Jump to content

Talk:University of California, San Francisco/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Humor

This whole section was removed. Some of the other UC sites have humor sections, why not UCSF?

Changes

Undergraduate enrollment figure looks a bit strange. Are there a few zeros missing?

Nope, UCSF is a graduate campus.

The link for Dr. Kessler goes to a page about an actor, also named David Kessler, who lived about a century ago.

Removed link for now...someone can write up a page on this David Kessler and sort things out later... WildCowboy 09:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed it by creating a link to David Kessler (Scientist). Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more information on how Wikipedia manages this issue. -- Longhair 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

this really needs some work

Like an intro paragraph, wikification, and perhaps it shouldn't sound like an ad.....Cornell Rockey 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates

The article says "UCSF's faculty includes three Nobel Prize winners . . . ." (present tense), and the list of "Noted Alumni/Faculty" lists Nobelists J. Michael Bishop (1989), Stanley Pusiner (1997) and Harold Varmus (1989). But Varmus left UCSF in 1993 to head the NIH, and moved from there to his current position as President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Unless there is another Nobel winner at UCSF who isn't on the list, the faculty actually includes only two Nobel Prize winners and the article should be edited to say so.

Technically, Varmus is still on the faculty at UCSF...Professor Emeritus of Microbiology and Immunology. It's an honorary position that is common in academia when distinguished faculty move on. He still comes back periodically, though not often. WildCowboy 04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside Survey

I'm posting this survey request Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey on all the UC talk pages in order to gather outside opinion on ongoing issues concerning the POV of this article. Please read the article and add your insights to the survey to help us identify any points of consensus in the UCR article. Thanks--Amerique 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

npov tag

Quoting above:

Like an intro paragraph, wikification, and perhaps it shouldn't sound like an ad.....Cornell Rockey 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have great respect for UCSF, but this article sounds like an unsolicited endorsement.Michaelbusch 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all true, though! ;^) --Fluffbrain 15:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Degrees conferred

It would be nice if this article listed in more or less general form the degrees offered by UCSF. Especially useful would be if it was explained why the number of undergrads is so low and also what exactly these undergrads are doing and what degree(s) they are getting.—lensovet–talk – 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the one small, undergrad program they did have was eliminated about five years ago. But I can't remember what the program was and can't find any references to support it, so I think that's why no one has updated the university profile on this page. WildCowboy 19:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no undergrads. True, the Dental Hygiene BS program was eliminated a few years ago. UCSF offers MD, PhD, DDS, and MS degrees. The MS degrees only come "on the way" to a PhD, except for the MS in Clinical Research (via Epi & Biostats), which is only open to people who already have doctorates. The reference re: Dental Hygiene is here: http://dentistry.ucsf.edu/admissions/admiss_program2.html --Fluffbrain 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, also have some advanced Nursing and Pharmacy degrees. No time at the moment to detail -- will get later today. --Fluffbrain 15:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...the Dental Hygiene program was the one I was thinking of. The MS situation is a bit more complicated, as there are MS programs in the School of Nursing. Some of the graduate programs have admitted MS-track graduate students...Biological and Medical Informatics is one that comes to mind, but they have recently halted that practice. I don't know if there are other programs that still do this, but I think there is an MS-entry program in Oral and Craniofacial Sciences. The MS degree is typically not awarded to PhD-track graduate students unless they elect to leave the university prior to completing their PhD, but after having passed their qualifying examination or written a masters thesis. Some other programs/degrees offered by UCSF of the top of my head are PharmD, PharmD/PhD, PharmD/MPH (joint with Berkeley), DDS/PhD, DDS/MBA (joint with University of San Francisco), MD/PhD, MD/MS (joint with Berkeley), MD/MPH (joint with Berkeley). I also believe they have reactivated the History of Science program, offering an MA degree for professionals with a doctoral degree or enrolled in a doctoral program. The physical therapy program, joint with San Francisco State, offers MS/DPT, DPT, and DPTSc programs. I'm sure there are some I'm missing. Once someone develops a complete list, it should definitely be added to the article. WildCowboy 15:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What i could never figure out is what exactly is the PharmD degree? They say the program is 4 years, and a PhD is a different program (PharmD/PhD), so is this a sort of undergraduate program? Man, I can never figure this place out...take a look at http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2005/statsumm2005.pdf, statistics for the fall 2005 semester...it says that there were no undergrads enrolled in 2005, and 8 enrolled in 2004...at the same time, they managed to give out 21 bachelor's degrees in 2004 and 11 bachelor's degrees in 2005. you might also find some good info on this page: http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/ —lensovet–talk – 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
PharmD is the doctor of pharmacy professional degree that allows you to be a practicing pharmacist...it is a graduate program. The PharmD/PhD program trains students both as pharmacists and researchers...it's primarily for people looking to become faculty in pharmacy schools, but can be useful for others who are headed into research, particularly in pharmaceutical chemistry. Regarding the undergrad head counts, thanks for the links. So there were eight undergrads enrolled in fall 2004 and they awarded 11 undergrad degrees at the end of that academic year...the three extra degrees might be people who returned to campus to finish up their degrees in a winter or spring quarter but weren't around to be counted in the fall. Or people who had essentially finished their program in the previous year but not filed all of the proper paperwork to get their degree until the following year. WildCowboy 16:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Success! I've added the various degrees. Well, I may have missed a couple, reading the above more closely -- I didn't see the PharmD/MPH, DDS/MBA, etc. -- Maybe those are more individualized & semi- ad hoc? or maybe I just missed 'em! Anyway, I made a start on the list of degrees! ;^) --Fluffbrain 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sole Graduate Campus Or Not?

