The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-16-2018 11:36 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I spent 1.5 years in Oxford getting my MBA. A mind-numbingly boring campus and town with an incredibly common-sense-stupid student body. The campus is so beautiful and the school is incredibly well-run, but omg, “one-dimensional” is but one adjective to describe the place.

My point in bringing up Miami is that they manage reputation by doing more with less. They have effectively managed their niche. UC should figure out how to do the same.

In Dayton, I perceive that OU is favored over UC, as is Miami and OSU. There’s no reason some of that can’t change.

Miami has a big problem: the only college bringing in any money at all is the College of Business. Everyone else leaches off them.

Cincinnati has multiple colleges bringing in money (in order, I think): Medicine, DAAP, Business, Engineering, CCM, and Law. So there's a lot more resources to spread around.

What UC should really do is cut a lot of the lower-ranking humanities departments. That would bring our overall average up while simultaneously freeing up resources to strengthen the remaining non-revenue departments. This is what Princeton does (Princeton does not have a medical, law, or graduate business school).

(05-16-2018 04:28 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 11:36 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I spent 1.5 years in Oxford getting my MBA. A mind-numbingly boring campus and town with an incredibly common-sense-stupid student body. The campus is so beautiful and the school is incredibly well-run, but omg, “one-dimensional” is but one adjective to describe the place.

My point in bringing up Miami is that they manage reputation by doing more with less. They have effectively managed their niche. UC should figure out how to do the same.

In Dayton, I perceive that OU is favored over UC, as is Miami and OSU. There’s no reason some of that can’t change.

Miami has a big problem: the only college bringing in any money at all is the College of Business. Everyone else leaches off them.

Cincinnati has multiple colleges bringing in money (in order, I think): Medicine, DAAP, Business, Engineering, CCM, and Law. So there's a lot more resources to spread around.

What UC should really do is cut a lot of the lower-ranking humanities departments. That would bring our overall average up while simultaneously freeing up resources to strengthen the remaining non-revenue departments. This is what Princeton does (Princeton does not have a medical, law, or graduate business school).

Cutting in the liberal arts and sciences, practically, makes a lot of sense. However, in reality, this is a lot more challenging and unfortunately the university does not operate like a business that can just jettison off the underperforming departments. The university's core is in the liberal arts and sciences, but at the same time, its bread and butter lies in the areas you mentioned. For example, you may not think a department like Classics (ancient Greek and Latin) would be an important area for the University, but we have a lot of history (no pun intended) in that department dating back to Carl Blegen's work on the historical sites of Troy and Pylos.

What we truly need is for the colleges to find a way to recruit and retain more research productive faculty for all of the necessary departments and, in the process, minimize the expenditures on unproductive faculty. Also easier said than done.

UC is a tier 1 research institute, but it has a long way to go to keep climbing the rankings across the board.

(05-16-2018 04:28 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 11:36 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I spent 1.5 years in Oxford getting my MBA. A mind-numbingly boring campus and town with an incredibly common-sense-stupid student body. The campus is so beautiful and the school is incredibly well-run, but omg, “one-dimensional” is but one adjective to describe the place.

My point in bringing up Miami is that they manage reputation by doing more with less. They have effectively managed their niche. UC should figure out how to do the same.

In Dayton, I perceive that OU is favored over UC, as is Miami and OSU. There’s no reason some of that can’t change.

Miami has a big problem: the only college bringing in any money at all is the College of Business. Everyone else leaches off them.

Cincinnati has multiple colleges bringing in money (in order, I think): Medicine, DAAP, Business, Engineering, CCM, and Law. So there's a lot more resources to spread around.

What UC should really do is cut a lot of the lower-ranking humanities departments. That would bring our overall average up while simultaneously freeing up resources to strengthen the remaining non-revenue departments. This is what Princeton does (Princeton does not have a medical, law, or graduate business school).

You can't really compare what Princeton does with any public university. As for cutting humanities, do that and you literally slit the throat of any chance that UC has for AAU membership. The AAU repeatedly tells their members not to lose focus on those areas as they are the core of any university worth the name. Hell, Georgia Tech wasn't offered membership for years because they viewed as too one-dimensional.

