Before this thread deteriorates into a stupid research p*ssing contest, I want to jump in and say "research has next to nothing to do with academics." There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research (i.e. to varying degrees, Williams, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, etc.).

In fact, it's very much been my experience that schools have a very hard time doing well in both, and there is often inverse relationship between a school's research prowess and educational capabilities. There are very real and conflicting structural forces that drive both forces.

Now, before someone flips out, the world needs both types of institutions, and one focus is not necessarily better than the other. So, if you feel the need to extol your school's research prowess on a sports message board, you are almost certainly adding unnecessary stress to your life. Take deep breaths.

(05-13-2015 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before this thread deteriorates into a stupid research p*ssing contest, I want to jump in and say "research has next to nothing to do with academics." There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research (i.e. to varying degrees, Williams, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, etc.).

In fact, it's very much been my experience that schools have a very hard time doing well in both, and there is often inverse relationship between a school's research prowess and educational capabilities. There are very real and conflicting structural forces that drive both forces.

Now, before someone flips out, the world needs both types of institutions, and one focus is not necessarily better than the other. So, if you feel the need to extol your school's research prowess on a sports message board, you are almost certainly adding unnecessary stress to your life. Take deep breaths.

Please direct this post to 'Ninja' Swofford, as he's the a$$hat who boasted about "superior" academics.

(05-13-2015 10:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before this thread deteriorates into a stupid research p*ssing contest, I want to jump in and say "research has next to nothing to do with academics." There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research (i.e. to varying degrees, Williams, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, etc.).

In fact, it's very much been my experience that schools have a very hard time doing well in both, and there is often inverse relationship between a school's research prowess and educational capabilities. There are very real and conflicting structural forces that drive both forces.

Now, before someone flips out, the world needs both types of institutions, and one focus is not necessarily better than the other. So, if you feel the need to extol your school's research prowess on a sports message board, you are almost certainly adding unnecessary stress to your life. Take deep breaths.

Please direct this post to 'Ninja' Swofford, as he's the a$$hat who boasted about "superior" academics.

I genuinely have no idea what you're referencing. UConn academics aren't bad, though. You guys get my vote for being a good school, FWIW.

(05-13-2015 06:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The NSF data doesn't seem to back your claim.

NSF research and DEVELOPMENT totals are hardly the only metric that the AAU uses for membership criteria and even then they look further at the data than just total research AND DEVELOPMENT into the type of research and if it was awarded competitively ect along with normalizing for faculty numbers, state funding and other factors

and the AAU supports my claim which is why NU is no longer a member it was not strictly a factor of total research

(05-13-2015 06:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hardly. Iowa State is a few spots above them in the rankings and already is AAU. No invite, yet.

OU and FSU are both in the top 100 in the rankings, at least. But for OU, that's because they claim the research being done on the entirely separate Health Sciences campus in Oklahoma City.

it is not uncommon at all for a university to have a medical school in a different city and to have it administered and counted under the main university

Cornell, UC Davis, Texas A&M (now that they have merged their medical components under the main campus) and others count research for medical schools that are not in the same city as the main university

pretty much all land grants with a few exceptions will be counting research that is conducted at experiment stations located around the state as well

(05-13-2015 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before this thread deteriorates into a stupid research p*ssing contest, I want to jump in and say "research has next to nothing to do with academics." There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research (i.e. to varying degrees, Williams, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, etc.).

In fact, it's very much been my experience that schools have a very hard time doing well in both, and there is often inverse relationship between a school's research prowess and educational capabilities. There are very real and conflicting structural forces that drive both forces.

Now, before someone flips out, the world needs both types of institutions, and one focus is not necessarily better than the other. So, if you feel the need to extol your school's research prowess on a sports message board, you are almost certainly adding unnecessary stress to your life. Take deep breaths.

While your sentiment seems to make some sort of "common" sense, you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Otherwise, please post the data tables for institutional rankings on "graduating undergraduate well-educatedness factor".

(05-14-2015 05:49 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 06:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The NSF data doesn't seem to back your claim.

NSF research and DEVELOPMENT totals are hardly the only metric that the AAU uses for membership criteria and even then they look further at the data than just total research AND DEVELOPMENT into the type of research and if it was awarded competitively ect along with normalizing for faculty numbers, state funding and other factors

and the AAU supports my claim which is why NU is no longer a member it was not strictly a factor of total research

(05-13-2015 06:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hardly. Iowa State is a few spots above them in the rankings and already is AAU. No invite, yet.