"Though one of the ten campuses of the University of California, it is unique for being the only University of California campus dedicated solely to graduate education"

This is completely unture. UC-Hastings (College of Law) is another UC campus that is dedicated soley to graduate education.

I wouldn't say "completely untrue." Hastings has a unique relationship with UC in that it isn't governed by the Regents (although they do issue diplomas to Hastings graduates), and thus the University of California does not include in it their list of campuses. It falls under the category of "UC Locations" instead of "UC Campuses." WildCowboy 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be heading for a low-scale edit war over whether UCSF is the only UC campus solely focused on graduate education. There are several editors who believe that Hastings College of the Law is a UC campus, and thus the UCSF is untrue. But due to Hastings' unique governance role, the UC Regents do not consider it to be one of the campuses.[1] Instead, it is listed under "More Locations" along with numerous other satellite locations, none of which are considered proper UC campuses.[2] In light of the Regents' position on this, I am going to revert the recent changes for now, but please discuss here whether something different should be done. WildCowboy 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with WildCowboy the Hastings is NOT a UC Campus. It is part of the UC SYSTEM, but is not a CAMPUS (see quote below). --Fluffbrain 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At times confusion has prevailed about exactly where Hastings fits into the legal education schematic. Some believe the College is connected to UCSF, the University of California's medical campus at Parnassus Heights. Others think it is part of Boalt Hall, the law school on the UC Berkeley campus. And there are those who believe Hastings is...well, simply Hastings. Hastings is none of the above. But what, then, is it?

Along with law schools at Berkeley, UCLA, and Davis, Hastings is a part of the UC system and takes pride in its University of California affiliation. It is, however, distinguished by certain factors owing to the special nature of its founding in 1878.

The Law Department

On its establishment, Hastings was designated 'the law department of the University." Although the primary UC campus then was Berkeley, the founder specified the San Francisco Law Library as a principal resource for students' legal studies, which led to the College's home in San Francisco.

At the turn of the century, the university's "Special Colleges" are described as Hastings College of the Law and the California College of Medicine, later UCSF.

