April 21, 2010
1. v8573254 - April 22, 2010 at 05:37 pm
2. hmlowry - April 22, 2010 at 07:28 pm
Clubby group that AAU ain't it. Reminds me of the US News and World Report rankings. Apparently actual performance and results ain't everything it chalked up to be.
3. hmlowry - April 22, 2010 at 07:38 pm
I guess the following news item from a 1999 Chronicle is a possible response to your point about research funding as a measure of merit."The Association of American Universities is losing one of its founding members, Clark University, which last week announced its plans to defect after concluding that the group had come to stand for much larger, and more research-oriented, institutions.""A source within the association said the prestigious group was subtly encouraging some smaller universities to leave, to make way for institutions with more common interests and political clout."So how long will the smaller guys remain? And how small is "small?"
4. jthelin - April 22, 2010 at 09:33 pm
Question: is federal R&D grant dollars the sole or even main determinant of membership in the AAU? (My impression is that it is NOT).Question: whether for AAU membership discussion or otherwise, is gross federal R&D dollars alone a measure of research? How about grant dollars per capita as at least a supplement to total grant dollars?
5. kurtosis - April 23, 2010 at 12:02 am
@jthelin: Surely federal dolars is not the only metric. I suspect admissions selectivity, total R&D dollars, and breadth of excellence (to name a few) would be factors as well.However, what about institutions winning less than $100 million (competitive) federal grants and not known for being *highly* selective ? I'm looking specifically at Brandeis and U. Oregon. No matter how you define it, $50 million (or so) is a small total for a top research university.
Commenting is closed.
Isolated Scholars: Making Bricks, Not Shaping Policy
The Evolution of Altruism
Avoiding PTDS: Post-Tenure Depression Syndrome
Get the insight you need for success in academe.