OU and FSU are both in the top 100 in the rankings, at least. But for OU, that's because they claim the research being done on the entirely separate Health Sciences campus in Oklahoma City.

it is not uncommon at all for a university to have a medical school in a different city and to have it administered and counted under the main university

Cornell, UC Davis, Texas A&M (now that they have merged their medical components under the main campus) and others count research for medical schools that are not in the same city as the main university

pretty much all land grants with a few exceptions will be counting research that is conducted at experiment stations located around the state as well

That it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's a correct practice. Take away the health sciences center and Norman's research activity drops down to pretty low levels. Not AAU material, in my opinion.

As to your last comment. Even if that is true, the PI's are all based at the main campus. Not at the extension service sits.

(05-14-2015 08:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before this thread deteriorates into a stupid research p*ssing contest, I want to jump in and say "research has next to nothing to do with academics." There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research (i.e. to varying degrees, Williams, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, etc.).

In fact, it's very much been my experience that schools have a very hard time doing well in both, and there is often inverse relationship between a school's research prowess and educational capabilities. There are very real and conflicting structural forces that drive both forces.

Now, before someone flips out, the world needs both types of institutions, and one focus is not necessarily better than the other. So, if you feel the need to extol your school's research prowess on a sports message board, you are almost certainly adding unnecessary stress to your life. Take deep breaths.

While your sentiment seems to make some sort of "common" sense, you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Otherwise, please post the data tables for institutional rankings on "graduating undergraduate well-educatedness factor".

My data backing it up is bolded.

(05-14-2015 08:47 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before this thread deteriorates into a stupid research p*ssing contest, I want to jump in and say "research has next to nothing to do with academics." There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research (i.e. to varying degrees, Williams, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, etc.).

In fact, it's very much been my experience that schools have a very hard time doing well in both, and there is often inverse relationship between a school's research prowess and educational capabilities. There are very real and conflicting structural forces that drive both forces.

Now, before someone flips out, the world needs both types of institutions, and one focus is not necessarily better than the other. So, if you feel the need to extol your school's research prowess on a sports message board, you are almost certainly adding unnecessary stress to your life. Take deep breaths.

While your sentiment seems to make some sort of "common" sense, you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Otherwise, please post the data tables for institutional rankings on "graduating undergraduate well-educatedness factor".

My data backing it up is bolded.

I say that the average U of Minnesota undergrad is vastly more well educated than the average Williams undergrad.

Prove me wrong.


Of course you won't be able to. You'll just lean on some kind of colloquial wisdom or give an example of someone you know. Neither of those prove anything.

(05-14-2015 08:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 05:49 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 06:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The NSF data doesn't seem to back your claim.

NSF research and DEVELOPMENT totals are hardly the only metric that the AAU uses for membership criteria and even then they look further at the data than just total research AND DEVELOPMENT into the type of research and if it was awarded competitively ect along with normalizing for faculty numbers, state funding and other factors

and the AAU supports my claim which is why NU is no longer a member it was not strictly a factor of total research

(05-13-2015 06:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hardly. Iowa State is a few spots above them in the rankings and already is AAU. No invite, yet.

OU and FSU are both in the top 100 in the rankings, at least. But for OU, that's because they claim the research being done on the entirely separate Health Sciences campus in Oklahoma City.

it is not uncommon at all for a university to have a medical school in a different city and to have it administered and counted under the main university

Cornell, UC Davis, Texas A&M (now that they have merged their medical components under the main campus) and others count research for medical schools that are not in the same city as the main university

pretty much all land grants with a few exceptions will be counting research that is conducted at experiment stations located around the state as well

That it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's a correct practice. Take away the health sciences center and Norman's research activity drops down to pretty low levels. Not AAU material, in my opinion.

As to your last comment. Even if that is true, the PI's are all based at the main campus. Not at the extension service sits.

there is nothing "incorrect" about how a university chooses to set up their administration or not to set it up

you should contact Cornell and tell them it is not correct to count their medical school in New York City under the full university and tell UC Davis that they are not correct when they count their Sacramento medical school under the full university and you should let Texas A&M know that they made a huge "incorrect" in the eyes of some no one on the internet when they merged their Dallas, Houston, Temple, Round Rock, Kingsville and Bryan medical schools and associated operations under their College Station campus

you should also email the hundreds of PIs that they have scattered all over Texas that are applying for and bringing in grants and let them know they are only suppose to work from the main campus....then let the massive number of PIs at other experiment stations know they are not at the correct location as well

let us know what they reply

I am sure they will listen.....or not

(05-14-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:47 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before this thread deteriorates into a stupid research p*ssing contest, I want to jump in and say "research has next to nothing to do with academics." There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research (i.e. to varying degrees, Williams, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, etc.).

In fact, it's very much been my experience that schools have a very hard time doing well in both, and there is often inverse relationship between a school's research prowess and educational capabilities. There are very real and conflicting structural forces that drive both forces.