Hastings' Board of Directors

Although, as provided by the founder, the College's degrees are awarded under the authority of the UC Board of Regents, in all other matters, the College is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors charged with handling all business matters. Thus, though Hastings follows many UC practices and policies, such as in purchasing and investment, and its employees are members of the UC Retirement System, the College maintains its own independent Civic Center campus, and receives its budgetary allotment from the California Legislature rather than through the UC Regents. [3]

WikiProject University of California

Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bioengineering

An edit was made on December 4th to add UCSC to the joint UCSF/UCB bioengineering program. I am fairly familiar with the bioengineering program and am not aware of any involvement in it by UCSC. The web page for the program also bears no reference to UCSC.[4] There is also no mention of it in the graduate program listing for the UCSC school of engineering,[5] although they are developing a BS program in the field. Perhaps the editor is confusing the bioengineering graduate program with QB3, which is a joint venture among the three campuses. I am going to revert the change for now, but if anyone finds evidence that UCSC is a part of the bioengineering PhD program, by all means re-add the info. WildCowboy 19:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCSF bearlogo.PNG

Image:UCSF bearlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fresno Campus

There is no mention of the Fresno campus on this page. Believe it or not, the Fresno campus is a vital and necessary part of the medical community in the central valley. The UCSF webpage mentions some stuff about the Fresno Campus and I think that there should be a section on it. Cadking3 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful Old buildings: Where are they?

What happened those pretty old buildings illustrated in the 1908 picture? Wow they are pretty. Does anybody know what happened them I can't seem to find them here... (128.218.39.133 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

They were torn down decades ago. I believe that the several of them were torn down in the early '50s to make way for the current Medical Sciences and Moffitt Hospital buildings. The main building lasted a bit longer, but came down to make way for either the Health Sciences West tower in the mid-'60s, or certainly for the nursing building by 1970. "UC Hall", opened around 1918, is currently the oldest surviving building on the Parnassus Campus, but that too is scheduled for demolition in the next couple of years due to space constraints and exorbitant seismic retrofitting costs. WildCowboy (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Endowment figure

