Also, I went to a graduate college graduation ceremony, and had some time waiting for the ceremony to start; being from outside Ames. Read some of the titles of PhD theses in the program. Two things I noticed; there were one hell of a lot of apparent (by name and appearance) foreign PhD''s and their theses seemed to be more research oriented, just anecdotal, but we were discussing the foreign student factor in ranking parameters.
ISU's academic rankings decline continues
- Thread starter Cypow
- Start date
Well said on the two major imperatives of the modern R1: Research and Teaching.
On the research side, forget the beauty of knowledge (nobody cares), there is a huge practical reason to suport Uni research: R1 Universities are huge business creators. The value of the spin-off businesses from R1 Unis is far more than the input (albeit, at some level of breaking even on research proficency) and almost all R1 college towns are growing rapidly -- they are creating jobs!
Great point on universities spinning off businesses, I forgot to mention this. ISU has seen a good deal of success in this area. Hopefully the Research Park continues to boom.
If you want to look to the future, take a look at all business, industry, and private research that is developing in Columbus. Driven by Ohio State University, the school seems to be constantly spinning off businesses. A tangible economic benefit of having plenty of well-funded PhDs and researchers in the community, plus the proper incentives for business development.
An anecdote: I've been on the committee that interfaces with our local political leaders (including the federal ones, House Rep and Senators) and our Uni lobbyist.
They ask the most about research and commercial activity. They love to hear about spinoffs, patents, and interdisciplinary collaborations (in that order). Students matter, but... the rate at which we heard about student concerns increased about a million percent with this pandemic... they weren't the focus before.
That's not entirely wrong! R1 Unis are economic foci in many states.
The US is heavily reliant on foreign PhDs. We don't produce that many domestic PhDs relative to other developed nations.
With foreign PhDs being so important, we need to continue to encourage students to come to the US to study. At the same, there is a balance to be struck, as becoming too reliant on foreign PhDs can put universities in a dangerous situation if students decide to go to other countries for grad school (see: deteriorating Sino-American relationship).
The current state of US-China relations and the US's political turn inward since the current administration took power threaten to put US research in a very vulnerable position. Not only is our research productivity threatened, but so is the economic engine in college towns that universities propel. Fewer PhDs means fewer businesses being spun off and popping up in the Research Park. This in turn hurts Ames economic growth.
I think this is really a broader societal question. Ultimately we have two different goals and we are trying to use a single entity to solve both.I do agree that the chaff, like me, who does not go on to advance degrees has a basis valuable to industry, and without such undergrads, the public research University could not exist at its current level, so that level of education is needed to "man" industrial america. However, I don't think curricula should be driven by training for industry, it is a side benefit for industry, which does fill corporate ranks and gives jobs to grads. Yes that should be part of the equation, but perhaps exercises too much influence due to funding needs at a cost to pure academic research.
On one hand there is the idea to have universities be extensions of training for people to have a decent job. This is evidenced by efforts to make it free and companies requiring a degree for even basic jobs.
On the other hand you have the traditional research universities with some students for general further education and to help the research part operate.
We need to figure out what the actual goal of the university is.
You might be interested in this Economist article about the University of Paris - Saclay.
How France created a university to rival MIT
After years of pooh-poohing global college rankings
France has universities and Grand écoles, where teaching is the focus. The country's research is done at separate institutions. For this reason, among others, French universities never ranked highly on global lists.
University of Paris - Saclay represents a shift: France is combining teaching and research functions into a single entity, one that has the potential to rank very highly and thus draw international talent.
For those who claim rankings don't matter, take this as an example. Rankings were a driving factor in creating a new elite university, and in rethinking the entire way France does research and education.
If we are to take this as a signal of what's to come, it seems that education and research will continue to be closely intertwined in a single institution.
I think this discussion should also include what happens to prestigious programs at the University if we lose AAU status. We have the USDA National Animal Disease lab, one of the premier animal disease labs in the world (currently testing for Covid for the State of Iowa) and the Ames Lab, part of the department of Energy; a world class research facility for research on materials and energy; both I think have alot to do with "spinoff" for Iowa economy. Do they stay in Ames? Probably lots of Universities with AAU status would love to have them. And those are only two that I am familiar with, there are more I am sure.
I get a paywall but the bit I was able to read just reinforces my point. I don’t think we really have different views on it we are just looking at it from different perspectives.You might be interested in this Economist article about the University of Paris - Saclay.
How France created a university to rival MIT
After years of pooh-poohing global college rankingswww.economist.com
France has universities and Grand écoles, where teaching is the focus. The country's research is done at separate institutions. For this reason, among others, French universities never ranked highly on global lists.
University of Paris - Saclay represents a shift: France is combining teaching and research functions into a single entity, one that has the potential to rank very highly and thus draw international talent.
For those who claim rankings don't matter, take this as an example. Rankings were a driving factor in creating a new elite university, and in rethinking the entire way France does research and education.
