(01-18-2016 03:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm curious, Todge. Do all your posts start out "that article/post/comment is stupid" or just most of them?

Not sure, but I do know he is dedicated to the Rube Goldberg method of debate.

(01-18-2016 03:53 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this article is stupid and full of factual inaccuracies and the professor that wrote in is a total and complete moron

1. The Carnegie Classifications are not rankings and they have NEVER been rankings and they are not intended to be rankings and the Carnegie Foundation has specifically disavowed their classification system being used as a ranking and they have repeatedly changed their terminology to try and prevent them from being used as a ranking

so "the professor" is simply a moron and here is proof of the above

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/re...s/faqs.php

Where are the Carnegie rankings?

The Carnegie Foundation does not rank colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences.

Why did the Carnegie Foundation move away from its original single classification system?

A single classification cannot do justice to the complex nature of higher education today. When the Carnegie Classification was created in 1970, there were about 2,800 U.S. colleges and universities. Today there are more than 4,500.

Colleges and universities are complex organizations, and a single classification masks the range of ways they can resemble or differ from one another. As valuable as it has been, the basic framework has blind spots. For example, it says nothing about undergraduate education for institutions that award more than a minimum number of graduate degrees. Yet most of these institutions enroll more undergraduates than graduate or professional students.

Another motivation for these changes has to do with the persistent confusion of classification and ranking. For years, both the Carnegie Foundation and others in the higher education community have been concerned about the extent to which the Carnegie Classification dominates considerations of institutional differences, and especially the extent to which it is misinterpreted as an assessment of quality, thereby establishing aspirational targets. This phenomenon has been most pronounced among doctorate-granting institutions, where it is not uncommon to find explicit strategic ambitions to “move up” the perceived hierarchy. By introducing a new set of classifications we hope to call attention to the range of ways that institutions resemble and differ from one another and also to de-emphasize the improper use of the classification as informal quality touchstone.



2. Carnegie has not used the I, II and III since 1994 (earth to professor idiot get out of your office into the real world)

What happened to Research I, Research II, etc.? Has the Carnegie Foundation altered its traditional classification framework?

The Research I & II and Doctoral I & II categories of doctorate-granting institutions last appeared in the 1994 edition. The use of Roman numerals was discontinued to avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences. The traditional classification framework was updated in 2005 and since identified as the Basic Classification. Many of the category definitions and labels changed with this revision.

3. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/listings.php

earth to barry the idiot and idiot (probably fake) professor friend

there are new Carnegie Classifications out just in the past few weeks

in these Texas, Texas Tech, OU, WVU, KSU, ISU and KU are all classified as the highest classification......which of course shows nothing about actual rankings or academic quality overall

but is still proves this professor is a fool since he was claiming that several were "a decade away"

and I believe there is probably an issue with the OkState classification as well and they should possibly be "highest" unless there were major changes in the system of classification

4. of the schools listed only CSU would remotely be on a track for even possible AAU inclusion and that is not likely and if one looks at the metrics of the past public school let into the AAU which was GaTech one can see what type of metrics it REALLY takes to get AAU consideration as a medium to large public university and none of those he listed are close

You're so hung up on that miniscule detail that's obviously irrelevant in real life.

First off, a rose is rose by any other name. If its not designed as a ranking, then why classify them at all? Why not just publish a list of the schools qualifying research dollars from highest to lowest? By doing that, the Carnegie "classifications" would no longer be mistaken for rankings. By classifying the research levels, there have indeed created a ranking of sorts. Its a problem of their own making and it is, in fact, considered a "ranking" in academia whether Carnegie likes it or not.

Secondly, the Carnegie research classifications are just another metric that academia seems to feel IS reflective of a certain quality they are looking for in fellow schools. Just as your own postings directly from Carnegie state---the classifications indicate "meaningful similarities" between universities. Thus, the professor in question was merely pointing out that, yes---schools making decisions on who they want to associate with at the conference level do in fact look at these Carnegie classifications to look for similar universities (which even by Carnegie's own definition, would be a reasonable use of such data).

it is sadly pathetic that UH graduates such obtuse and desperate people into the real world

in spite of all the CLEAR explanation of the very organization that makes the classifications leave it to a UH grad to cling to their academic dishonesty and to ignore the very clear and through statements of the very organization they claim their (false) stature from about why a single metric dealing with total research and development funding that does not even attempt to take into context the actual value, meaningfulness or worth of that research is not a ranking of a university

much less the fact that there is no adjustment or normalization for the number of faculty at an institution or anything else related to a single dollar metric

(01-18-2016 03:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  It's not like the non-AAU, non-Carnegie schools have weak academics, just different missions that emphasize undergraduate education (at least for the privates). I get that research= prestige, but there are other ways for a school to have strong academic prestige. I doubt there is an academic litmus test.

