(06-24-2016 06:06 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  That means that once UCF makes the mark this year, then both USF and UCF will be on UF's level vs State moneys. That's a very good sign for both of us.

No we won't. You need to hit 11/12 to be a preeminent school and get 15 million a year like UF and FSU.

Currently USF meets 9/12 and UCF 6/12 to qualify for the emerging preeminent status to receive $5 million a year.

USF should hit two more and get the full amount in two years

(06-25-2016 07:32 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-24-2016 06:06 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  That means that once UCF makes the mark this year, then both USF and UCF will be on UF's level vs State moneys. That's a very good sign for both of us.

No we won't. You need to hit 11/12 to be a preeminent school and get 15 million a year like UF and FSU.

Currently USF meets 9/12 and UCF 6/12 to qualify for the emerging preeminent status to receive $5 million a year.

USF should hit two more and get the full amount in two years

Emerging Preeminent status was to award USF 5 to 10 Million this year. The amount would be determined by the Universities plans for said funds. That's what the board was voting on Thursday. Those funds were not included in that 32.3 million sum previously stated. So 32.3 million + 5 million = 37.3 million or 32.3 million + 10 million = 42.3 million. If USF gets the complete amount, that 42.3 million is close to UF's 47.7 million total, is it not? Further more UCF's 39 million +5 mil = 44 mil or 39 mil +10 mil = 49 mil.

Is my math wrong?

(06-25-2016 08:50 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 07:32 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-24-2016 06:06 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  That means that once UCF makes the mark this year, then both USF and UCF will be on UF's level vs State moneys. That's a very good sign for both of us.

No we won't. You need to hit 11/12 to be a preeminent school and get 15 million a year like UF and FSU.

Currently USF meets 9/12 and UCF 6/12 to qualify for the emerging preeminent status to receive $5 million a year.

USF should hit two more and get the full amount in two years

Emerging Preeminent status was to award USF 5 to 10 Million this year. The amount would be determined by the Universities plans for said funds. That's what the board was voting on Thursday. Those funds were not included in that 32.3 million sum previously stated. So 32.3 million + 5 million = 37.3 million or 32.3 million + 10 million = 42.3 million. If USF gets the complete amount, that 42.3 million is close to UF's 47.7 million total, is it not? Further more UCF's 39 million +5 mil = 44 mil or 39 mil +10 mil = 49 mil.

Is my math wrong?

To your point I thought I read that we collected the most from the state the past two years running.

(06-25-2016 08:55 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 08:50 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 07:32 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-24-2016 06:06 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  That means that once UCF makes the mark this year, then both USF and UCF will be on UF's level vs State moneys. That's a very good sign for both of us.

No we won't. You need to hit 11/12 to be a preeminent school and get 15 million a year like UF and FSU.

Currently USF meets 9/12 and UCF 6/12 to qualify for the emerging preeminent status to receive $5 million a year.

USF should hit two more and get the full amount in two years

Emerging Preeminent status was to award USF 5 to 10 Million this year. The amount would be determined by the Universities plans for said funds. That's what the board was voting on Thursday. Those funds were not included in that 32.3 million sum previously stated. So 32.3 million + 5 million = 37.3 million or 32.3 million + 10 million = 42.3 million. If USF gets the complete amount, that 42.3 million is close to UF's 47.7 million total, is it not? Further more UCF's 39 million +5 mil = 44 mil or 39 mil +10 mil = 49 mil.

Is my math wrong?

To your point I thought I read that we collected the most from the state the past two years running.

I believe some of these articles chose their points as to be misleading. Perhaps UCF did from a certain individual fund but, definitely not total funding. UF is still #1 in total funding.

The AAU uses metrics in evaluating universities. Information on the "Indicators"
and membership policy can be viewed at:
http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=4020 AAU MEMBERSHIP POLICY

"In assessing potential new member universities, the evaluation of university
profiles based on the Membership Indicators is the first stage of a two-stage
process used to identify institutions that may be invited into membership.
The second stage involves a more qualitative set of judgments about an
institution’s mission, characteristics, and trajectory."

