(05-14-2015 10:12 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  An irrelevant proxy? What are you talking about? The *only* reason why Williams can "cherry-pick" students is because of their reputation for educating students. The same is true for their ability to "collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents," which is an absolutely hilarious statement, given the lengths that America's elite universities go to include students from low economic classes.

Regardless, you conveniently ignored my other two metrics when you magically and completely irrationally decided that "there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students."

And if you think that a library card = college degree, then A) you have never been to college, B) your college failed you, C) you have seen "Goodwill Hunting" way too many times, D) some combination of the above.

I'll bite, though. Make the case for Minnesota.

I didn't ignore anything. Admission selectivity, reputation and rankings (ie, popularity contests) are entirely subjective concepts. Not metrics.

There is no such thing as a "well-educatedness" metric. Any such attempt to make one would be entirely made up by the person creating it and thus subject to personal bias.


The case for Minnesota is the same as the case for North Dakota State: there are no numbers to rank anyone. Everyone has a ranking of N/A.


I wasn't saying that a Williams degree is worth the same as a Minnesota degree (or a NDSU degree). I know that's not the case. But that's an entirely separate, unrelated argument.

Literally everything is subjective. Prove you exist.

So yes, if you are going to use an absurdly strict definition of proof, then yes, there is no spoon. Everything is theory, even existence. Or more accurately, the theory of existence.

...and the theory of the theory of existence.

...and the theory of that and so on and so forth.

High school-level philosophical arguments aside, I've mentioned 3 good metrics. All of which indicate that there are a number of very good schools that are very bad at research (as measure by competitively-awarded federal grant dollars - *gasp* another proxy), just like there are very bad schools that are very good at research (once again as measured by competitively-awarded federal grants).

They don't indicate anything of the sort. They indicate that some school have a strong reputation of this or that. But that does not prove that an objective ranking exists.

Research numbers are an objective ranking for research. There is nothing that even comes close as an analog for "well-educatedness". Nothing you've suggested comes close, anyway.


You've more or less admitted defeat by having to resort to a patently absurd tautology just to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

The reputation is very much a proxy for the school's academic prowess, just like the research funding is a proxy for the school's research prowess. In all likelihood both are good proxies, but neither absolutely *proves* anything completely. Conceivably, it is possible (albeit astronomically unlikely) that the grants were awarded by luck, just like it is possible that school A and school B have reputations that are materially misleading. It's all subjective. At some point, numbers are based on really, really educated guesses.

Research rankings aren't a proxy. They are the objective numbers.

Why are you so desperate to avoid having to admit you were wrong?


Look, I'll give you a pass this time. Just admit that in post #27, instead of saying:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research ...",

what you should have said was:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that do not have high ranking reputations for undergraduate education but have high rankings on research expenditures. And there are schools that have vice-versa."


That would've been a correct statement. But you tried to spin it as objective and I slammed the cookie jar lid down on your hand.

(05-14-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Cornell actually operates a significant (albeit very much a minority) portion of its med school in Qatar.

they had some operations in the Texas Medical Center in Houston as well and may still have them there

(05-14-2015 10:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:00 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:02 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's a correct practice. Take away the health sciences center and Norman's research activity drops down to pretty low levels. Not AAU material, in my opinion.

As to your last comment. Even if that is true, the PI's are all based at the main campus. Not at the extension service sits.

there is nothing "incorrect" about how a university chooses to set up their administration or not to set it up

you should contact Cornell and tell them it is not correct to count their medical school in New York City under the full university and tell UC Davis that they are not correct when they count their Sacramento medical school under the full university and you should let Texas A&M know that they made a huge "incorrect" in the eyes of some no one on the internet when they merged their Dallas, Houston, Temple, Round Rock, Kingsville and Bryan medical schools and associated operations under their College Station campus

you should also email the hundreds of PIs that they have scattered all over Texas that are applying for and bringing in grants and let them know they are only suppose to work from the main campus....then let the massive number of PIs at other experiment stations know they are not at the correct location as well

let us know what they reply

I am sure they will listen.....or not

I didn't say it was incorrect to consolidate operations. I said it was incorrect to count research expenditures clearly being conducted at separate institutions as being under the main campus. It's called "cooking the numbers".

I don't believe you that the PI's of federal grants for ag research being counted under College Station actually live in work in the field. And I'm not going to spend my time to verify it one way or another.

they are not separate institutions they are the same institution

and you should sound the alarm to all those that will laugh at you and your ignorance that Texas A&M, Cornell, UC Davis and others (Penn State and LSU) are "cooking the books"......because it is well known and not uncommon at all

and how dense does one have to be to not believe that the dozen or so PhDed full faculty members located in Lubbock, Overton, Dallas, the Rio Grande Valley, Amarillo, Uvalde, El Paso, Stephenville and multiple other places do not actually live in those places and work and conduct research out of those places

are you so dense you think they commute from College Station or they show up to the field part time or they are not actually doing research.....at places called RESEARCH stations

feel free to not investigate that is is fully your right to stay stupid

I'm sure they visit the field part time. But they're based in College Station, if the grant is being counted under CS's number. That was my point. I think I'm correct, there.

