Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
ULM now US News National University
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
runamuck Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,798
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 28
I Root For: uta
Location: DFW
Post: #41
RE: ULM now US News National University
(09-24-2016 05:54 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(09-24-2016 04:34 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Oh, let them brag. They want to go off of USNews, so be it. They just need to feel better. If they were in TX they wouldn't even be in the category of emerging Tier 1 Research University. Only 3 in TX are Tier 1, with 7 as emerging.

They won't convince me they are above UTA or even TXST for a Tier 1 Research U when they are categorized as moderate research; whereas UTA is Highest research and TXST is high research. Doctorates are on equal par with TXST, way under UTA and research dollars don't come close.

Being previously ranked by USNews just gives a leg up on being in the top 75% as opposed to ones that just made it but when/if you try to defend being better than a school that might categorically be above you, I will have to take pause.

As for Presidents pay increases? In Texas, it's all about that Tier 1 Research status. TXST Pres brought TXST up by its bootstraps, got that Emerging designation and got that Carnegie T2 ranking in short order. If you think the BOR doesn't see that here, you know nothing about colleges in Texas.

As was said, this was a congratulatory thread to ULM but, once again, got derailed by visiting posters that it didn't even apply to. (like me) So, sorry guy.

the issue with attempting to use the Carnegie Classifications as a ranking is clearly pointed out by the foundation themselves

it looks at gross research dollars without looking at anything about how meaningful that research is and it also takes NOTHING into account about the dramatically different faculty counts of various universities

UTA and Texas State probably have at least 2X the number of faculty as La Tech if not a larger ratio than that so it would be expected that they would do a larger amount of research on a total dollar basis

and really the way they did their classifications this year makes it even more meaningless as far as trying to say that "research productivity" (without any normalization for faculty count) means you are a better university because OkState thrashes north Texas state in total research and in PhD productivity, but for some reason they are not "highest research" while north Texas state is and it has to do with something in the methodology about "expected productivity" or some nonsense like that

it is easy to find fault with the US Snooze, but at least they attempt to look at the outcome of producing undergrads with a degree and retaining students and having students in classes that are not 200 students in a theater

and while there are well documented incidents of universities cheating the evaluations of peers (Clemson) most evaluate fairly hell dem coogs doh at UH filed a FOI request to see the president of UT Austin's evaluations and when they go them they found that he was MORE than fair with dem coogs doh and in fact IMO he had then evaluated too highly

and even the "alumni giving" rate if you think about it who looks and says "well my time at that school sucked and it was meaningless, but I am going to give them more money after I have graduated".....almost no one in the USA would do that especially successful people nor would they go back and hire alumni of they felt those students were going to be morons educated by a schools they thought was a joke while they were there

admissions % is a joke and a meaningless metric and HS counselor rankings are much more questionable than those from others in higher ed, but the Carnegie Foundation looks at total research and PhD production without any normalization for faculty count of need for the PhDs produced......it is hard to get a much less meaningful metric for the quality of UNDERGRADUATE education than that

and as far as The State of Texas is concerned "tier 1" means ONE THING and that is AAU membership and that is HIGHLY unlikely for any of the emerging research universities in the next two decades or more

if you want to know what it takes for a public university with no medical school in a state with many many public universities to get into the AAU all you have to do is look at the metrics of Ga Tech and there is not an emerging research university in Texas that is close to those metrics and Ga Tech is about as close as a comparison to what the AAU would evaluate against as any university out there in the AAU

Texas has a pretty clear cut set of requirements to become tier one and I have seem them laid out several times and dont remember aau membership being one of them. I could be wrong so I'll double check that .
09-26-2016 07:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chuckk3 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 736
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 107
I Root For: LaTech
Location: north Louisiana
Post: #42
RE: ULM now US News National University
This is so absurd. IF there is any rivalry between Tech and ULM it is athletically ONLY. As we're both members of the ULS, our system is no stronger than our weakest institution...so why would we WANT to see ULM drag our system down? We aren't rivals with Grambling in anything, but their academic performance is of tremendous interest and concern for me. Athletic performance and academic performance are 2 separate things.

That being said, if our state isn't going to consolidate (and they won't), if they aren't going to close anybody down (and they won't), we need everybody to be strong.

Congratulations to ULM!
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2016 08:37 AM by chuckk3.)
09-26-2016 08:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,942
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 204
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #43
RE: ULM now US News National University
(09-26-2016 07:56 AM)runamuck Wrote:  
(09-24-2016 05:54 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(09-24-2016 04:34 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Oh, let them brag. They want to go off of USNews, so be it. They just need to feel better. If they were in TX they wouldn't even be in the category of emerging Tier 1 Research University. Only 3 in TX are Tier 1, with 7 as emerging.

They won't convince me they are above UTA or even TXST for a Tier 1 Research U when they are categorized as moderate research; whereas UTA is Highest research and TXST is high research. Doctorates are on equal par with TXST, way under UTA and research dollars don't come close.

Being previously ranked by USNews just gives a leg up on being in the top 75% as opposed to ones that just made it but when/if you try to defend being better than a school that might categorically be above you, I will have to take pause.