I know it's fashionable in some political circles to advocate gutting (if not outright eliminating) humanities and social sciences at public universities, but any school that does so is essentially saying that they're giving up the fight and are content to be a glorified version of DeVry. Do you think OSU or any of the Big Ten schools will ever gut their humanities and social science programs? Now if you were to look at it as slimming down our offerings in arts, humanities and hard sciences and focusing more resources on their core departments and improving their quality rather than trying to run arts & sciences colleges with the breadth of universities with far more resources, I think that would be an interesting conversation.

A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

It's coming. The political will will never be there, so it'll take outside pressure in the form of some of these fiscal houses of cards at Toledo, Akron and even OU coming crashing down to affect this change, but the current system is unsustainable. Ohio funds more public law schools and the same number of med schools as California. When you look at doctoral programs, there are numerous examples where we're funding as many as California. California has 3x the number of public four-year universities and 3 1/2 x the population. It's insane. And this is our enemy far more than is OSU's flagship status. We're never going to be co-flagship to OSU. It just ain't gonna to happen. We, however, can be the clear-cut secondary university (MSU to UM, VaTech to UVA etc) to them to the entire state. And our enemy in this is not OSU; it's the rest of the system that all think they can have that role if not take on OSU itself.

The state should not be funding universities to begin with. It should be sending funding with individual students to offset a certain amount of their college expenses.

Last time I looked, the state was sending Ohio State more than twice the amount of funding per in-state undergraduate student than they were any other university in Ohio. Why?

(05-18-2018 08:54 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

It's coming. The political will will never be there, so it'll take outside pressure in the form of some of these fiscal houses of cards at Toledo, Akron and even OU coming crashing down to affect this change, but the current system is unsustainable. Ohio funds more public law schools and the same number of med schools as California. When you look at doctoral programs, there are numerous examples where we're funding as many as California. California has 3x the number of public four-year universities and 3 1/2 x the population. It's insane. And this is our enemy far more than is OSU's flagship status. We're never going to be co-flagship to OSU. It just ain't gonna to happen. We, however, can be the clear-cut secondary university (MSU to UM, VaTech to UVA etc) to them to the entire state. And our enemy in this is not OSU; it's the rest of the system that all think they can have that role if not take on OSU itself.

Bolded, very well said.

UC can accomplish more today by working in alliance with OSU. The "Buckeyes and Bearcats at the Statehouse" joint alumni lobbying events the past two years are a great example. The narrative needs to be developed at every opportunity: a state as large as Ohio typically has at least two top tier research universities. Oh, and here in Ohio, that's got to be OSU and UC. Being that "other one" with OSU isn't a bad spot. Just ask the folks at NC State, Georgia Tech or Purdue.

State representatives and senators will do their best to protect second and third tier schools through their elected offices on behalf of their local constituencies. But scarce resources, declining attendance and duplication of low demand academic programs will eventually undermine their case for diluting the overall quality in favor of academic fiefdoms.

(05-18-2018 11:47 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  The state should not be funding universities to begin with. It should be sending funding with individual students to offset a certain amount of their college expenses. Wouldn't Xavier or Dayton or, better yet, Liberty be a better fit for your allegiances? That way you could root for a school's sports teams while not rooting for the actual school to be destroyed.

Last time I looked, the state was sending Ohio State more than twice the amount of funding per in-state undergraduate student than they were any other university in Ohio. Why?

And let me guess. That funding would be allowed to be used at private, including religious based, schools? Why are you even a fan of UC when you clearly favor the abolishment of public universities?

As for the funding, the basic subsidy is the same. I know that OSU and Miami get more bonus money for retention and grad rates than everyone else, but I've yet to see proof that is anywhere near doubling the basic state instructional subsidy.

(05-18-2018 01:05 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 11:47 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  The state should not be funding universities to begin with. It should be sending funding with individual students to offset a certain amount of their college expenses.

Last time I looked, the state was sending Ohio State more than twice the amount of funding per in-state undergraduate student than they were any other university in Ohio. Why?

And let me guess. That funding would be allowed to be used at private, including religious based, schools? Why are you even a fan of UC when you clearly favor the abolishment of public universities?

As for the funding, the basic subsidy is the same. I know that OSU and Miami get more bonus money for retention and grad rates than everyone else, but I've yet to see proof that is anywhere near doubling the basic state instructional subsidy.

