+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: Big East Academic Consortium... (/thread-51968.html)
- brista21 - 07-11-2005 03:16 PM
Who should be involved in the academic consortium that the Big East should and likely is working on? Obviously the 16 current BE members. I would figure that a few regional D-3s should be added ala the continued inclusion of UChicago in the CIC. I'd like to see RPI, RIT, NYU, Stevens Institute of Technology, NJIT, UMDNJ, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, John Hopkins, and all the satellite campii of in-conference schools included. So Rutgers - Newark, Rutgers - Camden, UConn - Avery Point, and the like would all be included in the system. If we setup a comprehensive consortium like that, that has ties to certain Ivies, clearly Rutgers has its ties to Columbia and Princeton, then our coalition could and would easily surpass the CIC and the ACC in stature, size (I'm talking money & research), and prestige. And in setup the consortium as part of the split. I think with Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Villanova, Notre Dame, Marquette, and Connecticut involved we should be able to pull some heavy hitters like MIT, Carnegie Mellon, John Hopkins, and NYU on board. It would certainly make conference membership to harder to get schools like PSU, UMD, and BC much more attractive knowing that they will have research/academic partnerships not only with the expected schools in their conferencemates but also with the heavy hitters.
- Kit-Cat - 07-11-2005 03:21 PM
I would stick with main campuses with full CIC membership.
John Hopkins comes to mind as a good non athletic member.
- trephin - 07-11-2005 09:29 PM
Chicago is a member because they were an athletic member originally. They did not lose their place when they dropped athletics; it was not that they were added as a nonathletic participant. That's a big difference than starting a new partnership with nonmembers.
- JIM15068 - 07-12-2005 01:44 AM
How can one be part of a conference consortium if one is not a member of a conference?
- Shannon Panther - 07-12-2005 07:30 AM
Pitt and Carnegie Mellon already work together on a number of things. They jointly run the Software Engineering Project here in Pittsburgh.
- brista21 - 07-12-2005 08:51 AM
trephin Wrote:Chicago is a member because they were an athletic member originally. They did not lose their place when they dropped athletics; it was not that they were added as a nonathletic participant. That's a big difference than starting a new partnership with nonmembers.No offense trephin but I'm well aware of that fact. However, having D-3 members of the consortium like NYU, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and John Hopkins are excellent adds. Add those to Rutgers, UConn, Pitt, Georgetown, Cincy and the like and you have the best research cartel in the nation. And although I do agree that its different, its far from impossible or even unlikely. Its a very doable partnership given Carnegie Mellon's ties to Pitt, etc. etc.
- Kit-Cat - 07-12-2005 11:38 AM
brista21 Wrote:This is a very smart idea of including the Division III schools in a Big East CIC and you're the first one I think to come up with it to my knowledge.trephin Wrote:Chicago is a member because they were an athletic member originally. They did not lose their place when they dropped athletics; it was not that they were added as a nonathletic participant. That's a big difference than starting a new partnership with nonmembers.No offense trephin but I'm well aware of that fact. However, having D-3 members of the consortium like NYU, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and John Hopkins are excellent adds. Add those to Rutgers, UConn, Pitt, Georgetown, Cincy and the like and you have the best research cartel in the nation. And although I do agree that its different, its far from impossible or even unlikely. Its a very doable partnership given Carnegie Mellon's ties to Pitt, etc. etc.