<p>’ ^ “UT is the only member of the AAU from the B12.”</p>
<p>“AAU Members from the Big12:
Colorado 1966
Iowa St 1958
Kansas 1909
Missouri 1908
Texas 1929
TAMU 2001”</p>
<p>Please excuse me for the brain f*rt. :-(</p>
<p>“It’s interesting that the AAU put out what could be considered the first list of “America’s Best Colleges”.”</p>
<p>Good point Zapfino. The original 12 members of the AAU remain among the very best in the US. </p>
<p>Columbia University
Cornell University
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
Princeton University
Stanford University
University of California-Berkeley
University of Chicago
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Yale University</p>
<p>Prior to 1956, membership in the NCAA required accreditation by an acceptable national and/or regional accreditation agency. The Association of American Universities was the only national accreditation agency, however. It was specifically listed in the NCCA membership rules as an acceptable accreditation agency. The “Accepted List” of colleges and universities that AAU began to issue in 1914 had been discontinued after 1949, so this was a moot point by 1956. The language of the NCAA rule was amended in 1956 to refer only to regional accreditation agencies.</p>
<p>^^ But note, Alexandre, that the “AAU Accepted List” extended beyond the membership of AAU. Essentially, it was a list of colleges and universities which were deemed to prepare its graduates adequately for graduate study.</p>
<p>Nebraska President Perlman’s letter to faculty and staff:</p>
<hr>
<p>Dear Colleagues:</p>
<p>I have some disconcerting news. The membership of the Association of American Universities has voted to discontinue Nebraska’s membership in that organization. We have known we were at risk of this for ten years, and successfully fought off a similar threat in 2000. I had hoped our extraordinary accomplishments and steep trajectory would have made us less vulnerable, but the AAU’s approach to the review made this result inevitable. There was really nothing more you could have accomplished to forestall this result.</p>
<p>Here is what happened.</p>
<p>The AAU has a unique ranking system that ranks all research universities (including non-AAU schools). It consists of four criteria: research expenditures, National Academy members, faculty awards (from a specified list), and citations. An institution’s productivity on each of these criteria is “normalized” by the number of tenure track faculty. Each institution is then ranked in accordance with these “normalized” criteria and the average ranking is the overall ranking for each institution. In accordance with this system, we were ranked last among AAU institutions. A number of non-AAU institutions received a higher rank than UNL and a higher rank than 14 other AAU institutions.</p>
<p>The ranking system put us at a disadvantage because of the way NU’s system is organized with separate flagship and medical campuses. A large majority of AAU institutions have medical schools and are allowed to count medical research data. With UNMC’s research included we would have had research expenditures above many other AAU institutions. Medical schools are both research intensive and also have a high ratio of research per tenure track faculty because many of their faculty who produce research are not “tenure track faculty” and thus not counted. Thus having a medical school is a disproportionate advantage in the AAU rankings that UNL did not enjoy.</p>
<p>The second disadvantage we face is that AAU inappropriately devalues agricultural research. It does not count any research funded by USDA (or by any private-sector interest) in the overall ranking. However, it does count agricultural faculty in the number used to normalize the rankings. The result is the ranking counts agriculture faculty but not the research they produce. Because of our strong commitment as a land-grant institution to serving the State of Nebraska, we are seriously disadvantaged within the AAU ranking system.</p>
<p>A third disadvantage we face is that we are a comprehensive university. Although the AAU purports to limit membership to “comprehensive” institutions, the normalization process favors those institutions narrowly focused on disciplines qualified for federal research dollars. In fact our total research expenditure is higher than two prominent, but highly specialized institutions.</p>
<p>We presented a data-based argument that demonstrated the specific ways that the ranking metrics distorted UNL’s actual research accomplishments, but our argument did not prevail. The AAU Membership Policies, however, provide that when an institution is reviewed the review committee should engage in a second-stage process to make a “qualitative judgment about the mission, characteristics, and trajectory” of the institution.</p>
<p>I believe we had a strong case on the “second stage.” Among AAU institutions we have had the 7th largest percentage growth in research expenditures over the last decade. We have leadership or partnership roles in research with all of the highest ranked AAU institutions. We have faculty achievements that are not counted by AAU but are of equal merit. For example, no credit is given to a faculty who claims a Poet Laureate of the United States or the winner of the Bancroft Prize in History. We had thought our lack of a medical school, our land-grant obligations, and our AAU-leading research trajectory would be taken into account during this second stage. Unfortunately, the Review Committee refused to make any “qualitative judgment” that departed from the ranking and the membership went along.</p>
