This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

By the way, these numbers just came out in November. So these are the latest numbers available.

I had been posting the FY13 numbers, previously. If I ever get some time, I'd like to analyze the major differences (if there are any) from FY13 to FY14.

(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

Shows why everyone wants a medical school.

Texas is 34th on the list. Excluding life sciences (primarily medical school), they are 8th. UC-San Francisco and UT MD Anderson Cancer Center are high on the list just being medical institutions.

(12-03-2015 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

Shows why everyone wants a medical school.

Texas is 34th on the list. Excluding life sciences (primarily medical school), they are 8th. UC-San Francisco and UT MD Anderson Cancer Center are high on the list just being medical institutions.

And this reflects the nature of federal funding. Big, big bucks in health. Less in others.

NSF is the only agency that really care about scientific and mathematical knowledge.

The rest, particularly DoD and NIH want technology, yesterday, if they fund something.

Johns Hopkins is a powerhouse!

Cornell to the Big Ten.

(12-03-2015 01:51 PM)chess Wrote:  Johns Hopkins is a powerhouse!

That's bogus. They fold in more than 50% of that number from a separate entity.

That said, they're still top 10 without the APL. Nothing to sneeze at, certainly.

(12-03-2015 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

Shows why everyone wants a medical school.

Texas is 34th on the list. Excluding life sciences (primarily medical school), they are 8th. UC-San Francisco and UT MD Anderson Cancer Center are high on the list just being medical institutions.

Good point. Life sciences are important, but shouldn't receive 56% of the weight in a ranking system. If you rerank and exclude life sciences, here's the movement of top-75 G5 schools:

USF moves from #41 to #43
UAB moves from #48 to #170
Cincinnati moves from #49 to #99
Buffalo moves from #56 to #55
Hawai'i moves from #70 to #40
IUPUI moves from #71 to #154
Colorado State moves from #75 to #44
UCF moves from #105 to #51
Houston moves from #126 to #74
Rice moves from #128 to #68

Probably the right thing to do if you're ranking this is to count life sciences as 1/4 of the value they currently have and leave everything else alone.

IUPUI should be counted as part of Indiana - a lot of IU profs go back and forth between the two, particularly for the med school. I think there's some others that work that way too.

(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

That's all sources.

Here's the federal research list

There's not a lot of difference, but occasionally there is a huge disparity. For example, Texas Tech drops from a ranking of 119 on the All Source research list to 172 on the Federal research list.

Since Federal grants must be awarded, most academics use the Federal Source list for an apples to apples comparison of universities.

The All Source list is a bit of the Wild Wild West where institutions self-define their "research and development" numbers in some cases.

Excluding Life Sciences, here are G5 schools in the Federal Source Top 100:

31 Hawaii
35 Colo St
50 Utah St
55 Buffalo
59 UMass
63 South Florida
67 New Mexico St
69 Rice
73 New Mexico
77 Central Florida
82 UConn
90 Florida International
91 Houston

P5 schools outside the Federal Source Top 100 (excluding Life Sciences)
Georgia
West Virgina
Auburn
Kansas St
Missouri
Texas Tech
Syracuse
Alabama
Oklahoma St
Boston College
Louisville
Arkansas
TCU
Wake Forest
Baylor

(12-04-2015 07:13 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

That's all sources.

Here's the federal research list

There's not a lot of difference, but occasionally there is a huge disparity. For example, Texas Tech drops from a ranking of 119 on the All Source research list to 172 on the Federal research list.

Since Federal grants must be awarded, most academics use the Federal Source list for an apples to apples comparison of universities.

The All Source list is a bit of the Wild Wild West where institutions self-define their "research and development" numbers in some cases.

Excluding Life Sciences, here are G5 schools in the Federal Source Top 100:

31 Hawaii
35 Colo St
50 Utah St
55 Buffalo
59 UMass
63 South Florida
67 New Mexico St
69 Rice
73 New Mexico
77 Central Florida
82 UConn
90 Florida International
91 Houston

P5 schools outside the Federal Source Top 100 (excluding Life Sciences)
Georgia
West Virgina
Auburn
Kansas St
Missouri
Texas Tech
Syracuse
Alabama
Oklahoma St
Boston College
Louisville
Arkansas
TCU
Wake Forest
Baylor

I agree about going off the federal list.

But that also includes the following types of schools:

- DI-AAA (no football)
- DII
- DIII
- NAIA
- no athletics
- even some institutions that don't even have undergraduate students


Again, if I ever get some time I'd like to download the spreadsheet version and start adding labels, then filtering. Just for fun.

(12-04-2015 07:13 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

That's all sources.

Here's the federal research list

There's not a lot of difference, but occasionally there is a huge disparity. For example, Texas Tech drops from a ranking of 119 on the All Source research list to 172 on the Federal research list.

Since Federal grants must be awarded, most academics use the Federal Source list for an apples to apples comparison of universities.

The All Source list is a bit of the Wild Wild West where institutions self-define their "research and development" numbers in some cases.

