http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/n...l?page=all

In the top 150 Texas has:

12 Texas
20 Texas A&M
46 UT_Dallas
117 Texas Tech
132 Texas State
136 Houston
146 North Texas

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.

Lol at the subject community ratings and the diversity. 52% minority student population. Anyway. Fl has 6 in the top 83 and 8 in the top 150

Arkansas at 69th.

(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

(02-22-2015 01:44 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Arkansas at 69th.

Bill & Ted say "Excellent!"

(02-22-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  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.

just to further embarrass you (you seemingly have no shame though so who knows) on this particular point

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf14311/c...=4405&id=3

the above is a NSF survey on research conducted by state agencies (things like child protective services or health agencies ect)

if one reads down to the very bottom of the section with "Data Limits and Comparability" there is a footnote

I will quote that footnote here

A major factor for the difference between totals reported in NSF's Higher Education and the State R&D surveys is direct appropriations or grants to state-run universities that are included in the former but not in the latter. Another likely factor is the exclusion of R&D at agricultural experiment stations from the state survey totals because they are generally associated with land-grant colleges and universities and are canvassed on the HERD Survey.[4]

so right there it very clearly states that in the survey on research conducted by state agencies federal dollars that go towards LAND GRANT UNIVERSITIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE HERD SURVEY

HERD stands for Higher Education Research and Development

so is conclusively says that the HERD survey INCLUDED land grant funding

now you will again try and make the argument (clutch for straws) that land grant funding is insignificant

but of course if you read what footnote [4] says down below on that page here is what it says

[4] Agricultural experiment stations in Connecticut are in the population of interest for the Survey of State Government R&D because they are organized as state agencies and not affiliated with any university system.

so what that says is there is a single exception to university land grant funding being included in the HERD survey and instead being included in the tate agency expenditures for R&D survey and that is Connecticut because their their experiment station is not under the auspices of a state university it is treated as a state agency

and the better news (worse for you) is we can look at that survey data here

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf14311/pdf/tab13.pdf

and in that data we see this

State agency expenditures for R&D for all performers, by state, department or agency, and source of funds: FY 2011

Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Federal government $11,158,166

so what we see is that in 2011 the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT provided the state of Connecticut $11,158,166 their agricultural experiment station

and what we also know from the page describing the survey is that for all other states the same money would be included in the HERD survey

now not all of that money is necessarily statutory in nature, but is goes to show that being a land grant institution means that you have access and the ability to gain federal dollars in a significant amount because of your land grant and experiment station activities

and I think most with a brain would think that places like Nebraska and Missouri have more going on agriculturally than Connecticut so their land grant and experiment activities and their federal dollars allocated towards those activities will most likely be greater especially since we know that statutory land grant funding is based on various factors

we can again see some of those factors here

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/fed_asst.html

Formula Grants

The amount of funds provided to each institution is determined by formula, often statutorily defined, that may include variables such as the rural population, farm population, and poverty


who do you think has a larger rural and farm population Connecticut or Nebraska and Missouri (wait why am I asking you, you are brain dead)

Animal Health and Disease Research Program. 7 U.S.C. 3195.

Funds are allocated according to a statutory formula that takes into account both the importance of the livestock industry and the animal health research capacity within a State.

who do you think has a larger animal ag industry....Nebraska and Missouri or Connecticut

so who do you think would be getting more dollars under a formula based on those factors?

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. 7 U.S.C. 3175.

Funds are distributed according to a statutory formula.

Hatch Act Formula Grants. 7 U.S.C. 361. The Hatch Program allocates federal funds on the basis of a statutory formula to the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas of Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Micronesia, American Samoa, and Northern Marianas Islands.

so here we can see that once again you are 100% wrong in your ASSumption that statutory funding was not included in the HERD survey (you can't seem to catch a break no matter how many straws you clutch for)

and we can also see that a state with a very low rural population and a very small overall ag industry received $11,158,166 in federal funds in 2011 specifically related to their experiment station activities

now again in the interest of fairness not all of that money was necessarily statutory on nature, BUT it does go to show the importance and the amounts of federal dollars (something you seem to really want to count as the most meaningful dollars in research) that even a small state with a limited agriculture industry obtains either competitively or statutorily from the federal government specifically

and because I know you are of very limited intelligence and you are very desperate and will clutch for anything at this point I feel I need to go ahead and point out that when you are looking at that NSF survey of state agency research when you see "Department of Agriculture" that does not mean that state is just calling their experiment station by a different name (and besides we already see in footnote [4] that "land grant dollars" are included in the HERD survey much to your consternation for all but Connecticut)

Departments of Agriculture would be people that give out pesticide licenses, look at scales to make sure they weigh properly and are certified especially of agriculture and related industries, have regulations for farm production and on and on......those are different from land grant universities and their function

thank you for fully availing me the opportunity to prove you wrong on pretty much every point you tried to make

better luck next time I look forward (not really) to how you will try and crawdad and deflect from being totally and completely wrong and fully incapable of making a meaningful comparison of anything and support it based on your initial ASSumptions

So...UCONN to the Big 12?