I don't agree with counting life sciences research being conducted at separate campuses under a main campus. Because, the only reason they do it is to make their own numbers look bigger than they actually are. There's no other purpose for it than to inflate an ego.

UC system is a great example. You don't see Cal including all the research going on at UC-San Francisco under their own number. Likewise in other systems (Alabama and UAB, etc.).

yes all of these people commute from College Station

https://dallas.tamu.edu/faculty-and-staff/

http://weslaco.tamu.edu/directory/faculty/

http://amarillo.tamu.edu/facultystaff/

http://uvalde.tamu.edu/faculty/

http://overton.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/#.VVS7wpMXepo

http://elpaso.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/

and several other locations

that is why they all have desk, computers, phones, admin staff, offices, trucks, shop facilities, large greenhouse complexes, large lab buildings and on and on all with people that show up there every day.....because they actually are "part time" and out of College Station

and as for how universities are set up until recently no university in Texas had a medical school including Texas Tech that has the medical school right next door and most people would not even know they are different institutions

but Texas had different formula funding for universities VS medical schools so it made more sense from a formula funding stand point to have institutions apart from each other

even with A&M pulling all of their HSC under the main campus and UT-RGV getting a medical school and UT Austin getting a medical school others like UTSAHSC and UT TylerHSC, UTSW will remain apart from the universities in the same cities at least for now

so again there is no "rule" or "correct or incorrect" way to do it

and while Cal does not count UCSF....UC Davis counts their medical component and operations in Sacramento

just like others do.....it is not uncommon at all to do so

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Research rankings aren't a proxy. They are the objective numbers.

Why are you so desperate to avoid having to admit you were wrong?


Look, I'll give you a pass this time. Just admit that in post #27, instead of saying:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research ...",

what you should have said was:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that do not have high ranking reputations for undergraduate education but have high rankings on research expenditures. And there are schools that have vice-versa."


That would've been a correct statement. But you tried to spin it as objective and I slammed the cookie jar lid down on your hand.

If your standard is that admissions numbers aren't objective, then no numbers are objective. Your entire argument is based on a sophomoric perception of the world that is inconsistently distorted to support your contrarian view.

Research awards show a school's ability to attract research funding. They do not directly show a school's ability to perform high quality research. In all likelihood, the two numbers are extremely well correlated. But, at the end of the day, the total award dollars hinges on the sum of a bunch of decisions (i.e. the grants) that are based on a bunch of different people's (the guys who decide who gets how much) opinions about the quality of a bunch of different proposals.

Similarly, a school's ranking in many of the metrics that I named are based on the aggregate of a bunch of decisions (i.e. whether to accept an off or not) that are heavily based on a bunch of people's (prospective students) opinions as to the quality of a bunch of different academic departments.

Both numbers are based off of opinions. You cannot claim that one number is good and another number isn't. Similarly, once you go down your logical rabbit hole, you come out in the world of "there is no spoon." It's all high school-level philosophy. That is why your position is contradictory and sophomoric, making it purely contrarian.

Furthermore, I contend (and have consistently contended) that stooping down to the high school level and going down the "everything is theory" rabbit hole is no a worthy endeavor because in that paradigm, nothing ever matters because nothing is every for certain and/or ever definitively exists. Everything is one giant "maybe," and that doesn't get anyone anywhere.

(05-14-2015 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Cornell actually operates a significant (albeit very much a minority) portion of its med school in Qatar.

they had some operations in the Texas Medical Center in Houston as well and may still have them there

(05-14-2015 10:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:00 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:02 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is nothing "incorrect" about how a university chooses to set up their administration or not to set it up

you should contact Cornell and tell them it is not correct to count their medical school in New York City under the full university and tell UC Davis that they are not correct when they count their Sacramento medical school under the full university and you should let Texas A&M know that they made a huge "incorrect" in the eyes of some no one on the internet when they merged their Dallas, Houston, Temple, Round Rock, Kingsville and Bryan medical schools and associated operations under their College Station campus

you should also email the hundreds of PIs that they have scattered all over Texas that are applying for and bringing in grants and let them know they are only suppose to work from the main campus....then let the massive number of PIs at other experiment stations know they are not at the correct location as well

let us know what they reply

I am sure they will listen.....or not

I didn't say it was incorrect to consolidate operations. I said it was incorrect to count research expenditures clearly being conducted at separate institutions as being under the main campus. It's called "cooking the numbers".