I do agree that using purely AAU is not really fair, both due to missions, and the fact that AAU is mostly about how much money a school has to spend on research, which often does not really correlate to how good the actual curriculum is. I went to three colleges, one was AAU, and the other two were more or less directional U. And my classes as the other two were far more challenging and informative, and had much more qualified professors, then the AAU school I graduated from.

While Frog has a valid point the AAU is actually not at all about the amount of research dollars a university has it is in fact far from that

the AAU takes into account the mission of a university (public or private) and further it looks deeper at that mission IE is it one of only a few public schools in the entire state or is it one of dozens

they look at the quality of faculty overall, they look at the student metrics, they look at graduation rates, they look at specific types of research, they normalize for total number of faculty, they take into account medical school or no medical school, they exclude statutorily awarded research dollars and they loom at a number of other factors

which gets back to why the Carnegie Foundation specifically disavows their singular classification based on research and development dollars as a "ranking" because it tells you next to nothing about the university or the students at that university or their experience or the success or failure of the university to even graduate students

the AAU is pretty much the opposite of "just looks at research dollars" which is why there are many universities with a large amount of total research that will never be in the AAU while there are a number of others with lesser total research that will continue to be in the AAU for a long time

because the AAU does judge the entire university and they do it as a comparison to peers and non-peers as well

Lol. The only one clinging is you dude. In the real world of academia, it is being used as a ranking or a comparative metric. It doesn't matter what Carnigie's intended purpose is or is not. It's wide use as a metric in the real world is a fact and if Carnigie had an issue with that it would stop publishing an annual list.

There is a reason why Boise State isn't being chased by the Pac 12 or B1G.

(01-18-2016 04:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lol. The only one clinging is you dude. In the real world of academia, it is being used as a ranking or a comparative metric. It doesn't matter what Carnigie's dlintended purpose is or is not. It's wide use as a metric in the real world is a fact and if Carnigie had an issue with that it would stop publishing an annual list.

they do not publish an annual list they make their classifications every 5 years

and again how pathetic of an academic must one be to ignore the very clear and concise explanation from Carnegie about why their classifications are not rankings

this is not football or womens golf it is actually academics where integrity and honesty should be valued and where actual words have meaning and where one should not show how intellectually bankrupt they are by claiming a single metric of research and development dollars that does not even examine the value or the quality of the research much less normalize it for the differences in faculty count between universities as a ranking of an entire university

I mean it is spelled out clear as day the fact that research has little to do with the undergrad experience, graduation rates, quality of faculty, differences in the size of a university, quality of students admitted to a university or pretty much ANYTHING that actually deals with educating students especially at the undergrad level

so trying to use it as a metric to judge an entire university is simply intellectually bankrupt

this is why UH will never be in the AAU because their president/chancellor can't get past the idea that the AAU does not judge universities based on meeting a series of check boxes relative to other members especially those at the lower level of any individual metric and the AAU (just like the Carnegie Foundation) is not interested in or encouraging universities to pretend that you can meet little check box criteria at an institution of tens of thousands of students and thousands of faculty and simply say "we have made meaningful change" in 10 years or even 15 years

the AAU is not interested in schools that try to simple meet metrics believing that gains them membership especially without any comparison to specific peers with similar missions and make ups

just like Carnegie is not interested in encouraging a university to ramp up a single metric hardly related to undergraduate education to them try and claim a ranking for the entire university

one has to be a simpleton to not understand that

billboards and fake "tier 1" only appeals to the lowest common denominator, but those that matter in academia know the reality and they laugh at it, but hey some go with slogans and billboards over actual substance

So sorry, NebraskaFan.

I know you were desperate to pull your old Big Eight rival up into the B1G. Well, they have some work to do!!

(01-18-2016 03:38 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  Notre Dame, Boston College, Dartmouth are just some of the top US colleges not in the AAU, but still they undertake major research. These three are far harder to be accepted to than some of the colleges listed as AAU members.

