Liberty makes big move academically in new college listing
February 4, 2016 : Liberty University News Service
Liberty University has moved up to the Doctoral Universities level in a recent listing from the Carnegie Foundation, placing it among only 335 universities in the country to receive the designation and further recognizing Liberty’s commitment to academic excellence.
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education serves as a national framework for classifying colleges and universities, primarily for educational and research purposes. The listings shape how more than 4,660 post-secondary institutions across the country are viewed by independent analysts, government officials, and academic groups. U.S. News & World Report relies on the classifications for its annual “Best Colleges” ranking; it is expected that U.S. News will now list Liberty as a “national university” rather than a “regional university.”
http://www.liberty.edu/news/?MID=182735
Only issue is if we move to the national rankings there is a good chance we will get RNP as a ranking. Still better than regional but if someone doesn't understand the difference they will think a numbered regional ranking is better tha a RNP national ranking.
(02-04-2016 06:21 PM)GE and MTS Wrote: [ -> ]Things like this are HUGE deals to me because these are the things that affect conference realignment.
Forbes Ranking: #639 http://www.forbes.com/colleges/liberty-university/
US News: #80-tied in the Regional (South) http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...sity-10392
I'm sure there are other ranking systems out there but it is encouraging to have Liberty potentially up their reputation. Soon there will be even less reasons to keep us out of FBS.
They are huge to me for the same reason. Plus the upgrade in my degree cred is important to me.
This is certainly good news for Liberty. It adds value to my degree. We need to keep the momentum moving forward. Add and improve the STEM programs. Develop our research capabilities. I'd also like to see LU add some A&M programs. Looking through the degree programs I was pleasantly surprised to see the "Trades" listed, i.e. carpentry, electrician, plumbing, welding, etc.
The model for trades eductaion is changing rather rapidly and moving away from degrees toward certification. Community colleges are reaping a huge benefit. There is a niche there but from a business perspective there are better returns on LU's investment dollars IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised to see us start partnering with business/industries for some research projects like have been discussed with the power gen plants ont he James River or even somethign nuclear with B&W. But we have chosen the path of being a teaching and not a research institution by design.
I read an article recently that Liberty may buy one of the local dams on the James River. I thought the same thing Sly.
(02-10-2016 10:01 AM)SlyFox Wrote: [ -> ]But we have chosen the path of being a teaching and not a research institution by design.
Now I'm not too experienced with the differences between the two so correct me if I am wrong: teaching schools focus on educating students on how to become "X" with their degree (accountant, biologist, stock market analyst, lawyer, nurse, etc.) while research schools focus on production, i.e. being awarded grants to perform studies and publish their findings.
Which leads me to my next question, why would Liberty (or any school) choose to be a teaching school rather than a research school? It appears to my admittedly limited view that research schools can get a ton of money from sources to fund things while teaching schools are rather less prestigious. Aren't the top colleges (Ivy League, Big Ten, Pac 12, some ACC) research schools? The more that I think about it, I guess much of the research money comes from the government and Liberty (and most privates by default) don't want to accept government money if strings are attached.
All fair questions. It is simply a philosophical difference between schools. Major research universities typically have grad students teaching much of the undergrad classes while the profs spend most of their time chasing grant money and working away from the student body. We are choosing to put our profs in the classroom with the students. It creates a better classroom experience for undergrad students but admitedly limits some of our postgrad programs. COM is a bit of a departure from that model and I suspect we will begin dabbling more in the research world. But Doc was very clear about the direction he wanted for the school with teaching emphasized and opportunities for all students regardless of their past track record. He was all about giving kids second chances to succeed even if they were lousy students at other schools.
Great, thanks for clearing that up! I am glad that we choose to use teachers to teach but in my opinion, we should be actively trying to increase our research capacity to increase our academic reputation and grow our graduate programs.
(02-11-2016 07:02 AM)GE and MTS Wrote: [ -> ]Great, thanks for clearing that up! I am glad that we choose to use teachers to teach but in my opinion, we should be actively trying to increase our research capacity to increase our academic reputation and grow our graduate programs.
I do think we are starting to do more research than before. In the LU quarterly magazine a issue or two ago they talked about the science department getting the equipment to map the human genome. I'm sure there is more but LU does seem to be headed in the research direction.
Since they only reclass schools every 5 years or so we should try to turn up the research and get that r2 status next time around. That would be ideal given LU's ambitions of becoming a national brand.
(02-10-2016 11:42 PM)SlyFox Wrote: [ -> ]All fair questions. It is simply a philosophical difference between schools. Major research universities typically have grad students teaching much of the undergrad classes while the profs spend most of their time chasing grant money and working away from the student body. We are choosing to put our profs in the classroom with the students. It creates a better classroom experience for undergrad students but admitedly limits some of our postgrad programs. COM is a bit of a departure from that model and I suspect we will begin dabbling more in the research world. But Doc was very clear about the direction he wanted for the school with teaching emphasized and opportunities for all students regardless of their past track record. He was all about giving kids second chances to succeed even if they were lousy students at other schools.
This really is the main difference...teaching professors vs research professors.
I remember a buddy at VT who claimed he didn't have a class taught by a professor until his Jr year. I kind of doubt that, but GA's do run most of the lower level courses.