I love the way you edited my original quote to add irrelevant stuff about Dayton, Xavier and Liberty (all of which I believe are inferior universities in the majors I think are most valuable).

I do NOT think that state tax money should be used at private/religious colleges.

Now, all you have to do is go to the state of Ohio's budget and see how much money is sent to each university. Then go to the universities' website to see how many undergraduates they have from Ohio. Do the math and the numbers are right there (at least they were last year).

(05-18-2018 12:21 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 08:54 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

It's coming. The political will will never be there, so it'll take outside pressure in the form of some of these fiscal houses of cards at Toledo, Akron and even OU coming crashing down to affect this change, but the current system is unsustainable. Ohio funds more public law schools and the same number of med schools as California. When you look at doctoral programs, there are numerous examples where we're funding as many as California. California has 3x the number of public four-year universities and 3 1/2 x the population. It's insane. And this is our enemy far more than is OSU's flagship status. We're never going to be co-flagship to OSU. It just ain't gonna to happen. We, however, can be the clear-cut secondary university (MSU to UM, VaTech to UVA etc) to them to the entire state. And our enemy in this is not OSU; it's the rest of the system that all think they can have that role if not take on OSU itself.

Bolded, very well said.

UC can accomplish more today by working in alliance with OSU. The "Buckeyes and Bearcats at the Statehouse" joint alumni lobbying events the past two years are a great example. The narrative needs to be developed at every opportunity: a state as large as Ohio typically has at least two top tier research universities. Oh, and here in Ohio, that's got to be OSU and UC. Being that "other one" with OSU isn't a bad spot. Just ask the folks at NC State, Georgia Tech or Purdue.

State representatives and senators will do their best to protect second and third tier schools through their elected offices on behalf of their local constituencies. But scarce resources, declining attendance and duplication of low demand academic programs will eventually undermine their case for diluting the overall quality in favor of academic fiefdoms.

That is the biggest problem you'll see in academia (even though it's something that should be done). Far too many egos will not allow those in that seat to see past their own interests to fully comprehend that they are obsolete now...there is a college at Toledo losing students hand over fist who have more connected faculty than the largest college here, yet they do not see any reason whatsoever for cuts. It's a tough situation, but at the end of the day, it needs to be done to cement the financial stability of the institution as a whole. Cincinnati and Ohio State are the only institutions in Ohio that should be fully comprehensive judging by their size and the shrinking college bound populations.

(05-18-2018 03:12 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  That is the biggest problem you'll see in academia (even though it's something that should be done). Far too many egos will not allow those in that seat to see past their own interests to fully comprehend that they are obsolete now...there is a college at Toledo losing students hand over fist who have more connected faculty than the largest college here, yet they do not see any reason whatsoever for cuts. It's a tough situation, but at the end of the day, it needs to be done to cement the financial stability of the institution as a whole. Cincinnati and Ohio State are the only institutions in Ohio that should be fully comprehensive judging by their size and the shrinking college bound populations.

I've mentioned the NRC rankings of doctoral programs which are probably the most scientific rankings out there, though they don't lend themselves to making easy top to bottom lists. One, however, can do it by playing around with the spreadsheets a bit,and I'll try to take a crack at it this weekend. It really highlights how bloated the proliferation of Ph.D programs in Ohio is, and how very lowly ranked and insignificant the vast majority of them are. It also highlights my point that UC needs to make the investment to be a better comprehensive university across the core arts & sciences disciplines if AAU membership is to be a realistic goal.

Regarding an earlier post, I'm all for eliminating these doctoral programs at most Ohio public universities. All though should still maintain bachelor's programs in the basic A&S disciplines like History, Economics or Chemistry. That being said, none of them (other than OSU & UC) need to be funding things like Middle Eastern Studies Centers, Astrophysics or majors in a dozen different foreign languages.

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

PhD programs in the same geographical region complement each other. As a research professor myself, it's very attractive to be in a state with a lot of other PhD programs doing quality research.

The world might not need more English PhDs, but having PhD English programs probably helps the MAC schools recruit & retain better English faculty. It's a cost, but having better programs at the MAC schools actually helps UC recruit & retain faculty. So in the end we should be in favor of anything that helps them to get better.

