(08-06-2015 03:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I doubt that collaboration between labs at different B1G schools is limited to within the B1G.

And anybody suggesting that the benefits of the CIC only exist if collaboration is restricted to institutions in the CIC would be creating a straw man argument.

The highest status grants are the competitive grants, and if you can't grasp the fact that any advantage in chasing after competitive grants is valued by researchers, you are just going to continue to be baffled by part of the university side of things.

What about thisSoutheastern Conference Academic Consortium

It's fairly new but with TAMU and Mizzou there are more AAU's in the SEC than currently in the Big 12.

The CIC is not the only game in town.

Addition: There is also this: http://secsymposium.com/

My $0.02...

The CIC is kind of like a glorified library card. It does facilitate the sharing of resources but there is no sharing of money. It adds a degree of prestige that is frequently overblown in forums such as these. As an ACC guy, I'm completely comfortable that our academic prestige stands up to anyone, including the B1G and their vaunted and flaunted CIC. Does anyone realize how many judges have degrees from Wake Forest? UNC, UVa, Duke, GT, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse and BC have incredible reputations as institutes of higher learning. NCSU, Clemson and VT are top notch land grant universities.

I work for a fairly prestigious, mid sized engineering firm and our CEO takes great delight in hiring Clemson graduates. We also recruit at Auburn, Purdue, Missouri-Rolla, Murray State (also known as "engineering physics U" - crazy smart students coming out of this school) and a host of others. We don't recruit at many B1G schools, partially because of geography (we're in the southeast), but also because we're thriving with our current recruiting base.

The point is that while the CIC is seen as a feather in the cap of the B1G, I highly doubt that it makes many other schools insecure from an academic perspective.

(08-07-2015 06:33 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  My $0.02...

The CIC is kind of like a glorified library card. It does facilitate the sharing of resources but there is no sharing of money. It adds a degree of prestige that is frequently overblown in forums such as these. As an ACC guy, I'm completely comfortable that our academic prestige stands up to anyone, including the B1G and their vaunted and flaunted CIC. Does anyone realize how many judges have degrees from Wake Forest? UNC, UVa, Duke, GT, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse and BC have incredible reputations as institutes of higher learning. NCSU, Clemson and VT are top notch land grant universities.

I work for a fairly prestigious, mid sized engineering firm and our CEO takes great delight in hiring Clemson graduates. We also recruit at Auburn, Purdue, Missouri-Rolla, Murray State (also known as "engineering physics U" - crazy smart students coming out of this school) and a host of others. We don't recruit at many B1G schools, partially because of geography (we're in the southeast), but also because we're thriving with our current recruiting base.

The point is that while the CIC is seen as a feather in the cap of the B1G, I highly doubt that it makes many other schools insecure from an academic perspective.

That's probably correct, for all meaningful intents and purposes.

I wouldn't even think of it as a library card. I'd think of it as knowing the secret password into the cigar room. It's a feather in the cap.

(08-06-2015 04:10 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-06-2015 03:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I doubt that collaboration between labs at different B1G schools is limited to within the B1G.

And anybody suggesting that the benefits of the CIC only exist if collaboration is restricted to institutions in the CIC would be creating a straw man argument.

The highest status grants are the competitive grants, and if you can't grasp the fact that any advantage in chasing after competitive grants is valued by researchers, you are just going to continue to be baffled by part of the university side of things.

Not sure why you quoted my post. You seem to be having a vigorous debate with someone else.

If I see anyone making the claims you mentioned, I'll be sure to let him/her know that you want to have a word.

CIC is a great group because of schools like Northwestern, Michigan, Illinois ad Wisconsin... not the other way around..

(08-07-2015 12:27 AM)Justme Wrote:  What about thisSoutheastern Conference Academic Consortium

It's fairly new but with TAMU and Mizzou there are more AAU's in the SEC than currently in the Big 12.

The CIC is not the only game in town.