Now, before someone flips out, the world needs both types of institutions, and one focus is not necessarily better than the other. So, if you feel the need to extol your school's research prowess on a sports message board, you are almost certainly adding unnecessary stress to your life. Take deep breaths.

While your sentiment seems to make some sort of "common" sense, you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Otherwise, please post the data tables for institutional rankings on "graduating undergraduate well-educatedness factor".

My data backing it up is bolded.

I say that the average U of Minnesota undergrad is vastly more well educated than the average Williams undergrad.

Prove me wrong.


Of course you won't be able to. You'll just lean on some kind of colloquial wisdom or give an example of someone you know. Neither of those prove anything.

Sure. Look at admissions selectivity. It's a proxy (albeit imperfect) for a school's academic reputation. Williams annihilates Minnesota.

Or look at who each school considers a peer institution/who considers them peer institutions. Look at USNWR rankings (they're ranked in separate categories) but if you can find schools that you think are equals in each ranking (above one and below the other), then to the extent that you have faith in the rankings, you can tell how the schools are related directionally.

There are certainly programs and circumstances where UMinn would be the better choice, but if you seriously think that the average UMinn student > the average Williams student, then you are in left field.

(05-14-2015 09:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:47 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before this thread deteriorates into a stupid research p*ssing contest, I want to jump in and say "research has next to nothing to do with academics." There are schools, including AAU members, that are very bad at graduating well-educated students that are very good at research. Similarly, there are schools that are incredibly good at graduating exceptionally well-educated students that are terrible at research (i.e. to varying degrees, Williams, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, etc.).

In fact, it's very much been my experience that schools have a very hard time doing well in both, and there is often inverse relationship between a school's research prowess and educational capabilities. There are very real and conflicting structural forces that drive both forces.

Now, before someone flips out, the world needs both types of institutions, and one focus is not necessarily better than the other. So, if you feel the need to extol your school's research prowess on a sports message board, you are almost certainly adding unnecessary stress to your life. Take deep breaths.

While your sentiment seems to make some sort of "common" sense, you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Otherwise, please post the data tables for institutional rankings on "graduating undergraduate well-educatedness factor".

My data backing it up is bolded.

I say that the average U of Minnesota undergrad is vastly more well educated than the average Williams undergrad.

Prove me wrong.


Of course you won't be able to. You'll just lean on some kind of colloquial wisdom or give an example of someone you know. Neither of those prove anything.

Sure. Look at admissions selectivity. It's a proxy (albeit imperfect) for a school's academic reputation. Williams annihilates Minnesota.

Or look at who each school considers a peer institution/who considers them peer institutions. Look at USNWR rankings (they're ranked in separate categories) but if you can find schools that you think are equals in each ranking (above one and below the other), then to the extent that you have faith in the rankings, you can tell how the schools are related directionally.

There are certainly programs and circumstances where UMinn would be the better choice, but if you seriously think that the average UMinn student > the average Williams student, then you are in left field.

Heh, yeah nevermind that it's a completely irrelevant proxy. Let's just use it anyway, because it supports my argument.


What you're really saying is that Williams just cherry picks only the very best applicants, who have already been well educated at their respective preparatory boarding schools.

So actually, Williams doesn't do any educating of their students. They just sit back and collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents.

One could therefore make the case that Minnesota does more educating of students than Williams does.



But my point, which was very well proven by your post, is that there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students. There really is no such thing. Each student is entirely responsible for his or her own education and one can obtain a fantastic education for free at the public library.

(05-14-2015 09:02 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 05:49 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 06:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The NSF data doesn't seem to back your claim.

NSF research and DEVELOPMENT totals are hardly the only metric that the AAU uses for membership criteria and even then they look further at the data than just total research AND DEVELOPMENT into the type of research and if it was awarded competitively ect along with normalizing for faculty numbers, state funding and other factors

and the AAU supports my claim which is why NU is no longer a member it was not strictly a factor of total research

(05-13-2015 06:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hardly. Iowa State is a few spots above them in the rankings and already is AAU. No invite, yet.

OU and FSU are both in the top 100 in the rankings, at least. But for OU, that's because they claim the research being done on the entirely separate Health Sciences campus in Oklahoma City.

it is not uncommon at all for a university to have a medical school in a different city and to have it administered and counted under the main university

Cornell, UC Davis, Texas A&M (now that they have merged their medical components under the main campus) and others count research for medical schools that are not in the same city as the main university

pretty much all land grants with a few exceptions will be counting research that is conducted at experiment stations located around the state as well

That it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's a correct practice. Take away the health sciences center and Norman's research activity drops down to pretty low levels. Not AAU material, in my opinion.