(05-19-2018 09:33 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

PhD programs in the same geographical region complement each other. As a research professor myself, it's very attractive to be in a state with a lot of other PhD programs doing quality research.

The world might not need more English PhDs, but having PhD English programs probably helps the MAC schools recruit & retain better English faculty. It's a cost, but having better programs at the MAC schools actually helps UC recruit & retain faculty. So in the end we should be in favor of anything that helps them to get better.

MAC? They are juco level schools. Yes, cry-ami I’m talking about you. UC is above and beyond 13th grade.

(05-19-2018 09:33 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

PhD programs in the same geographical region complement each other. As a research professor myself, it's very attractive to be in a state with a lot of other PhD programs doing quality research.

The world might not need more English PhDs, but having PhD English programs probably helps the MAC schools recruit & retain better English faculty. It's a cost, but having better programs at the MAC schools actually helps UC recruit & retain faculty. So in the end we should be in favor of anything that helps them to get better.

You can't convince me that having as many as eight PhD programs in a given field at the Ohio public schools helps UC or OSU in the least. On the other hand, I absolutely believe that if the state funding that goes into those programs was concentrated on OSU, UC and maybe the single best MAC program in the state that Ohio would have a much more rationale, efficient and quality system.

Here are three examples, one each in sciences, humanities and social sciences. I've taken the most recent NRC rankings, averaged out their 5th and 95 percentile scores and then ranked all the schools top to bottom.

PHYSICS: In Ohio, there are doctoral programs at UC, OSU, OU, Toledo & KSU. Taking out specialty programs like chemical physics and applied physics and leaving just physics (and sometimes physics & astronomy) programs there are 143 programs ranked. The Ohio publics are ranked:

OSU: 22nd (12th among publics)
OU: 79th (57th))
UC: 94th (66th)
Toledo: 120th (83rd)
Kent State: Unranked

HISTORY: PhD program at UC, OSU, Bowling Green, Kent State, Miami, OU, Toledo, Akron. 120 programs ranked:

OSU 18th (6th among publics)
Miami 82nd (49th)
UC 85th (51st)
Toledo 101st
OU 102nd
Bowling Green 114th
KSU & Akron: Unranked

POLITICAL SCIENCE: PhD programs at UC, OSU, Miami, KSU, Cleveland State. 105 programs ranked:

OSU 15th (7th among publics)
UC 88th (56th)
Miami, KSU & Cleveland State: Unranked

So a few takeaways.

First, why are Ohio taxpayers supporting programs that the NRC doesn't even bother to evaluate. These are the most data intensive evaluations of doctoral programs done, and they're only released about once every decade, yet fully a third of the programs above are deemed so poor and irrelevant that they aren't even evaluated. Do you really think OSU recruits physics faculty by telling them they'll be in the same state as the 120th ranked program at Toledo? Do you really think OSU political scientists are chomping at the bit to collaborate with their "colleagues" at the unranked program at Miami?

Second, this backs up my contention that UC, if it's ever going to get an AAU invite, needs to make a broad based investment in the core science, humanities and social science departments. A great medical school alone is not going to carry the day.

And finally, how much stronger would UC be if the state eliminated all but the top 3 programs and diverted the funds into them. Even if you had a situation where OSU got 40% and the two runners up each got 30%, UC would receive more funding and their programs would become stronger.
I'll dig into things further, but my hunch is that UC would always make the top 3 cut. UC is stronger across the board than any single Ohio MAC school, but it doesn't necessarily always have the second best program in the state. That's ridiculous, and it's not a function of OSU pushing us down. It's a function of all these other programs pulling us down by diluting funding and resources that the state should be concentrating into fewer programs.

(05-20-2018 08:59 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 09:33 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

PhD programs in the same geographical region complement each other. As a research professor myself, it's very attractive to be in a state with a lot of other PhD programs doing quality research.

The world might not need more English PhDs, but having PhD English programs probably helps the MAC schools recruit & retain better English faculty. It's a cost, but having better programs at the MAC schools actually helps UC recruit & retain faculty. So in the end we should be in favor of anything that helps them to get better.

