- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Research schools?
Posted on 9/14/11 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 9/14/11 at 2:51 pm
Why does your research have any bearing on what conference you play football in?
3
Posted on 9/14/11 at 3:17 pm to Wolf Shirt
There is no direct link between research and conference affiliation. I think it is more of a general academic perception and "reputation" thing. (Usually used as a blimp to deflect the conversation).
The only consideration is if that distinction was tied to academic requirements for admission, especially for student athletes.
But I think we have seen that Ohio State (B1G)doesn't have very tough requirements for their student athletes...same goes for North Carolina (ACC). Same goes for Oregon State (Pac 12). And you can't tell me that Jamaal Charles or Vince Young learned even basic grammar while attending tu. So, academic reputation doesn't always hold for athletics...
The only consideration is if that distinction was tied to academic requirements for admission, especially for student athletes.
But I think we have seen that Ohio State (B1G)doesn't have very tough requirements for their student athletes...same goes for North Carolina (ACC). Same goes for Oregon State (Pac 12). And you can't tell me that Jamaal Charles or Vince Young learned even basic grammar while attending tu. So, academic reputation doesn't always hold for athletics...
Posted on 9/14/11 at 3:24 pm to Spirit Of Aggieland
On the flipside, excellent academic schools like Rice and Tulane are not in major conferences.
Posted on 9/14/11 at 4:13 pm to Spirit Of Aggieland
quote:
There is no direct link between research and conference affiliation. I think it is more of a general academic perception and "reputation" thing. (Usually used as a blimp to deflect the conversation).
For most conferences, that's true. However the B1G does things a bit differently. Every member in the B1G plus University of Chicago, who was a founding member of the Big Ten way back in 1895, are members of the CIC and up until Nebraska got themselves kicked out of the AAU, they were all members of the AAU.
From what I understand of the CIC, they pool resources for better efficiencies. Its almost like a multi-state version of the University of California system.
Posted on 9/14/11 at 4:24 pm to relapse98
Thanks for clarifying, I did not know this CIC.
But that in a good idea and an interesting concept, pooling resources together. Sounds like the opposite of hoarding all your resources for yourself...
But that in a good idea and an interesting concept, pooling resources together. Sounds like the opposite of hoarding all your resources for yourself...
Posted on 9/14/11 at 4:36 pm to Wolf Shirt
Schools do a lot of research with other conference members. It has a lot to do with the familiarity between administrations that bleeds over from the sports.
Unless you are talking about the BIG10+2 which has the CIC.
Unless you are talking about the BIG10+2 which has the CIC.
Posted on 9/14/11 at 5:11 pm to relapse98
quote:
members of the AAU
The more I read about the AAU the more I question their legitimacy. Seriously, how does a school like Georgia Tech go decades without being invited before being invited just last year into AAU when school like Oregon or Kansas have been in for many years? With all due respect to Oregon, Kansas, and other average schools that are AAU members, they aren't as good academically as a school like Georgia Tech. This tells me there is a high level of good old boy prejudices among the AAU members. What makes a school like Nebraska for example so much better than say Georgia that Nebraska was deemed worthy of the AAU for many many years while UGA is not? With all due respect to Nebraska, Georgia is AT LEAST as academically prestigious as Nebraska has ever been. Why is it that fantastic schools like Notre Dame as well as Army and Navy are unworthy of AAU membership?
Posted on 9/14/11 at 5:35 pm to Govt Tide
Govt.Tide,
I know one AAU University in College Station, TX, that would be happy to help others out on the AAU front
I know one AAU University in College Station, TX, that would be happy to help others out on the AAU front
Posted on 9/14/11 at 5:42 pm to Smoke Ring
I think the reason Army and Navy aren't AAU members is because they don't offer graduate degrees. At least I think I read that was a requirement.
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:30 pm to Spirit Of Aggieland
quote:
Research schools?
There is no direct link between research and conference affiliation. I think it is more of a general academic perception and "reputation" thing. (Usually used as a blimp to deflect the conversation).
The only consideration is if that distinction was tied to academic requirements for admission, especially for student athletes.
But I think we have seen that Ohio State (B1G)doesn't have very tough requirements for their student athletes...same goes for North Carolina (ACC). Same goes for Oregon State (Pac 12). And you can't tell me that Jamaal Charles or Vince Young learned even basic grammar while attending tu. So, academic reputation doesn't always hold for athletics...
what an exceptionaly astute observation. thank you for offering this up. i concede that the college rankings, at the top, are drastically affected by research dollars and i have no problem with that. but undergrads constantly avering that their degree is better because they go to a top reasearch school and their "competitors" are gonna have to flip burgers is naive and self serving at the best. i hired a lot of college graduates in my career (with undergraduate degrees) and i find virtually no relationship between intelligence or work productivity and the college attended. graduate students? i'm sure that's a different story.
Posted on 9/14/11 at 10:39 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
The more I read about the AAU the more I question their legitimacy. Seriously, how does a school like Georgia Tech go decades without being invited before being invited just last year into AAU when school like Oregon or Kansas have been in for many years? With all due respect to Oregon, Kansas, and other average schools that are AAU members, they aren't as good academically as a school like Georgia Tech. This tells me there is a high level of good old boy prejudices among the AAU members. What makes a school like Nebraska for example so much better than say Georgia that Nebraska was deemed worthy of the AAU for many many years while UGA is not? With all due respect to Nebraska, Georgia is AT LEAST as academically prestigious as Nebraska has ever been. Why is it that fantastic schools like Notre Dame as well as Army and Navy are unworthy of AAU membership?