I don't believe you that the PI's of federal grants for ag research being counted under College Station actually live in work in the field. And I'm not going to spend my time to verify it one way or another.

they are not separate institutions they are the same institution

and you should sound the alarm to all those that will laugh at you and your ignorance that Texas A&M, Cornell, UC Davis and others (Penn State and LSU) are "cooking the books"......because it is well known and not uncommon at all

and how dense does one have to be to not believe that the dozen or so PhDed full faculty members located in Lubbock, Overton, Dallas, the Rio Grande Valley, Amarillo, Uvalde, El Paso, Stephenville and multiple other places do not actually live in those places and work and conduct research out of those places

are you so dense you think they commute from College Station or they show up to the field part time or they are not actually doing research.....at places called RESEARCH stations

feel free to not investigate that is is fully your right to stay stupid

I'm sure they visit the field part time. But they're based in College Station, if the grant is being counted under CS's number. That was my point. I think I'm correct, there.

I don't agree with counting life sciences research being conducted at separate campuses under a main campus. Because, the only reason they do it is to make their own numbers look bigger than they actually are. There's no other purpose for it than to inflate an ego.

UC system is a great example. You don't see Cal including all the research going on at UC-San Francisco under their own number. Likewise in other systems (Alabama and UAB, etc.).

yes all of these people commute from College Station

https://dallas.tamu.edu/faculty-and-staff/

http://weslaco.tamu.edu/directory/faculty/

http://amarillo.tamu.edu/facultystaff/

http://uvalde.tamu.edu/faculty/

http://overton.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/#.VVS7wpMXepo

http://elpaso.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/

and several other locations

that is why they all have desk, computers, phones, admin staff, offices, trucks, shop facilities, large greenhouse complexes, large lab buildings and on and on all with people that show up there every day.....because they actually are "part time" and out of College Station

and as for how universities are set up until recently no university in Texas had a medical school including Texas Tech that has the medical school right next door and most people would not even know they are different institutions

but Texas had different formula funding for universities VS medical schools so it made more sense from a formula funding stand point to have institutions apart from each other

even with A&M pulling all of their HSC under the main campus and UT-RGV getting a medical school and UT Austin getting a medical school others like UTSAHSC and UT TylerHSC, UTSW will remain apart from the universities in the same cities at least for now

so again there is no "rule" or "correct or incorrect" way to do it

and while Cal does not count UCSF....UC Davis counts their medical component and operations in Sacramento

just like others do.....it is not uncommon at all to do so

Texas A&M has an agriculture extension service. The extension service employees professors who work full-time in the field, at various sites. You have proven that.

What you haven't proven is that grants those professors are awarded are counted in College Station's research number. They shouldn't be, in my opinion.


Likewise, life sciences research done at field sites, clearly separated from the main campus, should not be counted under the main campus research number.


I never claimed that it doesn't happen. I am claiming that the correct way is to only count research that actually happens at the main campus under the main campus number.



Hence, if you take away the life sciences research component from the number being claimed by Norman - which I assume over 90% of it actually happens in Oklahoma City - then you're left with a substantially smaller number for Norman. Not one worthy of the AAU, in my opinion.

There are probably other criteria that the AAU look at. I won't claim to be an expert in that. But there are certainly higher schools up the list than Norman, such as VT and Utah.

(05-14-2015 10:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Research rankings aren't a proxy. They are the objective numbers.

Why are you so desperate to avoid having to admit you were wrong?


Look, I'll give you a pass this time. Just admit that in post #27, instead of saying:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research ...",

what you should have said was:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that do not have high ranking reputations for undergraduate education but have high rankings on research expenditures. And there are schools that have vice-versa."


That would've been a correct statement. But you tried to spin it as objective and I slammed the cookie jar lid down on your hand.

If your standard is that admissions numbers aren't objective, then no numbers are objective. Your entire argument is based on a sophomoric perception of the world that is inconsistently distorted to support your contrarian view.

Research awards show a school's ability to attract research funding. They do not directly show a school's ability to perform high quality research. In all likelihood, the two numbers are extremely well correlated. But, at the end of the day, the total award dollars hinges on the sum of a bunch of decisions (i.e. the grants) that are based on a bunch of different people's (the guys who decide who gets how much) opinions about the quality of a bunch of different proposals.

Similarly, a school's ranking in many of the metrics that I named are based on the aggregate of a bunch of decisions (i.e. whether to accept an off or not) that are heavily based on a bunch of people's (prospective students) opinions as to the quality of a bunch of different academic departments.

Both numbers are based off of opinions. You cannot claim that one number is good and another number isn't. Similarly, once you go down your logical rabbit hole, you come out in the world of "there is no spoon." It's all high school-level philosophy. That is why your position is contradictory and sophomoric, making it purely contrarian.

Schools could be ranked by their admission percentage. That would be an objective ranking.

Likewise, schools can and are ranked by the research funding they pull in. That is also an objective ranking.


Where you failed was in trying to claim that admission percentage was equivalent to "well-educatedness". Patently absurd.

