Help me understand the academic angle...

Submitted by PDX_Blue on

The one element of the Big10 expansion I don't understand is how academics play into this. I've read that they're a consideration but I can't tell whether it's because of reputation or something more tangible. Can anyone clear up these questions?

1. Is the conference association an academic association too?
2. If 'yes' then how does admitting a crappy school like Nebraska help/hurt the Big10 member institutions?
3. Does any of this have an effect on research dollars coming in to the individual universities or the conference?
4. If 'yes' then what is the scale of the research dollars we're talking about? The same as the Big10 network TV deal? 2x? 5x?
5. Are research dollars shared like bowl money?
6. I've read that whether a university is AAU or CIC has an impact on how badly the Big10 wants them too join. What difference does AAU or CIC make?

Thanks in advance

BlueAggie

June 14th, 2010 at 12:34 AM ^

1. No, but the CIC is.

2. See 1.

3. Not sure

4. 50x-ish

5. No, I don't think so

6. CIC is about helping each other expand research.  The AAU represents most of the big research universities.  So, for a school to contribute something to the CIC, it would make sense for them to already be a member of the AAU.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

formerlyanonymous

June 14th, 2010 at 12:38 AM ^

Big Ten members join the CIC, a research and academic collaboration. It doesn't guarantee you any money, but it does offer you opportunities to use other member schools resources such as libraries, past research, or faculty easily.

Nebraska is not a crappy school. It's a great research institute and people should stop basing their assumptions based on USNWR.

It may bring in more collaborative research by adding a new school, but conference expansion will not have a direct effect on research dollars. If anything, there likely will be some positive side effects in this area.

Research dollars are not distributed by the CIC. Each university applies individually, but if one school in the Big Ten does get research dollars, that research can be shared within the conference through the academic support. So say Wisconsin wins a grant to study topic A, but Michigan has the faculty member with the background, Wisconsin could borrow the faculty from Michigan to help with the research project. This gives the UM faculty a better resume, so when he returns to Michigan, it was a Michigan prof who reaps the benefit, therefore enhancing Michigan's academic prowess.

AAU has been listed as a prerequisite to joining the Big Ten, but it's also assumed that if the Big Ten picks a non-AAU member (like ND), the conference would work to have the new school recognized by the AAU. The CIC is basically the academic side of the Big Ten, but it also includes ex-members such as UChicago. I think the basic thing here is that if you're already an AAU member, it makes things just that much easier.

PDX_Blue

June 14th, 2010 at 12:46 AM ^

So the hesitation with lesser academic schools joining the B10 is that they potentially wouldn't contribute appropriate research opportunities for B10 faculty?  And without those added research collaboration opportunities, getting a bigger slice of the world's research financial pie wouldn't happen?

formerlyanonymous

June 14th, 2010 at 12:48 AM ^

Pretty much. It's the academics who vote on new members, or at least used to be. It behooves them to take on members who contribute to advancing the schools' academic prowess. Schools with established research like Nebraska do that, something that pretty much goes hand in hand with AAU membership. AAU says you've proven that you're dedicated to research and advancing academics.

PDX_Blue

June 14th, 2010 at 12:59 AM ^

Just out of curiosity, what metrics are you using to say Nebraska is a good research institution?  I did use USNWR which 1) I used to rip my Pac10 friends on how bad 1/2 their conference is and 2) gave me a heart attack to realize I would be forced to pay out-of-state tuition for my kids if I wanted them to get a decent university education.  I knew Oregon schools were bad but USNWR makes them look atrocious.  UGH.

formerlyanonymous

June 14th, 2010 at 1:07 AM ^

USNWR uses strange metrics sometimes and often focuses on certain aspects over others. I think it's alright when looking larger scale, but after the top 5-10, the specific placement of any school could be +/- about 20 spots.  So yeah, some of those bottom feeder schools in the PAC10 aren't good. This is true. Schools 40-120 aren't so cut and dry. It depends on the school's individual programs. The lesson is just because they are the only source on the topic doesn't make them absolutely right. Schools as far down as 100 can still be very good schools, they may just have something like student to faculty ratios too high. Something fairly trivial like that might have a larger effect than it should.