As for Presidents pay increases? In Texas, it's all about that Tier 1 Research status. TXST Pres brought TXST up by its bootstraps, got that Emerging designation and got that Carnegie T2 ranking in short order. If you think the BOR doesn't see that here, you know nothing about colleges in Texas.

As was said, this was a congratulatory thread to ULM but, once again, got derailed by visiting posters that it didn't even apply to. (like me) So, sorry guy.

the issue with attempting to use the Carnegie Classifications as a ranking is clearly pointed out by the foundation themselves

it looks at gross research dollars without looking at anything about how meaningful that research is and it also takes NOTHING into account about the dramatically different faculty counts of various universities

UTA and Texas State probably have at least 2X the number of faculty as La Tech if not a larger ratio than that so it would be expected that they would do a larger amount of research on a total dollar basis

and really the way they did their classifications this year makes it even more meaningless as far as trying to say that "research productivity" (without any normalization for faculty count) means you are a better university because OkState thrashes north Texas state in total research and in PhD productivity, but for some reason they are not "highest research" while north Texas state is and it has to do with something in the methodology about "expected productivity" or some nonsense like that

it is easy to find fault with the US Snooze, but at least they attempt to look at the outcome of producing undergrads with a degree and retaining students and having students in classes that are not 200 students in a theater

and while there are well documented incidents of universities cheating the evaluations of peers (Clemson) most evaluate fairly hell dem coogs doh at UH filed a FOI request to see the president of UT Austin's evaluations and when they go them they found that he was MORE than fair with dem coogs doh and in fact IMO he had then evaluated too highly

and even the "alumni giving" rate if you think about it who looks and says "well my time at that school sucked and it was meaningless, but I am going to give them more money after I have graduated".....almost no one in the USA would do that especially successful people nor would they go back and hire alumni of they felt those students were going to be morons educated by a schools they thought was a joke while they were there

admissions % is a joke and a meaningless metric and HS counselor rankings are much more questionable than those from others in higher ed, but the Carnegie Foundation looks at total research and PhD production without any normalization for faculty count of need for the PhDs produced......it is hard to get a much less meaningful metric for the quality of UNDERGRADUATE education than that

and as far as The State of Texas is concerned "tier 1" means ONE THING and that is AAU membership and that is HIGHLY unlikely for any of the emerging research universities in the next two decades or more

if you want to know what it takes for a public university with no medical school in a state with many many public universities to get into the AAU all you have to do is look at the metrics of Ga Tech and there is not an emerging research university in Texas that is close to those metrics and Ga Tech is about as close as a comparison to what the AAU would evaluate against as any university out there in the AAU

Texas has a pretty clear cut set of requirements to become tier one and I have seem them laid out several times and dont remember aau membership being one of them. I could be wrong so I'll double check that .

when The State of Texas first started the NRUF/TRIP programs with the goal of having more "tier 1" universities in Texas and they counted other "tier 1" universities in other states they strictly counted AAU members

that is how they came up with 9 for California, 7 for New York (at that time Syracuse had not withdrawn) 4 for Mass and Pennsylvania and 3 for Texas

if they had used any other metric like Carnegie Classification, US Snooze ect then the numbers would have been even more in favor of California especially

becoming eligible for participation in the NRUF endowment is not becoming "tier 1" and in fact it was never intended to be close to signifying that

at the time the NRUF and TRIP programs were set up it was estimated that it would take anywhere from $50 to $70 million dollars per year, per emerging research university in Texas to reach AAU like metrics

and becoming eligible to participate in the NRUF endowment was suppose to help a school get some of that needed $50 to $70 million per year in additional income to then be able to move towards AAU like metrics (or AAU membership which is very unlikely) and becoming what Texas was calling "tier 1"

and as of now the NRUF with Texas Tech and dem coogs doh as the two participants pays out about $9.5 million per year per school and when UTD becomes eligible in two years (most likely) it will probably pay out less than that per school

so the NRUF endowment is not even paying out the needed money to start elevating the participating universities towards "tier 1" (AAU membership or AAU like metrics) nor was becoming eligible for it the mark of "tier 1"

the whole reason the metrics were put in place in the first place was to avoid simply choosing 3 or 4 universities (or 2 or 3) and saying "you are the winners here is more funding"

Houston, West Texas, the DFW area, El Paso and San Antonio all wanted "their schools" chosen and in the case of DFW you have two UT System schools and north Texas state (Texas State was not an emerging research university at that time and thus not eligible for TRIP or NRUF participation) all wanting to be "the one"

so Texas simply said here are some (relatively low) metrics to meet and when you meet those you get some funding from a new endowment and that funding can help you move towards AAU like metrics.....but of course the funding is not enough currently even from the estimates that were first made

but the good news is north Texas state is forever away, UTEP has given up for the most part and besides UTD the others are probably 5 or 6 years away and hopefully by then the state will place more money in the corpus of the endowment and it will pay out more and grow faster for the future

but NRUF is not obtaining "tier 1" even with the poorly chosen and stupidly termed "tier 1" used by The state of Texas which was always AAU membership
09-26-2016 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.