<p>where does UCSF rank when comparing UCs.</p>
<p>About as good as you can get for medical, I believe... But do they even take undergrads? I'm not sure... It's in an alright part of town.
USF is in a better location, right near the Haight--but I'm not sure if it even has a pre-medical program, nevermind how good it might be.</p>
<p>No, UCSF does not take undergrads. It is mainly a medical school, but in terms of medical schools it is one of the best. How does it rank compared to the other UCs? You can't rank it against undergraduate programs, obviously, but when ranked against the medical schools of other UCs UCSF would rank #1.</p>
<p>I dunno about #1 - UCLA Med School is pretty good too ... but I dunno - it is close.</p>
<p>UCSF Med > UCLA Med</p>
<p>UCSF may as well be Berkeley's medical school... it is the flagship</p>
<p>They're both extremely good, but you'd have to give the edge and then some to UCSF, especially with its glittering new campus which will have it move from excellence to stupendous excellence. If it lives up to its promise...</p>
<p>UCSF is one of the nation's best Med schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCSF may as well be Berkeley's medical school... it is the flagship
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't understand why people claim that UCSF is Cal's Med School. </p>
<p>UCSF is UCSF. It's not UC Berekely Medical School.</p>
<p>^^People claim that because for many years it was indeed Berkeley's medical school. </p>
<p>The medical school became part of the UC in 1873, when Berkeley was the only UC campus. For many decades, up through the middle of the 20th century, the medical school and the teaching of the medical students was split between the Berkleley campus and the SF site. As early as the 1920s medical school leaders were pushing to have it all consolidated in SF, but that happened only gradually over the next several decades. Eventually the medical school, still sort of regarded as Berkeley's medical school, was merged with the pharmancy school, nursing school, and dental school to become UCSF.</p>
<p>So today it is a separate UC campus, but given its history, it's not completely incorrect to think of it as affiliated with Berkeley.</p>
<p>UCSF has been considered the #4-5 med school in the nation for decades (Hopkins, Harvard and Stanford usual top 3).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't understand why people claim that UCSF is Cal's Med School.</p>
<p>UCSF is UCSF. It's not UC Berekely Medical School.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>re-read my post... I said "may as well be"</p>
<p>Actually, since you're talking about ranking, UCSF is usually outranked in national polls by Hopkins, Harvard, and often Penn. But pretty consistently UCSF outranks Stanford, by the way, and just about anybody will tell you that, though at that level it's probably splitting hairs anyway; without an undergrad campus or university breadth, it has a much lower profile than any of the other schools, but is absolutely superb. Though it does owe a debt to Stanford, 'cause several years ago when Stanford decided to move its med school back down to the Palo Alto area from San Francisco, a bunch of Stanford profs decided they wanted to stay and so defected to UCSF's faculty thereby increasing its size and heaping more quality on its quality.</p>
<p>On the West Coast, actually, another big "competitor" of UCSF is University of Washington which outpaces all California med schools in NIH funding grants. UCSF leads California in this area, followed by I believe UCLA and UCSD then Stanford (not sure of the order of the last 3). </p>
<p>It can be confused as "Berkeley's med school" because of its proximity, the fact that Berkeley is the only major UC campus without a med school and the fact that there were a lot of joint studies and MD/PhD program activities between the two campuses. But it is not, as the person rather stridently pointed out, UC Berkeley's med school. Though I don't know why that should matter so much. It's not like med schools have the same admissions channels in any school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So today it is a separate UC campus, but given its history, it's not completely incorrect to think of it as affiliated with Berkeley.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for the history lesson. The US used to be a colony of the British Empire too, but we don't go around calling ourselves British.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Eventually the medical school, still sort of regarded as Berkeley's medical school
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? We are still talking about two separate entities no matter how close the proximity or connection.</p>
<p>So again, UCSF is UCSF and Cal is Cal: which doesn't have a medical school, and no, UCSF is NOT Cal's Medical School.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thanks for the history lesson. The US used to be a colony of the British Empire too, but we don't go around calling ourselves British.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But we do speak English, don't we?</p>