(05-14-2015 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Cornell actually operates a significant (albeit very much a minority) portion of its med school in Qatar.

they had some operations in the Texas Medical Center in Houston as well and may still have them there

Really? I didn't know that. I used to live in Houston. Where in the Med Center? Also, how current is your information?

It makes sense, though. I know TAMU, Baylor (until they had to divest to partner with UTexas), UTexas, Rice, Tulane (I think), a smaller local school (something Baptist maybe), and I think LSU all have facilities there. It actually amazes me that more don't. It has to be a gold mine in terms of attracting high quality talent.

(05-14-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Research rankings aren't a proxy. They are the objective numbers.

Why are you so desperate to avoid having to admit you were wrong?


Look, I'll give you a pass this time. Just admit that in post #27, instead of saying:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research ...",

what you should have said was:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that do not have high ranking reputations for undergraduate education but have high rankings on research expenditures. And there are schools that have vice-versa."


That would've been a correct statement. But you tried to spin it as objective and I slammed the cookie jar lid down on your hand.

If your standard is that admissions numbers aren't objective, then no numbers are objective. Your entire argument is based on a sophomoric perception of the world that is inconsistently distorted to support your contrarian view.

Research awards show a school's ability to attract research funding. They do not directly show a school's ability to perform high quality research. In all likelihood, the two numbers are extremely well correlated. But, at the end of the day, the total award dollars hinges on the sum of a bunch of decisions (i.e. the grants) that are based on a bunch of different people's (the guys who decide who gets how much) opinions about the quality of a bunch of different proposals.

Similarly, a school's ranking in many of the metrics that I named are based on the aggregate of a bunch of decisions (i.e. whether to accept an off or not) that are heavily based on a bunch of people's (prospective students) opinions as to the quality of a bunch of different academic departments.

Both numbers are based off of opinions. You cannot claim that one number is good and another number isn't. Similarly, once you go down your logical rabbit hole, you come out in the world of "there is no spoon." It's all high school-level philosophy. That is why your position is contradictory and sophomoric, making it purely contrarian.

Schools could be ranked by their admission percentage. That would be an objective ranking.

Likewise, schools can and are ranked by the research funding they pull in. That is also an objective ranking.


Where you failed was in trying to claim that admission percentage was equivalent to "well-educatedness". Patently absurd.

No. Those two metrics are both seemingly objective rankings that are actually subjective. At the end of the day, they are both based on people's opinions. They are proxies. If you buy one, you *have* to buy the argument that proxies can be used in rankings.

And, I said "admissions selectivity," not "admission percentage." And no, I said that "admissions selectivity" is a strong proxy for a school's academic reputation, which is a strong proxy for its ability to educate students.

Claiming that admissions selectivity (amongst other factors, like a school's reputation as per USNWR and peer rankings) is not highly correlated to schools' reputations is a HUGE stretch. Additionally, claiming that there is not a high correlation between schools' reputations and their ability to educate students is also a HUGE stretch. By definition, most people agree with my second statement, and almost by definition, my first statement is true (it's almost a logical truth). As such, you have the burden of proof.

(05-14-2015 10:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Research rankings aren't a proxy. They are the objective numbers.

Why are you so desperate to avoid having to admit you were wrong?


Look, I'll give you a pass this time. Just admit that in post #27, instead of saying:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research ...",

what you should have said was:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that do not have high ranking reputations for undergraduate education but have high rankings on research expenditures. And there are schools that have vice-versa."


That would've been a correct statement. But you tried to spin it as objective and I slammed the cookie jar lid down on your hand.

If your standard is that admissions numbers aren't objective, then no numbers are objective. Your entire argument is based on a sophomoric perception of the world that is inconsistently distorted to support your contrarian view.

Research awards show a school's ability to attract research funding. They do not directly show a school's ability to perform high quality research. In all likelihood, the two numbers are extremely well correlated. But, at the end of the day, the total award dollars hinges on the sum of a bunch of decisions (i.e. the grants) that are based on a bunch of different people's (the guys who decide who gets how much) opinions about the quality of a bunch of different proposals.

Similarly, a school's ranking in many of the metrics that I named are based on the aggregate of a bunch of decisions (i.e. whether to accept an off or not) that are heavily based on a bunch of people's (prospective students) opinions as to the quality of a bunch of different academic departments.

Both numbers are based off of opinions. You cannot claim that one number is good and another number isn't. Similarly, once you go down your logical rabbit hole, you come out in the world of "there is no spoon." It's all high school-level philosophy. That is why your position is contradictory and sophomoric, making it purely contrarian.

Schools could be ranked by their admission percentage. That would be an objective ranking.

Likewise, schools can and are ranked by the research funding they pull in. That is also an objective ranking.


Where you failed was in trying to claim that admission percentage was equivalent to "well-educatedness". Patently absurd.