If we are to take this as a signal of what's to come, it seems that education and research will continue to be closely intertwined in a single institution.
I’m looking at it from the perspective that they way stuff works is dumb so I’m suggesting changing how it works. You know this is how it works and want to survive in the system.
From what I saw France appears to be an example of why the rankings are dumb. They didn’t really seem to change much they just reorganized it to score better.
If at first you don't succeed at Phoenix, try U of N Hampshire. I mean they have a friggin' BUS! Do they count "life experiences" as credits?
At another Uni with a similar "actually helps farmers" profile, and is safely maintaining AAU status, I'll offer what has strategicaly worked here: ISU needs to lean in to their strengths including Vet Med and Bio/Ag Engineering. ISU can be world-class in those areas, and they need to be fast, because the life sciences are increasingly dominating stats like federal funding that AAU cares about.
You don't have to have a med school to be in the AAU, but if you don't have a med school you need to be focused and excellent in what you do have. ISU is an engineering school that as far as I can tell knows about that part of things, but it should also be a nationally relevant bio/ag powerhouse, and at least from where I sit I am not seeing that yet.
Unfortunately I have no knowledge about these areas, but it would seem that Ag would be a program that has been historically strong, at least that is what I was TOLD when I was there (eons ago) by Ag majors
and it seems that bio would be a natural interdisciplinary partner with Vet Med. But others would know more....Why do you say fast?EDIT: Both of the forementioned "labs" receive extensive federal funding!
Biosystems Engineering has been ranked first or second for it seems like a decade now. Doesn't invalidate your point, just that one third of that triad is already there. And I know from BSE faculty that they care deeply about maintaining that ranking. State funding matters.
Leave it to the academic in thread to be the only one going on a profanity-laced tirade.
I appreciate your input to this thread, but passion gets in the way of your point here.
Don't want this thread to get political; but it seems the legislature seem to just cleave the regents request in half, almost every year. Last year I think they cut 8 million; a month or so before the end of the fiscal year, and basically said deal with it because state revenue was down, which is fine short term, but they never seem to replace that funding. I would not be surprised if such actions do affect our rankings. Heel of a way to run an enterprise.
Unfortunately I have no knowledge about these areas, but it would seem that Ag would be a program that has been historically strong, at least that is what I was TOLD when I was there (eons ago) by Ag majors
EDIT: Both of the forementioned "labs" receive extensive federal funding!
Not sure what the research side is but as for the image of ISU for an Ag degree, it is very high. It has an extremely strong connection with employers (thanks Roger Bruene). This can be seen by schools such as Purdue and other universities sending students to our Ag career days to meet with companies and try to pull interviews.
I never said it was "worthless." I just said it does not provide a return using an economic definition, which is accurate -- income security and healthcare for the retired do not increase future economic output/incomes. Education, R&D, and physical infrastructure do. There are plenty of good reasons to want to send Grandmother her pension check, but "this will generate a societal return" through lower costs, higher efficiency, or new technology is not one of them.
State/federal resources are finite. More and more of the same has been going into social spending, which you can value how you want, but at least acknowledge there are competing priorities here. Economic growth has been slower in the U.S. in the past few decades than it was in the ones before that -- one of my pet theories for why that is comes from the public sector abandoning its traditional position of making smart investments to lay a foundation for future growth and instead using its resources on other, short-term priorities of taking care of the current population.
You can say that is worth it, and you are welcome to that position. But there is a cost to it.
Also never said any of that.
I never said "F" anybody. I stated the fact -- and it is fact -- that state governments used to spend most of their money on investments for the future, but more and more of that is going to caring for the old and sick. You can say that is a worthwhile trade-off, if you want, and you certainly would have moral standing for it.
But if you wonder why the legislature keeps sending smaller and smaller checks to Iowa State and our peer universities, then you need to remember that scarcity is a thing. There is only so much to go around. When the money is going to Medicaid and IPERS, then it is not going to supporting the state university system like it used to.
Really? I am like the definition of a corporate wage slave here. People who work for their paycheck are the backbone of our society. So much so I think they should get to keep most of their own money.
For an academician, who are supposed to be known for their cool, logical, and dispassionate analysis of facts, you sure like to launch into profanity-laced tirades and take aim at ridiculous scarecrows.
You aimed east when I am standing between you and the sunset there, cowpoke.
I love the academy, loved my time there, and my "dream job" would probably still be something like a history or literature professor, but you are doing absolutely nothing but make the case against it right now.
Last edited:
Agree, but when you have scarcity, then you have to prioritize. Leaving the social spending aside, we seem to find money to build a bridge across I80 to help a private corporation with evidently <100 jobs committed, have money to buy $300 dollar brooms for movie producers, and other job creating activities through TIFs or tax breaks etc., when our Universities are producing high paid job opportunities , yet they are first ones on the chopping block. How about Iowa doing something unique and turning Economic Development over to the regents, along with their budget, to take politics out of the equation, and let each Institution evaluate opportunities, based on their expertise in areas of commerce and science?
