<p>Is the Chancellor’s complaint legitimate? Does the AAU characterize agricultural research as non-important? That’s hard to believe. I’m sure ConAgra, Monsanto, Dow or other corporate giant$ of the agriculture or food industries would disagree. What, no AAU schools receive corporate grants from agribusiness?</p>
<p>It is not necessarily that ag research is unimportant. It is that the federal funding numbers counted by the AAU have gone through a very rigorous and very competitive review sessions that rank applications in order of merit. 10% or less (depending on the federal agency) of these research grant applications get funded.</p>
<p>If you actually look at the criteria for membership, it is clear that Nebraska didn’t belong in the AAU. You can see that in its AAU rankings, in the correspondence between the AAU an UNL here: <a href=“http://ucommxsrv1.unl.edu/downloadables/pdf/UNLAAU.pdf#correspondence-between-unl-aau[/url]”>http://ucommxsrv1.unl.edu/downloadables/pdf/UNLAAU.pdf#correspondence-between-unl-aau</a></p>
<p>The AAU after all, exists as a consortium to compare policies between like institutions, so outliers are an issue, and UNL was a big outlier.
Nebraska actually was notified of looming problems with its membership 10 years ago, and fought off an ouster then. It had a decade to act, and didn’t sufficiently address the issues. It is also pretty evident UNL won’t be reinstated for membership any time soon, since they considered the trajectory of UNL research growth 10-20 years out. Clearly, there are others that are in trouble based on this criteria: specifically a school like Syracuse that is the only AAU school to have a drop in research funding over the last decade.</p>
<p>^^ I was wondering if Big 12 had any influence and would nt you know it - UT president emeritus wrote the review letter!</p>
<p>This isn’t something I’ve followed, but thanks to wgmcp101 (post #22^) for providing a link to the documents.</p>
<p>I’m not sure AAU membership is all that big a deal one way or the other. Every institution of higher education I’ve ever been associated with has been an AAU member, and I can’t ever recall anyone–a president, a provost, a dean, a faculty colleague—ever bringing it up. So I don’t think this is a life-or-death thing for Nebraska. Plenty of universities do just fine without it. I think it’s perhaps a question of hurt pride, coupled with some concern that they might miss out on some research opportunities in the future by virtue of fewer opportunities to rub shoulders with the leading research universities, and by not being viewed as one themselves.</p>
<p>That said, Nebraska’s dismissal from the AAU makes some sense to me. The reality is, it’s not a research powerhouse. There are some good people there, and some do interesting and valuable research. But look at the roster of AAU members, and it quickly becomes apparent Nebraska was an outlier. You’ll find HYPSM, of course, along with all the other Ivies except the more LAC-like Dartmouth; private research powerhouses like Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Chicago, Northwester, Duke, Johns Hopkins; a couple of Canadian research powerhouses, Toronto and McGill; along with all the top public research universities like UC Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida. But not all the public flagships: it’s heavily skewed toward those with the largest and most successful research efforts. Nebraska doesn’t belong in that club (though admittedly there are a small handful of others that raise an eyebrow as well). </p>
<p>Nor is it a question of discriminating against agricultural research; many of the AAU members do ag research, but those that do also have many other research strengths. Nebraska’s resume is pretty thin in most other core research disciplines.</p>
<p>I also thought from the documents Nebraska did a really poor job of pleading its own case. Its brief was almost openly disdainful of the entire inquiry, questioning its motives, challenging the metrics, throwing in a bunch of irrelevant and extraneous statistics and arguments that were really non-responsive to the query that had been made. They really shot themselves in the foot. But maybe it’s only because the facts really weren’t on their side.</p>
<p>My impression based on the documents available is that UNL’s defense was founded on the idea that the AAU should be different, not that UNL fits the AAU’s current form well. And that’s why they lost.</p>
<p>To me, the correspondence does raise some serious questions about whether the AAU really represents anything important. It also causes me - following a review of the data - to question the presence of some schools and absence of others. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some other changes over the next few years.</p>
<p>Some universities have administratively separated themselves from their medical centers because they fear that a malpractice lawsuit could try to go after their endowment.</p>