You can't convince me that having as many as eight PhD programs in a given field at the Ohio public schools helps UC or OSU in the least. On the other hand, I absolutely believe that if the state funding that goes into those programs was concentrated on OSU, UC and maybe the single best MAC program in the state that Ohio would have a much more rationale, efficient and quality system.

Here are three examples, one each in sciences, humanities and social sciences. I've taken the most recent NRC rankings, averaged out their 5th and 95 percentile scores and then ranked all the schools top to bottom.

PHYSICS: In Ohio, there are doctoral programs at UC, OSU, OU, Toledo & KSU. Taking out specialty programs like chemical physics and applied physics and leaving just physics (and sometimes physics & astronomy) programs there are 143 programs ranked. The Ohio publics are ranked:

OSU: 22nd (12th among publics)
OU: 79th (57th))
UC: 94th (66th)
Toledo: 120th (83rd)
Kent State: Unranked

HISTORY: PhD program at UC, OSU, Bowling Green, Kent State, Miami, OU, Toledo, Akron. 120 programs ranked:

OSU 18th (6th among publics)
Miami 82nd (49th)
UC 85th (51st)
Toledo 101st
OU 102nd
Bowling Green 114th
KSU & Akron: Unranked

POLITICAL SCIENCE: PhD programs at UC, OSU, Miami, KSU, Cleveland State. 105 programs ranked:

OSU 15th (7th among publics)
UC 88th (56th)
Miami, KSU & Cleveland State: Unranked

So a few takeaways.

First, why are Ohio taxpayers supporting programs that the NRC doesn't even bother to evaluate. These are the most data intensive evaluations of doctoral programs done, and they're only released about once every decade, yet fully a third of the programs above are deemed so poor and irrelevant that they aren't even evaluated. Do you really think OSU recruits physics faculty by telling them they'll be in the same state as the 120th ranked program at Toledo? Do you really think OSU political scientists are chomping at the bit to collaborate with their "colleagues" at the unranked program at Miami?

Second, this backs up my contention that UC, if it's ever going to get an AAU invite, needs to make a broad based investment in the core science, humanities and social science departments. A great medical school alone is not going to carry the day.

And finally, how much stronger would UC be if the state eliminated all but the top 3 programs and diverted the funds into them. Even if you had a situation where OSU got 40% and the two runners up each got 30%, UC would receive more funding and their programs would become stronger.
I'll dig into things further, but my hunch is that UC would always make the top 3 cut. UC is stronger across the board than any single Ohio MAC school, but it doesn't necessarily always have the second best program in the state. That's ridiculous, and it's not a function of OSU pushing us down. It's a function of all these other programs pulling us down by diluting funding and resources that the state should be concentrating into fewer programs.

Let's suppose the state stepped in and closed down those failing programs at other schools. How do you suggest the state "divert" those funds to UC or OSU?

No, any money saved by forcefully shutting down those programs will stay at the university that shuts it down. How does UC benefit from that?

California has instituted a centralized system similar to what you propose - only U. of California schools can have PhD programs, and many of those UC schools are not comprehensive. The result is that California has the lowest per capita graduation of medical doctors of any state (at least, among the 43 US states & territories that have med schools - and CA's public schools are so unproductive that even including CA's massive private med schools still leaves the state in dead last). Who benefits from that?

(05-22-2018 12:18 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 08:59 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 09:33 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:25 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  A somewhat hypothetical discussion at best, but another way to look at this is for Ohio to officially designate UC as one of two top tier research institutions in the state. Reallocate funding to have two outstanding, comprehensive research universities offering a broad range of PhD programs.

Does Ohio (or the world) really need multiple doctoral programs in English, history, French or German sprinkled around places such as Kent State, Wright State, Bowling Green, Akron or Toledo? Let those schools focus on quality undergraduate education in their corners of the world.

Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

PhD programs in the same geographical region complement each other. As a research professor myself, it's very attractive to be in a state with a lot of other PhD programs doing quality research.

The world might not need more English PhDs, but having PhD English programs probably helps the MAC schools recruit & retain better English faculty. It's a cost, but having better programs at the MAC schools actually helps UC recruit & retain faculty. So in the end we should be in favor of anything that helps them to get better.