BC is very low on the research expenditure ranking list.

(01-18-2016 04:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So sorry, NebraskaFan.

I know you were desperate to pull your old Big Eight rival up into the B1G. Well, they have some work to do!!

Don't care why you are afraid of Oklahoma going to the B1G. I just ignore it.

(01-18-2016 02:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Academics matter if you are a conference strong enough to act rather than react

Academics matter to Presidents of AAU, Carnegie I , Tier One universities.

(01-18-2016 04:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 04:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lol. The only one clinging is you dude. In the real world of academia, it is being used as a ranking or a comparative metric. It doesn't matter what Carnigie's dlintended purpose is or is not. It's wide use as a metric in the real world is a fact and if Carnigie had an issue with that it would stop publishing an annual list.

they do not publish an annual list they make their classifications every 5 years

and again how pathetic of an academic must one be to ignore the very clear and concise explanation from Carnegie about why their classifications are not rankings

this is not football or womens golf it is actually academics where integrity and honesty should be valued and where actual words have meaning and where one should not show how intellectually bankrupt they are by claiming a single metric of research and development dollars that does not even examine the value or the quality of the research much less normalize it for the differences in faculty count between universities as a ranking of an entire university

I mean it is spelled out clear as day the fact that research has little to do with the undergrad experience, graduation rates, quality of faculty, differences in the size of a university, quality of students admitted to a university or pretty much ANYTHING that actually deals with educating students especially at the undergrad level

so trying to use it as a metric to judge an entire university is simply intellectually bankrupt

this is why UH will never be in the AAU because their president/chancellor can't get past the idea that the AAU does not judge universities based on meeting a series of check boxes relative to other members especially those at the lower level of any individual metric and the AAU (just like the Carnegie Foundation) is not interested in or encouraging universities to pretend that you can meet little check box criteria at an institution of tens of thousands of students and thousands of faculty and simply say "we have made meaningful change" in 10 years or even 15 years

the AAU is not interested in schools that try to simple meet metrics believing that gains them membership especially without any comparison to specific peers with similar missions and make ups

just like Carnegie is not interested in encouraging a university to ramp up a single metric hardly related to undergraduate education to them try and claim a ranking for the entire university

one has to be a simpleton to not understand that

billboards and fake "tier 1" only appeals to the lowest common denominator, but those that matter in academia know the reality and they laugh at it, but hey some go with slogans and billboards over actual substance

Does your planet have capital letters?

Trammel was pimping ECU and even Memphis to the Big 12 for awhile earlier this season. Clearly, someone decided to educate him. Those two schools have zero chance.

(01-18-2016 03:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this article is stupid and full of factual inaccuracies and the professor that wrote in is a total and complete moron

1. The Carnegie Classifications are not rankings and they have NEVER been rankings and they are not intended to be rankings and the Carnegie Foundation has specifically disavowed their classification system being used as a ranking and they have repeatedly changed their terminology to try and prevent them from being used as a ranking

so "the professor" is simply a moron and here is proof of the above

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/re...s/faqs.php

Where are the Carnegie rankings?

The Carnegie Foundation does not rank colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences.

Why did the Carnegie Foundation move away from its original single classification system?

A single classification cannot do justice to the complex nature of higher education today. When the Carnegie Classification was created in 1970, there were about 2,800 U.S. colleges and universities. Today there are more than 4,500.

Colleges and universities are complex organizations, and a single classification masks the range of ways they can resemble or differ from one another. As valuable as it has been, the basic framework has blind spots. For example, it says nothing about undergraduate education for institutions that award more than a minimum number of graduate degrees. Yet most of these institutions enroll more undergraduates than graduate or professional students.

Another motivation for these changes has to do with the persistent confusion of classification and ranking. For years, both the Carnegie Foundation and others in the higher education community have been concerned about the extent to which the Carnegie Classification dominates considerations of institutional differences, and especially the extent to which it is misinterpreted as an assessment of quality, thereby establishing aspirational targets. This phenomenon has been most pronounced among doctorate-granting institutions, where it is not uncommon to find explicit strategic ambitions to “move up” the perceived hierarchy. By introducing a new set of classifications we hope to call attention to the range of ways that institutions resemble and differ from one another and also to de-emphasize the improper use of the classification as informal quality touchstone.



2. Carnegie has not used the I, II and III since 1994 (earth to professor idiot get out of your office into the real world)

What happened to Research I, Research II, etc.? Has the Carnegie Foundation altered its traditional classification framework?