As to your last comment. Even if that is true, the PI's are all based at the main campus. Not at the extension service sits.

there is nothing "incorrect" about how a university chooses to set up their administration or not to set it up

you should contact Cornell and tell them it is not correct to count their medical school in New York City under the full university and tell UC Davis that they are not correct when they count their Sacramento medical school under the full university and you should let Texas A&M know that they made a huge "incorrect" in the eyes of some no one on the internet when they merged their Dallas, Houston, Temple, Round Rock, Kingsville and Bryan medical schools and associated operations under their College Station campus

you should also email the hundreds of PIs that they have scattered all over Texas that are applying for and bringing in grants and let them know they are only suppose to work from the main campus....then let the massive number of PIs at other experiment stations know they are not at the correct location as well

let us know what they reply

I am sure they will listen.....or not

I didn't say it was incorrect to consolidate operations. I said it was incorrect to count research expenditures clearly being conducted at separate institutions as being under the main campus. It's called "cooking the numbers".

I don't believe you that the PI's of federal grants for ag research being counted under College Station actually live in work in the field. And I'm not going to spend my time to verify it one way or another.

(05-14-2015 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:47 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  While your sentiment seems to make some sort of "common" sense, you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Otherwise, please post the data tables for institutional rankings on "graduating undergraduate well-educatedness factor".

My data backing it up is bolded.

I say that the average U of Minnesota undergrad is vastly more well educated than the average Williams undergrad.

Prove me wrong.


Of course you won't be able to. You'll just lean on some kind of colloquial wisdom or give an example of someone you know. Neither of those prove anything.

Sure. Look at admissions selectivity. It's a proxy (albeit imperfect) for a school's academic reputation. Williams annihilates Minnesota.

Or look at who each school considers a peer institution/who considers them peer institutions. Look at USNWR rankings (they're ranked in separate categories) but if you can find schools that you think are equals in each ranking (above one and below the other), then to the extent that you have faith in the rankings, you can tell how the schools are related directionally.

There are certainly programs and circumstances where UMinn would be the better choice, but if you seriously think that the average UMinn student > the average Williams student, then you are in left field.

Heh, yeah nevermind that it's a completely irrelevant proxy. Let's just use it anyway, because it supports my argument.


What you're really saying is that Williams just cherry picks only the very best applicants, who have already been well educated at their respective preparatory boarding schools.

So actually, Williams doesn't do any educating of their students. They just sit back and collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents.

One could actually make the case that Minnesota does more educating of students than Williams does.



But my point, which was very well proven by your post, is that there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students. There really is no such thing. Each student is entirely responsible for his or her own education and one can obtain a fantastic education for free at the public library.

An irrelevant proxy? What are you talking about? The *only* reason why Williams can "cherry-pick" students is because of their reputation for educating students. The same is true for their ability to "collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents," which is an absolutely hilarious statement, given the lengths that America's elite universities go to include students from low economic classes.

Regardless, you conveniently ignored my other two metrics when you magically and completely irrationally decided that "there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students."

And if you think that a library card = college degree, then A) you have never been to college, B) your college failed you, C) you have seen "Goodwill Hunting" way too many times, D) some combination of the above.

I'll bite, though. Make the case for Minnesota.

(05-14-2015 09:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:47 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  My data backing it up is bolded.

I say that the average U of Minnesota undergrad is vastly more well educated than the average Williams undergrad.

Prove me wrong.


Of course you won't be able to. You'll just lean on some kind of colloquial wisdom or give an example of someone you know. Neither of those prove anything.

Sure. Look at admissions selectivity. It's a proxy (albeit imperfect) for a school's academic reputation. Williams annihilates Minnesota.

Or look at who each school considers a peer institution/who considers them peer institutions. Look at USNWR rankings (they're ranked in separate categories) but if you can find schools that you think are equals in each ranking (above one and below the other), then to the extent that you have faith in the rankings, you can tell how the schools are related directionally.

There are certainly programs and circumstances where UMinn would be the better choice, but if you seriously think that the average UMinn student > the average Williams student, then you are in left field.

Heh, yeah nevermind that it's a completely irrelevant proxy. Let's just use it anyway, because it supports my argument.


What you're really saying is that Williams just cherry picks only the very best applicants, who have already been well educated at their respective preparatory boarding schools.

So actually, Williams doesn't do any educating of their students. They just sit back and collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents.

One could actually make the case that Minnesota does more educating of students than Williams does.



But my point, which was very well proven by your post, is that there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students. There really is no such thing. Each student is entirely responsible for his or her own education and one can obtain a fantastic education for free at the public library.

An irrelevant proxy? What are you talking about? The *only* reason why Williams can "cherry-pick" students is because of their reputation for educating students. The same is true for their ability to "collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents," which is an absolutely hilarious statement, given the lengths that America's elite universities go to include students from low economic classes.

Regardless, you conveniently ignored my other two metrics when you magically and completely irrationally decided that "there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students."