Your intuition is correct. Schools like Notre Dame, which focus more on undergraduate education, aren't even on the AAU's radar. Georgia is hurt simply because its best programs are in the humanities and social sciences - not high research dollar fields in the sciences. But anti-Southern bias does exist among the oldest AAU universities. Just take a peek at how long it took Rice and Emory to be invited (1985 and 1995, respectively).
Anyway, for those who are interested, here are two links to recent Chronicle of Higher Education articles about the AAU. One is an overview of Nebraska's recent issues with the AAU, and the other is an opinion piece. They offer a better encapsulation of the AAU's mindset and purpose than I could:
Ouster Opens Debate
Who Needs the AAU Anyway?
This post was edited on 9/14/11 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 9/14/11 at 11:09 pm to MikeyFL
quote:
Your intuition is correct. Schools like Notre Dame, which focus more on undergraduate education, aren't even on the AAU's radar. Georgia is hurt simply because its best programs are in the humanities and social sciences - not high research dollar fields in the sciences
In the AAU's defense, the whole reason it was founded was to advance the standing of US research institutions. Their website says their mission is to bring focus to the funding of research, research policy issues and graduate and undergraduate education. It would make sense that a school would have to fall into the focus of the organization.
This post was edited on 9/14/11 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 9/15/11 at 12:02 am to Wolf Shirt
quote:
Why does your research have any bearing on what conference you play football in?
It doesn't. It's just some bullshite excuse to down another conference. Big 12 saying the SEC is good at football because we have big dumb players that can only play football while in reality the academic standards are nearly the same. Haters gonna hate.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 12:38 am to coldhotwings
quote:
Big 12 saying the SEC is good at football because we have big dumb players that can only play football while in reality the academic standards are nearly the same.
There's a difference between academic standards for football players and academic standards for the general student body...there is also a difference between academic standards and quality of the University.
Pac 12 and Big10 are the only conferences that both have 5 in the top 50 and only the Pac 12 has 4 in the Top 25; everyone else is sitting outside the Top 100 looking in.
Nobody cares really unless you actually want your degree and won't sniff the pros...then you'd probably want to be able to get in to Stanford, Cal, USC, Michigan, Northwestern.
This post was edited on 9/15/11 at 12:39 am
Posted on 9/15/11 at 6:48 am to Zamoro10
Yeah but the conferences are athletics. Not education. What does it matter if the person you play on saturday doesnt do as much genetic testing as your university. Smells of bullshite bougeoise crap
Posted on 9/15/11 at 8:58 pm to bgator85
quote:
In the AAU's defense, the whole reason it was founded was to advance the standing of US research institutions. Their website says their mission is to bring focus to the funding of research, research policy issues and graduate and undergraduate education. It would make sense that a school would have to fall into the focus of the organization.
I appreciate your point, and it is certainly true that the AAU was founded at a time when American institutions were considered inferior to universities in Europe. At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were a lot of illegitimate degree-granting institutions in the US. Thus, if a student wanted to study abroad for graduate school, they needed the legitimacy that a degree from an AAU institution offered.
However, times have significantly changed, and American universities are widely acknowledged to be the best in the world. There isn't a great need for an exclusive consortium of universities to "advance the standing of US research institutions" any longer. So, what is the purpose of the AAU today? The biggest complaint seems to be that the AAU's primary interests are now to "define," rather than "promote," research. I personally find it disturbing that Nebraska was removed from the AAU because the vast share of its federal support is designated for agricultural research. Virtually every subject outside of medicine and the hard sciences is becoming increasingly marginalized at "research universities," and the AAU (along with ridiculous university ranking systems) is making the problem worse.
Posted on 9/16/11 at 12:52 am to Wolf Shirt
quote:
Yeah but the conferences are athletics. Not education. What does it matter if the person you play on saturday doesnt do as much genetic testing as your university.
This. Everyone knows that, with the exception of the Vandys, Stanfords, Notre Dames Northwesterns, and the Academies, Football players at the higher academically ranked schools are just as dumb as those at the lower ranked schools.
This post was edited on 9/16/11 at 1:04 am
Posted on 9/16/11 at 9:04 am to MikeyFL
quote:
I personally find it disturbing that Nebraska was removed from the AAU because the vast share of its federal support is designated for agricultural research
It makes no sense, and schools such as Iowa State, K-State, and A&M (all of which have their origins as Morrill Act land-grant agricultural schools, and still do tons of agricultural research as part of their mission) need to be concerned that they may be kicked out of the club.
Posted on 9/16/11 at 4:08 pm to Quidam65
A&M has absolutely zero concern of getting kicked out of the AAU because of research issues. We have well over $500MM in research projects. The blue bloods don't like the proposals that Perry introduced, but they are pretty much dead and the chancellor resigned likely in part because of the backlash.
Nebraska got booted because a majority of its ag-related research was awarded to the university on the basis that they had pork-loving congressmen rather than awarded based on competitive merit of the school. Nothing more, nothing else.
Nebraska got booted because a majority of its ag-related research was awarded to the university on the basis that they had pork-loving congressmen rather than awarded based on competitive merit of the school. Nothing more, nothing else.
Posted on 9/16/11 at 5:36 pm to SWCBonfire
quote:
A&M has absolutely zero concern of getting kicked out of the AAU because of research issues. We have well over $500MM in research projects.
Oh good. I know A&M does a ton of things besides agriculture (vet school, engineering, lots of work training first responders for disaster relief) but I wasn't sure how the AAU took things into account since A&M does not have a full-fledged medical school (the system has a dental school and some health-related training).
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News