You can't convince me that having as many as eight PhD programs in a given field at the Ohio public schools helps UC or OSU in the least. On the other hand, I absolutely believe that if the state funding that goes into those programs was concentrated on OSU, UC and maybe the single best MAC program in the state that Ohio would have a much more rationale, efficient and quality system.

Here are three examples, one each in sciences, humanities and social sciences. I've taken the most recent NRC rankings, averaged out their 5th and 95 percentile scores and then ranked all the schools top to bottom.

PHYSICS: In Ohio, there are doctoral programs at UC, OSU, OU, Toledo & KSU. Taking out specialty programs like chemical physics and applied physics and leaving just physics (and sometimes physics & astronomy) programs there are 143 programs ranked. The Ohio publics are ranked:

OSU: 22nd (12th among publics)
OU: 79th (57th))
UC: 94th (66th)
Toledo: 120th (83rd)
Kent State: Unranked

HISTORY: PhD program at UC, OSU, Bowling Green, Kent State, Miami, OU, Toledo, Akron. 120 programs ranked:

OSU 18th (6th among publics)
Miami 82nd (49th)
UC 85th (51st)
Toledo 101st
OU 102nd
Bowling Green 114th
KSU & Akron: Unranked

POLITICAL SCIENCE: PhD programs at UC, OSU, Miami, KSU, Cleveland State. 105 programs ranked:

OSU 15th (7th among publics)
UC 88th (56th)
Miami, KSU & Cleveland State: Unranked

So a few takeaways.

First, why are Ohio taxpayers supporting programs that the NRC doesn't even bother to evaluate. These are the most data intensive evaluations of doctoral programs done, and they're only released about once every decade, yet fully a third of the programs above are deemed so poor and irrelevant that they aren't even evaluated. Do you really think OSU recruits physics faculty by telling them they'll be in the same state as the 120th ranked program at Toledo? Do you really think OSU political scientists are chomping at the bit to collaborate with their "colleagues" at the unranked program at Miami?

Second, this backs up my contention that UC, if it's ever going to get an AAU invite, needs to make a broad based investment in the core science, humanities and social science departments. A great medical school alone is not going to carry the day.

And finally, how much stronger would UC be if the state eliminated all but the top 3 programs and diverted the funds into them. Even if you had a situation where OSU got 40% and the two runners up each got 30%, UC would receive more funding and their programs would become stronger.
I'll dig into things further, but my hunch is that UC would always make the top 3 cut. UC is stronger across the board than any single Ohio MAC school, but it doesn't necessarily always have the second best program in the state. That's ridiculous, and it's not a function of OSU pushing us down. It's a function of all these other programs pulling us down by diluting funding and resources that the state should be concentrating into fewer programs.

Let's suppose the state stepped in and closed down those failing programs at other schools. How do you suggest the state "divert" those funds to UC or OSU?

No, any money saved by forcefully shutting down those programs will stay at the university that shuts it down. How does UC benefit from that?

California has instituted a centralized system similar to what you propose - only U. of California schools can have PhD programs, and many of those UC schools are not comprehensive. The result is that California has the lowest per capita graduation of medical doctors of any state (at least, among the 43 US states & territories that have med schools - and CA's public schools are so unproductive that even including CA's massive private med schools still leaves the state in dead last). Who benefits from that?

Ohio funds graduate programs the same as they fund undergraduates, on a per-student instructional subsidy. Take away the doctoral programs, and there are no doctoral students at that university receiving the funding. It could stay within the overall higher ed budget and increase the per student subsidy at programs deemed strong enough to survive.

Does California have a shortage of doctors? I don't think so. Some of the rural areas might, but that is also a problem shared with many states that are over served by medical schools. There is not a causality between rural doctor shortages and the number of medical schools a state funds. How about law schools? Do you think it's sane that Ohio funds more public law schools than California.

As for the California system, I know that it has created multiple world class public universities, and a big cause for that is precisely that it doesn't stretch resources too thin by allowing 24 Cal State campuses to all go on empire building journeys thinking they can become Berkeley. I'd gladly take a role of UC being the UCLA to OSU's Berkeley over what we have today.