Simply having better Indicators than one or more existing members does not
mean a university suddenly becomes a member. Not meeting them probably
means a university will not be considered.

"The association maintains a standing Membership Committee, which periodically
evaluates both non-member universities for possible membership and current
members for continued membership, with the goal of ensuring that the association
in fact comprises comparable leading research-intensive universities."

The AAU evaluates "Indicators" but does not publish the results. The
"Center for Measuring University Performance" at the MUP Center collects and
publishes data of top universities, "The Top American Research Universities Report".
TARU "Measures" have high correlations to the AAU's "Indicators". See Below;

AAU TARU Measure
Phase 1 Indicators
1. Competitively funded federal research support; Federal Research
2. Membership in the National Academies (NAS, NAE, IOM) National Academy
3. Faculty awards, fellowships, and memberships Faculty Awards
4. Citations N/A

Phase II Indicators
1. USDA, state, and industrial research funding Total Research
2. Doctoral education N/A
3. Number of postdoctoral appointees Postdoctoral Appointees
4. Undergraduate education SAT Scores, National ....................................................................................Merit Scholars

Rankings by TARU can be viewed at:
https://mup.asu.edu/sites/default/files/...Report.pdf
Cincinnati has TARU National Rank of 58 among all universities. Houston ranks 72.

TARU ranks were obtained by counting down the table after the 47 institutions
(23 private, 24 public) that rank in the top 25 nationally. Cincinnati is the 11-th in
the Top American Research Universities ( 25-50 ). 47 + 11 = 58[/php][/code]

(06-25-2016 11:17 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  The AAU uses metrics in evaluating universities. Information on the "Indicators"
and membership policy can be viewed at:
http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=4020 AAU MEMBERSHIP POLICY

"In assessing potential new member universities, the evaluation of university
profiles based on the Membership Indicators is the first stage of a two-stage
process used to identify institutions that may be invited into membership.
The second stage involves a more qualitative set of judgments about an
institution’s mission, characteristics, and trajectory."

Simply having better Indicators than one or more existing members does not
mean a university suddenly becomes a member. Not meeting them probably
means a university will not be considered.

"The association maintains a standing Membership Committee, which periodically
evaluates both non-member universities for possible membership and current
members for continued membership, with the goal of ensuring that the association
in fact comprises comparable leading research-intensive universities."

The AAU evaluates "Indicators" but does not publish the results. The
"Center for Measuring University Performance" at the MUP Center collects and
publishes data of top universities, "The Top American Research Universities Report".
TARU "Measures" have high correlations to the AAU's "Indicators". See Below;

AAU TARU Measure
Phase 1 Indicators
1. Competitively funded federal research support; Federal Research
2. Membership in the National Academies (NAS, NAE, IOM) National Academy
3. Faculty awards, fellowships, and memberships Faculty Awards
4. Citations N/A

Phase II Indicators
1. USDA, state, and industrial research funding Total Research
2. Doctoral education N/A
3. Number of postdoctoral appointees Postdoctoral Appointees
4. Undergraduate education SAT Scores, National ....................................................................................Merit Scholars

Rankings by TARU can be viewed at:
https://mup.asu.edu/sites/default/files/...Report.pdf
Cincinnati has TARU National Rank of 58 among all universities. Houston ranks 72.

TARU ranks were obtained by counting down the table after the 47 institutions
(23 private, 24 public) that rank in the top 25 nationally. Cincinnati is the 11-th in
the Top American Research Universities ( 25-50 ). 47 + 11 = 58[/php][/code]

And USF was 1 below FSU and ahead of several AAU members. What's your point as I'm not following you here. This thread was about UCF and USF battling with UF and FSU for state funds and how we faired.

The ranking provided in that list place UC 53, USF 71, UH 81, UConn 94, Tulane 96, Temple 104, UCF 107. That's all from the AAC on the list provided.

Oh I see now, you took just the Power vs Education number as your point as that's where Houston faired best. Good for you. You should have taken the Resources numbers., UH would look even better there.

A Dick measuring contest implemented by a team not even represented in the thread.