<p>There is within AAU a group of institutions who believe the organization should be smaller and that the rankings are an appropriate measure of institutional quality. We are not the only institution to be affected and if AAU continues with this effort others will be vulnerable. In the end, while we received strong support from almost all of our Big Ten colleagues, all of our former Big 12 colleagues, and other public research universities, it was not sufficient. There were other troubling events during this process, which I may write about in another forum.</p>
<p>So what does this mean for us? I do not see this development in any way impacting our momentum or diminishing our accomplishments. Although there is some reputational advantage to AAU membership, it is difficult to identify specific ways in which our membership was essential or influential in our current success. As University of Nebraska President James B. Milliken often says, we strive to be the best public university in the country as measured by the impact we have on our people and our state, and through them, the world. On that ranking, I think we are in the top tier.</p>
<p>Harvey</p>
<p>Source: [Nebraska</a> Booted from the AAU - HuskerBoard.com - Husker Message Board](<a href=“Nebraska Booted from the AAU - Husker Football - HuskerBoard.com - Nebraska Cornhuskers Message Board”>Nebraska Booted from the AAU - Husker Football - HuskerBoard.com - Nebraska Cornhuskers Message Board)</p>
<p>I believe Warren Buffett has the power to undone the damage to his alma mater’s academic reputation by donating $5-billion (I thought of $1 billion at first, but this is Nebraska, so $5-billion is probably required imho for the overhaul in all depts, including a medical school…) of his wealth to the university even though Berkshire Hathaway is not doing well as of late. I’ve read that Nebraska is planning to appeal the ‘seem-to-be-final’ decision. Hopefully it goes through, if not, the next AAU re-evaluation will take place in exactly …10 years from now!! lol</p>
<p>Well, look on the bright side, if ever the Huskers screw up in the Big Ten, we have the perfect excuse to replace them… (I feel evil… =.=")</p>
<p>"The Chronicle and another online source, Inside Higher Education, reported Monday that Syracuse University was reviewed along with Nebraska.</p>
<p>Quoted in The Chronicle, Syracuse Chancellor Nancy Cantor said the New York university would withdrawal over the coming months."</p>
<p>Source: [NU</a> regents say UNL should stay the course despite loss of AAU membership](<a href=“http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/article_5803ce6b-6c97-56b5-8f5d-2683353381d8.html]NU”>http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/article_5803ce6b-6c97-56b5-8f5d-2683353381d8.html)</p>
<p>MIT was not original AAU member?</p>
<p>^^“In the 1930s President Karl Taylor Compton and Vice-President (effectively Provost) Vannevar Bush drastically reformed the applied technology curriculum by re-emphasizing the importance of “pure” sciences like physics and chemistry and reducing the work required in shops and drafting. In sharp contrast to the Ivy League, it catered to middle-class families and depended more on tuition than on endowments or grants. Despite the challenges of the Great Depression, the reforms “renewed confidence in the ability of the Institute to develop leadership in science as well as in engineering.” The expansion and reforms cemented MIT’s academic reputation and it was elected to the Association of American Universities in 1934.”</p>
<p>Source: [Association</a> of American Universities](<a href=“http://www.aau.edu/aau/members.html]Association”>http://www.aau.edu/aau/members.html)</p>
<p>P.S. MIT’s official name was ‘Boston Tech’ back in the late 1800s and early 1900s due to its location and smaller scale operation.</p>
<p>“Quoted in The Chronicle, Syracuse Chancellor Nancy Cantor said the New York university would withdrawal over the coming months.”</p>
<ul>
<li>Does that mean University of Southern California (USC) will withdrawal as well??</li>
</ul>
<p>“The Chronicle and another online source, Inside Higher Education, reported Monday that Syracuse University was reviewed along with Nebraska.”</p>
<ul>
<li>So I guess Syracuse dodged the bullet this round??</li>
</ul>
<p>USC is in the same research spending group as UNC, Texas, Illinois, Yale, and Northwestern. I think they are quite solid. And rising unliked Syracuse and UNL.</p>
<p>MAY 23, 2011 10:10 </p>
<p>The presidential office of Cheong Wa Dae is known to be investigating the alleged copying of Korea Rare Isotope Accelerator’s design and favoritism in the allocation of research grants.</p>
<p>A presidential office source told The Dong-A Ilbo over the phone Sunday, “On the news report on the copying of Korea Rare Isotope Accelerator (KoRIA) design in a Dong-A Ilbo report dated Thursday, we called in Dr. Hong Seung-woo, a physics professor at Sungkyunkwan University who is the chief researcher for basic design, and got details,” adding, “As most of the matters that the news report raised issue with have been proven to be true, the government will not let the situation go unaddressed.”</p>
<p>“When the office of the senior presidential secretary for civil affairs expressed its will to conduct an investigation, we told the former that the office of the senior presidential secretary for national future is doing the probe, and it accepted that."</p>
<p>The senior secretary for national future’s office, which is in charge of science and technology, listened to what Hong had to say on the allegation that KoRIA’s linear accelerator copied the design of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) at Michigan State University. He reportedly told the secretary’s office in detail problems that surfaced in the course of creating the basic design, including conflict among researchers over the selection of chief researcher for basic design last year and suspicions over copying of design.</p>