As far as my preference, endowments and research funding would be two things I look more closely at. The fact that Nebraska is an AAU member says a lot about the research. You are rewarded membership based on your commitment to research. As one of only 50 or so schools to have that distinction, I think that says a lot about them. I'm not sure what type of endowment they may have, but that's more of an issue when it comes to business operations than purely academics. Yes, endowments pay for academics, but how well you run your organization can vastly affect your endowment size.

That's my personal viewpoint at least.

Expatriate Duck

June 14th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^

On the surface the Oregon schools may seem "bad" but the University of Oregon has been an AAU member since 1969 and has some excellent departments. However, funding cuts and the Oregon State Legislature have damaged the university overall since then.

Expatriate Duck

June 15th, 2010 at 5:06 AM ^

The State Legislature in 1974 turned the University of Oregon schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Nursing into a an entirely seperate university, the Oregon Health & Sciences University. Additionally during the 1970's, in order to create differences between UO and Oregon State University, it mandated the closure of the UO engineering department and the relocation of those funds to OSU. It basically turned UO into a large liberal arts university as a result of those actions. Lastly, the State Legislature has voted several times against changing the way the public universities in the state are managed. Unlike other large public universities which have a Board of Regents, the Oregon public schools do not and the State Legislature acts as such. Politics should not play a role in deciding University agenda, only funding, IMHO.

Mr. Robot

June 14th, 2010 at 1:05 AM ^

1. Yes and no. The Big Ten itself is just an athletic conference. The CIC is the Big Ten plus Chicago, and getting into the Big Ten makes you a CIC member.

2. Nebraska isn't a crappy school. By Big Ten standards it is on the lower side, but coming into the Big Ten should help with that.

3. No sure, but not technically I don't think.

4. Again, not sure, but I don't think so.

5. Also not sure, but probably not.

6. The best way to think about the AAU is that you're trying academically and you don't suck at it. Membership makes you more prestigious because it means you're good, generally. The CIC is just the Big Ten plus Chicago.

Now the reason why entering the Big Ten boosts academic performance is because of the CIC. Getting into the Big Ten means getting into the CIC, which is essentially an arrangement between the schools to collaborate on research and such. I'm not sure if they get more money for this specifically, but it does make what money is used go a lot farther because of the communication and cooperation between the schools, boosting in paticular the research standing of each as they draw off of one another and strengthen each other. Producing results can also certainly lead to more grants to do more research at any one school, which in turn benefits the others by proxy. When you have 12, soon to be 13 heavy-hitting universities all doing this with each other at the same time, good things happen. That is why Nebraska stands to gain academically when it gets in on the CIC.

Edit: So yeah, with FA's link, the CIC doesn't do anything directly, be it lobby for grants, hand out money, etc; but its the driving force behind making every member university's resources do more and as a result obtain more.

hokiewolf

June 14th, 2010 at 1:35 AM ^

3. It's likely that there will be more opportunities rather than any real sharing plan.  See the answer to number 5.  Most large research grants involve collaborations across universities (as opposed to 1 investigator/lab/institution), so if the CIC members are looking to each other first for partners they are keeping the money "in-conference." 

4. Michigan and Wisconsin both receive over $1B per year in research funding.  OSU is not far behind.  The lowest-ranked B10 schools are around half that.

5. No.  Federal research agreements (which are the big $$) are negotiated with institutions but are actually based on individuals.  These PIs (principal investigators) are sort of like rock stars.  When they get a better offer they can and will jump ship and take their grants with them.  It's a bit of a bidding war to get them on staff and keep them happy.  A lot of the top PIs make $300-500K, and have a hotline to the ear of the university president. 