Excluding Life Sciences, here are G5 schools in the Federal Source Top 100:

31 Hawaii
35 Colo St
50 Utah St
55 Buffalo
59 UMass
63 South Florida
67 New Mexico St
69 Rice
73 New Mexico
77 Central Florida
82 UConn
90 Florida International
91 Houston

P5 schools outside the Federal Source Top 100 (excluding Life Sciences)
Georgia
West Virgina
Auburn
Kansas St
Missouri
Texas Tech
Syracuse
Alabama
Oklahoma St
Boston College
Louisville
Arkansas
TCU
Wake Forest
Baylor

leave it to a UH fan to be so dense they "coog it" on the point they are trying to make

1. all grants are "awarded" I believe the INCORRECT point you are trying to make is that all federal grants are competitively awarded (coog it #1)

2. "coog it" #2 is the fact that not all federal grants are competitively awarded which is why some federal dollars are excluded from consideration by the AAU like in the case of Nebraska and STATUTORILY awarded federal research dollars

3. "coog it" #3 is the fact that many private and state research grants are also competitively awarded and thus there is no reason to exclude them from consideration especially when trying to compare schools that have the access to compete for those same awards like two public universities in the same state

so if you are going to try and make a point even if you are going to be wrong about it at least try and state that point properly so it can be clear what you are wrongly saying and then at least try and have a point and be correct about it instead of being wrong in a number of ways

all the more so when discussing the education aspect of higher education

Hawaii is ranked first among MWC schools and ahead of both Oregon and Oregon State. And Norm Chow is no longer our football coach.

I think that pretty much closes the deal. Hawaii to the Pac-14!

(12-05-2015 02:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Hawaii is ranked first among MWC schools and ahead of both Oregon and Oregon State. And Norm Chow is no longer our football coach.

I think that pretty much closes the deal. Hawaii to the Pac-14!

And Colorado State is only $16,364 behind.

(12-05-2015 04:36 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 02:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Hawaii is ranked first among MWC schools and ahead of both Oregon and Oregon State. And Norm Chow is no longer our football coach.

I think that pretty much closes the deal. Hawaii to the Pac-14!

And Colorado State is only $16,364 behind.

Good point. Hawaii and Colorado State to the Pac-14!

(12-04-2015 07:13 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

That's all sources.

Here's the federal research list

There's not a lot of difference, but occasionally there is a huge disparity. For example, Texas Tech drops from a ranking of 119 on the All Source research list to 172 on the Federal research list.

Since Federal grants must be awarded, most academics use the Federal Source list for an apples to apples comparison of universities.

The All Source list is a bit of the Wild Wild West where institutions self-define their "research and development" numbers in some cases.

Excluding Life Sciences, here are G5 schools in the Federal Source Top 100:

31 Hawaii
35 Colo St
50 Utah St
55 Buffalo
59 UMass
63 South Florida
67 New Mexico St
69 Rice
73 New Mexico
77 Central Florida
82 UConn
90 Florida International
91 Houston

P5 schools outside the Federal Source Top 100 (excluding Life Sciences)
Georgia
West Virgina
Auburn
Kansas St
Missouri
Texas Tech
Syracuse
Alabama
Oklahoma St
Boston College
Louisville
Arkansas
TCU
Wake Forest
Baylor

That's really narrow. Why only look at federal funding? There's little good reason to exclude non-federal funding, and federal funding is only about half of all funding outside the life sciences.

And by the way, there's no good reason to exclude life sciences completely. It's extremely important - at my undergraduate institution I'd guess it accounted for 30% of students.

(12-05-2015 05:55 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 07:13 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  This might generate some discussion. I couldn't figure out where to put it so I'll put it here.

Table 19. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by R&D field: FY 2014
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html

That's all sources.

Here's the federal research list

There's not a lot of difference, but occasionally there is a huge disparity. For example, Texas Tech drops from a ranking of 119 on the All Source research list to 172 on the Federal research list.

Since Federal grants must be awarded, most academics use the Federal Source list for an apples to apples comparison of universities.

The All Source list is a bit of the Wild Wild West where institutions self-define their "research and development" numbers in some cases.

Excluding Life Sciences, here are G5 schools in the Federal Source Top 100:

31 Hawaii
35 Colo St
50 Utah St
55 Buffalo
59 UMass
63 South Florida
67 New Mexico St
69 Rice
73 New Mexico
77 Central Florida
82 UConn
90 Florida International
91 Houston

P5 schools outside the Federal Source Top 100 (excluding Life Sciences)
Georgia
West Virgina
Auburn
Kansas St
Missouri
Texas Tech
Syracuse
Alabama
Oklahoma St
Boston College
Louisville
Arkansas
TCU
Wake Forest
Baylor

That's really narrow. Why only look at federal funding? There's little good reason to exclude non-federal funding, and federal funding is only about half of all funding outside the life sciences.

And by the way, there's no good reason to exclude life sciences completely. It's extremely important - at my undergraduate institution I'd guess it accounted for 30% of students.

There are two very good reasons to exclude both types, if you're trying to get an apples to apples ranking of all the top schools.

1) not all schools have extensive life sciences research programs. Although many of the top schools do. So comparing a school like Georgia Tech to a school like Duke isn't really apples to apples.

2) consider the sources of non-federal funds: state/local government funding and corporate funding. While these may not be insignificant amounts of funds, these are often not competitively awarded.

For example, why the state of Nebraska give millions of dollars to the University of Kansas for research?

Or why would General Mills partner with the University of Wisconsin for a research project?