<p>Separating from med center doesn’t necessarily mean separating from the med school. The University of Pittsburgh essentially spun off its med center ([UPMC](<a href=“http://upmc.com%5DUPMC%5B/url%5D”>http://upmc.com)</a>), but retains its med school. The University handles the academic/research side, while UPMC serves as the clinical home of the academic faculty and pumps money back into the health science schools. The University has essentially shielded itself from all risk, and the med center has bold expanded to where it is now an $8 billion operation with 20 hospitals including two in Europe. It works almost seamlessly, but unlike UNL, the physical plants of both are intertwined, as are their board members. </p>
<p>Others have completely separate universities, like UCSF, Texas Southwestern, or apparently, Nebraska.</p>
<p>BTW, it was just announced today that Syracuse will be voluntarily leaving the AAU, rather than face a vote. See [url=<a href=“Syracuse U., Facing a Forced Exit, Says It Will Withdraw From the AAU”>Syracuse U., Facing a Forced Exit, Says It Will Withdraw From the AAU]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>This is so funny, after the Big 10 (in particular, the U of Wisc athletic directory, Barry Alvarez) made such a big deal out of AAU membership. They were much too good for the likes of Boise State. Like mini, I hadn’t heard of any AAU other than the track & wrestling meets. You can check the AAU membership list and see there are two categories, the big state universities (size matters), and the truly elite private institutions.</p>
<p>University of Chicago used to be in the Big 10. Maybe Northwestern should also leave - they don’t really fit with the others - and then the Big 10 can call itself the “Big State School” conference.</p>
<p>In the past, two other universities have left, but of their own volition. Founding member, Catholic University of America left in 2002, not too long after founding member Clark University left in 1999. Both had been among the 14 that started the AAU in 1900.</p>
<p>The AAU is research oriented, and thus its members are those universities most dedicated to research. Several “top” schools (including Dartmouth, Notre Dame, Georgetown) are not members, because they choose to focus on undergraduates instead.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. Membership is based on the level of commitment to research, not size. Some of the nation’s largest public universities are NOT AAU members, including the largest, Arizona State (68,100 students), along with such behemoths as U Central Florida (53,500 students), U South Florida (39,900 students), Florida State (39,800), Florida International (38,300), U Houston (37,000), Cal State-Fullerton (36,300), U North Texas (36,300), Temple (36,100). Cal State-Long Beach (35,600), Cal State-Northridge (35,200), U Georgia (34,900), NC State (33,900), San Diego State (32,900), George Mason (32,200), Wayne State (31,800), San Jose State (31,300), and U Cincinnati (31,200), to name just a few. These schools are larger than many of the public AAU members; Arizona State is larger than all of them. The schools I just listed differ from the public AAU members not in size, but in the fact that with few exceptions the public AAU members are among the nation’s premier research institutions, while the large schools listed above generally are not (though a few, like Arizona State, NC State, and Georgia, might be borderline calls). Nor is it that the state flagships get to join while second-tier state schools don’t. Many members of the SEC are state flagships, for example, but Florida and Vanderbilt are the only schools that are members of both the SEC and the AAU. What distinguishes Florida and Vandy from the rest of the SEC? The quantity and quality of the research produced at those two schools, and generally higher academic standards.</p>
<p>What distinguishes AAU members, public and private, is that they are research powerhouses. And the research prowess of the top publics in the group matches or exceeds that of many of the elite privates. A handful of AAU member schools–including some of the founders and early joiners–haven’t kept pace and no longer fit the profile of top-notch research institutions. Nebraska was one of them, and that’s why it was booted out. No doubt others will follow.</p>
<p>Does it matter? Probably not much. But it’s a pretty exclusive club, and it seems Nebraska’s feelings were hurt when it was told it could no longer be a member.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Tell that to the Big 10 fanboys. :)</p>
<p>I thought that UChicago technically remains a member of the Big 10. Obviously not in athletics but the league started out as an academics focused group and still goes by its official name, the one nobody uses and hardly remembers.</p>
<p>
It’s just that all of the Big 10 schools are also in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, with the addition of Chicago.</p>
<p>
This part of the Wikipedia page will soon be removed.</p>
<p>I feel UNL should have been allowed to stay since it has been argued that membership to the Big Ten would have helped (eventually) elevate its academic standing. It should have been given that chance, IMHO.</p>
<p>Signed, a defacto Big Ten Fanboy. ;)</p>