And if you think that a library card = college degree, then A) you have never been to college, B) your college failed you, C) you have seen "Goodwill Hunting" way too many times, D) some combination of the above.

I'll bite, though. Make the case for Minnesota.

I didn't ignore anything. Admission selectivity, reputation and rankings (ie, popularity contests) are entirely subjective concepts. Not metrics.

There is no such thing as a "well-educatedness" metric. Any such attempt to make one would be entirely made up by the person creating it and thus subject to personal bias.


The case for Minnesota is the same as the case for North Dakota State: there are no numbers to rank anyone. Everyone has a ranking of N/A.


I wasn't saying that a Williams degree is worth the same as a Minnesota degree (or a NDSU degree). I know that's not the case. But that's an entirely separate, unrelated argument.

(05-14-2015 09:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I say that the average U of Minnesota undergrad is vastly more well educated than the average Williams undergrad.

Prove me wrong.


Of course you won't be able to. You'll just lean on some kind of colloquial wisdom or give an example of someone you know. Neither of those prove anything.

Sure. Look at admissions selectivity. It's a proxy (albeit imperfect) for a school's academic reputation. Williams annihilates Minnesota.

Or look at who each school considers a peer institution/who considers them peer institutions. Look at USNWR rankings (they're ranked in separate categories) but if you can find schools that you think are equals in each ranking (above one and below the other), then to the extent that you have faith in the rankings, you can tell how the schools are related directionally.

There are certainly programs and circumstances where UMinn would be the better choice, but if you seriously think that the average UMinn student > the average Williams student, then you are in left field.

Heh, yeah nevermind that it's a completely irrelevant proxy. Let's just use it anyway, because it supports my argument.


What you're really saying is that Williams just cherry picks only the very best applicants, who have already been well educated at their respective preparatory boarding schools.

So actually, Williams doesn't do any educating of their students. They just sit back and collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents.

One could actually make the case that Minnesota does more educating of students than Williams does.



But my point, which was very well proven by your post, is that there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students. There really is no such thing. Each student is entirely responsible for his or her own education and one can obtain a fantastic education for free at the public library.

An irrelevant proxy? What are you talking about? The *only* reason why Williams can "cherry-pick" students is because of their reputation for educating students. The same is true for their ability to "collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents," which is an absolutely hilarious statement, given the lengths that America's elite universities go to include students from low economic classes.

Regardless, you conveniently ignored my other two metrics when you magically and completely irrationally decided that "there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students."

And if you think that a library card = college degree, then A) you have never been to college, B) your college failed you, C) you have seen "Goodwill Hunting" way too many times, D) some combination of the above.

I'll bite, though. Make the case for Minnesota.

I didn't ignore anything. Admission selectivity, reputation and rankings (ie, popularity contests) are entirely subjective concepts. Not metrics.

There is no such thing as a "well-educatedness" metric. Any such attempt to make one would be entirely made up by the person creating it and thus subject to personal bias.


The case for Minnesota is the same as the case for North Dakota State: there are no numbers to rank anyone. Everyone has a ranking of N/A.


I wasn't saying that a Williams degree is worth the same as a Minnesota degree (or a NDSU degree). I know that's not the case. But that's an entirely separate, unrelated argument.

Literally everything is subjective. Prove you exist.

So yes, if you are going to use an absurdly strict definition of proof, then yes, there is no spoon. Everything is theory, even existence. Or more accurately, the theory of existence.

...and the theory of the theory of existence.

...and the theory of that and so on and so forth.

High school-level philosophical arguments aside, I've mentioned 3 good metrics. All of which indicate that there are a number of very good schools that are very bad at research (as measure by competitively-awarded federal grant dollars - *gasp* another proxy), just like there are very bad schools that are very good at research (once again as measured by competitively-awarded federal grants).

(05-14-2015 09:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:02 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 05:49 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 06:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The NSF data doesn't seem to back your claim.

NSF research and DEVELOPMENT totals are hardly the only metric that the AAU uses for membership criteria and even then they look further at the data than just total research AND DEVELOPMENT into the type of research and if it was awarded competitively ect along with normalizing for faculty numbers, state funding and other factors

and the AAU supports my claim which is why NU is no longer a member it was not strictly a factor of total research

(05-13-2015 06:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hardly. Iowa State is a few spots above them in the rankings and already is AAU. No invite, yet.

OU and FSU are both in the top 100 in the rankings, at least. But for OU, that's because they claim the research being done on the entirely separate Health Sciences campus in Oklahoma City.

it is not uncommon at all for a university to have a medical school in a different city and to have it administered and counted under the main university

Cornell, UC Davis, Texas A&M (now that they have merged their medical components under the main campus) and others count research for medical schools that are not in the same city as the main university

pretty much all land grants with a few exceptions will be counting research that is conducted at experiment stations located around the state as well

That it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's a correct practice. Take away the health sciences center and Norman's research activity drops down to pretty low levels. Not AAU material, in my opinion.