 

 

 

Monocle Smile

June 14th, 2010 at 3:40 AM ^

2. Even though Nebraska is considerably below the lowest Big Ten school (Indiana) in the rankings, it's not a "crappy" school. It's still an AAU member and in the top 100 public schools. The future will likely see Nebraska jump several steps higher in the rankings rather than taint the Big Ten.

3. Related to 2. Penn State had less than half of it's current research budget before joining the Big Ten. In fact, it didn't really have any major academic lore until it joined. More than likely Nebraska will experience a similar face lift.

Carcajous

June 14th, 2010 at 6:35 AM ^

One thing to add... A principle investigator's (PI's) ability to win grant money depends, in part, in the access to research support and other resources he/she has.  The CIC and other resource-sharing agreements by Big Ten schools (plus Chicago) help tremendously in that regard.  A PI has access to resources across the CIC, not just within his/her university.  That is why the faculty at any university will likely REEEEEEEEAALLY want to join the Big Ten/CIC.

Maximinus Thrax

June 14th, 2010 at 7:13 AM ^

How can a conference of which MSU is a part claim to be exclusive academically?  Now I realize that there are some reasonably intelligent people there, but the existence of two-year cattle insemination certifications, as well Cedar Village just make me think that this conference academic angle is a little overblown.

Michigan Arrogance

June 14th, 2010 at 7:41 AM ^

Let's not forget that one of the biggest factors in the quality of a school is the quality of the research scientists and professors at the institution. During the Great Recession, M has been among the most well managed universities financially. No hiring freezes like at other schools (stanford, iirc). Not shutting down whole depts (as at MSU, iirc). As a result, they have had '1st pick' for many/most hiring decisions.

More relatedly, a universities assoc with the CIC is a great recruitment factor when trying to attract the top researchers and professors. Neb having access to the CIC consortium will attract many more top researchers to Lincoln.

MGoDC

June 14th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^

I love that one but one thing to consider is that the World Rankings include Grad Schools while the USNWR list that is generally cited is undergrad only (they have grad school rankings but they are separate from the "main list").

That's why UM is so high, our grad schools are stellar -- even more so than our undergrad (this coming from a current undergrad).

SwordDancer710

June 14th, 2010 at 8:53 AM ^

The academic angle is used mostly as a cutoff point, and the main metric seems to be the AAU. Since the Big Ten has such strong academics, we want a school that is at least potentially similar. Picking up a school like Nebraska or Texas works because their academics are good enough to maintain the image of the Big Ten. Schools like Cincinnati and Texas Tech just don't have that same gravitas, and would not fit scholastically.

SysMark

June 14th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^

Describing an institution's academic standing as "bad" or "crappy" (OP) is simplistic and demeaning and doesn't serve any constructive purpose.  Better to describe things in specific/relative/quantitative terms or not at all.  There are plenty of good academic people in all these schools.

Don

June 14th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^

From May 20:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12551/five-lessons-about-big-te...

Delany made it clear Tuesday that membership in the Association of American Universities remains an important criteria for most expansion candidates. All 11 current Big Ten schools are AAU members.

"AAU membership is an important part of who we are," he said.

"The academics and the traditions and the values of those schools have to match the values of the Big Ten," Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said. "[AAU membership] is very important."

When asked if AAU membership is part of the identity of Big Ten schools, Alvarez replied, smiling, "It is right now."

 

I think ND would be admitted without being an AAU member by virtue of its overall high standing as an academic institution. Other non-AAU schools being bandied about for B10 admission, such as OU, don't have that standing.

trickydick81

June 14th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^

As a contract and grant specialist at a major university not in the CIC, I can attest that this CIC sharing is blown way out of proportion. Maybe 10 years ago it was a bigger deal, but now all federal agencies require transparency and sharing, no matter your affiliation. Therefore, if a school calls my school and we have no previous relationship or any sort of affiliation, but they want some of our data that is federally funded, we have to work with them to get the data (proprietary data works differently)...

