http://review.chicagobooth.edu/public-po...e-research


Been reading this, and it looks like a winning football team helps have alum and others to donate money to the schools. This could explain why Boise State have jumped up there in research in a short amount of time. I used Boise State as an example because of the impact of their academics growing, student population and the winning football team that draws national attention.

(09-16-2016 06:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  http://review.chicagobooth.edu/public-po...e-research


Been reading this, and it looks like a winning football team helps have alum and others to donate money to the schools. This could explain why Boise State have jumped up there in research in a short amount of time. I used Boise State as an example because of the impact of their academics growing, student population and the winning football team that draws national attention.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...&o=n&s=a#U

Boise St went from $9,168 in research funding in 2005 to $26,568 in 2014.

UMass Boston went from $19,418 in research funding in 2005 to $61,186 in 2014.

I guess just building new science and engineering center still works. I used UMass Boston as an example because they don't play football.

(09-16-2016 07:10 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...&o=n&s=a#U

Boise St went from $9,168 in research funding in 2005 to $26,568 in 2014.

UMass Boston went from $19,418 in research funding in 2005 to $61,186 in 2014.

I guess just building new science and engineering center still works. I used UMass Boston as an example because they don't play football.

Wow, that's a larger percentage increase! I guess that NOT having any scholarship teams is even better!

Those figures are in thousands, by the way. So $26.5M and $61.2M.

Bogus thread title -- look no further than the OP. No point in discussing this.

(09-16-2016 09:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Those figures are in thousands, by the way. So $26.5M and $61.2M.

Bogus thread title -- look no further than the OP. No point in discussing this.

It is not a bogus thread title. That is the same title this research studied used.

UAT's football/research ratio pretty thoroughly destroys that thesis.

(09-16-2016 02:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 09:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Those figures are in thousands, by the way. So $26.5M and $61.2M.

Bogus thread title -- look no further than the OP. No point in discussing this.

It is not a bogus thread title. That is the same title this research studied used.

"Research study" is a HUGE stretch. You could drive an aircraft carrier through the holes in their assumptions. Their selection of institutions suggest fairly profound bias. It certainly isn't random (38 P5 schools plus BYU and Boise State). Honestly most grad students produce better work.

Most importantly, even their results show zero impact on federal or private foundation research support, and that is the name of the game. Completely ignored is that internal institutional research funding is also largely done to bridge funding gaps in labs that have external funding dry spells or for start-up packages or exploratory studies...all of which aim to restore or increase external funding obligations and none of that was impacted.

/thread