Regarding the AAU

[Pudge]

When you talk to folks who own lots of student housing - both on-campus & off-campus - the subject of CCs comes up. And State Colleges far outside the Flagship Public Research University levels. They believe that "Internet" courses effect on Higher Ed has a huge potential impact through this space. My point ... we are looking at change. I don't think we know what direction either the CCs or the State Colleges OR the AAU is going.

I find this whole topic inane. The P5 Cartel has WORKED to constrain advancement. Then, I see some UCF or USF ... or a Texas State in San Marcos or other growing in 20% increments every few years. How does Football never be impact by the shear inertia of the education system going in a different direction. These schools could be a far better market than Wake Forest or Boston College. I simply don't think we have seen Football quite land in calm waters.

 

[pj]

I believe "Upstater," on a number of occasions, has indicated that UCONN's Carnegie Tier-1 classification was subject to a more severe investigative/evaluation process than AAU provides; at least I think that's what he wrote. If that's the case are the AAU academics the only ones' touting AAU over Carnegie, and is that because AAU is a financial consortium while Carnegie is a rating based on a stringent evaluation?

No, he says Carnegie is more rigorous than US News & World Report rankings.

The AAU is quite stringent in their evaluations but their criteria change, and they have multiple criteria. Average faculty quality matters, so small schools like Brandeis can get in on that; and total research volume matters, so large state universities with low average faculty quality can get in thanks to huge size. A number of AAU schools are in because they got in in 1905 or so but wouldn't be admitted today.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

No, he says Carnegie is more rigorous than US News & World Report rankings.

The AAU is quite stringent in their evaluations but their criteria change, and they have multiple criteria. Average faculty quality matters, so small schools like Brandeis can get in on that; and total research volume matters, so large state universities with low average faculty quality can get in thanks to huge size. A number of AAU schools are in because they got in in 1905 or so but wouldn't be admitted today.

Thank you.

"Upstater" please tell me that you once related ("compare" might be too strong) to AAU and Carnegie requirements and that my memory is not, officially, mush.

 

[upstater]

I believe "Upstater," on a number of occasions, has indicated that UCONN's Carnegie Tier-1 classification was subject to a more severe investigative/evaluation process than AAU provides; at least I think that's what he wrote. If that's the case are the AAU academics the only ones' touting AAU over Carnegie, and is that because AAU is a financial consortium while Carnegie is a rating based on a stringent evaluation?

Carnegie is the most stringent evaluation process I've ever been through, even more so than the NRC (National Research Council). Basically, 6 people showed up on our door, parked themselves in our offices for a week, and we spent 6 months producing a book on our department prior to their arrival. Admittedly, they only come around once every decade or so. But that's the same with the NRC as well.

The AAU's job is relatively simple. They are looking at bottom-line numbers for research. Carnegie is looking at all metrics, from departmental balance (i.e. students per discipline, graduation rates, etc.) to publications, citations, research, and research grants of the faculty.

So, while Carnegie is more stringent, they are also more accepting of what they term R1 universities. The AAU is simply a consortium that has seen its lobbying efforts pay off with over 50% of all federal research funding going to AAU members year after year. That's its reason for being.

Carnegie doesn't really rank schools, just classifies them.

If you wanted to see a ranking, you'd look at NRC, because there you see a cross-section of rankings by discipline, and it's so exhaustive that you become ill after several minutes and say to hell with it, I don't care.

 

[upstater]

Thank you.

"Upstater" please tell me that you once related ("compare" might be too strong) to AAU and Carnegie requirements and that my memory is not, officially, mush.

I compare Carnegie to USNWP. AAU is pretty cut and dry in that it comes down to peer-reviewed research grants. It's Carnegie, NRC and USNWP that have ranking/classification systems.

 

[upstater]

When you talk to folks who own lots of student housing - both on-campus & off-campus - the subject of CCs comes up. And State Colleges far outside the Flagship Public Research University levels. They believe that "Internet" courses effect on Higher Ed has a huge potential impact through this space. My point ... we are looking at change. I don't think we know what direction either the CCs or the State Colleges OR the AAU is going.

I find this whole topic inane. The P5 Cartel has WORKED to constrain advancement. Then, I see some UCF or USF ... or a Texas State in San Marcos or other growing in 20% increments every few years. How does Football never be impact by the shear inertia of the education system going in a different direction. These schools could be a far better market than Wake Forest or Boston College. I simply don't think we have seen Football quite land in calm waters.

When our 10 year olds become professors in 25 years, you might see some effective MOOCs. So far the results have been disastrous, and I think its because the current generation is incapable of really assuming themselves as educators in virtual space. But the real problem is that when a student is out of class, playing candy crush, talking on the phone, eating cereal, smoking a cigarette or drinking beer, while watching a MOOC in fast forward, very little knowledge will be retained or gained. Net result: 4% of students complete MOOCs right now, and those are the good ones, the MOOCs without disastrous tech difficulties. I think there will be a future for MOOCs in Gen. Ed., but it's not going to change the face of higher education. Right now, our Gen. Ed. courses are taught by people making $2k per course, and that's who will be replaced by MOOCs. but we're at least 25 years, if not 50 years away.

 

[upstater]

I think CC's offer something that the state Universities can't. A major discount for their first two years of schools. In fact what a student saves is likely not having to take out student loans for their first two years. This allows parents to save more money for when the student transfers to the state college. Add in the fact that most kids going to CC's are able to commute and do not need to find local housing or on campus housing. Then factor what the students major might be. If when you leave a state college/university after four years for a job that doesn't pay 40K, statistically you are better off not having gone - from a purely financial stand point. And what student adviser is going to discuss with their freshman students - their earning potential prospects. In fact here is a philosophy I think the universities share with big business - we like our employees/students smart but NOT that smart! So my point is that if the private sector is only going to pay "X" for an employee with specific training/knowledge within Field "Y", then the school should be charging "N" amount. In other words, I think a better model for student tuition rates should be based with an added variable of average earning potential. And with the schools offering business and math degrees, they should certainly be able to evaluate that potential based on where they are getting their degree from. Truthfully, state colleges and universities are losing money to the CC's as wise students know that they do not need to list to the CC they attended when it only matters where they graduated from. Until your colleges and universities address the high cost of tuition for students during their freshman and sophomore years, I suspect the current enrollment trend to continue. This is just my two cents and I would need to really examine the data but I did recall reading an article about 4 year students from universities with the average attendance cost with the average student loan rate that a kid with a high-school degree may actual out earn over their lifetime the student that went to college. Therefore, one should really ask the student, what is your learning passion worth to you? Will you be comfortable doing something you love but with little to no financial reward. Artists, play-writes, musicians, and even athletes understand this passion for when they go to school many realize the importance of having a degree to fall back on. But what is the purpose of that degree for you to fall back on, if it doesn't let you earn the freedom through dollars to leave your parents house.

I suppose it depends on the state. SUNY's tuition is still under $5k. The national average for state universities is till $7.5k. A lot of these students that default to CCs with very high SATs and high grades would be better served at research institutions.