The Research I & II and Doctoral I & II categories of doctorate-granting institutions last appeared in the 1994 edition. The use of Roman numerals was discontinued to avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences. The traditional classification framework was updated in 2005 and since identified as the Basic Classification. Many of the category definitions and labels changed with this revision.

3. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/listings.php

earth to barry the idiot and idiot (probably fake) professor friend

there are new Carnegie Classifications out just in the past few weeks

in these Texas, Texas Tech, OU, WVU, KSU, ISU and KU are all classified as the highest classification......which of course shows nothing about actual rankings or academic quality overall

but is still proves this professor is a fool since he was claiming that several were "a decade away"

and I believe there is probably an issue with the OkState classification as well and they should possibly be "highest" unless there were major changes in the system of classification

4. of the schools listed only CSU would remotely be on a track for even possible AAU inclusion and that is not likely and if one looks at the metrics of the past public school let into the AAU which was GaTech one can see what type of metrics it REALLY takes to get AAU consideration as a medium to large public university and none of those he listed are close

They categorize and very high research activity is a CATEGORY

(01-18-2016 03:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this article is stupid and full of factual inaccuracies and the professor that wrote in is a total and complete moron

1. The Carnegie Classifications are not rankings and they have NEVER been rankings and they are not intended to be rankings and the Carnegie Foundation has specifically disavowed their classification system being used as a ranking and they have repeatedly changed their terminology to try and prevent them from being used as a ranking

so "the professor" is simply a moron and here is proof of the above

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/re...s/faqs.php

Where are the Carnegie rankings?

The Carnegie Foundation does not rank colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences.

Why did the Carnegie Foundation move away from its original single classification system?

A single classification cannot do justice to the complex nature of higher education today. When the Carnegie Classification was created in 1970, there were about 2,800 U.S. colleges and universities. Today there are more than 4,500.

Colleges and universities are complex organizations, and a single classification masks the range of ways they can resemble or differ from one another. As valuable as it has been, the basic framework has blind spots. For example, it says nothing about undergraduate education for institutions that award more than a minimum number of graduate degrees. Yet most of these institutions enroll more undergraduates than graduate or professional students.

Another motivation for these changes has to do with the persistent confusion of classification and ranking. For years, both the Carnegie Foundation and others in the higher education community have been concerned about the extent to which the Carnegie Classification dominates considerations of institutional differences, and especially the extent to which it is misinterpreted as an assessment of quality, thereby establishing aspirational targets. This phenomenon has been most pronounced among doctorate-granting institutions, where it is not uncommon to find explicit strategic ambitions to “move up” the perceived hierarchy. By introducing a new set of classifications we hope to call attention to the range of ways that institutions resemble and differ from one another and also to de-emphasize the improper use of the classification as informal quality touchstone.



2. Carnegie has not used the I, II and III since 1994 (earth to professor idiot get out of your office into the real world)

What happened to Research I, Research II, etc.? Has the Carnegie Foundation altered its traditional classification framework?

The Research I & II and Doctoral I & II categories of doctorate-granting institutions last appeared in the 1994 edition. The use of Roman numerals was discontinued to avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences. The traditional classification framework was updated in 2005 and since identified as the Basic Classification. Many of the category definitions and labels changed with this revision.

3. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/listings.php

earth to barry the idiot and idiot (probably fake) professor friend

there are new Carnegie Classifications out just in the past few weeks

in these Texas, Texas Tech, OU, WVU, KSU, ISU and KU are all classified as the highest classification......which of course shows nothing about actual rankings or academic quality overall

but is still proves this professor is a fool since he was claiming that several were "a decade away"

and I believe there is probably an issue with the OkState classification as well and they should possibly be "highest" unless there were major changes in the system of classification

4. of the schools listed only CSU would remotely be on a track for even possible AAU inclusion and that is not likely and if one looks at the metrics of the past public school let into the AAU which was GaTech one can see what type of metrics it REALLY takes to get AAU consideration as a medium to large public university and none of those he listed are close

I'm curious, Todge. Do all your posts start out "that article/post/comment is stupid" or just most of them?

This post is stupid, er, I mean you noticed that as well?