No. Those two metrics are both seemingly objective rankings that are actually subjective. At the end of the day, they are both based on people's opinions. They are proxies. If you buy one, you *have* to buy the argument that proxies can be used in rankings.

And, I said "admissions selectivity," not "admission percentage." And no, I said that "admissions selectivity" is a strong proxy for a school's academic reputation, which is a strong proxy for its ability to educate students.

Claiming that admissions selectivity (amongst other factors, like a school's reputation as per USNWR and peer rankings) is not highly correlated to schools' reputations is a HUGE stretch. Additionally, claiming that there is not a high correlation between schools' reputations and their ability to educate students is also a HUGE stretch. By definition, most people agree with my second statement, and almost by definition, my first statement is true (it's almost a logical truth). As such, you have the burden of proof.

Both of those numbers are entirely objective.

Reputation, peer rankings, are entirely subjective.

You'll go to any length to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Fine, have it your way. You were still wrong, though.

(05-14-2015 10:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Both of those numbers are entirely objective.

Reputation, peer rankings, are entirely subjective.

You'll go to any length to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Fine, have it your way. You were still wrong, though.

I honestly can't tell if you're joking or just terribly misinformed.

(05-14-2015 11:00 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Both of those numbers are entirely objective.

Reputation, peer rankings, are entirely subjective.

You'll go to any length to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Fine, have it your way. You were still wrong, though.

I honestly can't tell if you're joking or just terribly misinformed.

You're sitting there with a smashed hand. Pretzel fingers, from the cookie jar lid that I smashed into them.

And you have the gall to pretend like those aren't dried tears on your cheeks.


Whatever, man.

(05-14-2015 10:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Texas A&M has an agriculture extension service. The extension service employees professors who work full-time in the field, at various sites. You have proven that.

What you haven't proven is that grants those professors are awarded are counted in College Station's research number. They shouldn't be, in my opinion.


Likewise, life sciences research done at field sites, clearly separated from the main campus, should not be counted under the main campus research number.


I never claimed that it doesn't happen. I am claiming that the correct way is to only count research that actually happens at the main campus under the main campus number.



Hence, if you take away the life sciences research component from the number being claimed by Norman - which I assume over 90% of it actually happens in Oklahoma City - then you're left with a substantially smaller number for Norman. Not one worthy of the AAU, in my opinion.

There are probably other criteria that the AAU look at. I won't claim to be an expert in that. But there are certainly higher schools up the list than Norman, such as VT and Utah.

I know 100% for a fact the grants those faculty members pull n count for College Station and this is how it is done at the vast majority of land grant universities

to my knowledge only one state in the north east and the UC System do not do it this way

the state in the north east because their extension is a state agency not a part of a university and the UC System because all components of the UC System are land grant institutions because Davis and Riverside actually started as Berkeley extension centers and when they reorganized under the California plan they made all components of the UC System land grant components and the system office handles the research

and the reason the PROPER way to do it with faculty members under the main university is because those faculty members are considered full faculty of the main university and they have graduate students that are seeking degrees and those students need to have a faculty member that is a member of an accredited university that can grant a degree

also many extension faculty cooperate on large grant projects that involve many faculty both at the main campus and at extension centers

like watermelon field trials, vegetable trials, crop disease research, crop breeding research ect

it would be stupid to NOT administer them all under a single organization

just because YOU have some silly idea of how something should be done that does not mean others will pay that any mind or that it makes any sense (t doesn't) and the simple fact is anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the issues at hand realizes that universities have medical schools in different cities under the administration of the main campus in a different city and the vast majority of land grant universities have their research under a single campus because those faculty are faculty members of the main campus even if they do not go there but once a year or less

your fantasy and silly concepts of how something should be done are not consistent with reality....and no one is going to care about that other than telling yo that you are wrong and that it is common knowledge

(05-14-2015 10:44 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Cornell actually operates a significant (albeit very much a minority) portion of its med school in Qatar.

they had some operations in the Texas Medical Center in Houston as well and may still have them there

Really? I didn't know that. I used to live in Houston. Where in the Med Center? Also, how current is your information?

It makes sense, though. I know TAMU, Baylor (until they had to divest to partner with UTexas), UTexas, Rice, Tulane (I think), a smaller local school (something Baptist maybe), and I think LSU all have facilities there. It actually amazes me that more don't. It has to be a gold mine in terms of attracting high quality talent.

it started when Baylor College of Medicine stopped having their residents at Methodist because Baylor MC was building their own hospital

Cornell moved in to have residents at Methodist

http://weill.cornell.edu/news/news/2013/...ogram.html

it goes back further than that, but that is an example of it

(05-14-2015 11:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:44 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:25 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Cornell actually operates a significant (albeit very much a minority) portion of its med school in Qatar.

they had some operations in the Texas Medical Center in Houston as well and may still have them there

Really? I didn't know that. I used to live in Houston. Where in the Med Center? Also, how current is your information?