The endowment figure in the article comes from a UC report and includes endowments of the Regents and life income funds. These numbers are not included by other universities. The actual endowment for just the university is approximately $470 million and that is what the university reported to NACUBO. Because there is a warning note in the article about changing the dollar amount, I thought we could discuss it here. I believe the NACUBO Endowment Study information would be the most consistent figure to show in the infobox. Any other thoughts? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'm ok with more reliable information. I just hate using US News as a source for this. Ameriquedialectics 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I made the change with the source. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the amount held by the Regents for the benefit of the individual campuses be included? In addition to listings for some of the individual campuses in the NACUBO report, the "University of California" is also ranked on its own with $6.4 billion, and the UCOP endowment report shows how that is allocated among the campuses. I don't the answer to the questions, so I'm just throwing it out there for now. WildCowboy (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not list both amounts?
In general, I'm very uncomfortable letting Wikipedia editors try to navigate the complicated mess that are modern college and university endowments. Relying on good sources published by folks who are familiar with endowments - such as NACUBO - seems to be a very good idea. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could simply rely on what University of California says. They do not consider regent and foundation funds as independent from each other. Both are included in the overall endowment assessment. For example, UCSF has a foundation fund of 400+ million while a regents is well over 800 million. So the total endowment would be 1.3+ billion. Plus, look at the other wikipedia articles on UC schools. University of California, Los Angeles has a total endowment of 2.8 billion dollars. Yet a little less than half (1.5+ billion) is foundation. So why does SF article only include the foundation portion of the endowment while the rest of the UC schools, such as University of California at Riverside, University of California at Irvine, and University of California at San Diego count both regent and foundation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This reporting is a little odd and has been the subject of a number of discussions on WP. The university itself reports to NACUBO only the foundation amount as the endowment. I do not understand why they do not include the Regents' portion if it belongs to the individual university because they are supposed to report all endowment funds. The UC system is the only system I have seen on WP with this reporting technique. So do we go with what the university says is the endowment or what the system says is the endowment? Alanraywiki (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd go with what the university says, and not the interpretion of some organization. And again, we've done the same for all the other UC articles. Why is this one different? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The university itself reports $468.5 million. Then the other UCs should be changed to report the same way. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the university reports 468 for foundation only. With regent the total endowment is 1.3+ billion. UCSF considers both regent and foundation as part of the endowment. Source above is directly from the UC site. Can we please change? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The UC system says $1.3b; the university reported $468.5 to NACUBO. The NACUBO instructions to universities include the definition of endowments as "Endowment - The total of all long-term endowments held for the institution’s benefit including those held by others such as foundations at many public institutions and some independent institutions. In assessing the level of assets, the total of all financial assets (and other assets that are likely to be converted into financial assets, e.g. real estate held in the endowment) that are intended for long-term support represented." So the amount UCSF reported, $468.5mm, is supposed to include all endowments held for the institution's benefit. The reporting by UC campuses is not clear cut at all. Alanraywiki (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The NACUB only provided the foundation numbers and not the regents. The UC considers the regents and foundation as part of their endowment. UC is more reliable than NACUB. I mean, the article is about a UC school. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)This will probably be my last edit on this subject. It might be helpful to understand the endowment reporting process. Because I do the reporting for our university (not a UC), I am somewhat familiar with the process. The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) sends out an online survey every year that the university itself completes. We submit the market value of the university's endowment, among other things. NACUBO simply compiles the data and reports what the university has submitted. So, UCSF has submitted $468.5mm as their university's endowment. The UC system, on the other hand, has a separate document that appears to include funds they have received that are earmarked for UCSF, but does not belong to UCSF. The $1.3b number the UC system reports also includes non-endowment money such as life income funds that are specifically reported separately by NACUBO because they are not part of the endowment. So, I do not think any of the UCs have one clean endowment number that they report, although I think the NACUBO one may be the closest. Because of this ambiguity I no longer edit the endowment figure for UCs. But, I thought it might be helpful for other editors to understand the process. Good luck, Alanraywiki (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Same old same old. UCSF reports 1.3 billion as their endowment. The NACUB source only links UCSF's foundation endowment, not their regent. Most universities count both, and since all the other UC schools count both, we should be consistent. UC reports > NACUBO. Changing now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside any issues related to self-published sources, we are trying to achieve consistency across articles by relying on the NACUBO numbers. Describing the additional resources available from the regents may be appropriate in either a footnote or in prose lates in the article but there seems to be relatively widespread consensus to rely on the NACUBO numbers unless those numbers are drastically out-of-date (which has happened more often recently given how quickly many endowments have tanked over the past several months). --ElKevbo (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
the NACUBO is not University of California. According to UCSF, they consider FOUNDATION and REGENTS as part of the total endowment - 1.3 billion dollars. They only submitted their foundation endowment (it says UCSF Foundation endowment in the NACUBO source) and not the regents, or perhaps NACUBO only considers the foundation as part of their endowment. The reason this is a consensus is because no one consider UC agenda. Every other UC school considers foundation and regents as part of their endowment. As do the vast majority of American universities. Insisting we keep the stats when evidence speaks differently does not make sense. If you can find a UC source that says differently, please do. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not persuaded that the UC system is dramatically different from other systems. Nor must I find a "UC source" as we don't work for or at the UC system and we make our own judgements and determinations. And sometimes - particularly in the interest of generalizability and comparability - we reach different conclusions that one particular source.