You're viewing what's best for Ohio and UC through the prism of SDSU's desires, and it has a hard-on for thinking that it has some right to tear up the California Master Plan and do precisely that kind of empire building despite the fact that the state of California funds a global class research university right down the road in the very same town and three more up the road in the LA metro area. SDSU needs to stick to what it was founded to be, not what it thinks it has some right to become.

(05-22-2018 07:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 12:18 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 08:59 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 09:33 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 07:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Absolutely not, and I've been saying as much at state level discussions for multiple years. I believe we should really consider a regional educational consortium model, where doctoral programs are shared by two Universities to help cut costs and allow for further specialization rather than an unnecessary level of competition being created. Kent and Akron already do this with NEOMed, the model is literally staring us in the face.

PhD programs in the same geographical region complement each other. As a research professor myself, it's very attractive to be in a state with a lot of other PhD programs doing quality research.

The world might not need more English PhDs, but having PhD English programs probably helps the MAC schools recruit & retain better English faculty. It's a cost, but having better programs at the MAC schools actually helps UC recruit & retain faculty. So in the end we should be in favor of anything that helps them to get better.

You can't convince me that having as many as eight PhD programs in a given field at the Ohio public schools helps UC or OSU in the least. On the other hand, I absolutely believe that if the state funding that goes into those programs was concentrated on OSU, UC and maybe the single best MAC program in the state that Ohio would have a much more rationale, efficient and quality system.

Here are three examples, one each in sciences, humanities and social sciences. I've taken the most recent NRC rankings, averaged out their 5th and 95 percentile scores and then ranked all the schools top to bottom.

PHYSICS: In Ohio, there are doctoral programs at UC, OSU, OU, Toledo & KSU. Taking out specialty programs like chemical physics and applied physics and leaving just physics (and sometimes physics & astronomy) programs there are 143 programs ranked. The Ohio publics are ranked:

OSU: 22nd (12th among publics)
OU: 79th (57th))
UC: 94th (66th)
Toledo: 120th (83rd)
Kent State: Unranked

HISTORY: PhD program at UC, OSU, Bowling Green, Kent State, Miami, OU, Toledo, Akron. 120 programs ranked:

OSU 18th (6th among publics)
Miami 82nd (49th)
UC 85th (51st)
Toledo 101st
OU 102nd
Bowling Green 114th
KSU & Akron: Unranked

POLITICAL SCIENCE: PhD programs at UC, OSU, Miami, KSU, Cleveland State. 105 programs ranked:

OSU 15th (7th among publics)
UC 88th (56th)
Miami, KSU & Cleveland State: Unranked

So a few takeaways.

First, why are Ohio taxpayers supporting programs that the NRC doesn't even bother to evaluate. These are the most data intensive evaluations of doctoral programs done, and they're only released about once every decade, yet fully a third of the programs above are deemed so poor and irrelevant that they aren't even evaluated. Do you really think OSU recruits physics faculty by telling them they'll be in the same state as the 120th ranked program at Toledo? Do you really think OSU political scientists are chomping at the bit to collaborate with their "colleagues" at the unranked program at Miami?

Second, this backs up my contention that UC, if it's ever going to get an AAU invite, needs to make a broad based investment in the core science, humanities and social science departments. A great medical school alone is not going to carry the day.

And finally, how much stronger would UC be if the state eliminated all but the top 3 programs and diverted the funds into them. Even if you had a situation where OSU got 40% and the two runners up each got 30%, UC would receive more funding and their programs would become stronger.
I'll dig into things further, but my hunch is that UC would always make the top 3 cut. UC is stronger across the board than any single Ohio MAC school, but it doesn't necessarily always have the second best program in the state. That's ridiculous, and it's not a function of OSU pushing us down. It's a function of all these other programs pulling us down by diluting funding and resources that the state should be concentrating into fewer programs.

Let's suppose the state stepped in and closed down those failing programs at other schools. How do you suggest the state "divert" those funds to UC or OSU?

No, any money saved by forcefully shutting down those programs will stay at the university that shuts it down. How does UC benefit from that?

California has instituted a centralized system similar to what you propose - only U. of California schools can have PhD programs, and many of those UC schools are not comprehensive. The result is that California has the lowest per capita graduation of medical doctors of any state (at least, among the 43 US states & territories that have med schools - and CA's public schools are so unproductive that even including CA's massive private med schools still leaves the state in dead last). Who benefits from that?

