(05-05-2015 11:43 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 09:38 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  10th you made your statement loud and clear and fits with every A&M booster and the Honor Code.

I graduated from Tech in the early 2000's. When did you graduate from A&M.

I saw a few heated games in Lubbock and College Station between our 2 alma maters.

Did I miss an answer? I apologize because I might have missed it.

Oh sorry, I was done with this thread having made my key point.

You can go on arguing with the UH folks.

[popcorn]

Kind of amazed this went to 19 pages. But just ran across this article which has a good discussion near the end about the AAU after you get beyond Khator's discussion of aiming for it.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/hou...234438.php

(05-08-2015 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Kind of amazed this went to 19 pages. But just ran across this article which has a good discussion near the end about the AAU after you get beyond Khator's discussion of aiming for it.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/hou...234438.php

that was actually a pretty poor discussion of it

1. you do not apply to the AAU you are invited.......so if you are applying you can be sure you will be turned down because they did not ask you to apply

2. there are no "AAU standards" that UH has "surpassed"

this is evident by the fact that they list some of the metrics for the newest AAU members in the next few lines and UH is nowhere close to those

this is also because the AAU does not look at raw metrics.....something many can't seem to grasp which is why poorly written articles like this are printed

the AAU looks at metrics in context to other factors like total faculty count, graduate enrollment, total university funding, state funding (for public schools) ect and they normalize for them

Missouri has a recent report as an example of this where they normalize their metrics per $100 million in state funding and so they list themselves in that report with 3.34 National Academy Members, but of course you do not have % national academy members and they list 10 actual members on their website.....but of course they are normalizing for their $300 million in state funding

this is because the AAU is not going to be impressed if you have 20,000 students, get $600 million in state funding and have 12 national academy members.....they will want to know what the hell you are doing with all the money

this is just like the AAU will not be impressed when you have 40,000 students, 3,500 + academic staff members and you get h several hundred million in state funding and you are comparing "your metrics" to a private school with under 10,000 students, half the academic staff, no state funding and you are picking and choosing a FEW metrics where you "make the grade"

right up to and until you start looking are research dollars per faculty member, grad students produced per faculty member, areas of research and how relevant they are to cutting edge science, total funding levels per faculty member or per student or per grad student and the like and you see that total numbers are something that can just be forced through and when compared in a relative way they might not be all that impressive

(05-06-2015 06:40 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 11:43 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 09:38 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  10th you made your statement loud and clear and fits with every A&M booster and the Honor Code.

I graduated from Tech in the early 2000's. When did you graduate from A&M.

I saw a few heated games in Lubbock and College Station between our 2 alma maters.

Did I miss an answer? I apologize because I might have missed it.

Oh sorry, I was done with this thread having made my key point.

You can go on arguing with the UH folks.

[popcorn]

Thanks. I think we all get the point and we appreciate your insight. I have no desire to argue with UH grads because they are genuinely interested in the direction of their University. We all agree they need more support but where do they find it?

On the rack at a Wal-Mart store or students who become ALUMNI of the University they root for?

(05-09-2015 01:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Kind of amazed this went to 19 pages. But just ran across this article which has a good discussion near the end about the AAU after you get beyond Khator's discussion of aiming for it.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/hou...234438.php

that was actually a pretty poor discussion of it

1. you do not apply to the AAU you are invited.......so if you are applying you can be sure you will be turned down because they did not ask you to apply

2. there are no "AAU standards" that UH has "surpassed"

this is evident by the fact that they list some of the metrics for the newest AAU members in the next few lines and UH is nowhere close to those

this is also because the AAU does not look at raw metrics.....something many can't seem to grasp which is why poorly written articles like this are printed

the AAU looks at metrics in context to other factors like total faculty count, graduate enrollment, total university funding, state funding (for public schools) ect and they normalize for them

Missouri has a recent report as an example of this where they normalize their metrics per $100 million in state funding and so they list themselves in that report with 3.34 National Academy Members, but of course you do not have % national academy members and they list 10 actual members on their website.....but of course they are normalizing for their $300 million in state funding

this is because the AAU is not going to be impressed if you have 20,000 students, get $600 million in state funding and have 12 national academy members.....they will want to know what the hell you are doing with all the money

this is just like the AAU will not be impressed when you have 40,000 students, 3,500 + academic staff members and you get h several hundred million in state funding and you are comparing "your metrics" to a private school with under 10,000 students, half the academic staff, no state funding and you are picking and choosing a FEW metrics where you "make the grade"

right up to and until you start looking are research dollars per faculty member, grad students produced per faculty member, areas of research and how relevant they are to cutting edge science, total funding levels per faculty member or per student or per grad student and the like and you see that total numbers are something that can just be forced through and when compared in a relative way they might not be all that impressive

Sounds like you didn't read the whole article.

Should have copied the key sections while it was in the public. Its in the subscription area now.

(05-09-2015 09:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 01:16 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  Kind of amazed this went to 19 pages. But just ran across this article which has a good discussion near the end about the AAU after you get beyond Khator's discussion of aiming for it.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/hou...234438.php

that was actually a pretty poor discussion of it

1. you do not apply to the AAU you are invited.......so if you are applying you can be sure you will be turned down because they did not ask you to apply

2. there are no "AAU standards" that UH has "surpassed"

this is evident by the fact that they list some of the metrics for the newest AAU members in the next few lines and UH is nowhere close to those

this is also because the AAU does not look at raw metrics.....something many can't seem to grasp which is why poorly written articles like this are printed

the AAU looks at metrics in context to other factors like total faculty count, graduate enrollment, total university funding, state funding (for public schools) ect and they normalize for them

Missouri has a recent report as an example of this where they normalize their metrics per $100 million in state funding and so they list themselves in that report with 3.34 National Academy Members, but of course you do not have % national academy members and they list 10 actual members on their website.....but of course they are normalizing for their $300 million in state funding

this is because the AAU is not going to be impressed if you have 20,000 students, get $600 million in state funding and have 12 national academy members.....they will want to know what the hell you are doing with all the money

this is just like the AAU will not be impressed when you have 40,000 students, 3,500 + academic staff members and you get h several hundred million in state funding and you are comparing "your metrics" to a private school with under 10,000 students, half the academic staff, no state funding and you are picking and choosing a FEW metrics where you "make the grade"

right up to and until you start looking are research dollars per faculty member, grad students produced per faculty member, areas of research and how relevant they are to cutting edge science, total funding levels per faculty member or per student or per grad student and the like and you see that total numbers are something that can just be forced through and when compared in a relative way they might not be all that impressive

Sounds like you didn't read the whole article.

Should have copied the key sections while it was in the public. Its in the subscription area now.

how is it that I did not read the whole article

it made points like "invitation only".....then it talked about "applying only if you knew you were ready"

it talked about the unlikelihood of it happening.....then it talked about "ticking off check boxes" as if that is what it takes just meet some metrics and you are in

it talked about how far away UH is from the likes of GaTech, but then it compared the overall metrics of UH without any type of normalization to some of the other members of the AAU.....that are also much smaller overall universities with much smaller faculty counts.....and of course it only compared a couple of overall non-normalized UH metrics where UH would be "ahead" (until normalized) and not a ton of other metrics where UH would be being normalized or not

no university in Texas right now is close to AAU membership or metrics and talking about it like it is a near term or even a longer term goal is laughable especially when there are so many clear issues that should be addressed first and that can be addressed without even having more money and that are much more important that "AAU check boxes"

just more marketing and hype without a lot of substance or reality behind it