As to your last comment. Even if that is true, the PI's are all based at the main campus. Not at the extension service sits.

there is nothing "incorrect" about how a university chooses to set up their administration or not to set it up

you should contact Cornell and tell them it is not correct to count their medical school in New York City under the full university and tell UC Davis that they are not correct when they count their Sacramento medical school under the full university and you should let Texas A&M know that they made a huge "incorrect" in the eyes of some no one on the internet when they merged their Dallas, Houston, Temple, Round Rock, Kingsville and Bryan medical schools and associated operations under their College Station campus

you should also email the hundreds of PIs that they have scattered all over Texas that are applying for and bringing in grants and let them know they are only suppose to work from the main campus....then let the massive number of PIs at other experiment stations know they are not at the correct location as well

let us know what they reply

I am sure they will listen.....or not

I didn't say it was incorrect to consolidate operations. I said it was incorrect to count research expenditures clearly being conducted at separate institutions as being under the main campus. It's called "cooking the numbers".

I don't believe you that the PI's of federal grants for ag research being counted under College Station actually live in work in the field. And I'm not going to spend my time to verify it one way or another.

they are not separate institutions they are the same institution

and you should sound the alarm to all those that will laugh at you and your ignorance that Texas A&M, Cornell, UC Davis and others (Penn State and LSU) are "cooking the books"......because it is well known and not uncommon at all

and how dense does one have to be to not believe that the dozen or so PhDed full faculty members located in Lubbock, Overton, Dallas, the Rio Grande Valley, Amarillo, Uvalde, El Paso, Stephenville and multiple other places do not actually live in those places and work and conduct research out of those places

are you so dense you think they commute from College Station or they show up to the field part time or they are not actually doing research.....at places called RESEARCH stations

feel free to not investigate that is is fully your right to stay stupid

(05-14-2015 09:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:16 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Sure. Look at admissions selectivity. It's a proxy (albeit imperfect) for a school's academic reputation. Williams annihilates Minnesota.

Or look at who each school considers a peer institution/who considers them peer institutions. Look at USNWR rankings (they're ranked in separate categories) but if you can find schools that you think are equals in each ranking (above one and below the other), then to the extent that you have faith in the rankings, you can tell how the schools are related directionally.

There are certainly programs and circumstances where UMinn would be the better choice, but if you seriously think that the average UMinn student > the average Williams student, then you are in left field.

Heh, yeah nevermind that it's a completely irrelevant proxy. Let's just use it anyway, because it supports my argument.


What you're really saying is that Williams just cherry picks only the very best applicants, who have already been well educated at their respective preparatory boarding schools.

So actually, Williams doesn't do any educating of their students. They just sit back and collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents.

One could actually make the case that Minnesota does more educating of students than Williams does.



But my point, which was very well proven by your post, is that there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students. There really is no such thing. Each student is entirely responsible for his or her own education and one can obtain a fantastic education for free at the public library.

An irrelevant proxy? What are you talking about? The *only* reason why Williams can "cherry-pick" students is because of their reputation for educating students. The same is true for their ability to "collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents," which is an absolutely hilarious statement, given the lengths that America's elite universities go to include students from low economic classes.

Regardless, you conveniently ignored my other two metrics when you magically and completely irrationally decided that "there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students."

And if you think that a library card = college degree, then A) you have never been to college, B) your college failed you, C) you have seen "Goodwill Hunting" way too many times, D) some combination of the above.

I'll bite, though. Make the case for Minnesota.

I didn't ignore anything. Admission selectivity, reputation and rankings (ie, popularity contests) are entirely subjective concepts. Not metrics.

There is no such thing as a "well-educatedness" metric. Any such attempt to make one would be entirely made up by the person creating it and thus subject to personal bias.


The case for Minnesota is the same as the case for North Dakota State: there are no numbers to rank anyone. Everyone has a ranking of N/A.


I wasn't saying that a Williams degree is worth the same as a Minnesota degree (or a NDSU degree). I know that's not the case. But that's an entirely separate, unrelated argument.

Literally everything is subjective. Prove you exist.

So yes, if you are going to use an absurdly strict definition of proof, then yes, there is no spoon. Everything is theory, even existence. Or more accurately, the theory of existence.

...and the theory of the theory of existence.

...and the theory of that and so on and so forth.

High school-level philosophical arguments aside, I've mentioned 3 good metrics. All of which indicate that there are a number of very good schools that are very bad at research (as measure by competitively-awarded federal grant dollars - *gasp* another proxy), just like there are very bad schools that are very good at research (once again as measured by competitively-awarded federal grants).

