Tier 1
- Thread starter CFOPhiCat
- Start date
Last i heard we were 3-5 years away.
We'll get there in a few years. Carnegie R1 designation is a combination of research expenditures and awarding of PhD's. According to our own master plan they are a little ahead in research expenditures. They also have more PhD programs.
We have 98 bachelor programs, 93 master and 14 doctoral programs.
Undergraduate Degree List : Undergraduate Admissions : Texas State University (txstate.edu)
They have 66 bachelors, 68 masters and 25 doctoral degree programs.
Academics | UTSA | University of Texas at San Antonio
We have 98 bachelor programs, 93 master and 14 doctoral programs.
Undergraduate Degree List : Undergraduate Admissions : Texas State University (txstate.edu)
They have 66 bachelors, 68 masters and 25 doctoral degree programs.
Academics | UTSA | University of Texas at San Antonio
LadyMango
Member
It makes sense we are a little behind. We got a later start on even being upgraded to tier 2.
The Texas State System has long had the identity of being a group of regional masters colleges. The UT system schools were always set up to be R2s. Hell UTSA was an R2 when I was applying. No surprise they are all R1 by now.
Put in perspective I think we are doing really well. Us, NT, TT, and UH have to make due without PUF crumbs. UH and TT have been higher profile for much longer, and even NT has technically been a university for longer as well. We are the little brother who had to learn how to punch up academically.
For those who dont know Baylor and UTSA just made tier 1 this year. TCU and TXST are tier 2. I don't know about TCUs aspirations but TXST will likely be tier 1 the next time they reclassify in 3 years.
For additional perspective UH was the first nonPUF state school to hit tier 1 and that was only when I was in college sometime in 2011-2014. Even Texas Tech was behind them and only hit R1 relatively recently. I think they hit R1 when we became R2.
Anyway this is all a long winded way of saying where we are isnt a bad spot to be in and the school is doing well academically. Doing better athletically would boost alumni academic giving substantially though...(and numbers support this theory). Preaching to the choir on here.
The Texas State System has long had the identity of being a group of regional masters colleges. The UT system schools were always set up to be R2s. Hell UTSA was an R2 when I was applying. No surprise they are all R1 by now.
Put in perspective I think we are doing really well. Us, NT, TT, and UH have to make due without PUF crumbs. UH and TT have been higher profile for much longer, and even NT has technically been a university for longer as well. We are the little brother who had to learn how to punch up academically.
For those who dont know Baylor and UTSA just made tier 1 this year. TCU and TXST are tier 2. I don't know about TCUs aspirations but TXST will likely be tier 1 the next time they reclassify in 3 years.
For additional perspective UH was the first nonPUF state school to hit tier 1 and that was only when I was in college sometime in 2011-2014. Even Texas Tech was behind them and only hit R1 relatively recently. I think they hit R1 when we became R2.
Anyway this is all a long winded way of saying where we are isnt a bad spot to be in and the school is doing well academically. Doing better athletically would boost alumni academic giving substantially though...(and numbers support this theory). Preaching to the choir on here.
R1 /= Tier 1
LadyMango
Member
Also...
Hahaha... We have 98 majors!?
I truly dont know why I think that is funny. Maybe because my alma mater, the college of science and engineering, has the biology degree split up into 7 separate majors: biologyx2 (BA or BS), biology educationx2 (BA or BS), wildlife biology, aquatic biology, and microbiology. At a school like UT some of those would be considered concentrations, while at A&M wildlife and aquatics would be the same degree. I guess the goofiness of it is charming.
If we have 98 majors Im guessing other departments and colleges do this as well.
Edit: I see they did away with the BAs and turned the education option into a double major. Good imo. Those were fluff. You want a science major? You gotta take science and math.
Hahaha... We have 98 majors!?
I truly dont know why I think that is funny. Maybe because my alma mater, the college of science and engineering, has the biology degree split up into 7 separate majors: biologyx2 (BA or BS), biology educationx2 (BA or BS), wildlife biology, aquatic biology, and microbiology. At a school like UT some of those would be considered concentrations, while at A&M wildlife and aquatics would be the same degree. I guess the goofiness of it is charming.
