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

(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?