(07-20-2016 12:58 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 12:52 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  The whole academic thing is one big ruse IMO

Nobody has any rocket scientists on their football and basketball teams

Lol no doubt. The B12 isn't banging down the door to get Yale to join.

Certainly not Yale. But also not Rice or Tulane - who would seem to be a great fit, if it was about academics.

Is it possible that the "academic" dialog, is code for demographics? Outsiders certainly take their shots at Memphis. Media and scholars will be more political about it - possibly disguising it at "academics".

(07-20-2016 04:22 PM)BadGolfer Wrote:  My original point was that he is judging these schools that could be considered similarly ranked to the school he went to. I feel that he is hypocritical and cocky when it has been unearned. If he went to Northwestern or Stanford, then his article would be much more acceptable in my view. His tone is what I felt was a little ridiculous. That was my point. I had an extremely minor point on the subjectivity of academic progress.

I understand your point with this. The original language just seemed like a simple brush-aside of Forde based on his school. In any case, feel free to pm me if you want to continue the conversation. That way 80sTiger can have his/her thread back.

To be honest we are not the greatest research university around. Something which we need to improve big 12 or not.

(07-20-2016 06:40 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  To be honest we are not the greatest research university around. Something which we need to improve big 12 or not.

The good news is that this is currently happening.

(07-20-2016 02:10 PM)BadGolfer Wrote:  It is interesting how people like Pat Forde point at schools and judge their academic prestige. He graduated from Missouri. While it is probably a fine institution, it isn't ranked inside the top 100 according to usnews. I am guessing he used usnews as his source for the rankings he tied to the various colleges reviewed. Put some relative rankings out and everyone gets IvyLeague. I doubt the Big X!! is looking at academic prestige in anything other than a footnote. Otherwise, they would be considering Rice. So while it makes him feel good to point out that these schools aren't the cream of the crop academically, neither is his alma mater.

Forde was is and always will be a Louisville guy and a Memphis hater. It's ingrained at this point

(07-20-2016 06:40 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  To be honest we are not the greatest research university around. Something which we need to improve big 12 or not.

Getting research grants are as much about perception of the University as it is about the "novelness" of the proposed work. The UofM is not a land grant university and thus does not get access to a special pool of money (like UTK, Tenn. St. Univ, Miss. St. Univ., Auburn, etc.). It turns out that not being in a Power 5 or having a medical school really puts a crimp on just how much you can do.

But there are things in our control at the state level. As the state funds more Tier 1 universities there is a subsequent increase in federal funding at the school. Right now, the only state funded Tier 1 in Tennessee is UTK. My gut says that UofM getting our own board is the State government laying the groundwork to bring up more state institutions to a Tier 1 level (UofM being the closest to that level on the list).

This is important because if the UofM can reach that level consistently (~$100 million in research expenditures) there is apparently a federal matching program that provides another $40 million as a match.

But getting there is an enormous undertaking. The UofM is at approximately $50 million - $55 million in external expenditures. In the early 2000's, the UofM was around $35 million - $40 million (IIRC). Building the infrastructure to get to a consistent $100 million per year in research is not something that can be done overnight.

(07-20-2016 02:51 PM)neillis Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 02:04 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 01:26 PM)neillis Wrote:  Cecil C. Humphreys has a horrible ranking. Its biggest selling point, the highest BPR in the State, isn't a selling point any more.

Why isn't that a selling point anymore? Is it not still the case or do people just not care about failing the bar exam?

People care. The rate dropped beyond the national average between 2013-2014 and fell again the next year. BPR used to be in the upper 90s.

Ouch. You're right that it used to be a big selling point for the law school. I wonder why it dropped like that. We used to always be higher than both Vandy and UT in bar pass rate.

(07-20-2016 04:53 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 12:58 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 12:52 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  The whole academic thing is one big ruse IMO

Nobody has any rocket scientists on their football and basketball teams

Lol no doubt. The B12 isn't banging down the door to get Yale to join.

Certainly not Yale. But also not Rice or Tulane - who would seem to be a great fit, if it was about academics.

There's a large logical gap between academics mattering and academics being the only thing that matter. Too many people (both Memphis apologists and not) seem to conflate the two.

(07-21-2016 05:30 PM)kabluey Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 04:53 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 12:58 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 12:52 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  The whole academic thing is one big ruse IMO

Nobody has any rocket scientists on their football and basketball teams

Lol no doubt. The B12 isn't banging down the door to get Yale to join.

Certainly not Yale. But also not Rice or Tulane - who would seem to be a great fit, if it was about academics.

There's a large logical gap between academics mattering and academics being the only thing that matter. Too many people (both Memphis apologists and not) seem to conflate the two.

So what value/priority do we assign to academics? That's the trick.

(07-21-2016 04:32 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 02:51 PM)neillis Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 02:04 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 01:26 PM)neillis Wrote:  Cecil C. Humphreys has a horrible ranking. Its biggest selling point, the highest BPR in the State, isn't a selling point any more.

Why isn't that a selling point anymore? Is it not still the case or do people just not care about failing the bar exam?

People care. The rate dropped beyond the national average between 2013-2014 and fell again the next year. BPR used to be in the upper 90s.

Ouch. You're right that it used to be a big selling point for the law school. I wonder why it dropped like that. We used to always be higher than both Vandy and UT in bar pass rate.

The problem is multifaceted and the reasons for why it has dropped can change depending on with whom you talk. The administration is addressing the problem and working to stem the decline. We will have a better idea of where we are this November.

(07-21-2016 12:16 PM)triplealumtiger Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 06:40 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  To be honest we are not the greatest research university around. Something which we need to improve big 12 or not.

