Louisiana vs State

[VObserver]

Currently Louisiana is #49 in percentage of college degrees... we even trail Puerto Rico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nal_attainment

So I'm not sure that making a college education even harder to get will change Louisiana's fortunes.

I sort of agree with you both. Only the Statewide Universities should have graduate schools, law schools and medical or veterinary schools. The rest should be undergrad only.

[CajunFun]

are they the only “state” that is also an “A&M”?

The Morrill Land-Grant Acts, beginning in 1862, took the sale of public lands and directed the proceeds to certain universities, almost all of them public, to create agricultural and mechanical colleges. Most (all?) of them added 'A&MC' to their names. Most of the nation's 19th century colleges with 'State' in their name were benefited or created in this way. The older schools, the 'U of X,' were generally liberal arts schools dedicated to 'pure' learning, as well as medicine and law.

As most of you know, Tulane was the original UL, the liberal arts college. When Paul Tulane left them his fortune, they went private... which created a situation that only occurs in two or three states, where one major university was left to cover both liberal arts and applied disciplines.

[CajunFun]

I sort of agree with you both. Only the Statewide Universities should have graduate schools, law schools and medical or veterinary schools. The rest should be undergrad only.

I don't necessarily disagree with you... nor do I necessarily agree. Instead, I ask this question:

Why?

1) If the purpose of a graduate program (I will ignore professional degrees for now) is to produce PhDs, why should we underwrite them with our tax dollars? There is a glut of PhDs, our colleges can hire excellent faculty for much less money, and devote our funds into strengthening the undergrad experience.

2) On the other hand, if graduate programs produce tangible and intangible benefits to the character and intellectual activity of a university, then why should some citizen-students enjoy these benefits, and others be denied?

I've been thinking about these things for years... I tend to the idea that graduate programs and research make the campus lively. But I have to immediately concede that liberal arts colleges, which do not stress research and graduate studies, provide some of the best educational experiences for undergrads.

We don't define our goals and processes very well, nor do we measure them well. So it's not easy to make decisions.

And FWIW, right now I am working on a book-signing tour for the fall, during which I will also try to visit colleges and present a talk I am preparing, 'A Scientist Explains the Coming Rise of the Liberal Arts.'

It's complicated...

[thecajunitalian]

Louisiana - 5th in all time wins at 1,795. 6 WCWS, 8 Super regionals, 32 Regionals

LSU Poop - ? in all time wins at 1,236. 6 WCWS, 9 Super Regionals, 24 Regionals

Suck on that!!!

[R1Letterman]

Times Louisiana has won the Red Stick regional: FOUR
Times State A&M has won the Lafayette regional: ZERO

[Grantvb]

A little Digging:

Arizona: 2091 wins, 25 WCWS, 16 Super Regionals, 35 Regionals (8 titles)

UCLA: 1882 wins, 32 WCWS, 13 Super Regionals, 39 Regionals (13 titles)

FSU: 2194 wins, 11 WCWS, 10 Super Regionals, 35 Regionals (1 title)

Michigan: 1873 wins, 13 WCWS, 11 Super Regionals, 29 Regionals (1 title)

Oklahoma: 1954 wins, 19 WCWS, 16 Super Regionals, 29 Regionals (6 titles)

Not bad company...

[ZoomZoom]

UL, LaTech, UNO.

And Southern, abet not a ULS program.

[VObserver]

I don't necessarily disagree with you... nor do I necessarily agree. Instead, I ask this question:

Why?

1) If the purpose of a graduate program (I will ignore professional degrees for now) is to produce PhDs, why should we underwrite them with our tax dollars? There is a glut of PhDs, our colleges can hire excellent faculty for much less money, and devote our funds into strengthening the undergrad experience.

2) On the other hand, if graduate programs produce tangible and intangible benefits to the character and intellectual activity of a university, then why should some citizen-students enjoy these benefits, and others be denied?

I've been thinking about these things for years... I tend to the idea that graduate programs and research make the campus lively. But I have to immediately concede that liberal arts colleges, which do not stress research and graduate studies, provide some of the best educational experiences for undergrads.

We don't define our goals and processes very well, nor do we measure them well. So it's not easy to make decisions.

And FWIW, right now I am working on a book-signing tour for the fall, during which I will also try to visit colleges and present a talk I am preparing, 'A Scientist Explains the Coming Rise of the Liberal Arts.'

It's complicated...