As another editor has already explained, endowments are tricky business. I encourage you to develop language that would explain the nuances of the endowment of this institution (which may also be useful in the articles of the other UC institutions). But the purpose of an infobox is to allow us to display accurate and comparable information across multiple articles. I don't see any need to deviate from our typical practice for this one institution, particularly when it's clearly a complex situation that deserves further explanation for our readers. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, which is why we should be consistent. UCSF says endowment = foundation and regents. NACUB or whatever only counts foundation monies. All other UC schools which are bound by the same rules and regulations for endowments consider regents and foundations as part of their endowment. what separates UCSF from the rest of the pack? Just because the endowment is a "tricky" business does not mean we simply let it go when University of California released the information right for us. The current # was totally and completely inaccurate and false. If you want, change it to "Foundation endowment." That is what NACUB says. NACUBO does NOT speak on behalf of the University of California. University of California speaks on behalf of itself, which it has done. It is wrong of us to dismiss their documents (while considering them in ALL other UC articles) while relying on a 3rd party which explicitly only lists the foundation monies. This isn't rocket science. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't say this to be mean or insulting but I am not terribly confident in your expertise in this area. You're certainly welcome to your opinion it seems that more editors - particularly those who have demonstrated some understanding of this complex and nuanced issue - have expressed a contrary opinion.
It would be best, I think, to wait to see what other editors think since only a handful of editors have participated in this discussion. It may also be useful for you to review some of the previous discussions related to endowments (I think we've discussed this a few times at WP:UNI). --ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't deflect and attack my "expertise." UCSF says endowment = foundation and regent money. University of California system considers endowment = foundation and regent money. How so? Well, the UC issued an official document that affirms this. As a result, all UC-school wikipedia articles list the endowment as foundation + regents because that is what UC says. Do you dispute this, yes or no? Sitting and waiting for a consensus when an official primary source exists violates policy. We are obligated to go by what UC says, not some 3rd party organization that only listed the foundation portion of the endowment. Either that, or provide a rationale that goes beyond my "expertise." Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is some proposed wording for the body of the article. We can add a "Research and endowment" section per WP:UNIGUIDE:
"The endowment of the University of California, San Francisco Foundation is $468.5 million. In addition, funds owned by the University of California system but designated for UCSF total $850.3 million. This figure includes non-endowment funds such as life income accounts. The total of these endowment and non-endowment funds is $1.3 billion.[1]"
Let me know your thoughts. The UC system document really muddies the water because it includes non-endowment funds like charitable remainder trusts and charitable gift annuities that do not yet go into an endowment. So while this may be helpful in comparing UC schools, it's apples and oranges with other universities. It may also be helpful to post this at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
We are replacing a primary and official UC source, which clearly says endowment = 1.3 billion dollars, with a 3rd party unsubstantiated reference. We need to change the official endowment to 1.3, and then if you would like create a section that describes the confusion/intricacies of the dispute. UCSF is a UC school, not an apple or an orange. All schools are unique but follow identical (more or less) fiscal guidelines because they are provided for by the state. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we are going with a third-party source over a primary source. We do that all of the time and it's very often the correct course of action. Most of us don't have the expertise to navigate the complexities of some of the obscure topics these articles discuss so we rely on experts such as the professionals at NACUBO to navigate those complexities. This is not at all unusual and it's the preferred course when we're in doubt. I know that it might be confusing and seem wrong-headed but if you spend some time thinking about it objectively, particularly if you look at other topics with which you may not have such close ties or emotions (I am speaking generally and not accusing you of anything!). --ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I know I stated that I gave my last edit on this article, but I did want to clarify something (maybe to clarify for me in case I read it incorrectly). The sentence "All schools are unique but follow identical (more or less) fiscal guidelines because they are provided for by the state" needs some clarification. First, I'm not sure what is meant by "fiscal guidelines . . . are provided for by the state" Regarding the reporting, there are no state guidelines. Reporting is done in audited financial statements, CASE, and some others. There are no state requirements that I am aware of. Also, the California State University system, one of the state's three higher education systems, does not allocate its endowment like the UC system. So the UC does not follow the same fiscal guidelines. That is what I meant in saying the UC reporting is unique, the allocation of system endowments and the inclusion of non-endowment funds in their figure. This is the same issue for all UC schools, not just UCSF. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
CSU is separate from UC. Regardless of what we "do all the time," UC sources should always come before 3rd party references when citing a primary statistic. Yeah, we use third party reference to support a fact or finding opposed to a primary all the fing time because it ensures neutrality and balance, but this is a totally different situation. UC says endowment = regent and foundation monies. All UC schools consider endowment = regent and foundation monies. You guys are disputing the indisputable. Please change the stat. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I am seeking more feedback from the experts over at the UC wikiproject. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
While I support the use of NACUBO figures generally across all articles for the endowment value in the infobox, perhaps in this case both the NACUBO and UC values can be listed with a footnote explanation in the ref list? Ameriquedialectics 18:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Amerique, way up this thread (at 19:55, 18 May 2009) I proposed some wording for the body of the article that explains both amounts. What do you think of something like that? Alanraywiki (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(restore indent) That would be a good idea. I didn't find anything in the UCOP report characterizing Regents funds, though. The value is listed, but only the individual campus foundation totals are broken down in any detail. Ameriquedialectics 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not see any detail either, except for the asterisk that indicates the total includes various investment pools, annuities, and life income accounts. But nothing like the detail given on the individual campuses. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I observed the lack of links when I was sure that appropriated Wikipedia pages were available, e.g., kidney and liver transplants. Seeing the distance of kidney from transplants, I took the liberty of altering the phrasing to kidney transplants and liver transplantion