Getting research grants are as much about perception of the University as it is about the "novelness" of the proposed work. The UofM is not a land grant university and thus does not get access to a special pool of money (like UTK, Tenn. St. Univ, Miss. St. Univ., Auburn, etc.). It turns out that not being in a Power 5 or having a medical school really puts a crimp on just how much you can do.

But there are things in our control at the state level. As the state funds more Tier 1 universities there is a subsequent increase in federal funding at the school. Right now, the only state funded Tier 1 in Tennessee is UTK. My gut says that UofM getting our own board is the State government laying the groundwork to bring up more state institutions to a Tier 1 level (UofM being the closest to that level on the list).

This is important because if the UofM can reach that level consistently (~$100 million in research expenditures) there is apparently a federal matching program that provides another $40 million as a match.

But getting there is an enormous undertaking. The UofM is at approximately $50 million - $55 million in external expenditures. In the early 2000's, the UofM was around $35 million - $40 million (IIRC). Building the infrastructure to get to a consistent $100 million per year in research is not something that can be done overnight.

26-55% for federal grants for UM. A Harvard may get as much as 65% on top of the grant amount. Depends on the type of grant and the federal department that issues the funds.

(07-21-2016 07:32 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 12:16 PM)triplealumtiger Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 06:40 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  To be honest we are not the greatest research university around. Something which we need to improve big 12 or not.

Getting research grants are as much about perception of the University as it is about the "novelness" of the proposed work. The UofM is not a land grant university and thus does not get access to a special pool of money (like UTK, Tenn. St. Univ, Miss. St. Univ., Auburn, etc.). It turns out that not being in a Power 5 or having a medical school really puts a crimp on just how much you can do.

But there are things in our control at the state level. As the state funds more Tier 1 universities there is a subsequent increase in federal funding at the school. Right now, the only state funded Tier 1 in Tennessee is UTK. My gut says that UofM getting our own board is the State government laying the groundwork to bring up more state institutions to a Tier 1 level (UofM being the closest to that level on the list).

This is important because if the UofM can reach that level consistently (~$100 million in research expenditures) there is apparently a federal matching program that provides another $40 million as a match.

But getting there is an enormous undertaking. The UofM is at approximately $50 million - $55 million in external expenditures. In the early 2000's, the UofM was around $35 million - $40 million (IIRC). Building the infrastructure to get to a consistent $100 million per year in research is not something that can be done overnight.

26-55% for federal grants for UM. A Harvard may get as much as 65% on top of the grant amount. Depends on the type of grant and the federal department that issues the funds.

Federal grants should all be in the ~45% range depending on year awarded, that is the negotiated Facilities and Admin costs . I know NSF, USDA, USEPA all include the facilities and overhead as part of the total award. NIH provides F&A and top of the award. I was referring to a different $40 mill from the Feds. But its semantics in some regards.

Either way - getting into the Big12 would dramatically improve our ability to get those funds both from a perception point of view and getting some of the academic funds used to subsidize sports back into the academic side. More pay/better equipment and facilities that generates a nice positive feedback loop.

I do think we have institutional leadership starting with Rudd that don't share the low expectations of the past. But we have only scratched the surface of the potential that we must pursue.

(07-22-2016 10:41 AM)kabluey Wrote:  I do think we have institutional leadership starting with Rudd that don't share the low expectations of the past. But we have only scratched the surface of the potential that we must pursue.

This absolutely. The other big difference is that the older professors who ended up doing mostly teaching (and other important administrative aspects) after tenure are beginning to retire. This is leading to a transition where more and more faculty are expected to do research. In the past, the researcher/teacher ration might have been 50/50 and its turning more into 80/20, and will end up at probably 90/10 or 95/5. As the ratio of researchers increases (as well as the expectations to bring in external money), the amount of external money brought into the University will also increase.

(07-21-2016 06:24 PM)neillis Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:32 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 02:51 PM)neillis Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 02:04 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(07-20-2016 01:26 PM)neillis Wrote:  Cecil C. Humphreys has a horrible ranking. Its biggest selling point, the highest BPR in the State, isn't a selling point any more.

Why isn't that a selling point anymore? Is it not still the case or do people just not care about failing the bar exam?

People care. The rate dropped beyond the national average between 2013-2014 and fell again the next year. BPR used to be in the upper 90s.

Ouch. You're right that it used to be a big selling point for the law school. I wonder why it dropped like that. We used to always be higher than both Vandy and UT in bar pass rate.

The problem is multifaceted and the reasons for why it has dropped can change depending on with whom you talk. The administration is addressing the problem and working to stem the decline. We will have a better idea of where we are this November.

True, and as a recent graduate I too am hoping (praying more like it) that the BPR is back in the 90% range in November...

(07-22-2016 01:26 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  True, and as a recent graduate I too am hoping (praying more like it) that the BPR is back in the 90% range in November...

How recent? Recent enough to have taken the bar class? I'm anxious to know more about it.

(07-22-2016 09:10 PM)neillis Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 01:26 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  True, and as a recent graduate I too am hoping (praying more like it) that the BPR is back in the 90% range in November...

How recent? Recent enough to have taken the bar class? I'm anxious to know more about it.

Yep, my class was the first to take it. Overall I think it is a good idea. It really is only beneficial if you want it to be because you can just half-ass it and still pass. Obviously they are not going to fail anybody because no 3L would ever take it. It's essentially just an abbreviated barbri lecture class which isn't bad but it def does not serve as a sub for a real bar prep summer course and to be fair admin was very clear it wasn't supposed to be that so no problem. I wish it were 3 hours vs 2 hours and that the class was a little more interactive but overall it helps a 3L begin to refocus on crap we hadn't thought about for 2 years. Plus a pass/fail class (that is probably never going to fail anybody) is always attractive to a second semester 3L.