(02-22-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote: I was going to post this in the thread about Houston trying to get into the XII, but it got locked. So here you go TodgeRodge:
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2013/html/...ST_18.html
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2013/html/...ST_22.html
Nebraska -- Endowment: $1.24billion -- (#81 overall, #109 federal), established using the Morrill Act as a land grant university
$267million overall research expenditures:
i) $98million federal grants
$13million DOD
$17million HHS
$29million NSF
$10million USDA
the rest is others
ii) $144million institutional grants
iii) the rest is others
Missouri -- Endowment: $579million -- (#88 overall, #103 federal), established before the Morrill Act but later designated a land grant university
$236million overall research expenditures:
i) $112million federal grants
$11million DOD
$55million HHS
$18million NSF
$11million USDA
the rest is others
ii) $103million institutional grants
iii) the rest is others
South Carolina -- Endowment: $596million -- (#97 overall, #113 federal), NOT a land grant university (in SC the land grant is Clemson)
$203million overall research expenditures:
i) $91million federal grants
$11million DOE
$44million HHS
$16million NSF
the rest is others
ii) $97million institutional grants
iii) the rest is others
Texas Tech -- Endowment: 1.2billion -- (#125 overall, #186 federal), NOT a land grant university (in Texas the land grant is Texas A&M)
$143million overall research expenditures:
i) $29million federal grants
$6million DOD
$8million NSF
the rest is others
ii) $82million institutional grants
iii) the rest is others
I stand by my conclusion that Texas Tech has a major endowment yet is not competitive in winning federal research grants, of which grants from the USDA (which Tech still might be able to win, regardless of not being a land grant) is not a significant factor.
And another thing to consider is that federal funding for specific land grant missions (like agricultural and forestry extension services) might not actually be considered (competitive) research funding. So they wouldn't even be applicable in this analysis anyway, if that's true, because they wouldn't be included in the NSF reports - just federal grants that were competitively won by the school's faculty.
and I stand by my conclusion that you are a clueless dolt that has no idea what they are talking about
1. the endowment for Texas Tech as a free standing university without the medical schools and without Angelo State is $674 million not 1.2 billion
so right off the bat you have made a very poor point because you have Texas Tech (the main campus) as having an endowment that is nearly twice as large as the actual endowment
so right off the bat you have shown yourself to have no clue what you are talking about
2. as already stated MU and NU are land grant universities and I have already linked an article where NU states they get a LARGE amount of their research dollars from agriculture and specifically dollars that are not competitively awarded and they felt that played against them with the AAU
but of course the AAU does not count any of those similar dollars for any of their land grant universities and many of the public members of the AAU are in fact also land grant universities
here is the link to that article
http://journalstar.com/news/local/educat...3b01e.html
Another disadvantage UNL faced, Perlman said, was the AAU policy of not allowing member universities to include research funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a major source of funding for UNL. However, the association does count agricultural faculty when weighting rankings, Perlman said.
you may desire to discount those dollars received for being "land grant", but when I last proved you a fool you first started out claiming to have no knowledge of land grant institutions getting any statutory funding and after I showed proof of that you then tried to say that the funding was surely small in nature and of no consequence
of course you provided no proof of that you merely attempted to downplay yet another instance of you being wrong and not having a clue about something by attempting to downplay something and change the argument at hand when you were clearly wrong about the prior ones you presented
and even if the dollar amounts are only a few million per year that does not negate the fact that the dollars and faculty positions those dollars fund allow those land grant universities to have more research infrastructure and faculty to then leverage towards competitively awarded grants
so there is two things wrong with your very unpersuasive argument about Texas Tech and their total research dollars relative to their endowment and relative to other similar universities
3. South Carolina and MU both have a medical school that is attached to the main university
those research dollars for those medical schools are counted in that NSF listing for those two universities
those dollars are NOT counted for Texas Tech because the two medical school campuses for Texas Tech are separate institutions and are not counted in with the main campus
in 2013 the medical schools were one single campus, but since that time they have been split into two different institutions
here is a link to an article discussing the process of that
http://www.texastech.edu/stories/12-05-b...ng-hsc.php
if you look at the NSF links provided you will see Texas Tech HSC
#180 TX Tech U., Health Sciences Ctr.