They don't indicate anything of the sort. They indicate that some school have a strong reputation of this or that. But that does not prove that an objective ranking exists.

Research numbers are an objective ranking for research. There is nothing that even comes close as an analog for "well-educatedness". Nothing you've suggested comes close, anyway.


You've more or less admitted defeat by having to resort to a patently absurd tautology just to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

(05-14-2015 10:00 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:02 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 05:49 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  NSF research and DEVELOPMENT totals are hardly the only metric that the AAU uses for membership criteria and even then they look further at the data than just total research AND DEVELOPMENT into the type of research and if it was awarded competitively ect along with normalizing for faculty numbers, state funding and other factors

and the AAU supports my claim which is why NU is no longer a member it was not strictly a factor of total research


it is not uncommon at all for a university to have a medical school in a different city and to have it administered and counted under the main university

Cornell, UC Davis, Texas A&M (now that they have merged their medical components under the main campus) and others count research for medical schools that are not in the same city as the main university

pretty much all land grants with a few exceptions will be counting research that is conducted at experiment stations located around the state as well

That it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's a correct practice. Take away the health sciences center and Norman's research activity drops down to pretty low levels. Not AAU material, in my opinion.

As to your last comment. Even if that is true, the PI's are all based at the main campus. Not at the extension service sits.

there is nothing "incorrect" about how a university chooses to set up their administration or not to set it up

you should contact Cornell and tell them it is not correct to count their medical school in New York City under the full university and tell UC Davis that they are not correct when they count their Sacramento medical school under the full university and you should let Texas A&M know that they made a huge "incorrect" in the eyes of some no one on the internet when they merged their Dallas, Houston, Temple, Round Rock, Kingsville and Bryan medical schools and associated operations under their College Station campus

you should also email the hundreds of PIs that they have scattered all over Texas that are applying for and bringing in grants and let them know they are only suppose to work from the main campus....then let the massive number of PIs at other experiment stations know they are not at the correct location as well

let us know what they reply

I am sure they will listen.....or not

I didn't say it was incorrect to consolidate operations. I said it was incorrect to count research expenditures clearly being conducted at separate institutions as being under the main campus. It's called "cooking the numbers".

I don't believe you that the PI's of federal grants for ag research being counted under College Station actually live in work in the field. And I'm not going to spend my time to verify it one way or another.

they are not separate institutions they are the same institution

and you should sound the alarm to all those that will laugh at you and your ignorance that Texas A&M, Cornell, UC Davis and others (Penn State and LSU) are "cooking the books"......because it is well known and not uncommon at all

and how dense does one have to be to not believe that the dozen or so PhDed full faculty members located in Lubbock, Overton, Dallas, the Rio Grande Valley, Amarillo, Uvalde, El Paso, Stephenville and multiple other places do not actually live in those places and work and conduct research out of those places

are you so dense you think they commute from College Station or they show up to the field part time or they are not actually doing research.....at places called RESEARCH stations

feel free to not investigate that is is fully your right to stay stupid

Cornell actually operates a significant (albeit very much a minority) portion of its med school in Qatar.

(05-14-2015 10:00 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:02 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 05:49 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  NSF research and DEVELOPMENT totals are hardly the only metric that the AAU uses for membership criteria and even then they look further at the data than just total research AND DEVELOPMENT into the type of research and if it was awarded competitively ect along with normalizing for faculty numbers, state funding and other factors

and the AAU supports my claim which is why NU is no longer a member it was not strictly a factor of total research


it is not uncommon at all for a university to have a medical school in a different city and to have it administered and counted under the main university

Cornell, UC Davis, Texas A&M (now that they have merged their medical components under the main campus) and others count research for medical schools that are not in the same city as the main university

pretty much all land grants with a few exceptions will be counting research that is conducted at experiment stations located around the state as well

That it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's a correct practice. Take away the health sciences center and Norman's research activity drops down to pretty low levels. Not AAU material, in my opinion.

As to your last comment. Even if that is true, the PI's are all based at the main campus. Not at the extension service sits.

there is nothing "incorrect" about how a university chooses to set up their administration or not to set it up

you should contact Cornell and tell them it is not correct to count their medical school in New York City under the full university and tell UC Davis that they are not correct when they count their Sacramento medical school under the full university and you should let Texas A&M know that they made a huge "incorrect" in the eyes of some no one on the internet when they merged their Dallas, Houston, Temple, Round Rock, Kingsville and Bryan medical schools and associated operations under their College Station campus

you should also email the hundreds of PIs that they have scattered all over Texas that are applying for and bringing in grants and let them know they are only suppose to work from the main campus....then let the massive number of PIs at other experiment stations know they are not at the correct location as well

let us know what they reply

I am sure they will listen.....or not

I didn't say it was incorrect to consolidate operations. I said it was incorrect to count research expenditures clearly being conducted at separate institutions as being under the main campus. It's called "cooking the numbers".