The point of my post included:

1. Providing information which some may not have bothered to find
2. Taking exception to a prior post which stated:

"there are really not "stated metrics" per say.....
you simply do not check off "met this research dollar amount" and
"have this many national academy members" as some want to pretend
in post after yours"

There ARE "stated metrics" which the AAU clearly describes and
"national academy members" is behind only "Competitively funded
federal research support" in "Phase 1 Indicators".

Meeting certain "indicators" will not get a university in the AAU,
but that is a necessary first step.

"AAU" appears in the very first post in this thread.
I thought AAU was germain to this thread, perhaps not.

Anyway, UCF and USF are making great steps.

(06-25-2016 01:11 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  The point of my post included:

1. Providing information which some may not have bothered to find
2. Taking exception to a prior post which stated:

"there are really not "stated metrics" per say.....
you simply do not check off "met this research dollar amount" and
"have this many national academy members" as some want to pretend
in post after yours"

There ARE "stated metrics" which the AAU clearly describes and
"national academy members" is behind only "Competitively funded
federal research support" in "Phase 1 Indicators".

Meeting certain "indicators" will not get a university in the AAU,
but that is a necessary first step.

"AAU" appears in the very first post in this thread.
I thought AAU was germain to this thread, perhaps not.

Anyway, UCF and USF are making great steps.

Sorry, I do apologize. I've since went back in the thread and found the references to AAU. I can understand someone posting that they have a plan for it but, that's just it a plan.

There are a number of the Universities within the AAC making strides towards AAU. Your data is accurate as bench marks. Thanks for the link and post.

(06-25-2016 01:11 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  The point of my post included:

1. Providing information which some may not have bothered to find
2. Taking exception to a prior post which stated:

"there are really not "stated metrics" per say.....
you simply do not check off "met this research dollar amount" and
"have this many national academy members" as some want to pretend
in post after yours"

There ARE "stated metrics" which the AAU clearly describes and
"national academy members" is behind only "Competitively funded
federal research support" in "Phase 1 Indicators".

Meeting certain "indicators" will not get a university in the AAU,
but that is a necessary first step.

"AAU" appears in the very first post in this thread.
I thought AAU was germain to this thread, perhaps not.

Anyway, UCF and USF are making great steps.

but what you simply cannot and seemingly never will comprehend is that the AAU does not just look at those gross metrics

they do not simply look at total federal research dollars nor do they look at a subset of federal research dollars

they normalize those dollars for things like faculty count and they review those normalized dollars as compared to other PEER universities

so it does not matter where any university stands on the NSF research dollar list each year or even the NSF federal research dollar list

because the AAU is going to take those numbers and look at them in the context of faculty numbers and in terms of what those normalized numbers mean relative to other PEER universities

I realize some will never grasp that, but that is a glaring example of the failure of the institution that "educated" them

(06-25-2016 08:50 AM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 07:32 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-24-2016 06:06 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  That means that once UCF makes the mark this year, then both USF and UCF will be on UF's level vs State moneys. That's a very good sign for both of us.

No we won't. You need to hit 11/12 to be a preeminent school and get 15 million a year like UF and FSU.

Currently USF meets 9/12 and UCF 6/12 to qualify for the emerging preeminent status to receive $5 million a year.

USF should hit two more and get the full amount in two years

Emerging Preeminent status was to award USF 5 to 10 Million this year. The amount would be determined by the Universities plans for said funds. That's what the board was voting on Thursday. Those funds were not included in that 32.3 million sum previously stated. So 32.3 million + 5 million = 37.3 million or 32.3 million + 10 million = 42.3 million. If USF gets the complete amount, that 42.3 million is close to UF's 47.7 million total, is it not? Further more UCF's 39 million +5 mil = 44 mil or 39 mil +10 mil = 49 mil.

Is my math wrong?

