SiouxMD Posted October 24, 2005 Posted October 24, 2005 Greetings, I happened across this today...I have included some of the larger regional universities for comparison. Link to the America's Best Colleges - 2006 report from USNews.com. UND - 3rd Tier (National) USD - 3rd Tier (National) SDSU - 3rd Tier (National) UofM (Montana) - 3rd Tier (National) MSU (Montana State) - 3rd Tier (National) NDSU - 4th Tier (National) UofM (Twin Cities) - 1st Tier (National - #74) The third tier schools are ranked alphabetically...you need to purchase the full report for $14.95 for the complete rankings. Does anyone have the full report? Do you think regional midwestern schools (like those above) could ever be ranked in the 1st or 2nd tiers? If so...how do we improve? If not, why not? Thoughts...? Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 25, 2005 Author Posted October 25, 2005 ...here is another report. The Best 361 Colleges from the Princeton Review. I believe this is for 2005. UND UofMontana UofMinnesota are included. USD SDSU Montana State NDSU are not. Quote
jimdahl Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 I could have sworn there was a thread about this in August when the rankings came out, but don't see it now. 3rd tier isn't a bad bunch, additionally including schools like Wyoming, VCU, WVU, South Dakota, Mass-Lowell. Other schools of Sioux-fan interest I'd add: Denver University (85) Colorado College (27 - Liberal Arts) Mankato (3rd tier - Masters Midwest) SCSU (3rd tier - Masters Midwest) Duluth (44 - Masters Midwest) Being in national tier 3 generally puts UND a cut above its University of Minnesota-... conference foes. I think that contributes significantly to UND's continued ability to draw out of state (49.1% out-of-state, including 26.6% Minnesota in 04-05). Though there's no way to know where in the 3rd tier UND falls, one can infer reasonably high from our inclusion in the Princeton Review list which omits many of the other 3rd tier National Universities. Looking at the bottom of the 1st tier, it may seem unrealistic in the short term, but how great would it be if the improvements to research and doctoral opportunities (increasing peer assessment), and new admissions standards (increasing student test scores / decreasing acceptance rate / increasing success of future students leading to endowment) pushed UND into the 1st tier? For students whose first impression of a school comes from those lists, that could instantly put UND into the consideration set of quite a few more desirable regional students, creating a snowball effect. Regardless, I wholeheartedly support missing the admissions goals for a few years because of increased standards to continue to improve UND's academic reputation and rankings. The one criterion from UND's description that makes me laugh every year is: Setting: Urban Quote
Cratter Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 I could have sworn there was a thread about this in August when the rankings came out, but don't see it now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2839&hl= Quote
Cratter Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 Then there's the famous flagship debate. http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2904&st=20 Quote
GCWaters Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 Eh, beauty contests...I'll take the NSF numbers, thank you... Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 25, 2005 Author Posted October 25, 2005 UPDATE: The Princeton Review rankings are for 2006. I was uncertain if this had been addressed previously or not...but given the negative press UND has received lately (nickname) I thought it would be good to remember that UND is considered nationally as a "top" college. It would appear that UND is considered the top school within the state of North Dakota and on par with other regional universities. Quote
jimdahl Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2839&hl= I guess I could be getting old enough that I'm just remembering last year's discussion. Good to see that despite the onset of senility, I'm at least being consistent; I still believe this: I'm pretty much with you. Though I think the number of campuses in the NDSUS is a tad high for such a small state, it provides some flexibility to UND. Those other campuses are targeted to ensure that all North Dakotans get access to higher education which gives UND some breathing room to trade off accessibility for excellence. ... While UND's mission is definitely to serve North Dakota, it may best accomplish that by bringing in outside people/ideas/money and then focusing on applying those resources to educate local undergraduates and professionals. Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 25, 2005 Author Posted October 25, 2005 GCWaters, Eh, beauty contests...I'll take the NSF numbers, thank you... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok... $82.5 Million - UND Research Expenditures FY04 $89.1 Million - NDSU Research Expenditures FY04 (or is it $102.1 million?) The total research expenditures of $102.1 million represent all research-related expenditures and include multi-year research awards that may have been received in a previous year, but expended over an extended time period. Source I read this to mean that NDSU received $89.1 million in research funds for FY04 but some funds granted in previous years were actually spent in FY04 accounting for the $102.1 million. $82.5 vs $89.1 million (FY04)...I would call this a tie...but I will grant (no monetary value) you the win. Regarding the NSF (National Science Foundation FY03), I see NDSU at #122 and UND at #163, with $91.8 and $41.8 million respectively. UND research expenditures have grow greatly from FY03 ($41.8 million) to FY04 ($82.5 million). It will be interesting to see the NSF FY04 numbers... Economic Impact (Research) - UND +$120 Million - UND Economic Impact (Research - GF County FY04) $11.5 Million - UND Economic Impact (Research - ND minus GF County FY04) $31 Million - UND Economic Impact (Research - Outside of ND FY04) Total $162.5 Million FY04 Economic Impact (Research) - NDSU I can't find specific FY04 figures so will use the following: An ongoing evaluation of NDSU Quote
