Achieving R1 Status

[CajunVic]

Let's see, I've answered this question in several other threads regarding academics. We need 10 doctoral degree programs. We need to graduate over 100 doctoral students per year. Of the 100 only a certain percentage can come from each discipline. We fail to meet that criteria.

Oh and you're still a bean counting hatchet wound.

Can't remember the last time I counted beans, but that is a just a red herring anyhow.

You have proclaimed several times that we are close. I would just like to know how close we are. While you sporadically spew criteria, never do you indicate how close we are to meeting that criteria. For example:

We need 10 doctoral programs, how many do we have?

We need to graduAte 100 doctorial candidates, how many do we graduate.

Looks like we need over $400mm in endowments. How much do we have.

I believe we are sufficient in research with around $100mm. If not, where do we need to be?

I assume that there are also some athletic criteria involved in the evaluation, but don't know. If so, where are we in that respect?

Someone who says we are close' as you have proclaimed to know, should be able to answer those questions even without them being asked specifically, otherwise the opinion that we are close is nothing more than gobbledygook.

So, do you really know or is your opinion just gook?

[CajunAmos]

Can't remember the last time I counted beans, but that is a just a red herring anyhow.

You have proclaimed several times that we are close. I would just like to know how close we are. While you sporadically spew criteria, never do you indicate how close we are to meeting that criteria. For example:

We need 10 doctoral programs, how many do we have?

We need to graduAte 100 doctorial candidates, how many do we graduate.

Looks like we need over $400mm in endowments. How much do we have.

I believe we are sufficient in research with around $100mm. If not, where do we need to be?

I assume that there are also some athletic criteria involved in the evaluation, but don't know. If so, where are we in that respect?

Someone who says we are close' as you have proclaimed to know, should be able to answer those questions even without them being asked specifically, otherwise the opinion that we are close is nothing more than gobbledygook.

So, do you really know or is your opinion just gook?

No athletic.

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.ed...ions/basic.php

[cajun_lannister]

Can't remember the last time I counted beans, but that is a just a red herring anyhow.

You have proclaimed several times that we are close. I would just like to know how close we are. While you sporadically spew criteria, never do you indicate how close we are to meeting that criteria. For example:

We need 10 doctoral programs, how many do we have?

We need to graduAte 100 doctorial candidates, how many do we graduate.

Looks like we need over $400mm in endowments. How much do we have.

I believe we are sufficient in research with around $100mm. If not, where do we need to be?

I assume that there are also some athletic criteria involved in the evaluation, but don't know. If so, where are we in that respect?

Someone who says we are close' as you have proclaimed to know, should be able to answer those questions even without them being asked specifically, otherwise the opinion that we are close is nothing more than gobbledygook.

So, do you really know or is your opinion just gook?

GAST has a smaller endowment than us and are R1 don't think that has anything to do with it

[Turbine]

Can't remember the last time I counted beans, but that is a just a red herring anyhow.

You have proclaimed several times that we are close. I would just like to know how close we are. While you sporadically spew criteria, never do you indicate how close we are to meeting that criteria. For example:

We need 10 doctoral programs, how many do we have?

We need to graduAte 100 doctorial candidates, how many do we graduate.

Looks like we need over $400mm in endowments. How much do we have.

I believe we are sufficient in research with around $100mm. If not, where do we need to be?

I assume that there are also some athletic criteria involved in the evaluation, but don't know. If so, where are we in that respect?

Someone who says we are close' as you have proclaimed to know, should be able to answer those questions even without them being asked specifically, otherwise the opinion that we are close is nothing more than gobbledygook.

So, do you really know or is your opinion just gook?

At the risk of being Boomered into doing research, I'm going to go out on a limb and declare UL is real close to R1 status.

[CajunVic]

At the risk of being Boomered into doing research, I'm going to go out on a limb and declare UL is real close to R1 status.

While you you are at it, you might as well test the full limits of your limb and declare in the black "that we have been close forever."

[VObserver]

Carnegie R1 requires a minimum of 10 PhD programs; we have 9 plus two doctoral equivalent professional development programs [EdD and DNP] which may or may not count as PhD programs for Carnegie purposes. I have heard at various times that we lack 1 PhD program, and/or that we fall short of the required number [100?] of PhD graduates/year.

Our administration, as is normal around UL, is not very forthcoming with specific information on this subject. I do know that it is a stated goal of Dr. Savoie to achieve R1 status, and that ever since he has been in office, the official position when questioned has been a vague "We are very close".

[HoustonCajun]

Can't remember the last time I counted beans, but that is a just a red herring anyhow.

You have proclaimed several times that we are close. I would just like to know how close we are. While you sporadically spew criteria, never do you indicate how close we are to meeting that criteria. For example:

We need 10 doctoral programs, how many do we have?

We need to graduAte 100 doctorial candidates, how many do we graduate.

Looks like we need over $400mm in endowments. How much do we have.

I believe we are sufficient in research with around $100mm. If not, where do we need to be?

I assume that there are also some athletic criteria involved in the evaluation, but don't know. If so, where are we in that respect?

Someone who says we are close' as you have proclaimed to know, should be able to answer those questions even without them being asked specifically, otherwise the opinion that we are close is nothing more than gobbledygook.

So, do you really know or is your opinion just gook?

Keep in mind that the $400M in endowment is part of requirements only by Texas legislature for schools to access Tier 1 funds when meeting those criteria. It has nothing to do with achieving actual Carnegie R1 status.

[cajun4life]

Keep in mind that the $400M in endowment is part of requirements only by Texas legislature for schools to access Tier 1 funds when meeting those criteria. It has nothing to do with achieving actual Carnegie R1 status.

Our endowment has been over $100M since the late ‘90’s. Yet we haven’t broken $200M in 20 years. It just goes to show that we have a very long way to go.

[CajunVic]

Our endowment has been over $100M since the late ‘90’s. Yet we haven’t broken $200M in 20 years. It just goes to show that we have a very long way to go.

Or maybe, just maybe we don't if lanny is correct that GaSt has less endowment $$$$ than us and they have achieved R1 Status.

[Cajun90]

All you never wanted to know about Carnegie Classification...….. below are a couple of weblinks for Carnegie classification. They are in depth and have multiple data links which if given enough time can be interesting to go through. The most important thing though is this..... there is NO list or check sheet for classification. Classifications are based on a statistical formula. The formula IS NOT PUBLIC.

See the quote below regarding their methodology>

The final classification of each school is based on a standardized (Carnegie does not specify the exact formula) distance of the Carnegie principal component scores from a particular point (again unspecified, but approximately the minimum of each score). The very-high-research category is the set of schools farthest away from this point.

Starting points if you want to do your own research:

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.ed...ions/basic.php

http://carnegieclassifications.iu.ed...dex_Method.pdf

https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/f...1#.XEH8A_ZFxPY

Ultimately it is impossible to know with certainty what needs to be done to achieve R1. I would believe that persons associated with the University have certainly researched the issue enough to have a good idea of what needs to happen.

I will say this. In my review of the data there is a tremendous gap in R&D monies between most R2 & R1 universities.

For example, the latest data from Carnegie has median Science and Engineering R&D expenditures at approximately 296 million for R1 and 26 million for R2. We had approximately 79 million. Well above median R2 but well below median R1.

For non Science and Engineering R&D expenditures the median was approximately 19 million for R1 and 2 million for R2. We had approximately 22 million. Obviously we do not have an issue in this category.

If you really want to dig into it follow the excel spreadsheet links in the articles referenced above.