From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) reply

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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply

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) reply

UCSF is a research university

I'm challenging this edit by User:ElKevbo on 1 January 2023 which doesn't make sense. First, UCSF is a health sciences campus of which the medical school is only one part, so to call it a "medical school" is simply inaccurate. Second, as a "Special Focus" institution, UCSF is a research university under the Carnegie Classification. As this Web page explains in the first paragraph, the "Special Focus Research Institution" category is "comprised of the special focus institutions that meet the criteria for being considered a 'Research University' but confer degrees in a limited range of academic programs." Any objections before I fix this? Coolcaesar ( talk) 15:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply

No objections here. UCSF is much more than a medical school. WildCowboy ( talk) 15:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
First, the statement that "as a 'Special Focus' institution, UCSF is a research university under the Carnegie Classification" is blatantly incorrect. If this were a research university under the classification's criteria then it would be classified as such. It's a really bad idea for Wikipedia editors to impose their own judgment over what is documented in reliable sources. Second, the notion that a medical school is limited or narrowly focused is a misunderstanding of what many modern medical schools do.
With that said, the other source to which we frequently turn when asking how to describe an institution in the lede, especially the very first sentence and the infobox, is the U.S. News & World Report rankings. They classify the institution among "Global universities," an argument in favor of changing the article although it's not entirely clear if "research university" is the most appropriate label (in the prose, US&WR describes the institution as a "health sciences-focused university"). Maybe we can borrow a page from other articles like University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and describe the institution as a " public academic health science center?" ElKevbo ( talk) 23:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
You are misreading what WildCowboy said. UCSF is defined as "Special Focus Research Institution" by Carnegie, which the definition says : "comprised of the special focus institutions that meet the criteria for being considered a 'Research University' but confer degrees in a limited range of academic programs.". This is not WildCowboy's interpetation, its spelled out cearly that this is a subset of Research Universities, not something lesser. Eccekevin ( talk) 00:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The concern over calling it a medical school doesn't have anything to do with a perception of a narrow focus. There are three other professional schools (dentistry, nursing, and pharmacy) and a graduate division that are also part of the university beyond the medical school. I could probably get behind calling it an academic health science center though. Honestly, I'm a little surprised UCSF qualifies as a Special Focus institution under Carnegie given the good balance between biological sciences (CIP Code 26) and health professions (CIP Code 51), plus a few programs that probably fit into other CIP2 categories. Among Special Focus Research Institutions, I feel like like UCSF is possibly most similar to OHSU, which is described as research university in its Wikipedia lede and infobox. I don't think Carnegie Classification necessarily needs to be the final word on how an institution is described here, but at a minimum I hope we can agree it should be something broader than just "medical school." WildCowboy ( talk) 00:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
You might not want to lean on OHSU as a good example; it's also classified as a "Special Focus Four-Year: Research Institution" in the Carnegie Classification but USN&WR classifies it as a medical school. ElKevbo ( talk) 03:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I specifically picked OHSU because it was listed in the same Special Focus category as UCSF and I wanted to see what Wikipedia editors had opted to describe it as for comparison. As for U.S. News, OHSU is not classified as a medical school; you must be looking specifically at the ranking of the med school. OHSU as a whole is a global university like UCSF. WildCowboy ( talk) 03:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
You're right; thanks for the correction. ElKevbo ( talk) 04:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
After thinking about this more, I agree that "medical school" may not be the best description. But I'm still not convinced that "research university" is the best description either (but it's probably better than medical school). I still think that " public academic health science center" warrants consideration. ElKevbo ( talk) 19:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The label Academic medical centre can be applied to the UCSF Medical Center, but it would be inaccurate and diminutive to apply it to the University at large, since big chunks of it are not connected at all the medical center (such as the UCSF Graduate Division or any of the non-medical research centers. Eccekevin ( talk) 00:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Research University absolutely is the best description. Across all American universities, it has the second (2nd) highest Research spending, with 1.71 billion dollars - that's more than Harvard, Stanford, etc... Only Johns Hopkins has a higher research budget in the whole country. This fact alone goes against the idea that it is not a research university. : it is the top public recipient of NIH research money, and few places on earth have a higher research output. I'd invite you to look at University_of_California,_San_Francisco#Research and try to deny that the massive research output and focus does not match the definition of research university. Also, 'medical school' is simply inaccurate, since it is made up of five schools, only one of each is a medical school (the largest school). In accordance with WP:BRD, I reverted the change to status quo ante until the discussion is completed. People don't think of it as a proper university because it does not hosts undergrads, but those in the know are aware of its massive research output, possibly the most of any university when it comes to medical and biological research. [1] [2]
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings ranks it as number #45 for research in the world [3] while ARWU has it at 21. [4]
Finally, it is not even true that Carnegie doesn't classify as such: In addition, there is a new category Special Focus Research Institution, comprised of the special focus, institutions that meet the criteria for being considered a Research University but confer degrees in a limited range of academic programs. [5] So according to Carnegie, UCSF meets the criteria for being considered a “Research University" . Eccekevin ( talk) 00:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Nietzel, Michael T. "Top 25 American Universities For R And D Spending; Johns Hopkins #1 Again". Forbes.
  2. ^ "NSF – NCSES Academic Institution Profiles – Rankings by total R&D expenditures". ncsesdata.nsf.gov. Retrieved 1 April 2023.
  3. ^ "University of California, San Francisco". Times Higher Education (THE). 19 October 2021. Retrieved 1 April 2023.
  4. ^ http://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2022. Retrieved 1 April 2023. {{ cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= ( help)
  5. ^ "Basic Classification". CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. Retrieved 1 April 2023.