(08-29-2014 08:31 PM)CrabCake Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 05:29 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Do I really need to do this? Fine:

Football Graduation Rates: Big Ten
Northwestern 97%
Penn St. 91%
Iowa 82%
Illinois 75%
Ohio St. 74%
Indiana 70%
Michigan 69%
Minnesota 69%
Nebraska 68%
Wisconsin 65%
Michigan St. 64%
Purdue 59%

Top 10 Football Grad Rates: The whole FBS
(Graduation Success Rate)
Northwestern 97%
Notre Dame 97%
Boston College 94%
Miami (Fla.) 94%
Rice 93%
Duke 92%
Penn State 91%
Rutgers 91%
Stanford 90%
Army 88%

That is a HUGE gap. In fact, Wisconsin is near the bottom of the FBS according to the latest data compiled by The Bootleg. I could go further, but I have other things to attend to. Look at the information at the source I have included below.

Source: http://stanford.scout.com/story/1273612-...e-analysis

Note: These figures are from the 2013 study. I didn't think that the 2014 version was out yet, but apparently it is. There are bound to be some differences.

C'mon - you can do better than this. In fact, I would have expected a lot more from a Rice University grad!!

Yes, you are absolutely correct that graduation rates for Rice University athletes are tops in the country - overall and for African-Americans. Excellent - keep up the great work and keep raising the bar for the rest of us!

But here is where I see the weakness of your argument. It appears that the WSJ methodology for establishing admirability (which we all can agree is not scientific) used ".. weighted calculation of every team's academic performance..."; thus, the qualities you deem that "really matter" appear to have been utilized to determine admirability scores that you find "laughable in the extreme." Just saying' this is the way I see it.

Now it's my turn.

Personally, I value funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as something that really matters (I'm guessing, so do members of your Office of Sponsored Research). Earlier this month Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News (GEN) published a list of the top 50 NIH-funded Universities of 2014. Not surprising, at least to those of us working in the field, Johns Hopkins, Penn and UCSF round out the top 3 spots. The University of Wisconsin-Madision came in at a respectable (or, might you say, admirable?) spot of 17, having received 498 awards totaling $215,637,227. Rice University did not make the list for FY2014 (although the state of Texas was well represented by Baylor College of Medicine at#24, UT Southwestern Med Ctr at #30 and UT MD Anderson Cancer Ctr at #47). The complete list, for your perusal, is here: http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-in...33/?page=1

Here's the lesson for today - I think it's safe to say, different people/groups value things differently. Thus, in this case, it's not easy to establish superiority of one institution over another. Disclaimer - I do not hold degrees nor have I ever attended classes at Wisconsin or Rice.

Class dismissed and Go Owls - beat Notre Dame!

All of this institutions have , or are medical schools. Rice is neither.

(08-29-2014 10:37 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:31 PM)CrabCake Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 05:29 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Do I really need to do this? Fine:

Football Graduation Rates: Big Ten
Northwestern 97%
Penn St. 91%
Iowa 82%
Illinois 75%
Ohio St. 74%
Indiana 70%
Michigan 69%
Minnesota 69%
Nebraska 68%
Wisconsin 65%
Michigan St. 64%
Purdue 59%

Top 10 Football Grad Rates: The whole FBS
(Graduation Success Rate)
Northwestern 97%
Notre Dame 97%
Boston College 94%
Miami (Fla.) 94%
Rice 93%
Duke 92%
Penn State 91%
Rutgers 91%
Stanford 90%
Army 88%

That is a HUGE gap. In fact, Wisconsin is near the bottom of the FBS according to the latest data compiled by The Bootleg. I could go further, but I have other things to attend to. Look at the information at the source I have included below.

Source: http://stanford.scout.com/story/1273612-...e-analysis

Note: These figures are from the 2013 study. I didn't think that the 2014 version was out yet, but apparently it is. There are bound to be some differences.

C'mon - you can do better than this. In fact, I would have expected a lot more from a Rice University grad!!

Yes, you are absolutely correct that graduation rates for Rice University athletes are tops in the country - overall and for African-Americans. Excellent - keep up the great work and keep raising the bar for the rest of us!

But here is where I see the weakness of your argument. It appears that the WSJ methodology for establishing admirability (which we all can agree is not scientific) used ".. weighted calculation of every team's academic performance..."; thus, the qualities you deem that "really matter" appear to have been utilized to determine admirability scores that you find "laughable in the extreme." Just saying' this is the way I see it.