(01-18-2016 04:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 04:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lol. The only one clinging is you dude. In the real world of academia, it is being used as a ranking or a comparative metric. It doesn't matter what Carnigie's dlintended purpose is or is not. It's wide use as a metric in the real world is a fact and if Carnigie had an issue with that it would stop publishing an annual list.

they do not publish an annual list they make their classifications every 5 years

and again how pathetic of an academic must one be to ignore the very clear and concise explanation from Carnegie about why their classifications are not rankings

this is not football or womens golf it is actually academics where integrity and honesty should be valued and where actual words have meaning and where one should not show how intellectually bankrupt they are by claiming a single metric of research and development dollars that does not even examine the value or the quality of the research much less normalize it for the differences in faculty count between universities as a ranking of an entire university

I mean it is spelled out clear as day the fact that research has little to do with the undergrad experience, graduation rates, quality of faculty, differences in the size of a university, quality of students admitted to a university or pretty much ANYTHING that actually deals with educating students especially at the undergrad level

so trying to use it as a metric to judge an entire university is simply intellectually bankrupt

this is why UH will never be in the AAU because their president/chancellor can't get past the idea that the AAU does not judge universities based on meeting a series of check boxes relative to other members especially those at the lower level of any individual metric and the AAU (just like the Carnegie Foundation) is not interested in or encouraging universities to pretend that you can meet little check box criteria at an institution of tens of thousands of students and thousands of faculty and simply say "we have made meaningful change" in 10 years or even 15 years

the AAU is not interested in schools that try to simple meet metrics believing that gains them membership especially without any comparison to specific peers with similar missions and make ups

just like Carnegie is not interested in encouraging a university to ramp up a single metric hardly related to undergraduate education to them try and claim a ranking for the entire university

one has to be a simpleton to not understand that

billboards and fake "tier 1" only appeals to the lowest common denominator, but those that matter in academia know the reality and they laugh at it, but hey some go with slogans and billboards over actual substance

Lol. Swings and misses...as usual. All your verbose flailing about and attacks on UH (which is totally irrelevant to the point being discussed) has missed the point yet again. The Carnigie classifications have indeed become a respected metric in academia. It's information. If a conference prefers its potential candidates to be Carnegie VHR schools---that's a perfectly reasonable use of the data (even by Carnigie's own standards).

(01-18-2016 03:38 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  Notre Dame, Boston College, Dartmouth are just some of the top US colleges not in the AAU, but still they undertake major research. These three are far harder to be accepted to than some of the colleges listed as AAU members.

Yes but they ARE USNWR Tier One universities. AAU and Carnegie are not the only metrics.

Actually, I am not sure any conference uses the Carnegie classifications per se. The Big 10 has a clear preference for AAU membership, and I have heard the Pac 12 places emphasis on the ARWU rankings, which take into account several measures in addition to research activity.

Trammel is playing his role well. He is building up the value of a prospective invite to The Big Ten. He is saying that he cannot see it happen but would be ecstatic if it was to happen in order to program Oklahomans to want that invite but at the same time to think it isn't possible so that when it happens (possibly) then folks will be happy about it because of what it says about The University of Oklahoma instead of perhaps wishing they had went elsewhere.

Looks like Trammel has been taking a few phone calls.

(01-18-2016 05:23 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Actually, I am not sure any conference uses the Carnegie classifications per se. The Big 10 has a clear preference for AAU membership, and I have heard the Pac 12 places emphasis on the ARWU rankings, which take into account several measures in addition to research activity.

There are several respected metrics and the more of them in which you appear near he top as a university or as individual programs at a university, the better.

I'll buy the theory that academics matter. After all, athletic programs are pretty much glorified advertising/PR departments for most universities. To that extent, I can see a college care about playing/associating with good schools because that relationship ensures that the type of students that the college wants to attract watch their games. However, I fail to see how research at Texas Texh impacts West Virginia in any noticeable way. So, I don't buy that research matters -at all.

It matters because Academia are the people speaking directly to The President. The Athletic Directors that are all over Athletics and Realignment, they directly answer to The President. Academia cares for Research a whole hell of a lot because THAT is where they make their name. They make their name by getting their work peer reviewed and approved. Folks may not want to admit it but who you know matters just as much as what you do when it comes to these reviews and that is quite sad but it is the truth. Thus any kind of relationship that can be built with institutions that have the people to be connected to, well it is a big deal.

This isn't about numbers or statistics. It is about names and knowing the people behind those names.

Exactly. University Presidents are academics and listen to other academic within an without the University