Ohio funds graduate programs the same as they fund undergraduates, on a per-student instructional subsidy. Take away the doctoral programs, and there are no doctoral students at that university receiving the funding. It could stay within the overall higher ed budget and increase the per student subsidy at programs deemed strong enough to survive.

Does California have a shortage of doctors? I don't think so. Some of the rural areas might, but that is also a problem shared with many states that are over served by medical schools. There is not a causality between rural doctor shortages and the number of medical schools a state funds. How about law schools? Do you think it's sane that Ohio funds more public law schools than California.

As for the California system, I know that it has created multiple world class public universities, and a big cause for that is precisely that it doesn't stretch resources too thin by allowing 24 Cal State campuses to all go on empire building journeys thinking they can become Berkeley. I'd gladly take a role of UC being the UCLA to OSU's Berkeley over what we have today.

You're viewing what's best for Ohio and UC through the prism of SDSU's desires, and it has a hard-on for thinking that it has some right to tear up the California Master Plan and do precisely that kind of empire building despite the fact that the state of California funds a global class research university right down the road in the very same town and three more up the road in the LA metro area. SDSU needs to stick to what it was founded to be, not what it thinks it has some right to become.

All of this is why I believe going state-wide here would not be the most successful model. If you create regional partnerships (BGSU/Toledo in NW Ohio, Kent/Akron in NE Ohio, Miami/Cincinnati in SW Ohio) would be the best, since you do have some semblance of balancing and control on a regional level. Leave OSU as the full-service University, Central State can't be touched, make Wright State and Cleveland State into Undergraduate-only institutions, and make Shawnee into a technical college, with OU being the only institution in the SE. That way you can ensure each region has the supply to ensure demand is met, but you don't have as much program overlap as we do now which is causing significant budget-related issues at ALL of the schools mentioned outside of Ohio State.

I first remember the discussion of Ohio limiting the number of schools issuing PhD in the late 80's. The number I remember being discussed was 2 Ohio PhD programs per disicipline. The argument was the same then as it is now - who gets to keep their programs and which schools are selected for the culling.

Based on rankings OSU would be the obvious choice in a majority of disiciplines. I imagine OSU is also the obvious winner in the political favor category as well. So, how are the remaining schools chosen?

Is this still a net benefit to UC if we are allowed to continue to award 60% of our current PhDs? I'm certain it would strengthen UC in the areas selected to continue but losing PhD programs in some areas would be a critical blow. It is not resonable to assume UC would not have some cuts.

(05-22-2018 08:20 AM)Bearcat1010 Wrote:  I first remember the discussion of Ohio limiting the number of schools issuing PhD in the late 80's. The number I remember being discussed was 2 Ohio PhD programs per disicipline. The argument was the same then as it is now - who gets to keep their programs and which schools are selected for the culling.

Based on rankings OSU would be the obvious choice in a majority of disiciplines. I imagine OSU is also the obvious winner in the political favor category as well. So, how are the remaining schools chosen?

Is this still a net benefit to UC if we are allowed to continue to award 60% of our current PhDs? I'm certain it would strengthen UC in the areas selected to continue but losing PhD programs in some areas would be a critical blow. It is not resonable to assume UC would not have some cuts.

I think two is too few. Three is just about right and would be roughly in line with California if based upon population and the overall number of four-year public universities. I wouldn't have a problem with four if there were four strong programs. Also, three would protect programs at UC that might be slightly lower ranked than one at an Ohio MAC school. I'd also get rid of one of the NE law schools.

Ideally, you'd want to remove politics from the equation as much as possible. The NRC rankings would be a good place to start and wouldn't require a financial investment on the part of the state to hire consultants and conduct studies. I'm still going to dig further into the NRC rankings, but I'm willing to venture that UC would never be the 4th ranked public doctoral program in the state.

I remember the talk of the late 80s. I think OSU's position was that they'd put any doctoral program on the block provided that decisions were apolitical and made by academics from outside the state. Unfortunately, Voinovich came in, and he had next to no interest in higher education other than as it being the first thing to cut in the budget. Taft was better but only in the sense that he didn't really do anything good or bad. The state didn't really have another Governor who actually cared about the higher education system until Strickland came in.