I don't believe you that the PI's of federal grants for ag research being counted under College Station actually live in work in the field. And I'm not going to spend my time to verify it one way or another.

they are not separate institutions they are the same institution

and you should sound the alarm to all those that will laugh at you and your ignorance that Texas A&M, Cornell, UC Davis and others (Penn State and LSU) are "cooking the books"......because it is well known and not uncommon at all

and how dense does one have to be to not believe that the dozen or so PhDed full faculty members located in Lubbock, Overton, Dallas, the Rio Grande Valley, Amarillo, Uvalde, El Paso, Stephenville and multiple other places do not actually live in those places and work and conduct research out of those places

are you so dense you think they commute from College Station or they show up to the field part time or they are not actually doing research.....at places called RESEARCH stations

feel free to not investigate that is is fully your right to stay stupid

I'm sure they visit the field part time. But they're based in College Station, if the grant is being counted under CS's number. That was my point. I think I'm correct, there.

I don't agree with counting life sciences research being conducted at separate campuses under a main campus. Because, the only reason they do it is to make their own numbers look bigger than they actually are. There's no other purpose for it than to inflate an ego.

UC system is a great example. You don't see Cal including all the research going on at UC-San Francisco under their own number. Likewise in other systems (Alabama and UAB, etc.).

(05-14-2015 10:04 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Heh, yeah nevermind that it's a completely irrelevant proxy. Let's just use it anyway, because it supports my argument.


What you're really saying is that Williams just cherry picks only the very best applicants, who have already been well educated at their respective preparatory boarding schools.

So actually, Williams doesn't do any educating of their students. They just sit back and collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents.

One could actually make the case that Minnesota does more educating of students than Williams does.



But my point, which was very well proven by your post, is that there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students. There really is no such thing. Each student is entirely responsible for his or her own education and one can obtain a fantastic education for free at the public library.

An irrelevant proxy? What are you talking about? The *only* reason why Williams can "cherry-pick" students is because of their reputation for educating students. The same is true for their ability to "collect preposterously large tuition payments from rich parents," which is an absolutely hilarious statement, given the lengths that America's elite universities go to include students from low economic classes.

Regardless, you conveniently ignored my other two metrics when you magically and completely irrationally decided that "there are absolutely zero metrics for ranking institutions on how well they educate their students."

And if you think that a library card = college degree, then A) you have never been to college, B) your college failed you, C) you have seen "Goodwill Hunting" way too many times, D) some combination of the above.

I'll bite, though. Make the case for Minnesota.

I didn't ignore anything. Admission selectivity, reputation and rankings (ie, popularity contests) are entirely subjective concepts. Not metrics.

There is no such thing as a "well-educatedness" metric. Any such attempt to make one would be entirely made up by the person creating it and thus subject to personal bias.


The case for Minnesota is the same as the case for North Dakota State: there are no numbers to rank anyone. Everyone has a ranking of N/A.


I wasn't saying that a Williams degree is worth the same as a Minnesota degree (or a NDSU degree). I know that's not the case. But that's an entirely separate, unrelated argument.

Literally everything is subjective. Prove you exist.

So yes, if you are going to use an absurdly strict definition of proof, then yes, there is no spoon. Everything is theory, even existence. Or more accurately, the theory of existence.

...and the theory of the theory of existence.

...and the theory of that and so on and so forth.

High school-level philosophical arguments aside, I've mentioned 3 good metrics. All of which indicate that there are a number of very good schools that are very bad at research (as measure by competitively-awarded federal grant dollars - *gasp* another proxy), just like there are very bad schools that are very good at research (once again as measured by competitively-awarded federal grants).

They don't indicate anything of the sort. They indicate that some school have a strong reputation of this or that. But that does not prove that an objective ranking exists.

Research numbers are an objective ranking for research. There is nothing that even comes close as an analog for "well-educatedness". Nothing you've suggested comes close, anyway.


You've more or less admitted defeat by having to resort to a patently absurd tautology just to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

The reputation is very much a proxy for the school's academic prowess, just like the research funding is a proxy for the school's research prowess. In all likelihood both are good proxies, but neither absolutely *proves* anything completely. Conceivably, it is possible (albeit astronomically unlikely) that the grants were awarded by luck, just like it is possible that school A and school B have reputations that are materially misleading. It's all subjective. At some point, numbers are based on really, really educated guesses.

Like I said, once you move beyond the juvenile "everything is theory" philosophical approach to life, you will notice that there are a number of good metrics that prove my point.