It makes sense, though. I know TAMU, Baylor (until they had to divest to partner with UTexas), UTexas, Rice, Tulane (I think), a smaller local school (something Baptist maybe), and I think LSU all have facilities there. It actually amazes me that more don't. It has to be a gold mine in terms of attracting high quality talent.

it started when Baylor College of Medicine stopped having their residents at Methodist because Baylor MC was building their own hospital

Cornell moved in to have residents at Methodist

http://weill.cornell.edu/news/news/2013/...ogram.html

it goes back further than that, but that is an example of it

Cool. Thanks for the heads up.

(05-14-2015 11:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Texas A&M has an agriculture extension service. The extension service employees professors who work full-time in the field, at various sites. You have proven that.

What you haven't proven is that grants those professors are awarded are counted in College Station's research number. They shouldn't be, in my opinion.


Likewise, life sciences research done at field sites, clearly separated from the main campus, should not be counted under the main campus research number.


I never claimed that it doesn't happen. I am claiming that the correct way is to only count research that actually happens at the main campus under the main campus number.



Hence, if you take away the life sciences research component from the number being claimed by Norman - which I assume over 90% of it actually happens in Oklahoma City - then you're left with a substantially smaller number for Norman. Not one worthy of the AAU, in my opinion.

There are probably other criteria that the AAU look at. I won't claim to be an expert in that. But there are certainly higher schools up the list than Norman, such as VT and Utah.

I know 100% for a fact the grants those faculty members pull n count for College Station and this is how it is done at the vast majority of land grant universities

to my knowledge only one state in the north east and the UC System do not do it this way

the state in the north east because their extension is a state agency not a part of a university and the UC System because all components of the UC System are land grant institutions because Davis and Riverside actually started as Berkeley extension centers and when they reorganized under the California plan they made all components of the UC System land grant components and the system office handles the research

and the reason the PROPER way to do it with faculty members under the main university is because those faculty members are considered full faculty of the main university and they have graduate students that are seeking degrees and those students need to have a faculty member that is a member of an accredited university that can grant a degree

also many extension faculty cooperate on large grant projects that involve many faculty both at the main campus and at extension centers

like watermelon field trials, vegetable trials, crop disease research, crop breeding research ect

it would be stupid to NOT administer them all under a single organization

just because YOU have some silly idea of how something should be done that does not mean others will pay that any mind or that it makes any sense (t doesn't) and the simple fact is anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the issues at hand realizes that universities have medical schools in different cities under the administration of the main campus in a different city and the vast majority of land grant universities have their research under a single campus because those faculty are faculty members of the main campus even if they do not go there but once a year or less

your fantasy and silly concepts of how something should be done are not consistent with reality....and no one is going to care about that other than telling yo that you are wrong and that it is common knowledge

Again, I never claimed it was a bad idea to consolidate operations. I think that's fine.

It's wrong to count research being performed mainly off-site under the main campus number. Simple as that.

(05-14-2015 10:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Research rankings aren't a proxy. They are the objective numbers.

Why are you so desperate to avoid having to admit you were wrong?


Look, I'll give you a pass this time. Just admit that in post #27, instead of saying:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research ...",

what you should have said was:

"There are schools, including AAU members, that do not have high ranking reputations for undergraduate education but have high rankings on research expenditures. And there are schools that have vice-versa."


That would've been a correct statement. But you tried to spin it as objective and I slammed the cookie jar lid down on your hand.

If your standard is that admissions numbers aren't objective, then no numbers are objective. Your entire argument is based on a sophomoric perception of the world that is inconsistently distorted to support your contrarian view.

Research awards show a school's ability to attract research funding. They do not directly show a school's ability to perform high quality research. In all likelihood, the two numbers are extremely well correlated. But, at the end of the day, the total award dollars hinges on the sum of a bunch of decisions (i.e. the grants) that are based on a bunch of different people's (the guys who decide who gets how much) opinions about the quality of a bunch of different proposals.

Similarly, a school's ranking in many of the metrics that I named are based on the aggregate of a bunch of decisions (i.e. whether to accept an off or not) that are heavily based on a bunch of people's (prospective students) opinions as to the quality of a bunch of different academic departments.

Both numbers are based off of opinions. You cannot claim that one number is good and another number isn't. Similarly, once you go down your logical rabbit hole, you come out in the world of "there is no spoon." It's all high school-level philosophy. That is why your position is contradictory and sophomoric, making it purely contrarian.

Schools could be ranked by their admission percentage. That would be an objective ranking.

Likewise, schools can and are ranked by the research funding they pull in. That is also an objective ranking.


Where you failed was in trying to claim that admission percentage was equivalent to "well-educatedness". Patently absurd.

No. Those two metrics are both seemingly objective rankings that are actually subjective. At the end of the day, they are both based on people's opinions. They are proxies. If you buy one, you *have* to buy the argument that proxies can be used in rankings.