References

  1. ^ "ANNUAL ENDOWMENT REPORT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" (PDF). Annual Endowment. University of California. Retrieved May 18, 2009.

I observed the lack of links even though I was sure that appropriate Wikipedia pages were available, e.g., kidney and liver transplants (in the homepage's first paragraph). Seeing the distance of kidney from transplants, I took the liberty of altering the phrasing to kidney transplants and liver transplantation. Perhaps you know a more elegant solution.

The paragraph goes on to say that UCSF also has the nation's leading HIV/AIDS treatment and research centers -- with no links. So again I took liberty, this time to add links to the HIV/AIDS Program and to the AIDS Research Institute. Including CAPS here also seems appropriate, but I hesitate: Am I swimming into political water? I will post it now, though, in the name of Being Bold and mention it here in the effort to be collegial and appreciative of all the work done at UCSF and on this article. Msaverill (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The primary issue I see with your links to the HIV/AIDS programs is that, per WP:ELPOINTS, external links in the body of an article should generally be avoided. WildCowboy (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for responding. I understand the preference for links to be to Wikipedia articles. I did not understand that no link should be provided when Wikipedia does not have an article about the subject at hand. I will look harder. I appreciate your guidance. Msaverill (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Hippocrates I.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hippocrates I.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Promotionalism and other problems

I placed an advertising tag on the article. This is advertising--no different from whatit might publish in a publicity brochure. About 1/2 of the article is devoted to various rankings, which needs condensing--it might help to separate out research funding which are objective numbers, from medical program rankings, which are matters of opinion from various sources. Another third is an uncited list of firsts, which I have made a start at reorganizing--but it still needs citing not just to the paper reporting the discovery, but to the recognition that this particular work was the discovery. ) I note that the term "first to discover" is redundant; I tried to avoid it.

What is also needed is a section on the various Institutes and the like. I began one, but there is material that needs to be moved, and added. Probably material from the various campus sections should be moved there.

Another thing which is needed is articles for the notable people listed who do not already have then. DGG ( talk ) 11:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a [citation needed] tag onto Stanton Glantz's entry in the alumni list, as this is unreferenced and reads like self-promotion. Entropy72 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The article is much too focused on rankings, especially in the School of Medicine. Other articles on research universities have similar content, but I think the over-emphasis is partly due to a lack of other information. Also, sections read like collections of facts and overuse bullet points. Overall, I'm astonished by how sparse on content and citations the article is.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of California, San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Departmental Ranking

Most University pages have departmental rankings, from everything ranging from Law to Social Sciences (examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University#Reputation_and_rankings, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_San_Diego#Rankings_and_admissions). Hence, they should be on the UCSF page also. In particular, since UCSF has very few programs, it makes even more sense that those are ranked.