 

So maybe there is more sharing in research facilities, but not much. I've worked with many professors who use labs and libraries of CIC members, and again, this is an SEC non-CIC membership school they are coming from.

 

To sum up my rant, the CIC is nice, but it's more about show at this point. The federal government has dimminshed it's value in the last ten years by requiring sharing.

Other Chris

June 14th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^

It seems to me grants are putting more and more emphasis on collaboration outside of data sharing and with the CIC you have a natural peer group and a history of collaboration on your side.  Additionally, there are deals that come with membership that some of the individual members might not be able to broker on their own when it comes to software, equipment, and licensed information resources.

And USNWR is a consumer rating more than anything else, aimed at people chosing among undergraduate institutions and in some ways a popularity contest. If you look at articles in the past few months focusing on some technology innovations at Michigan, there are sections on similar innovations at Nebraska.  They are not an unreasonable peer.  In some ways ND would be a much harder sell, but that is based on how they have positioned themselves re: udnergraduate education vs. research.

Yinka Double Dare

June 14th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^

Nebraska fits because they're big on research and have been putting their money where their mouth is: see for example their new Innovation Campus plan, which was already in the works before all this craziness went down.  Shows a committment to research that is important to the CIC members -- joining is a huge win for Nebraska but doesn't hurt the rest of the membership.  They do some good work out there.

http://innovate.unl.edu/

robpollard

June 14th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^

It is great Nebraska has started this Innovation Campus, and they are certainly a pretty good school, but they are definitely low on the totem pole when it comes to other CIC members in terms of research.

In 2009, they had $122 mil (this has grown by 3x in past ten years off a small base).  This doesn't include their other two campuses, Omaha and Kearney, but I'm going to make the small assumption that those two wouldn't add much.

http://scarlet.unl.edu/?p=2445



By comparison, in 2008 (I don't have 2009 stats for this), CIC schools did:

Wisky: $882 mil

U of M: $876 mil

OSU: $703 mil

PSU: $701 mil

Minn: $683 mil

Illinois: $501 mil



NU: $484 mil

U of C: $357 mil

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf09318/

As you can see, these are all triple (at least) what Nebraska does), so they really will have to step it up to be in the ballpark with other CIC schools.  They do have a grad who has more money than most govts, so maybe he can kick start them: Warren Buffett.

P.S - I was curious where are two Indiana schools were on this list.  It looks like Purdue does about $300 mil (http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/general/2010/100121DiazSustain.html) and IU says they do about $500 mil (http://innovate.indiana.edu/research/index.shtml), though not sure why they wouldn't have shown up on the earlier NSF report.

 

jb5O4

June 14th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^

While UT is a great school I don't think they are a good fit for the Big Ten. The state has alot of say in what they do (such as the Top Ten rule for admissions). Most of their $15 billion shared (with A&M) endowment is state money. I think a university should be independent from some politician's wishes.

ChicagoB1GRed

June 15th, 2010 at 4:48 PM ^

Keep in mind UNL, because it serves a small population, will never be selective in terms of undergraduate admissions. Unlike all BT states, there are no regional universities with more or less open admissions and a flagship university taking the cream of the crop. Kearney is for the ranchers in western Nebraska and the Omaha campus is a commuter school. So we'll never measure up to Michigan or Wisconsin or Minnesota in that regard--one school is basically serving the entire state.

I think Nebraska's commitment to research is pretty impressive given the size of the state and the institution, as others posters have mentioned, UNL ranks pretty high in raw numbers and very high as a proportion of its resources.

From what I know of how seriously the BT presidents take their academic reputation and mission, I'm very confident Nebraska would never have received a unanimous vote based on football alone, so we must be doing something right.

Been blown away by the positive and classy welcome and attitude about Nebraska by this and other U or M boards.

Also really enjoy the level of discussion and wit shown on this board. Got blistered pretty good on some typos and posting mistakes in first few posts but all in good fun and taste. Hope to make some contributions from a Nebraska point of view  that you guys find worth reading.