(10-03-2022 05:59 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2022 03:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2022 01:44 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2022 12:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2022 12:16 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  This is a good article published by Paul Garrison of the East Village Times focusing on the academic benefits in conference realignment for SDSU, particularly in joining the Pac-12.

https://www.eastvillagetimes.com/the-bes...ore-ph-ds/

PhDs are researchers and professors. We don't need ever university to offer that. It is inefficient and a waste of resources. I think California has one of the better systems with its clear split of roles between the UCs and CSUs.

The way the UCs have become highly regarded and generated jobs with their research validates the approach. Splitting the pie more ways means fewer places have the critical mass. 7 of the 9 UCs are AAU, all but Riverside, founded in the 50s and the newest, UC-Merced.

California has one of the worst university systems in the country.

Not because of quality. Quality is fine.

However, quantity is sorely lacking. And this is a direct result of funnelling all the funding into a few highly ranked small schools.

The UC system is tiny for a state the size of California. The whole 10-campus UC system only has 226,000 undergraduates.

For comparison, this would be the equivalent of 59,790 students in North Carolina. Or 40,959 in Arizona (smaller than Arizona State OR Arizona). Or 28,776 in Alabama (smaller than Alabama & about the same size as Auburn).

Sure, there's a couple of elite CSU campuses too. But there's also a couple of non-elite UC campuses (such as Merced, Santa Cruz, and Riverside, which are more like MAC schools than Big Ten schools).


Meanwhile, California is one of the 10 worst states in the country for the percent of its students it exports to other states.


If you're looking for a system to emulate, I'd check out Virginia. Or Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, or Utah. Florida's model is worth looking at, too (basically every school aims to be huge & comprehensive).

Merced is brand new, 2005. Santa Cruz is AAU. 4 UC schools are in the top 5 public schools in the US per ARWU. 6 are rated in the top 100 in the world (top 39 in US) and UC Davis is 101-150 (tied for 40-54 in US). UC Santa Cruz is 151-200 (55-62 in US). Riverside is 201-300 (63-85 in US), well above any MAC school.

Georgia is not something to emulate. It has that duplication where everyone is trying to do the same thing. And yet you only have one medical school and its in Augusta and not connected to the two strong research universities.

7 UC schools are rather small but really elite.

The other 3 are not elite. Santa Cruz & Merced & Riverside have under $280 million endowments. That's MAC level.

Their annual R&D expenditures are $184 million (equivalent of West Virginia U or Montana State), $150 (equivalent of Wichita State or Alaska-Fairbanks), and $46 million (equivalent of Wright State or Portland State). That's slightly above MAC-level.

They have 26,800, 19,800, and 9,000 students. That's MAC-level.

They rank 396, 694, and 1183 worldwide in the Leiden research rankings. 694 is similar to Mississippi State or Utah State. Most MAC schools are in the top 1000.

They rank highly in US News because of their high selectivity. But those are inflated because they are in a state that discourages public universities from increasing enrollment. Therefore they don't have nearly enough enrollment to accommodate in-state demand. Further, CA's weather makes it a highly desirable location for wealthy single people to spend 4 years. Asa result, they get a ridiculous number of applications which artificially inflates their quality.



As for duplication, duplication is a good thing.

Duplication is otherwise known as competition.

Duplications is otherwise known as freedom of choice for consumers.

For some reason even the most die-in-the-wool capitalists seem to think that the education industry is better off with less competition. Make no mistake, coming from someone in higher ed: education is better when there's more competition, not less.

CA is the epitome of a lack of competition in higher ed: there's 2 systems, with almost zero room for innovation other than at the flagships (SDSU, Cal Poly, Berkeley, and UCLA)

The Leiden rankings go a long way to showing Ohio State's AAU blackball of you:

Just a select few:

15 Duke
18 Pitt
21 UNC
40 Tennessee
43 NC State
44 GT
46 ASU
47 Cincy
50 VT
51 UVa
55 UGa
59 UAB
60 UConn
62 Kenutcky
70 Mizzou
72 Kansas

(10-05-2022 02:18 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-03-2022 03:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  SDSU should consider joining the Big 12 instead of the Pac-12.

The long term survival of the Pac-12 is poor. It doesn't matter if the B1G manages to take Stanford, Washington, Oregon and maybe Cal this cycle or next cycle in seven years or so. The conference is going to shatter and lose it's power status. So you might as well focus on your eventual destination spot. Why go to the Pac-12 then have to be begging for a Big 12 spot in 2030 and maybe get passed over? A strategy of risk adversity says go Big 12 now.

The one hold back is that Arizona is their likely partner, and required for them to get an invite; but Arizona may not be ready to jump ship.

I'm not 100% sure if the Big 12 would take an Arizona/SDSU combo, especially if they think they'll be able to get the other 3 Four Corners teams later. (Which would mean that SDSU would use a spot that the Big 12 otherwise could have used on a Four Corners school, most likely Utah.)

Utah would likely view going to the B12 as a demotion. Again, one big reason why San Diego is popular is because of the SoCal recruiting. Personally, I don't think the PAC would allow the B12 to gain a foothold here, not unless the conference dissolves. And I don't see that happening for 4-5 years if ever.