Eccekevin (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

US Rankings

please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges

Boosterism and Neutraility

This article, particularly the lede, has issues with WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV wording. Constituent school rankings (e.g. UCSF School of Medicine) simply do not belong in the lede per WP:UNIGUIDE; however, rankings that apply to the University as a whole (i.e. UCSF) are acceptable. Constituent school rankings are acceptable in the lede sections of those schools' articles. Wording such as "number one medical school in the United States" and "recognized as one of the premier medical schools in the United States" (in the same sentence) indicates a strong bias. Followed by "highly ranked" introduces vagueness and only serves to promote the school. These are not encyclopedic facts. According, I will make some small edits; however, I will avoid making major chances at this point since Eccekevin has declared their intention to engage in edit warring (in their edit summary for some reason). I will instead flag it with a Booster template until a consensus is reached among editors. Trantorian (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of our policies and practices as completely disallowing this kind of information in the lede of any article. If the university has some particular academic units or programs that are historically important or consistently highly ranked by reputable sources then it may indeed be appropriate to include that information in the lede if it's critical for readers to know about it. What we're trying to avoid with WP:UNIGUIDE (which is an essay, not policy) is including trivial or promotional information that isn't essential. But if the information is essential then it belongs in the lede. ElKevbo (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
ElKevbo, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! With that in mind, the major rankings of constituent schools probably belong in the lede for UCSF. I am still not convinced that is the case for more granular rankings (e.g. departmental or NIH funding), but either way works I suppose. That said, I strongly disagree with wording such as "number one medical school in the United States," "recognized as one of the premier medical schools in the United States," "highly ranked," and "ranked as one of the top universities in the biomedical field." These are vague statements that serve only to praise UCSF without offering the reader any actual information. Therefore I stand by my most recent edit to remove that wording move toward a WP:NPOV. Would love to hear your thoughts on whether or not the Booster template is still necessary here (I'm not a fan of leaving these templates up if the issue can be resolved quickly). Trantorian (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Without commenting on the specific language that was used in this article, I do want to point out that the lede should be a concise summary of what's already in the body of the article. So a properly written summary may appear to be vague or POV if we don't read on to the body of the article to see what is being summarized. (A corollary is that we have to ensure that what is written in the lede does indeed match what is in the body of the article; there shouldn't be information that is only included in the lede and nowhere else.)
There's no harm in waiting for a few other editors to chime in and offer their opinions and recommendations. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
ElKevbo, great points! Thanks for taking the time to rationally explain your thoughts (other editors could learn from your example). I guess the combination of the very detailed rankings with vague praise in the lede didn't feel like a Wikipedia article. I am in support of trimming down the lede to an accurate summary of the whole article, including the most salient rankings (same vagueness is okay as long as apparent praise is not excessive), with the minute ranking details in the body. I hope others will chime in, makes some edits, and clear the Booster template soon. Trantorian (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with ElKevbo. Rankings for the school of medicine, which has a disproportionate importance in the University, should be included in the lede in order to give a fair picture. NIH funding, in my opinion, is a really important detial for a medical research institution. Finally, I disagree with your concept of academic boosterism. It would be a disservice to the reader to not mention the importance of UCSF in its respective field, particularly since it is an institution that is not well known to the public, but very well know in the field of medicine and health sciences and the lede should inform the reader of it. It is normal for an institution (like Harvard overall, Johns Hopkins for medicine, Mayo Clinic as a hospital, MIT for engineering) to point out in the lede if is has a particular strength or it a leader institution in its field. Since UCSF is a leader institution and hospital in medicine and that is all it does, it makes sense for the lede to mention it. Finally, I do not understand why you removed the fact that UCSf is the oldest medical school in the western united states; this is a simple fact no boosterism, and an important historical note that should be included in the lede to provide context for