And, I said "admissions selectivity," not "admission percentage." And no, I said that "admissions selectivity" is a strong proxy for a school's academic reputation, which is a strong proxy for its ability to educate students.

Claiming that admissions selectivity (amongst other factors, like a school's reputation as per USNWR and peer rankings) is not highly correlated to schools' reputations is a HUGE stretch. Additionally, claiming that there is not a high correlation between schools' reputations and their ability to educate students is also a HUGE stretch. By definition, most people agree with my second statement, and almost by definition, my first statement is true (it's almost a logical truth). As such, you have the burden of proof.

Both of those numbers are entirely objective.

Reputation, peer rankings, are entirely subjective.

You'll go to any length to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Fine, have it your way. You were still wrong, though.

acceptance % is a totally and completely meaningless number period the end

anyone that does not understand that has no clue about basic % math and no clue about what acceptance % actually means or the factors that go into that number

acceptance % says nothing about the actual quality of the student it says a great deal more about the lack of quality of the students NOT admitted

the only way a university can lower their acceptance % is to increase the number of UNQUALIFIED applicants and that reflects in no way shape or form on the actual quality of the students that are admitted

because acceptance % totally and completely ignores the actual metrics of acceptance and it ignores completely the quality of metrics needed to gain acceptance relative to total applicants

one need only look at the acceptance % of the various universities in the US News rankings to see this is true and a clear fact

a university has no control over the total number of applicants and they have no control over the number of unqualified applicants

just because a university gets more applicants that does not mean it is a better university......and just because a university gets a larger % of unqualified applicants that does not mean they have higher entrance metrics

thus there is nothing that can be gleaned from acceptance % that says anything about the actual quality of a student admitted to a university or anything about the actual metrics for acceptance

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...asc&page=1

if one sorts those schools (or does the same in any state) they will see that schools that have nowhere near the same admissions requirements or difficulty to gain admissions have lower acceptance %s than others with much more difficult entrance metrics

for example Cal Ploy SLO is a very good university.....but UCSD is a leader in the USA as are UC Riverside, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbera and UC Davis.....Long Beach State is a good school as well....but it is not UCSD, UCR, Irvine, Santa Barbera or Davis

any student that would be admitted to UCSD, UCR, UCSB, Irvine or UC Davis would easily be admitted to Cal Poly SLO or Long Beach State

yet both Cal Ploy SLO and Long Beach State have a lower acceptance %

in fact the way the system is set up it would be impossible to not get accepted to Cal Ploy SLO or Long Beach State if you were accepted to any UC school....you have to be in the top 9% of your HS class to even get a chance to a UC school at any location not so for CSU schools

plus one can go right to the source

http://admissions.calpoly.edu/prospectiv...le2014.pdf

http://admission.universityofcalifornia....n-profile/

there is a comparison of the 2014 admissions for Cal Poly and UCSD and it is the 2014 freshman class that the US News would have used for the above acceptance % metrics

as one can see the US News can't even get the numbers right, but we have the numbers


UCSD freshman had an average GPA of 4.13.....Cal Ploy 3.98

UCSD SAT 651 + 699 = 1350.....Cal Ploy 1316 with no writing required while UCSD required it and students had an average of 668

UCSB ACT 30......Cal Ploy 29

UCSD admissions % stated right there 33.4%

and they have the raw numbers 73,454 applicants and 24,528 admits and 24,528/73,454 = .3339 just like they show

then we have Cal Ploy SLO

they do not list the %, but they have applicants and accepted

43,819 applied and 13,540 accepted

13,540/43,819 = .30899 or 30.9%

so UCSD admitted more students that had a higher metric across the board that would have been in the top 9% of their high school class

UCSD had the higher GPA by .15 with over a 4.0

UCSD had the higher ACT by 1

UCSD had the higher SAT by 34 and UCSD required the writing portion as well

yet Cal Ploy had a 30.9% acceptance rate while UCSD has 33.4%......of a more qualified student body by several measures

acceptance % is a totally and completely meaningless number

(05-14-2015 11:58 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  If your standard is that admissions numbers aren't objective, then no numbers are objective. Your entire argument is based on a sophomoric perception of the world that is inconsistently distorted to support your contrarian view.

Research awards show a school's ability to attract research funding. They do not directly show a school's ability to perform high quality research. In all likelihood, the two numbers are extremely well correlated. But, at the end of the day, the total award dollars hinges on the sum of a bunch of decisions (i.e. the grants) that are based on a bunch of different people's (the guys who decide who gets how much) opinions about the quality of a bunch of different proposals.

Similarly, a school's ranking in many of the metrics that I named are based on the aggregate of a bunch of decisions (i.e. whether to accept an off or not) that are heavily based on a bunch of people's (prospective students) opinions as to the quality of a bunch of different academic departments.