IowaBison Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Institutional funds are discretionary dollars that a university spends in a particular area. NSF dollars is a relatively objective way to compare the research arm of a modern university, I see it having little, if any, positive impact in the classroom. The use of US News and World Report on the other hand is completely ridiculous, google it and see a number of scholarly articles on the subject. I'm pretty sure that there was a book that just came out written by the President of Reed College in Portland, OR (one of the best liberal schools in the nation) arguing the point. I also like material presented by the association of law school deans that also dismantles the subjective methodology used for rankings. I do like the Princeton Review, Barron's does one also, because it actually speaks about the unique experiences one could expect when attending a given university. If I'm still in North Dakota when my children are deciding among institutions of higher learning they'll have about ten choices: UND or NDSU (which both provide a quality undergraduate education AND experience), or a Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Stanford school (actually I'd prefer a Cal Tech/MIT). I'm not paying for them to go to a more expensive private or out-of-state public school, the value isn't their in my opinion. Anyone who says that school A is better than school B is trying to sell you something and in this case its magazines. Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 26, 2005 Author Posted October 26, 2005 Institutional funds are discretionary dollars that a university spends in a particular area. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You sound like my business manager...can you give me a theoretical example? Here's my take...correct me if I am wrong. Institutional funds are monies not specifically earmarked for a particular department but (in this case) were eventually used to fund research. Where does NDSU come up with $46 million in discretionary dollars? Thanks for the reply... Quote
SiouxMD Posted October 26, 2005 Author Posted October 26, 2005 For federal grants, they're pretty high--get a million dollar grant, for example, and over $400,000 in indirects are attached...<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you implying a $1 million grant is actually $1.4 million or $0.6 million (research) and $0.4 million (indirects)? Let me use 40% as a ballpark ($1 million plus $0.4 million)... NDSU - FY03 Federal Grants - $37.940 million $37.940 million x 0.4 = $15.976 million (indirects) So... $46.276 million (Institutional Funds) - $15.976 million (indirects)= $30.3 million It would appear to me that NDSU is spending a lot of its OWN money on research? Admirable. Quote
NDSU grad Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 Are you implying a $1 million grant is actually $1.4 million or $0.6 million (research) and $0.4 million (indirects)? Let me use 40% as a ballpark ($1 million plus $0.4 million)... NDSU - FY03 Federal Grants - $37.940 million $37.940 million x 0.4 = $15.976 million (indirects) So... $46.276 million (Institutional Funds) - $15.976 million (indirects)= $30.3 million It would appear to me that NDSU is spending a lot of its OWN money on research? Admirable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As to your first question, I guess it depends. Generally if you hear in the news that a researcher received a $1 million grant, that (in your example) would mean a total of $1.4 million was received. The Department of Agronomy (and perhaps every department in the university) divvied up this indirect money in roughly the following way. About 50% to the university, 25% to the college, 20% to the department, and 5% to the actual researcher. What specifically this money was used for I have no idea. NSF and NIH grants are by far the most desirable, since they contain the most indirect monies. USDA grants suck as far indirect monies, I think they cap out about 15%. I have no idea what the DOE and DOD doles out relative to indirect spending. Quote
jloos Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I will have to agree these rankings are meaningless. A few years back they ranked law schools and ranked Princeton Law School as a top 10 law school in the country. The problem was, Princeton does not have a law school. The Princeton Review is supposed to be the best reflection of how schools "rank". At least they know Princeton University does not have a law school. Institutional funds are discretionary dollars that a university spends in a particular area. NSF dollars is a relatively objective way to compare the research arm of a modern university, I see it having little, if any, positive impact in the classroom. The use of US News and World Report on the other hand is completely ridiculous, google it and see a number of scholarly articles on the subject. I'm pretty sure that there was a book that just came out written by the President of Reed College in Portland, OR (one of the best liberal schools in the nation) arguing the point. I also like material presented by the association of law school deans that also dismantles the subjective methodology used for rankings. I do like the Princeton Review, Barron's does one also, because it actually speaks about the unique experiences one could expect when attending a given university. If I'm still in North Dakota when my children are deciding among institutions of higher learning they'll have about ten choices: UND or NDSU (which both provide a quality undergraduate education AND experience), or a Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Stanford school (actually I'd prefer a Cal Tech/MIT). I'm not paying for them to go to a more expensive private or out-of-state public school, the value isn't their in my opinion. Anyone who says that school A is better than school B is trying to sell you something and in this case its magazines. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote
jimdahl Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I will have to agree these rankings are meaningless. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.