That's right, but you're looking at different pots of money that have to be used for different purposes. The biggest difference between UF/FSU and USF/UCF is not the Preeminent University money but rather the recurring state appropriation that supports operations. This is the main pot of money in the state budget, but there are other related pots of money too that UF/FSU tend to get more of. Of the standard appropriation for university operations, this year:

UF - $257.2m
FSU - $237.4m
USF-Tampa - $157.5m (+ $20.1m St Pete & $11.5m Sarasota)
UCF - $198.8m

UF's money excludes ~$150m for their agriculture college (IFAS), as well as the medical school money for all the universities.

The money increase will be nice, but the biggest perk it's being labeled as in the same level as the others.
Wether USF gets into AAU or not can be debated, what's not debatable is that working on meetings those metrics are going to improve you as a university and obviously is already paying for USF.

The university appropriations money each school gets a year it's very important but you must also take into account the number of students it must cater to with that money both undergraduate and graduate students

USF wont get AAU for several years because of the political aspects involved but we should hit enough metrics soon that there will be consideration.

As far as Pre-Eminent status, USF is set to hit it in 2017. Well have 11 out of 12 at that point and if we can raise $80 million in endowment then well hit all 12... something FSU doesn't even do.

On top of that, at the end of this year or early next year, USF will be finalizing their "UnstoppaBULL" campaign. It was a campaign to raise $500 million but we surpassed and raised that to $1 Billion. Currently we have raised over $920 million and have a few more major donations coming in.

(06-25-2016 01:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 01:11 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  The point of my post included:

1. Providing information which some may not have bothered to find
2. Taking exception to a prior post which stated:

"there are really not "stated metrics" per say.....
you simply do not check off "met this research dollar amount" and
"have this many national academy members" as some want to pretend
in post after yours"

There ARE "stated metrics" which the AAU clearly describes and
"national academy members" is behind only "Competitively funded
federal research support" in "Phase 1 Indicators".

Meeting certain "indicators" will not get a university in the AAU,
but that is a necessary first step.

"AAU" appears in the very first post in this thread.
I thought AAU was germain to this thread, perhaps not.

Anyway, UCF and USF are making great steps.

but what you simply cannot and seemingly never will comprehend is that the AAU does not just look at those gross metrics

they do not simply look at total federal research dollars nor do they look at a subset of federal research dollars

they normalize those dollars for things like faculty count and they review those normalized dollars as compared to other PEER universities

so it does not matter where any university stands on the NSF research dollar list each year or even the NSF federal research dollar list

because the AAU is going to take those numbers and look at them in the context of faculty numbers and in terms of what those normalized numbers mean relative to other PEER universities

I realize some will never grasp that, but that is a glaring example of the failure of the institution that "educated" them

Good post. Non-AAU school x can hit 12 out of 12 metrics and not get invited into the AAU. It's not designed that way. I suppose I can ask a free mason what the "metrics" are for membership. Ask him what the typical member looks like and use that to get in. Sounds like a ridiculous idea right? That's the problem with thinking you can earn your way into the AAU. They don't accept applications.

Cheers!

(06-29-2016 07:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 01:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 01:11 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  The point of my post included:

1. Providing information which some may not have bothered to find
2. Taking exception to a prior post which stated:

"there are really not "stated metrics" per say.....
you simply do not check off "met this research dollar amount" and
"have this many national academy members" as some want to pretend
in post after yours"

There ARE "stated metrics" which the AAU clearly describes and
"national academy members" is behind only "Competitively funded
federal research support" in "Phase 1 Indicators".

Meeting certain "indicators" will not get a university in the AAU,
but that is a necessary first step.

"AAU" appears in the very first post in this thread.
I thought AAU was germain to this thread, perhaps not.

Anyway, UCF and USF are making great steps.

but what you simply cannot and seemingly never will comprehend is that the AAU does not just look at those gross metrics

they do not simply look at total federal research dollars nor do they look at a subset of federal research dollars

they normalize those dollars for things like faculty count and they review those normalized dollars as compared to other PEER universities

so it does not matter where any university stands on the NSF research dollar list each year or even the NSF federal research dollar list

because the AAU is going to take those numbers and look at them in the context of faculty numbers and in terms of what those normalized numbers mean relative to other PEER universities

I realize some will never grasp that, but that is a glaring example of the failure of the institution that "educated" them

Good post. Non-AAU school x can hit 12 out of 12 metrics and not get invited into the AAU. It's not designed that way. I suppose I can ask a free mason what the "metrics" are for membership. Ask him what the typical member looks like and use that to get in. Sounds like a ridiculous idea right? That's the problem with thinking you can earn your way into the AAU. They don't accept applications.