Addition: There is also this: http://secsymposium.com/

This was more of a point to cool the academic arms on the move. Alot of Mizzou folks on the academic side were not happy about it. ( the SEC move instead of the B1G)

(08-07-2015 08:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 06:33 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  My $0.02...

The CIC is kind of like a glorified library card. It does facilitate the sharing of resources but there is no sharing of money. It adds a degree of prestige that is frequently overblown in forums such as these. As an ACC guy, I'm completely comfortable that our academic prestige stands up to anyone, including the B1G and their vaunted and flaunted CIC. Does anyone realize how many judges have degrees from Wake Forest? UNC, UVa, Duke, GT, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse and BC have incredible reputations as institutes of higher learning. NCSU, Clemson and VT are top notch land grant universities.

I work for a fairly prestigious, mid sized engineering firm and our CEO takes great delight in hiring Clemson graduates. We also recruit at Auburn, Purdue, Missouri-Rolla, Murray State (also known as "engineering physics U" - crazy smart students coming out of this school) and a host of others. We don't recruit at many B1G schools, partially because of geography (we're in the southeast), but also because we're thriving with our current recruiting base.

The point is that while the CIC is seen as a feather in the cap of the B1G, I highly doubt that it makes many other schools insecure from an academic perspective.

That's probably correct, for all meaningful intents and purposes.

I wouldn't even think of it as a library card. I'd think of it as knowing the secret password into the cigar room. It's a feather in the cap.

Very true. It's obviously a perk for the B1G, but I doubt any ACC presidents are shaking in their seersucker suits over not being a part of it.

This thread is 4 - 5 years too late. It has been beaten to death. The CIC is a veneer on the B1G conference. Real collaboration occurs amongst schools who have complementary assets to further research AND compete for those research dollars. These collaborations will cut across sports conferences and even across athletic divisions. For example, Pitt probably collaborates more with Carnegie Mellon than any other school on the planet. Pitt is in the ACC playing in a P5 conference and CMU's athletics are little more than glorified intramurals. Trying to claim that Michigan and Nebraska are now tied at the hip when it comes to research collaborations because of the CIC is pure bunk. Schools will collaborate with the best schools available regardless of conference affiliation or anything else. To attempt to link athletic conference affiliation to competitive research grants is ridiculous at best and pure hubris at worst.

(08-07-2015 08:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-06-2015 04:10 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-06-2015 03:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I doubt that collaboration between labs at different B1G schools is limited to within the B1G.

And anybody suggesting that the benefits of the CIC only exist if collaboration is restricted to institutions in the CIC would be creating a straw man argument.

The highest status grants are the competitive grants, and if you can't grasp the fact that any advantage in chasing after competitive grants is valued by researchers, you are just going to continue to be baffled by part of the university side of things.

Not sure why you quoted my post. You seem to be having a vigorous debate with someone else.

If I see anyone making the claims you mentioned, I'll be sure to let him/her know that you want to have a word.

I was drawing attention to the fact that "I doubt that collaboration between labs at different B1G schools is limited to within the B1G." is an irrelevant point in the real world, and would only be relevant if the benefits of the CIC only exist if collaboration is restricted to institutions in the CIC.

(08-10-2015 11:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 08:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-06-2015 04:10 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-06-2015 03:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I doubt that collaboration between labs at different B1G schools is limited to within the B1G.

And anybody suggesting that the benefits of the CIC only exist if collaboration is restricted to institutions in the CIC would be creating a straw man argument.

The highest status grants are the competitive grants, and if you can't grasp the fact that any advantage in chasing after competitive grants is valued by researchers, you are just going to continue to be baffled by part of the university side of things.

Not sure why you quoted my post. You seem to be having a vigorous debate with someone else.

If I see anyone making the claims you mentioned, I'll be sure to let him/her know that you want to have a word.

I was drawing attention to the fact that "I doubt that collaboration between labs at different B1G schools is limited to within the B1G." is an irrelevant point in the real world, and would only be relevant if the benefits of the CIC only exist if collaboration is restricted to institutions in the CIC.

No one has made such a point. Again, I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it isn't me.

I was responding to post #18.