<p>Lots of interesting data along with lots of less interesting stuff. At least it is factual.</p>
<p>That's pretty interesting.</p>
<p>Some of their (or the Center's) methodology seems a little off--they make no adjustment for size in some categories where it seems that would be important (for example, number of awards). It's also weird (to me) to post doctral attainment as each institution's share of the public AAU total. But it's still interesting. Thanks for posting the link!</p>
<p>There were so many schools missing from their member list that I lost interest in delving into too many details.</p>
<p>I agree with Noobie -- the AAU only has 60 members, and is missing many schools that I would consider to be peers to the schools that are members -- so it's hard to draw conclusions from their study. Still, it's interesting and is just chock full of numbers for the schools that are members.</p>
<p>Other than for engineering, what are a few of the peer schools that didn't make the list?</p>
<p>Oh, and religious schools.</p>
<p>Just off the top of my head, I see Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska, but not Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama. No Delaware. No UMass. That's just a cursory glance.</p>
<p>You convinced me. It would be a more consistent list if Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska were taken off, along with perhaps the University of Oregon.</p>
<p>The AAU is a very selective group. If a school is not there I think it is not really a major league university. Of course that includes grad school and research as elements--not just undergrad "quality".</p>
<p>I reaaaally have to take exception with that, Barrons. Even taking into account the fact that the organization is heavily weighted toward, in their words, "research-intensive" universities, there is no way your blanket statement is accurate. There's just too much inconsistency. Arizona but no ASU? Duke and UNC but not NC State or Georgia Tech (saying that more technology oriented schools don't fit doesn't fit -- look at Carnegie Mellon, MIT and CalTech), and of course another shout-out for UDelaware. Saying Delaware is not a major league research university compared to some of the schools on this list (no names, please) is just, well, wrong.</p>
<p>With few exceptions, the "state" universities are missing from this list. At least historically, they had a different mission from the "university of" schools, of which the better ones are here. Maybe you are misinformed about the quality of the schools you are rooting for.</p>
<p>?????????</p>
<p>The tables are clearly labeled. Rutgers didn't deliberately leave anyone off the list. Arizona State is not an AAU member. NC State is not an AAU member. Georgia Tech is not an AAU member. Religious schools are not (as a rule!) public or "state". These schools aren't "missing" -- they don't belong on a list that clearly labeled that it compares public AAU universities. </p>
<p>Obviously a list of AAU-only publics is going to leave off some institutions that some of us find interesting. I don't see barrons' "blanket statement" -- he just put the link up there without much commentary and labeled it as covering some Top State Universities. Maybe that wasn't as descriptive as it could be, but the list itself is pretty clear about who it includes.</p>
<p>This site contains much of the same data but not as neatly arranged by factor type but rather overall ranking by school. You can look at just state schools with all the major ones covered.</p>
<p><a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research_data.html%5B/url%5D">http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research_data.html</a></p>
<p>Hoedown, my comment was not to barrons original message it was to his comment that "The AAU is a very selective group. If a school is not there I think it is not really a major league university". I disagree with the implication that if a school is not a member of AAU it is not really a major league university. I also disagree with the unstated implication that if a school is a member of AAU is it a major league university. </p>
<p>I actually think the study is interesting, but the point I was trying to make was that the AAU member list is too small of a sample to be terribly useful -- at least to me. </p>
<p>My argument is not with Rutgers.</p>
<p>Ah, I see, that makes more sense! I don't know how I missed barrons' later comment. Another factor was that your post came among a barrage of messages pointing out what was not included (before barrons response), and I may have imbued your post with that same sort of tone.</p>
<p>While some of the universities in AAU may not be strong in your opinion I think the member institutions might just know a little bit more than us about the matter. New schools are added all the time so when they are deemed worthy they will be admitted. Remember the focus of AAU is on PhD programs and research quantity and quality. That does leave out some good more narrowly defined state schools.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.aau.edu/aau/aboutaau.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://www.aau.edu/aau/aboutaau.cfm</a></p>