Now it's my turn.

Personally, I value funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as something that really matters (I'm guessing, so do members of your Office of Sponsored Research). Earlier this month Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News (GEN) published a list of the top 50 NIH-funded Universities of 2014. Not surprising, at least to those of us working in the field, Johns Hopkins, Penn and UCSF round out the top 3 spots. The University of Wisconsin-Madision came in at a respectable (or, might you say, admirable?) spot of 17, having received 498 awards totaling $215,637,227. Rice University did not make the list for FY2014 (although the state of Texas was well represented by Baylor College of Medicine at#24, UT Southwestern Med Ctr at #30 and UT MD Anderson Cancer Ctr at #47). The complete list, for your perusal, is here: http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-in...33/?page=1

Here's the lesson for today - I think it's safe to say, different people/groups value things differently. Thus, in this case, it's not easy to establish superiority of one institution over another. Disclaimer - I do not hold degrees nor have I ever attended classes at Wisconsin or Rice.

Class dismissed and Go Owls - beat Notre Dame!

All of this institutions have , or are medical schools. Rice is neither.

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center isn't a medical school.

(08-29-2014 10:37 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 08:31 PM)CrabCake Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 05:29 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Do I really need to do this? Fine:

Football Graduation Rates: Big Ten
Northwestern 97%
Penn St. 91%
Iowa 82%
Illinois 75%
Ohio St. 74%
Indiana 70%
Michigan 69%
Minnesota 69%
Nebraska 68%
Wisconsin 65%
Michigan St. 64%
Purdue 59%

Top 10 Football Grad Rates: The whole FBS
(Graduation Success Rate)
Northwestern 97%
Notre Dame 97%
Boston College 94%
Miami (Fla.) 94%
Rice 93%
Duke 92%
Penn State 91%
Rutgers 91%
Stanford 90%
Army 88%

That is a HUGE gap. In fact, Wisconsin is near the bottom of the FBS according to the latest data compiled by The Bootleg. I could go further, but I have other things to attend to. Look at the information at the source I have included below.

Source: http://stanford.scout.com/story/1273612-...e-analysis

Note: These figures are from the 2013 study. I didn't think that the 2014 version was out yet, but apparently it is. There are bound to be some differences.

C'mon - you can do better than this. In fact, I would have expected a lot more from a Rice University grad!!

Yes, you are absolutely correct that graduation rates for Rice University athletes are tops in the country - overall and for African-Americans. Excellent - keep up the great work and keep raising the bar for the rest of us!

But here is where I see the weakness of your argument. It appears that the WSJ methodology for establishing admirability (which we all can agree is not scientific) used ".. weighted calculation of every team's academic performance..."; thus, the qualities you deem that "really matter" appear to have been utilized to determine admirability scores that you find "laughable in the extreme." Just saying' this is the way I see it.

Now it's my turn.

Personally, I value funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as something that really matters (I'm guessing, so do members of your Office of Sponsored Research). Earlier this month Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News (GEN) published a list of the top 50 NIH-funded Universities of 2014. Not surprising, at least to those of us working in the field, Johns Hopkins, Penn and UCSF round out the top 3 spots. The University of Wisconsin-Madision came in at a respectable (or, might you say, admirable?) spot of 17, having received 498 awards totaling $215,637,227. Rice University did not make the list for FY2014 (although the state of Texas was well represented by Baylor College of Medicine at#24, UT Southwestern Med Ctr at #30 and UT MD Anderson Cancer Ctr at #47). The complete list, for your perusal, is here: http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-in...33/?page=1

Here's the lesson for today - I think it's safe to say, different people/groups value things differently. Thus, in this case, it's not easy to establish superiority of one institution over another. Disclaimer - I do not hold degrees nor have I ever attended classes at Wisconsin or Rice.

Class dismissed and Go Owls - beat Notre Dame!

All of this institutions have , or are medical schools. Rice is neither.

Hmm....Health research grants going to healthcare facilities. What a novel concept. Disclaimer-I have a Rice degree and a Wisconsin* medical school degree. If only I knew football...

(08-29-2014 10:59 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Hmm....Health research grants going to healthcare facilities. What a novel concept. Disclaimer-I have a Rice degree and a Wisconsin* medical school degree. If only I knew football...

Well Rice received funding from the NIH in FY2014 - 32 grants totaling $10,405,643. (source: http://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot...&pid=#tab2) The University has a terrific biomedical research facility and strong working relationships with the Texas Medical Center.