(02-22-2015 07:58 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  So...UCONN to the Big 12?

only if the state moves the experiment station under the university

(02-22-2015 05:20 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 01:44 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Arkansas at 69th.

Bill & Ted say "Excellent!"

Holy crap. I forgot about Bill && Ted.

(02-22-2015 01:11 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/n...l?page=all

In the top 150 Texas has:

12 Texas
20 Texas A&M
46 UT_Dallas
117 Texas Tech
132 Texas State
136 Houston
146 North Texas

Wake me up when Texas Tech makes the Princeton Review's Best Colleges in America list.

There are only four public schools in Texas on the list:

UT
A&M
UH
UT-Dallas

Interesting link posted in the OP. California and New York seem to be the most-represented states in the top 100. Surprisingly, Virginia comes in 3rd, with 7 schools in the top 100. Considering Virginia ranks 12th in population, I'd say it's punching above its weight here.

3. University of Virginia
4. College of William and Mary
24. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
39. James Madison University
62. George Mason University
67. University of Mary Washington
87. Virginia Military Institute

(02-23-2015 01:49 AM)madizoned-level2004 Wrote:  Interesting link posted in the OP. California and New York seem to be the most-represented states in the top 100. Surprisingly, Virginia comes in 3rd, with 7 schools in the top 100. Considering Virginia ranks 12th in population, I'd say it's punching above its weight here.

3. University of Virginia
4. College of William and Mary
24. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
39. James Madison University
62. George Mason University
67. University of Mary Washington
87. Virginia Military Institute

Same with South Carolina with four in the Top 100 and being ranked 24th in population

33. Clemson University
43. University of South Carolina
80. College of Charleston
89. The Citadel

But after that it drops off with Winthrop University coming in at 245 and Coastal Carolina, Francis Marion, Lander, and SC State outside the top 250.

UConn is #19. We're the #16 public FBS school.

This confirms the US News list (which some people mock). UConn is also #19 there.

The only ranking that matters to the Pac 12 is ARWU.

Pac 12
2. Stanford
4. Cal
10. UCLA
13. Washington
26. Colorado
33. USC
46. Arizona
47. Utah
48. Arizona St
65-77. Oregon St
78-104. Oregon
78-104. Wash St

Potential Candidates in PST/MST/CST Equal or Better than Current Pac 12 ARWU Range
28. Texas
45. Rice
65-77. Hawaii
65-77. Iowa St
78-104. Colo St
78-104. New Mexico
78-104. Houston
78-104. Kansas

Pac 12 Candidates in PST/MST/CST Outside of Current Pac 12 ARWU Range
105-125. San Diego St
105-125. BYU
105-125. Tulane
126-146. Okla St
126-146. OU
126-146. Kansas St
126-146. Wyoming
126-146. Utah St

Not Ranked By ARWU
Texas Tech
TCU
SMU
Baylor
Boise St
Fresno St.
Nevada
Air Force
Tulsa
San Jose St
UNLV
UTSA
North Texas
UTEP

(02-22-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  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.

Maybe it's something to do with the sandstorms and tumbleweeds.

(02-23-2015 01:49 AM)madizoned-level2004 Wrote:  Interesting link posted in the OP. California and New York seem to be the most-represented states in the top 100. Surprisingly, Virginia comes in 3rd, with 7 schools in the top 100. Considering Virginia ranks 12th in population, I'd say it's punching above its weight here.

3. University of Virginia
4. College of William and Mary
24. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
39. James Madison University
62. George Mason University
67. University of Mary Washington
87. Virginia Military Institute

Virginia has always funded higher ed rather well and their universities are long established as well with long lines of alumni

(02-23-2015 09:56 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  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.

Maybe it's something to do with the sandstorms and tumbleweeds.

Or too close to Roswell, NM.

(02-23-2015 10:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:56 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  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.

Maybe it's something to do with the sandstorms and tumbleweeds.

Or too close to Roswell, NM.

You don't know your geography, but that's still funny!

(02-23-2015 10:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 10:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 09:56 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  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.

Maybe it's something to do with the sandstorms and tumbleweeds.

Or too close to Roswell, NM.

You don't know your geography, but that's still funny!

Lubbock to Roswell = 174 miles. Too close for some.