Different universities have different missions. The mission of Research Universities like certainly Louisiana and LSU&A&MC@BR and arguably UNO and Louisiana Tech is not the same as the mission at the other public universities in the state. The focus at R1 and possibly R2 Universities is Research, with the hope that said research will promote the rise of industrial and other business growth in the state. Graduate schools are absolutely necessary for research, as the bulk of research is done by graduate students under the guidance of faculty. Of course these schools also provide undergraduate education.

The focus, and in very large part the actual purpose of the regional universities in Louisiana is to provide undergraduate education across a broad range of majors.

The state can of course survive with no graduate programs at all, but it cannot thrive without them and the fruits of the research they spawn.

Given the anti-business nature of the political structure in Louisiana much of the fruits of research generated by Louisiana universities is forced to leave the state in order to grow the economies of Texas, Tennessee, Florida and other business friendly states; but that is another issue entirely.

[cajun4life]

Currently Louisiana is #49 in percentage of college degrees... we even trail Puerto Rico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nal_attainment

So I'm not sure that making a college education even harder to get will change Louisiana's fortunes.

Quality over quantity.

[CajunFun]

Quality over quantity.

We have some of the lowest college production rates in the US. Low educational levels correlate with poorer health, higher crime, more child and other abuse, more illicit drug use, poverty, and a host of other ills.

As Louisiana so generously demonstrates.

So I guess I'm missing where the quality comes in...

[cajun4life]

We have some of the lowest college production rates in the US. Low educational levels correlate with poorer health, higher crime, more child and other abuse, more illicit drug use, poverty, and a host of other ills.

As Louisiana so generously demonstrates.

So I guess I'm missing where the quality comes in...

Well I would argue that it starts at a much lower level than higher education. But that would lead us down a different rabbit hole.

We need stronger, healthier and more reputable higher education. Instead we have a university around every corner. This state should have a much higher focus on trades and technical skilled educational programs. Higher wages and fits the economic footprint of the state.

Health, crime, drugs and poverty is not related to higher education.

[ZoomZoom]

I sort of agree with you both. Only the Statewide Universities should have graduate schools, law schools and medical or veterinary schools. The rest should be undergrad only.

I’d love to know the true back story of ULM getting the pharmacy school. Bet it’s a doozy.

[ZoomZoom]

The Morrill Land-Grant Acts, beginning in 1862, took the sale of public lands and directed the proceeds to certain universities, almost all of them public, to create agricultural and mechanical colleges. Most (all?) of them added 'A&MC' to their names. Most of the nation's 19th century colleges with 'State' in their name were benefited or created in this way. The older schools, the 'U of X,' were generally liberal arts schools dedicated to 'pure' learning, as well as medicine and law.

As most of you know, Tulane was the original UL, the liberal arts college. When Paul Tulane left them his fortune, they went private... which created a situation that only occurs in two or three states, where one major university was left to cover both liberal arts and applied disciplines.

Don’t forget LSUA&MCBR was the University of Louisiana during 1913-21.

[SlickRick]

Louisiana - 5th in all time wins at 1,795. 6 WCWS, 8 Super regionals, 32 Regionals

LSU Poop - ? in all time wins at 1,236. 6 WCWS, 9 Super Regionals, 24 Regionals

Suck on that!!!

Interested to know where you got the stats on all time wins? I was trying to get this a few days ago and couldn't find it. Thanks!

[CajunFun]

Well I would argue that it starts at a much lower level than higher education.

I would agree, and I'm working on it. But although it starts earlier, it by no means ends there. And essential to making those earlier changes will be our colleges & universities; and even more important, will be having a citizenry who has enough education to understand why education is important.

That's the problem that gets lost: when you have a public who is not well-educated, they do not generally value education, nor understand what makes for strong education. And so they do not elect the public officials, nor express their concerns to them, in order to bring about effective education.

Education, particularly university education, is much as Tom Lehrer said about life:

"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it."

We need stronger, healthier and more reputable higher education.

Agreed.

Instead we have a university around every corner.

I must disagree. We have about the right number of universities for our population. And more importantly, in a wild fit of sanity our past Legislatures chose to place our universities in a fashion so that most of our lower-income students can commute to them.

This state should have a much higher focus on trades and technical skilled educational programs.

Agreed, but that should not come at the expense of strong universities, nor should it bring about a diminution of college graduates.

Health, crime, drugs and poverty is not related to higher education.

I spent some weeks doing research on just these topics. If you're interest I can provide the data.

The strongest correlates for these problems is the level of higher education— or rather, the lack thereof— in a state. The other strong correlate is income; but that correlation is not quite as strong, and of course, that brings in the related co-correlation between higher education & income.