Terpy Wrote:Why on earth would you normalize per capita research grants? That makes no sense. The Chinese do it because they are communists what is your reasoning?

School A: Enrollment 5,000; $50,000,000 research grants
That's $10,000 per student

School B: Enrollment 50,000; $60,000,000 research grants
That's $1,200 per student

School A has a very high chance for you to be involved in a research project involving that grant money. School B has a very low chance. Clearly School A is doing amazing things to get such a huge sum for so relatively few people. School B looks more like a mediocre massive state public. School A would be penalized by USN&WR for effectively being smaller, despite doing a far better job. That's why in USN&WR, you get schools like Carnegie Mellon (one of THE premiere worldwide computer science programs) ranked far behind the University of Texas, which has an average to sub-par computer science program. As far as USN&WR is concerned, 50,000 mediocres is > 5,000 elites .... by alot. That's a pretty craptastic way to gauge the quality of the education you're going to get.

FOOTNOTE:
There are majors where really it doesn't matter a whole lot what school you go to. Because they're in super high demand in the workforce, and what is being taught has changed little over the last few decades. Nursing and Comp-Sci in particular. That doesn't stop some schools from effing those majors up though. USC-Columbia's CS program is terrible. USC Upstate's is far better.

Just my opinion... but why would you divide research money by all students at the university rather than by the people who study research oriented degrees?

Lets take, for example, the University of Cincinnati (one of the top level research schools in the country in terms of $$). Lets say UC brings in $300,000,000 in funding for research. Lets also say there are approximately 35,000 students (both are ballpark figures, but I believe them to be fairly accurate). Let's then say that only 5,000 of those students are actively pursuing degrees in which the university is being paid to do research. The rest are involved in liberal arts, night school, other non-research degrees, etc. etc... why should they count in that number?

mlb Wrote:Just my opinion... but why would you divide research money by all students at the university rather than by the people who study research oriented degrees?

Lets take, for example, the University of Cincinnati (one of the top level research schools in the country in terms of $$). Lets say UC brings in $300,000,000 in funding for research. Lets also say there are approximately 35,000 students (both are ballpark figures, but I believe them to be fairly accurate). Let's then say that only 5,000 of those students are actively pursuing degrees in which the university is being paid to do research. The rest are involved in liberal arts, night school, other non-research degrees, etc. etc... why should they count in that number?

Same principle as mine, only taken further. Trouble is that it's probably hard to track that sort of break down. Dual majors and minors could really make it messy.

Going based on full student population is not accurate in any way.

mlb Wrote:Going based on full student population is not accurate in any way.

More accurate than not even doing per capita.

I'd rather see them base it on total dollars than by full student population or per capita. Sorry GTS, but you have to figure that most schools are going to be fairly close in their research spending per actual student involved with the research.

The only way to become a Research 1 university is to have big controls and be able to prove your research is correct to begin with. Each institution is audited regularly to make sure they are following proper research methods and not fudging data. That is how they become a research 1 school, and those schools get the lions share of the research money from the US government and from private sources.

Laettners Legacy Wrote:what?

You realize there are huge size disparities even among Research 1 schools, right?

But I'd be willing to put money down that the research per capita (of people who are in degree fields that they are receiving money, which we can't actually prove) is within 10% of each other.

From what I see from the Big XII realignment, it would destroy our rather nasty and heated rivalry with OU. That is never going to be allowed to happen. There would be a huge outcry from both UT and OU fanbases if it did. Also, an all Texas conference has been tried in the past. It was called the SWC and it eventually folded because of a lack of revenue. Three teams(UT, Arkansas, and A&M) essentially carried the attendance in that league.

Quote:If the SEC approached GT they'd jump in a heart beat. I'll put Vandy up against any school in the ACC. I'd put UF's business program against any in the ACC as well.

Georgia Tech left the SEC in the mid 1960s because of the reason GTS cited. Tulane left as well for that same reason. I doubt they would ever go back. Why is it that when SECers talk about academics, they only cite Vandy and Florida? My school was invited to join the SEC back in the early 90s but turned it down. Not for the fear of being able to compete(that idea is just plain ridiculous) but that the SEC has a rather weak academic reputation. Whether it is deserved or not, who knows but that appears to be the public consensus.

RC Horn Wrote:Why is it that when SECers talk about academics, they only cite Vandy and Florida? My school was invited to join the SEC back in the early 90s but turned it down. Not for the fear of being able to compete(that idea is just plain ridiculous) but that the SEC has a rather weak academic reputation. Whether it is deserved or not, who knows but that appears to be the public consensus.

Vandy and Florida? Hell, I could go a lot further than that. UGA has an excellent Business School. Ole Miss has an excellent medical school. Wanna be a veterinarian? You can never go wrong at Mississippi State. ALL schools in the SEC are top notch. You just have morons that want to judge those schools based on "some" of their athletes.

BTW, I wasn't aware the University of Texas had super-human academic abilities when compared to Alabama, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Ole Miss, etc. Matter of fact, I'd conclude they're on the same scale(How's that Ricky Williams thing coming, BTW? Man, that guy could have been the next Einstein, eh?). You'll notice GTS bought up South Carolina. Not because he wanted to give "them" accolades. He just didn't want to trash himself. To be quite honest, I get sick and f'n tired of the SEC bashing. Ban me. I could give a rat's ass. As an Admin it's my job to help grow and promote the board. It'll never ******* happen with all of the SEC bashing here.

RC Horn Wrote:From what I see from the Big XII realignment, it would destroy our rather nasty and heated rivalry with OU.

How do you figure..? The Texas/OU rivalry prospered very well when both schools were in separate conferences back in the 70's and 80's.

when reading all these posts i thought to myself...

Quote:To be quite honest, I get sick and f'n tired of the SEC bashing. Ban me. I could give a rat's ass. As an Admin it's my job to help grow and promote the board. It'll never ******* happen with all of the SEC bashing here.

Hmmm... sounds similar to your statements about Bob Huggins back when he was fired from Cincinnati. People bash without full understanding of the whole situation.

Just as Huggins caused a lot of the issues himself (his lack of being friendly with the media), the SEC has caused issues with the repeated cheating scandals within their schools.

mlb Wrote:

Quote:To be quite honest, I get sick and f'n tired of the SEC bashing. Ban me. I could give a rat's ass. As an Admin it's my job to help grow and promote the board. It'll never ******* happen with all of the SEC bashing here.

Hmmm... sounds similar to your statements about Bob Huggins back when he was fired from Cincinnati. People bash without full understanding of the whole situation.

Just as Huggins caused a lot of the issues himself (his lack of being friendly with the media), the SEC has caused issues with the repeated cheating scandals within their schools.

Who's Bob Huggins? I don't remember commenting on him as I don't normally talk trash about other conferences.

This was a couple years back, right when he was run out of Cincinnati by the school president. You and rickheel said he was a scumbag and should have been run out years before (obviously not a full quote). I can't find the exact quote since the search function isn't here, but it was definitely said.

mlb Wrote:This was a couple years back, right when he was run out of Cincinnati by the school president. You and rickheel said he was a scumbag and should have been run out years before (obviously not a full quote). I can't find the exact quote since the search function isn't here, but it was definitely said.

Are you sure it was me? I don't remember anything about it, much less know anything about the guy.

Maybe I'm wrong... I could have sworn it was the two of you. Unfortunately I can't search back on that topic.

Okay, I apoligize RebelKev. You weren't involved, it was RickHeel.

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=213812