Both numbers are based off of opinions. You cannot claim that one number is good and another number isn't. Similarly, once you go down your logical rabbit hole, you come out in the world of "there is no spoon." It's all high school-level philosophy. That is why your position is contradictory and sophomoric, making it purely contrarian.

Schools could be ranked by their admission percentage. That would be an objective ranking.

Likewise, schools can and are ranked by the research funding they pull in. That is also an objective ranking.


Where you failed was in trying to claim that admission percentage was equivalent to "well-educatedness". Patently absurd.

No. Those two metrics are both seemingly objective rankings that are actually subjective. At the end of the day, they are both based on people's opinions. They are proxies. If you buy one, you *have* to buy the argument that proxies can be used in rankings.

And, I said "admissions selectivity," not "admission percentage." And no, I said that "admissions selectivity" is a strong proxy for a school's academic reputation, which is a strong proxy for its ability to educate students.

Claiming that admissions selectivity (amongst other factors, like a school's reputation as per USNWR and peer rankings) is not highly correlated to schools' reputations is a HUGE stretch. Additionally, claiming that there is not a high correlation between schools' reputations and their ability to educate students is also a HUGE stretch. By definition, most people agree with my second statement, and almost by definition, my first statement is true (it's almost a logical truth). As such, you have the burden of proof.

Both of those numbers are entirely objective.

Reputation, peer rankings, are entirely subjective.

You'll go to any length to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Fine, have it your way. You were still wrong, though.

acceptance % is a totally and completely meaningless number period the end

anyone that does not understand that has no clue about basic % math and no clue about what acceptance % actually means or the factors that go into that number

acceptance % says nothing about the actual quality of the student it says a great deal more about the lack of quality of the students NOT admitted

the only way a university can lower their acceptance % is to increase the number of UNQUALIFIED applicants and that reflects in no way shape or form on the actual quality of the students that are admitted

because acceptance % totally and completely ignores the actual metrics of acceptance and it ignores completely the quality of metrics needed to gain acceptance relative to total applicants

one need only look at the acceptance % of the various universities in the US News rankings to see this is true and a clear fact

a university has no control over the total number of applicants and they have no control over the number of unqualified applicants

just because a university gets more applicants that does not mean it is a better university......and just because a university gets a larger % of unqualified applicants that does not mean they have higher entrance metrics

thus there is nothing that can be gleaned from acceptance % that says anything about the actual quality of a student admitted to a university or anything about the actual metrics for acceptance

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...asc&page=1

if one sorts those schools (or does the same in any state) they will see that schools that have nowhere near the same admissions requirements or difficulty to gain admissions have lower acceptance %s than others with much more difficult entrance metrics

for example Cal Ploy SLO is a very good university.....but UCSD is a leader in the USA as are UC Riverside, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbera and UC Davis.....Long Beach State is a good school as well....but it is not UCSD, UCR, Irvine, Santa Barbera or Davis

any student that would be admitted to UCSD, UCR, UCSB, Irvine or UC Davis would easily be admitted to Cal Poly SLO or Long Beach State

yet both Cal Ploy SLO and Long Beach State have a lower acceptance %

in fact the way the system is set up it would be impossible to not get accepted to Cal Ploy SLO or Long Beach State if you were accepted to any UC school....you have to be in the top 9% of your HS class to even get a chance to a UC school at any location not so for CSU schools

plus one can go right to the source

http://admissions.calpoly.edu/prospectiv...le2014.pdf

http://admission.universityofcalifornia....n-profile/

there is a comparison of the 2014 admissions for Cal Poly and UCSD and it is the 2014 freshman class that the US News would have used for the above acceptance % metrics

as one can see the US News can't even get the numbers right, but we have the numbers


UCSD freshman had an average GPA of 4.13.....Cal Ploy 3.98

UCSD SAT 651 + 699 = 1350.....Cal Ploy 1316 with no writing required while UCSD required it and students had an average of 668

UCSB ACT 30......Cal Ploy 29

UCSD admissions % stated right there 33.4%

and they have the raw numbers 73,454 applicants and 24,528 admits and 24,528/73,454 = .3339 just like they show

then we have Cal Ploy SLO

they do not list the %, but they have applicants and accepted

43,819 applied and 13,540 accepted

13,540/43,819 = .30899 or 30.9%

so UCSD admitted more students that had a higher metric across the board that would have been in the top 9% of their high school class

UCSD had the higher GPA by .15 with over a 4.0

UCSD had the higher ACT by 1

UCSD had the higher SAT by 34 and UCSD required the writing portion as well

yet Cal Ploy had a 30.9% acceptance rate while UCSD has 33.4%......of a more qualified student body by several measures

acceptance % is a totally and completely meaningless number

Absolutely agreed.

It's touted by those whose number is favorable. Discarded by the rest.


I think it's one of those Eastern elitism things.