the reader. Eccekevin (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Eccekevin, I agree that the lede should include a brief mention of the rankings, particularly with regard to the UCSF School of Medicine given its prominence. The lede currently is an excessive mix of detailed (e.g. funding) rankings for all schools and vague terms of praise (though I cleaned this up a bit). The finer details should be moved to the Rankings subsection or their respective school articles. It is not appropriate to mix repetitive vague terms of praise with detailed rankings across multiple paragraphs; that is not an article summary. I suggest just one sentence mentioning that its schools are all highly ranked and funded in their respective fields. The reader can scroll down or visit those school pages if they want more information about that. As for UCSF being the oldest medical school in the Western United States, that is important to note; however, it requires a citation. The citation provided makes no mention of that fact. Also the citation provided explicitly says in its title that "UCSF Is Top Public Recipient of NIH Research Funding for 6th Consecutive Year." The table in that citation shows that it is ranked behind Johns Hopkins (a private school) in terms of overall NIH funding for 2016. If this has changed since 2016, then the citation needs to be updated. Otherwise, omitting that its #1 ranking is just among public schools is a prime example of boosterism. Trantorian (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
UCSF is overall #2 after Johns Hopkins as a university (577 vs 650mil), but when it comes to medical schools alone (next table) the UCSF school of medicine has more funding than Johns Hopkins school of medicine (517 vs 461). The same is true for all other schools. As far as medical centers go, I think that research budget and NIH funding are two essential details to describe the size and relevance of an institution. Eccekevin (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
That is where the issue lies. This article is about UCSF as a university (not the school of medicine, which is a different article). Therefore a neutral statement would compare universities to universities here (e.g. UCSF is #2 in NIH funding at the university level). The boosterism problem crops up when you try to massage the data to make it look like the subject of the article (the university, NOT the school of medicine) is #1. Trantorian (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no boosterism nor massaging of the data. It is policy to assume WP:GOODFAITH and not attack other users. The sentence refers to UCSF medical school, which is by far the most prominent component of the university, accountg for over 90% of its budget. The following sentences refer to the other 4 schools and talks about their NIH funding. But if you want a sentence about UCSf overall, it can easily be added. I truly do not understand your attack against this page. There is no boostering going on here. It is an academic institution which has little to no reputation outside the medical/biological field, but a high reputation in it. The lede reflects its role a one of the prominent medical research institutions in the US, by far the most important on the west coast. It would be a disservice to readers not to mention this. And it is currently done in a non-boostering way, simply by pointing out a few stats about its research output and its academic standing. Eccekevin (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree the article suffers from boosterism (WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV), with excessive praise and no criticism at all. In reality, UCSF has been falling in the rankings, and WP:RS include multiple criticisms that the article omits. Notable examples include:

"More than 1,500 doctors and hospital staff have signed a petition opposing the partnership between UCSF and Catholic Dignity Health, as San Francisco’s public medical center expects to expand its affiliation with the faith-based organization." https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Doctors-demand-UCSF-break-ties-with-Catholic-13745992.php

"Firing of UCSF dean a climax to years of disputes over finances" https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-kessler16dec16-story.html

"UCSF records shed light on sexual harassment of students, workers" https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/ucsf-records-shed-light-on-sexual-harassment-of-students-workers/

"UCSF settles sexual harassment suit involving star researcher" https://www.statnews.com/2018/10/16/stanton-glantz-ucsf-sexual-harrassment/

"In what may be the first-of-its-kind lawsuit related to California’s End of Life Option Act, the family of a San Francisco terminally ill cancer patient is suing the UC San Francisco Medical Center alleging that her physician and the system misrepresented that they would help the dying woman use California’s right-to-die law when her time came." https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/family-sues-ucsf-for-agreeing-then-refusing-to-help-woman-die/

I have updated the rankings to reflect UCSF's recent decline, and when time permits I hope to add some balance. I encourage others to use any or all of these, and more are readily available.TVC 15 (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_California,_San_Francisco/Archive_1&oldid=1232778271"