MplsBison
Banned
Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
|
RE: If the B1G wants to go to 16,...
(12-15-2015 11:22 AM)5thTiger Wrote: (12-15-2015 10:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote: (12-15-2015 09:53 AM)5thTiger Wrote: (12-14-2015 10:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote: (12-14-2015 12:47 PM)5thTiger Wrote: For those who didn't follow it in the slightest. Nebraska's medical school is a separate entity, and therefore their numbers don't get to be used for Nebraska. Another HUGE reason is that Agriculture research has a very different process for allocating money. Its not competitive as only certain parts of the country have the weather/soil/etc. to do certain types of research. So alot of metrics decide to leave out Ag research
That obviously affects the biggest benefactors in the numbers...IE Nebraska, Iowa State (Iowa to a degree), Missouri, Kansas.
But Nebraska's downfall was not having the medical school on campus, alongside the rest of the rankings.
But I really don't think Iowa State, Missouri, or Kansas have anything to worry about. Particularly Missouri or Kansas. Both have plenty of other research outside of Agriculture. Agriculture isn't as sexy as some of the other industries, but it is a juggernaut in terms of influence and the basis of research.
Summary: Nebraska doesn't have a med school, which was their nail in the coffin. Agriculture numbers don't count the same (making numbers look worse), but are still very important.
Missouri is lower than Nebraska in research -- and that's NOT including the U of NE med center in Omaha with the Lincoln number ... and that IS including the Columbia med center with the Columbia number.
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_19.html
Iowa #45 *** This number INCLUDES the U of IA med center in Iowa City
Iowa St #74 (no med school)
Kansas #77 *** This number INCLUDES the U of KS med center in KC
Nebraska #80 *** This number DOES NOT include the U of NE med center in Omaha
Missouri #88 *** This number INCLUDES the U of MO med center in Columbia
Further, let's look at just research that is funded from federal agencies.
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_22.html
And let's focus on research funded by the USDA. (ranked by overall, USDA research in parenthesis)
Iowa #53 236M total (USDA <1M)
Kansas #65 172M total (USDA 1.4M)
Iowa St #94 116M total (USDA 34M)
Missouri #103 105M total (USDA 18M)
Nebraska #110 110M total (USDA 16M)
So ... how in the hell is it possible that Iowa St and Missouri are still considered AAU, but Nebraska is not??
You add in the U of NE med center in Omaha -- which is exactly the same situation that Kansas does with its med center in Kansas City -- and Nebraska is now up by Iowa overall.
Like I said, obviously the NE president pissed off the wrong people. AAU doesn't mean anything. It's a good ole boy country club.
I know for a fact that those numbers are not correct. Just FWIW. The last research project when I was working as a research assistant was over 30M.
You are way off the mark on this whole thing.
I know the former President of Missouri quite well. We, along with kansas are in absolutely no danger of losing AAU status, nor were we at the time.
Nebraska had been on the chopping block for over a decade.
Privately funded research doesn't show up on these FEDERALLY funded worksheets. But I can tell you for a fact that the Monsanto's, Pioneer's, and DuPont's of the world give hundreds of millions annually for ag research.
The latest numbers are for FY2014. Missouri has grown somewhat, but it's not like the FY2015 numbers are going to be a 50% increase.
Sorry, those are the factual numbers. Reported by the school itself, to the National Science Foundation via the HERD survey.
And the data DOES include research funding from private sources. Here is the table that breaks it down by federal, state/local, business, non-profit and institutional (internally funded): http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/...ST_18.html
For FY2014, Missouri had $237M overall research funding (ranked #88) and of that 6.7M was from businesses.
One thing that would seem to be "holding Missouri back", if you will, is that its med center does a relatively low amount of research.
I have no idea why they decided to put a med center out in the middle of nowhere, Columbia.
It should have gone in STL or KC. I guess they figured that they could never compete with Washington in STL. And perhaps Kansas already had established its med center in KC (on the other side of the river).
The UMKC med school is relatively new and would not have posed any threat to Missouri.
But anyway...
I was not calling for Iowa St or Missouri to lose AAU standing. Kansas is above both you guys, closer to Iowa.
I'm simply pointing out that there's no way that Nebraska can fail to make the cut if Missouri is still in -- just based on research funding dollars. There had to be more to it than that.
That simply isn't true. Knowing who I know, I have it from the horses mouth. Also, you clearly have no clue about the universities of Missouri (columbia, middle of nowhere, wtf are you talking about? 100k+ pop), kansas, Iowa, Iowa State, or Nebraska.
Once again, those numbers are not correct as they are only considering certain amounts of federally funded R&D.
Don't spread lies as you are now. A 2/3 ouster is not a President pissing off a few people. Do some easy reading. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011...aska_leave
http://chronicle.com/article/Ouster-Open...te/127364/
Membership Criteria: http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10972
Reported and -2 for falsely accusing me lying. Shame on you.
Can't get more "from the horse's mouth" than the NSF data. What incentive would Missouri have to lie on its own self-reported research funding numbers?? Ridiculous.
And, as I correctly mentioned before, the data includes ALL funding, not just federal.
I don't care if you won't accept these facts as the truth. It only makes you ignorant.
Are you trying to suggest that it is impossible to piss off a few key presidents and have them lobby 2/3rds of the membership to vote out Nebraska? I would say that's not only possible, but probably what happened.
Again, Nebraska -- WITHOUT the Omaha med center -- has research numbers comparable to Missouri -- WITH its Columbia med center. Yet Missouri was not voted out, while Nebraska was.
Smells fishy.
I will also maintain my *opinion* that it was not a smart idea to put the med center in Columbia. The best locally comparison to that is Iowa, with med center in Iowa City. That's 30mins to Cedar Rapids metro (250k) and 1 hr to Davenport metro (500k).
Columbia is 2hrs to KC and STL. So people in KC are going to go to the U of KS med center and people in STL are going to go to the Wash U med center.
|
|