(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You mean to imply that you consider Los Alamos an academic institution?

No, but research is an integral part of academia

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...your Chinese-based ranking system has anything to do with American collegiate athletic conference realignment.

It's not my ranking system, it's an internationally accepted (albeit subjective) method of ranking universities. I didn't pull this out of my posterior to support my argument.

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  And to answer your question about Harvard, much of its reputation comes from its size. Compare its law school with (insert random law school here) and compare its business school with (insert random school here).

UCF is a good school, but it's not Harvard, or 3 times as good as Harvard.

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Your logic argument (there's a better word, but it isn't coming to me) that “Cal, Harvard, and RU are all good schools and they all do a lot of research, therefore doing research makes a school good” isn't valid. It would be like me saying that Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, and Florida are all HUGE southern schools and field football teams that are more followed than Miami, a smallish private school. Therefore, for a school to have a substantial following, it must be in the south and it must be a HUGE public school.

It's called causation from correlation and that's not what I was saying at all. Why do the best professors join a certain institution?

1) They want as much money for research as possible
2) They want a higher salary
3) They want to collaborate with other top researchers

For science professors, I'd add that they want a graduate school. Undergraduates working in the summer or doing their senior projects only take you so far. Of course you can hire post docs, but grad students are cheaper. If you're a physics professor, you will get more work done (and more publications which is the most important thing to a professor) at Harvard than at Williams, even though they are both excellent undergrad schools.

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Btw, I have no idea about NJ, but in PA kids go to JMU because it’s cheaper, not because anyone thinks that it's better than PSU or Pitt. To clarify, I don't mean "better" as in a better value. I would assume that 100% of the kids going to JMU over Pitt, PSU, or any other school feel that it is a better value, otherwise they wouldn't go there. They would go to the school that offers the better value.

My point there was that Rutgers, despite being the second best university in NJ, (after Princeton) does not have the second best undergraduate cohort. Why is it the second best school in NJ? It's down to research.

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  **I say this because, at least for a while, Los Alamos outscourced significant amount of (if not all of) its research to a handful of companies, like AT&T. Those guys writing in the academic journals in which you cited were really employees of an asset-less subsidiary of those companies (i.e. AT&T) and were working as part of a failed federally-sanctioned tax-avoidance scheme that involved research subsidies from the telecommunications industry in return for the fed’s help avoid state taxes on their R&D work. That’s the long way of saying that if you are going to base your argument on the use of the term “academic” in the name “academic journals,” then you better be prepared to explain how AT&T is an academic institution.

I never said that Los Alamos is an academic institution. But they do publish work in academic journals. They are called academic for a reason. As for AT&T, read about Bell Labs before you get so cynical about their (or a predecessor's) R&D. Bell Labs has done more to expand human knowledge and change the world than any institution in history.

(04-23-2013 11:36 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Apparently you don't know what "substantially" means.

Oh I know what it means. It's just a subjective term you're using because you realize you can't argue based on any objective numbers.

The funny thing is you're the one who kept throwing around rankings and numbers trying to make a point.

1. Williams isn't ranked with Harvard.
2. The only school mentioed ranked in the same rankings as Harvard is Yale. Harvard is ranked #1 and Yale is ranked #3. Do you think that 2 spot ranking is a substantial difference and/or have I ever said anything to indicate that I think a 2 spot difference in ranking is significant enough to matter?

The difference between Harvard and CU is 96 places. In my opinion, that is significant. Heck I even entertained the notion that RU and Harvard were comperable (60 point difference). I wasn't exactly nit-picking.

At this point, you are either very dumb or bent on arguing. Either way, talking with you isn't worth my time. Believe what you want.

(04-23-2013 11:37 AM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You mean to imply that you consider Los Alamos an academic institution?

No, but research is an integral part of academia

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...your Chinese-based ranking system has anything to do with American collegiate athletic conference realignment.

It's not my ranking system, it's an internationally accepted (albeit subjective) method of ranking universities. I didn't pull this out of my posterior to support my argument.

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  And to answer your question about Harvard, much of its reputation comes from its size. Compare its law school with (insert random law school here) and compare its business school with (insert random school here).

UCF is a good school, but it's not Harvard, or 3 times as good as Harvard.

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Your logic argument (there's a better word, but it isn't coming to me) that “Cal, Harvard, and RU are all good schools and they all do a lot of research, therefore doing research makes a school good” isn't valid. It would be like me saying that Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, and Florida are all HUGE southern schools and field football teams that are more followed than Miami, a smallish private school. Therefore, for a school to have a substantial following, it must be in the south and it must be a HUGE public school.

It's called causation from correlation and that's not what I was saying at all. Why do the best professors join a certain institution?

1) They want as much money for research as possible
2) They want a higher salary
3) They want to collaborate with other top researchers

For science professors, I'd add that they want a graduate school. Undergraduates working in the summer or doing their senior projects only take you so far. Of course you can hire post docs, but grad students are cheaper. If you're a physics professor, you will get more work done (and more publications which is the most important thing to a professor) at Harvard than at Williams, even though they are both excellent undergrad schools.

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Btw, I have no idea about NJ, but in PA kids go to JMU because it’s cheaper, not because anyone thinks that it's better than PSU or Pitt. To clarify, I don't mean "better" as in a better value. I would assume that 100% of the kids going to JMU over Pitt, PSU, or any other school feel that it is a better value, otherwise they wouldn't go there. They would go to the school that offers the better value.

My point there was that Rutgers, despite being the second best university in NJ, (after Princeton) does not have the second best undergraduate cohort. Why is it the second best school in NJ? It's down to research.

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  **I say this because, at least for a while, Los Alamos outscourced significant amount of (if not all of) its research to a handful of companies, like AT&T. Those guys writing in the academic journals in which you cited were really employees of an asset-less subsidiary of those companies (i.e. AT&T) and were working as part of a failed federally-sanctioned tax-avoidance scheme that involved research subsidies from the telecommunications industry in return for the fed’s help avoid state taxes on their R&D work. That’s the long way of saying that if you are going to base your argument on the use of the term “academic” in the name “academic journals,” then you better be prepared to explain how AT&T is an academic institution.

I never said that Los Alamos is an academic institution. But they do publish work in academic journals. They are called academic for a reason. As for AT&T, read about Bell Labs before you get so cynical about their (or a predecessor's) R&D. Bell Labs has done more to expand human knowledge and change the world than any institution in history.

"read about Bell Labs before you get so cynical about their (or a predecessor's) R&D."

The federal government admitted to it because they thought that it would help AT&T's case (states cannot directly tax the fed. gov.). The court then held that the state of NM was right and that it was an attempt to evade state taxes. I'm not even sure AT&T claimed that they were trying to avoid tax liability. I'll cite the case if you want.

This is growing tiring, but your arguments are so stretched that the above blurb is not an outlier. You have literally resorted to rewriting commonly-accepted history.