Funny that you mention novel concepts. For me, I found receiving DOD grant money for medical research to be quite the novel source for research funding.

I believe the point he was making is that UCSF, UT Soutwestern and Baylor College of Medicine are graduate schools devoted to healthcare without an undergraduate football team. While Rice has biomedical research capability, the school is not devoted to graduate healthcare nor does it have a professional healthcare school. U of Wisconsin is a flagship state university with a school devoted to healthcare. The Big 10 has several. Interestingly, the flagship state university of CA and TX don't have a school of medicine as a part of it. Instead, they have stand alone schools. WA, AZ and UT do in the PAC 12. So, I agree that it is hard to compare schools with such variability in their make-up. However, the common shared element is undergraduate education at a school that fields an FBS football team. Therefore, comparing success in undergraduate education seems the best place to start. Now the question is what metric constitutes successful undergraduate education and what constitutes football success?

A friend posted this article about the gyrations in his alma mater's (Louisville) placement in the WSJ's "Grid of Shame" in the last few years ... and seemingly inconsistent/contradictory movement in Western Kentucky's: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/spo.../14800555/

Louisville went from "Admirable Powerhouse" to "Embarassing Powerhouse" largely due to hiring Bobby Petrino, it seems.

On the other hand, when Petrino left Western Kentucky, the Hilltoppers changed from "Admirable Weakling" to "Embarassing Weakling." (And Bowling Green is not calling WKU a weakling today.)

I suspect there is a lot of "ick factor" in the consistency of the Journal's methodology itself.

(08-29-2014 11:56 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I believe the point he was making is that UCSF, UT Soutwestern and Baylor College of Medicine are graduate schools devoted to healthcare without an undergraduate football team. While Rice has biomedical research capability, the school is not devoted to graduate healthcare nor does it have a professional healthcare school. U of Wisconsin is a flagship state university with a school devoted to healthcare. The Big 10 has several. Interestingly, the flagship state university of CA and TX don't have a school of medicine as a part of it. Instead, they have stand alone schools. WA, AZ and UT do in the PAC 12. So, I agree that it is hard to compare schools with such variability in their make-up. However, the common shared element is undergraduate education at a school that fields an FBS football team. Therefore, comparing success in undergraduate education seems the best place to start. Now the question is what metric constitutes successful undergraduate education and what constitutes football success?

Thank you . It should be obvious that a university w NO medical school as a grad school dept would not likely keep up w schools that ARE either a med school or have a med school attached to it. Difficult to cubbyhole MDACC as it is part of UT, but not really a grad school of , say, UT Austin.
In fact I also have quite a bit of experience w Wisconsin, as 2 or 3 of the medical physicists that I have worked w did their post-grad studies there

Seems as suitable a place as any to post this: In a US News college guide preview, Rice is among the top ten Best Value schools. (Though I know this isn't unusual, I don't know the recent history.)

http://news.yahoo.com/2015-best-colleges...00822.html

Also for the PAC12, the med school for the University of Colorado is in Aurora east of Denver instead of in Boulder so not that involved with the football team.The original med school for the University of Texas is in Galveston. They are adding a med school soon in Austin. I assume all the med schools are attached to the UT System instead of directly to UT Austin.

(08-30-2014 12:02 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 11:56 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I believe the point he was making is that UCSF, UT Soutwestern and Baylor College of Medicine are graduate schools devoted to healthcare without an undergraduate football team. While Rice has biomedical research capability, the school is not devoted to graduate healthcare nor does it have a professional healthcare school. U of Wisconsin is a flagship state university with a school devoted to healthcare. The Big 10 has several. Interestingly, the flagship state university of CA and TX don't have a school of medicine as a part of it. Instead, they have stand alone schools. WA, AZ and UT do in the PAC 12. So, I agree that it is hard to compare schools with such variability in their make-up. However, the common shared element is undergraduate education at a school that fields an FBS football team. Therefore, comparing success in undergraduate education seems the best place to start. Now the question is what metric constitutes successful undergraduate education and what constitutes football success?

Thank you . It should be obvious that a university w NO medical school as a grad school dept would not likely keep up w schools that ARE either a med school or have a med school attached to it. Difficult to cubbyhole MDACC as it is part of UT, but not really a grad school of , say, UT Austin.
In fact I also have quite a bit of experience w Wisconsin, as 2 or 3 of the medical physicists that I have worked w did their post-grad studies there