total 61,412
federal 14,820
state 30,930
institution 9,580
Business 817
non profit 2,240
all other 3,025
so if you want to make a fair comparison you would need to include the medical school totals in with Texas Tech to make it a more fair comparison to South Carolina and Missouri specifically.....Nebraska similar to Texas Tech does not have a medical school attached to their main campus like MU and SC do
but using the numbers you present Nebraska also has the largest endowment as well
now because I am not intellectually challenged like you are and I understand making a fair comparison VS trying to toss out numbers that I do not understand and that I have no clue about if one was to also include the Texas Tech medical school numbers one would also have to include the Texas Tech medical school endowment numbers......see this is something you clearly have difficulty grasping it is called making a FAIR AND HONEST comparison instead of just making yourself look stupid and presenting an argument that gets shredded on the innerwebs when you try and make yourself look smart (and instead come off looking like a buffoon)
The Texas Tech medical school endowments are $209 million for Lubbock and $133 million for El Paso
but of course even then the El Paso component is only a few years old and while Texas Tech has been successful raising money for that facility it will take time for that facility to get up and running and bringing in large grants.....and $50 million of that endowment was in the form of stock options and Texas Tech had to wait a significant period of time for those options to vest before they could take ownership of that stock and liquidate it and invest it in a way that meets their long term goals
so again that El Paso Campus and the $133 million is a long way from being fully up and running and acquiring grants like the decades old MU and SC medical schools
BUT......if one wanted to do a more fair comparison and one wanted to include the Texas Tech medical components it would break down like this
Texas Tech Endowment $674 + $209 + $133 for a total of $1,016,000,000
BUT then the Texas Tech research numbers would be
Total Research $142,676 main campus + $61,412 medical school for a total of $204,088
that total would be one million more than SC when you include the medical school for Texas Tech that is included for SC
Federal Main Campus $28,827 + $14,820 = $43,647
State $16,989 + $30,930 = $47,919
Institutional $82,132 + $9,580 = $91,712
Business $6,926 + $817 = $7,743
Non profit $7,722 + $2,240 = $10,012
Other $80 + $3,025 = $3,105
so again you tried to knock Texas Tech for having a great deal of "institutional research", but when you look at the totals even including he medical school Texas Tech still has less institutional research than MU or SC that have medical schools attached to their main campus and less than NU that does not have a medical school, but is a land grant along with MU
and Texas Tech does more total research than SC and very close to MU when the medical school is included and that is including both the older and more established Lubbock HSC component and the extremely new El Paso campus and their endowments
4. you have the MU endowment at $579 million
not surprisingly you are too stupid to even use current numbers
the endowment for MU in June of 2014 was $804.9 million
this comes directly from the MU website
http://missouri.edu/about/facts.php
do you go out of the way to make yourself look stupid or does it just come naturally?.....My CONCLUSION is it comes naturally
and my numbers for Texas Tech come right from the THECB
http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactiv...nerate.cfm
(I would doubt you will be intelligent enough to use the above system, but give it a try)
here is a "pro tip" for you......using numbers from wiki is how you look like a dolt
and PS if you want to use the ENTIRE Texas Tech system endowment including the medical schools and Angelo State then you should use the ENTIRE MU System endowment
but if you want to include just the Texas Tech medical schools and their endowments then you should use the research dollars for the HSC components as well.....least you come off as ignorant
5. you have the endowment for NU @ 1.24 million......hello McFly! (or McStupid) that is a WIKI number from 2011........it is now 2015 you moron and 2014 data is available
again you say the "Texas Tech" endowment is 1.2 billion (the SYSTEM endowment is 1.195 billion)......but you are too ignorant and such a buffoon and so set on proving yourself not to be a clueless idiot that you use 4 year old data for Nebraska
here is the current data
http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/Endowmen...Values.pdf
$1,547,256,000
if you have even half a brain in your head you will notice that for MU and Texas Tech is says SYSTEM......but then I was able in a brief period of seconds to go the the MU website and find the info for Columbia
it does not say "system" for Nebraska, but there IS A SLIGHT chance that is for the entire system including the medical school and the Omaha, Kearney and NU-AT campus
but really I am not going to look that up because at this point ant time I think you have already been proven a fool enough
and you went and used the numbers from wiki from 2011 so I will go with the updated numbers from modern times FOUR YEARS LATER that were released in February 2015
get a clue
6. there is absolutely NOTHING to support your grasp at straws that the NSF numbers do not include statutory funding
if you read the info it is research and development dollars from ALL federal sources.....I defy you to show where it states that statutory funding is not included
lets be honest here you have already been shown to be totally ignorant, you have already been shown to be desperate to be correct when you first claimed no knowledge that statutory funding for land grants existed and then you were shown to be ignorant when you tried to claim those dollars are not significant
and now you are so desperate you are trying to claim those dollars are excluded with no supporting proof of that and when the numbers are from ALL federal sources and for RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT which is not the same as research
I don't think anyone with an ounce of brain matter would look at what you have presented and see you as anything other than a sad, clueless, desperate individual that has no grasp on how to make a persuasive argument or how to make a FAIR AND MEANINGFUL comparison
7. here is my conclusion
you are not very bright
you have a hard time coming to grasp with the fact you are not very bright
you have no issue presenting yourself as not very bright
you have no clue how to make a relevant and meaningful comparison using comparable data
you like to pick and choose data that you BELIEVE supports your conclusions even if it is not current or equally comparable data
when you are proven wrong you like to try and change the argument being made to a different argument you think you can be correct about
this often makes you look all the more foolish
you should learn to quit when you are behind least you look even more silly and desperate