn’t there, for good reason - the resources just aren’t there.
Chicago, though, has Harvard-like aspirations with Emory resources. This is an eternally tough position to occupy.
@Cue7 We analyze the past and speculate about the future. Such speculation in inherent in the nature of the future. I This discussion is circular. We all agree that Stanford and Harvard are and destined to remain the top, for many reasons. Then comes a second group comprised of MIT, UChicago, Princeton, Yale and probably Columbia,. Each is eminent to preeminent in many areas and weaker in others.
If you go by wealth, UChicago should be below many other schools, including UT system … In fact, Uchicago’;s standing is impressive precisely because of what it has been able to achieve with the $ it has!