<p>As Kim Yeong-ki, deputy director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in the U.S., told a news briefing in a visit to Korea, “The concept design of the accelerator itself was not a subject of copying,” the presidential office also investigated Sunday if Kim, who was an adviser for basic design in the early phase of the project, received tips from the Education, Science and Technology Ministry and what the purpose of her visit was.</p>
<p>Source: [donga.com[English</a> donga]](<a href=“Pres. office `inspecting alleged copying of accelerator design` | The DONG-A ILBO”>Pres. office `inspecting alleged copying of accelerator design` | The DONG-A ILBO)</p>
<hr>
<p>Nice summary article about the NSCL laboratory and the FRIB facility:</p>
<p>[The</a> NSCL laboratory and the FRIB facility - Scholarpedia](<a href=“http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/The_NSCL_laboratory_and_the_FRIB_facility]The”>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/The_NSCL_laboratory_and_the_FRIB_facility)</p>
<p>Go State!! lol</p>
<p>
I don’t understand how Nebraska could continue to be in the Big Ten knowing that the school has been denied by AAU. This school concerns me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
By the public the Big Ten was often seen as only second to Ivy League conference, now I have already reviewed comments online calling the conference “composed of just football schools”. Also read that Nebraska is the first school in over a hundred years to be removed from the AAU. Why exactly was the Big Ten eager to offer Nebraska admission after its long tradition…</p>
<p>Coolbreeze, the CIC was made up of 12 universities. The addition of a 13th, regardless of how strong or weak, is not going to alter the image of the league. You still have globally recognized academic powerhouses such as Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern and Wisconsin (all ranked among the top 25 research universities in the World), as well as Engineering elites such as Purdue and UIUC. </p>
<p>This said, I do not think the Big 10 was ever necessarily considered the clear second to the Ivy League where academics are concerned. The Pac 10 (with Cal, Stanford and UCLA) and the ACC (with Duke, UNC and UVa) certainly do not lag the Big 10. </p>
<p>I think Nebraska will benefit from joining the Big 10 academically. Penn State certainly did. I am not too concerned with the effect Nebraska will have on the image of the conference. The CIC still has a whopping 12 members in the AAU. That is amazing. No other conference has more than 7. That is a significant drop.</p>
<p>Big 10/CIC: 12 members</p>
<p>Ivy League: 7 members
Pac 10: 7 members
Big 12: 6 members
ACC: 5 members
SEC: 3 members</p>
<p>
Colorado joins the Pac-12 July 1st.</p>
<p>Big Ten: 11 members
Pac-12: 8 members
Ivy League: 7 members
Big 12: 5 members
ACC: 5 members
SEC: 3 members</p>
<p>
Yes the Big Ten will be still made up of Iowa, Chicago, Northwestern and Wisconsin but the adding of Nebraska was pointless and I think now the conference will clearly see that. It hurted the conference more than help, and the only winner out of it was clearly Nebraska not the league as a whole. </p>
<p>Why</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so sure. I was always a bit suspicious of Nebraska’s academic bona fides but at the end of the day this wasn’t about academics. The Big Ten needed to go to 12 or 14 members so it could split into two divisions and have a season-ending conference championship game between the two division winners, a huge revenue-booster not only from ticket sales but from the addition TV revenue. </p>
<p>And once they were committed to expanding, they wanted a school that would regularly pull big TV ratings for the Big Ten network, and help get the network on more cable systems. The schools that regularly pull the biggest TV football ratings are Notre Dame, Nebraska, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, and Texas, though the exact order varies from year to year. Three of those seven, Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan, were already in. Notre Dame said no. No way was Alabama going to leave the SEC, and although the Big Ten flirted briefly with Texas it was a poor geographic fit and in any event Texas wanted no part of it, largely because they figured they could throw their weight around in the Big 12 and get a better TV deal that gives them total control over their own cable TV network in Texas, a mega-market. So that left Nebraska, a traditional football powerhouse and proven money-maker with a rabid national following, and located in a contiguous state to boot. Financially it made sense, and make no mistake, it’s finances that drove this process. When in doubt, follow the money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In terms of academically strong NCAA conferences, how about the University Athletic Association ?</p>
<p>The UAA is now the only NCAA athletic conference with all members (8 of 8) in the Association of American Universities. The Big 10 can no longer make this claim, now that Nebraska is in the Big 10 but out of the AAU. </p>
<p>And according to the USN&WR National University rankings, the lowest-ranked UAA school is at #41 – higher than 10 of the 12 “Big 10” schools.</p>
<p>It’s true that the UAA is not a major conference when it comes to college athletics. But realistically, neither is the Ivy League.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The University of Chicago was a Big Ten school once, but it is a UAA school now. In fact, Chicago won the 2010 UAA football championship.</p>