Cheers!

As I have said before the point is NOT to get into AAU by meeting its metrics but about improving the university as a whole by meeting those metrics. If USF meets the AAU metrics then as a university it will have raised its academic, research status and improved itself as a whole.
As we have seen with this pre-eminence title and money and by its 1 billion unstoppable campaign USF has moved itself up in academic circles by working on meeting those AAU metrics.
I'm very proud of the steps my university has been taking in improving its academic standards.

UCF has now been granted this status as well, as was expected.

An interesting paragraph from the analysis that shows how UCF (and presumably USF too) are being punished for being young universities instead of being graded on their actual success:

Quote:UCF is ranked 91st among public institutions by U.S. News & World Report’s “Best Colleges” (2016). To better understand our performance, UCF conducted an in‐depth review and generated a metric by metric breakdown. We also limited the comparison benchmark to only include the 81 public R1 institutions. The breakdown of this ranking shows that UCF is already performing in the Top 50 in all student quality and outcome performance metrics. Areas needing improvement include financial resources (benefiting from additional state allocations), faculty resources (benefiting from new tenure and tenure‐track faculty lines), and peer assessment score.

So basically, the objective metrics say UCF is a Top 50 institution; the subjective "metrics" say we aren't.

(06-22-2016 09:36 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Here's the criteria set by the state. Pre-eminient = 11/12, emerging pre-eminent = 6/12.

1) Incoming students must have average GPAs of 4.0 and SAT scores of 1,800.
2) Be considered a top 50 U.S. university in two or more notable publications
3) Have freshman retention rates of at least 90 percent
4) Have a six-year graduation rate of at least 70 percent
5) Have at least six faculty who are part of a national academy
6) Total annual research expenditures must be at least $200 million.
7) Total annual research expenditures in non-medical sciences must be at least $150 million.
8) Have top-100 university national rankings for research expenditures in at least five science, technology, engineering or mathematics fields
9) Have been awarded at least 100 patents in the last three years
10) Award 400 or more doctoral degrees annually, including professional doctoral degrees in medical and health care disciplines
11) Have 200 or more postdoctoral appointees annually, which means having at least 200 students doing post-doctoral work and advanced studies beyond their PhD programs
12) Have a private foundation endowment of at least $500 million

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog/...inent.html

wow. This really set the bar high. I hope both schools get emerging pre-eminent status.

UCF can reasonably get to 11 out of 12 in that 5-year timeframe proposed. The $500m endowment is going to take time, even with a $500m campaign underway, simply because a lot of the raised money will go to other purposes including the downtown campus and to spending money on things like hiring the 6 faculty that are members of a national academy...we have 2 presently.

The endowment will build, though, between the giving campaign and then proceeds from Pegasus Health, increased research expenditures, and the teaching hospital. This is a big reason that HCA's offer was so much better than FH and ORMC, because UCF will take home 20% of the profits.

Congrats to UCF

The problem I see with UCF's paltry endowment is that they seem to keep on spending the money raised. The downtown campus has the "cool" factor...... but was it really needed? Shore up the infrastructure at the school, and for GOD's sake, put some money in the endowment fund. Its always spend spend spend with them. If they save some of the damn money, it can take on a life of its own via investments and become self sustaining while growing.

(09-23-2016 10:33 AM)otown Wrote:  The problem I see with UCF's paltry endowment is that they seem to keep on spending the money raised. The downtown campus has the "cool" factor...... but was it really needed? Shore up the infrastructure at the school, and for GOD's sake, put some money in the endowment fund. Its always spend spend spend with them. If they save some of the damn money, it can take on a life of its own via investments and become self sustaining while growing.

Sounds to me like they are investing in themselves while interest rates are low. An endowment these days is dead money. Investing in the community is where the biggest bang for the buck lies.