<p>History always plays an important part. We're not saying UCSF is Berkeley's medical school, but we are saying it can considered to be "Berkeley's medical school" in the sense that it is affilated closely with Berkeley, from reasons which Incredulous listed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we are saying it can considered to be "Berkeley's medical school"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and I am saying that is total crap.</p>
<p>Let me ask you this: when one attends and graduates from UCSF (be it with a Masters, PhD, MD, etc.) does Berkeley appear ANYWHERE on that diploma? In any way, shape or form?</p>
<p>No it does not. When people attend the Med School at UCSF, do they say, "I go to Cal Med School?" No they do not. Conversely, when one attends Harvard College or Harvard Medical School, that person can rightfully say "I go to Harvard". When one graduates from Stanford undergrad or Stanford Medical School, one can rightfully say, "I went to Stanford."</p>
<p>So let's not start shooting off into hypothetical historical tangents into the neverending world of "what might have been" - let's talk FACT.</p>
<p>UCSF is UCSF. Cal is Cal. Period. </p>
<p>I can fully understand why Cal folks would love to claim the world renowned Medical School at UCSF as their own, but it's just not gonna fly. I'm afraid I have to call BS right away.</p>
<p>prestige you're really making a huge deal out of something pretty trivial</p>
<p>who really cares?</p>
<p>i have no affilitaion to Cal or UCSF, so i have no dog in this fight.</p>
<p>i'm just setting the record straight. nothing more, nothing less.</p>
<p>Noticed the quote marks I used? No one is saying UCSF is Berkeley's medical school. The two are closely affliated in some ways and in some aspects UCSF functions as a medical school for Berkeley (through certain agreements or contracts) in ways that are similar to how other universities' medical schools function for them. Is that clearer?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can fully understand why Cal folks would love to claim the world renowned Medical School at UCSF as their own, but it's just not gonna fly. I'm afraid I have to call BS right away.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think UC Berkeley is a lot more world-renowned than UC San Francisco.</p>
<p>When I interviewed for PhD programs at Berkeley and UCSF last winter, I definitely heard professors justifying the close collaboration between the two schools as being due to the fact that Berkeley has no med school, so UCSF was "like" Berkeley's medical school.</p>
<p>And I don't think the Berkeley professors had any reason to puff up their relationship with UCSF -- Berkeley's biology PhD programs are currently ranked higher than UCSF's, anyway.</p>
<p>Well, Mr. Prestige, you won, by definition. UCSF is in fact a separate campus if you go to the UCOP website for the UC system. You also won 'cause I am sitting here wasting my time responding. I only came to this site to help my niece find a college.</p>
<p>But your point ("total crap") is rather picayune and assinine. And so is the point about not calling ourselves British, whomever said that; we also don't have a joint parliament with Britain, joint finances, nor are we part of the British Commonwealth, all of which are the analogy appropriate to UCSF/UCB.</p>
<p>UC Med School was started by UC when that university was only an entity in Berkeley; it was then defined as the medical school of UC which by definition connected it to Berkeley. Berkeley and UCSF have several joint degree programs including a joint medical degree, a combined MPH/MD degree (MPH from Berkeley and MD from UCSF), joint labs up to wazoo, a joint graduate program in bioengineering, etc. Go to the respective websites and check it out. <a href="http://www.ucsf.edu%5B/url%5D">www.ucsf.edu</a> <a href="http://www.berkeley.edu%5B/url%5D">www.berkeley.edu</a></p>
<p>You can take your cachet and put it in the bank or blow it out somewhere, 'cause you are right: UCSF will never quite have the cachet of Harvard or Penn 'cause it doesn't have undergraduates. But for those in the know, it a fantastic standalone med school absolutely world class and first rate. And in a loose kinda folksy way, not hampered by your frenzied overinterest in meting out prestige in careful doses, yes it is for all intents and purposes "kinda" Berkeley's med school. In a relaxed manner of speaking.</p>
<p>God, I hope they bioengineer some meds sufficient to your affliction.</p>
<p>Please no one else write anything on this, lest I become tempted to respond.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, Mr. Prestige, you won, by definition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>Further, are you under the impression that I somehow believe that UCSF is inferior in anyway? For the record, I have the utmost respect for UCSF and any of my previous posts will confirm as much. </p>
<p>My only point (as you have so acknowledged) is that UCSF and UCal are indeed separate entities. Nothing more, nothing less.</p>
<p>As a final point, there is something deliciously ironic about someone who misspells the word "asinine" in attacking someone.</p>