If we have 98 majors Im guessing other departments and colleges do this as well.
Edit: I see they did away with the BAs and turned the education option into a double major. Good imo. Those were fluff. You want a science major? You gotta take science and math.
Last edited:
Marcato
Active member
IMO it makes far more sense to separate the different fields of biology into separate majors rather than just making them concentrations. Past the freshman year of classes, each of the bio fields take completely different courses for their degree. One type of biologist isn't interchangeable with another type of biologist, so why would it make sense for them to be under the same major?
Edit: I also dont see the reason for comparison to UT or A&M with this. TXST has a better undergrad wildlife program than either of those schools, so I dont see how the way TXST does it is "goofy" or "fluff".
LadyMango
Member
Its just like...my opinion man...
Never called it fluff. I called BAs in scientific fields fluff. Which is a prevalent enough opinion that its being phased out.
The UT TAMU comparison is because they are the biggest schools in the state and therefor make up the largest amount of colleagues youll run into in the wild. I studied Aquatic and had enough exposure to Wildlife to know that we have the best program. The aquatic biology at Texas State is ranked the number 4th best public. Ive felt much more prepared than my peers at every step of my career. I even got to skip some grad classes at another school because of how phenomenal the program is.
Compare us to peers. 93 majors is a lot. I think its cool. Its different and a lil goofy. But thats how I feel about San Marcos in general.
How many other people can say they could sneak into the schools scuba supplies at night to go spearfishing and snorkling at 2am just 200 meters away. Not a lot.
slycat
Active member
Don't forget Zoology. I got a BS in that.
According to this we're next!
DMN
How competition for top research university status transformed Texas (dallasnews.com)
How competition for top research university status transformed Texas
Texas now boasts more public Tier 1 research universities than any other state.
Texas is home to the most public Tier One universities in the nation, after the University of Texas at San Antonio’s recent recognition by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
Over the last 13 years, our Carnegie Tier Ones have increased from three to 11, the number of undergraduates receiving a first-class education has quadrupled from 81,000 to 316,000, and investment in highest-level research has doubled from $1.3 billion to $2.8 billion.
Understanding where we were, where we are now and how we got here is key to realizing our bright future.
At the start of 2009, Texas was not prepared to thrive in the knowledge economy. Businesses wanted top universities to fill high-paying jobs and generate marketable ideas, but our supply of skilled workers and innovations was insufficient. Texas had three Tier Ones, the same number as Indiana. North Texas was the nation’s most populous region without a Tier One. And four of our six largest cities lacked a top tier university to serve as a hub of innovation.
To add insult to injury, we trailed our biggest rivals: California had eight public and three private Tier Ones and New York City was powered by eight nearby Tier One research universities.
As 2022 begins, our Tier One landscape has improved dramatically. The University of Houston joined UT in Austin, Rice and Texas A&M as a Tier One in 2011, followed by Texas Tech, UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington and University of North Texas in 2016, UT-El Paso in 2019, and Baylor University and UT-San Antonio in 2021.
This spring, these universities will teach more than 316,000 undergraduates and conduct more than $2.8 billion in research, four times and two times the 2009 levels, respectively. North Texas is now supported by three Tier Ones, and each of our six major cities has easy access to a Tier One.
This transformation has been a team effort in pursuit of a shared goal. In the 2009 Legislative Session, Texas passed House Bill 51 and established the Tier One Competition, which was designed to encourage eight emerging research universities to strive toward relevant, measurable and outcomes-based objectives on the road to Tier One status. House Bill 51 also created two funds, the Texas Research Incentive Program (TRIP) and National Research University Fund (NRUF), that promised additional resources as institutions reached major milestones on the journey to becoming national research universities.
Over the last 13 years, the Tier One Competition has made a billion-dollar impact. TRIP, a public-private matching fund, has used $394 million in state dollars to attract $838 million in private gifts. NRUF has distributed nearly $200 million to qualifying universities, even as the NRUF corpus has grown to $797 million.
More important, four emerging research universities have delivered on House Bill 51′s objectives to become Texas Tier Ones, to meet the state’s standards for sharing the research program funding. The University of Houston and Texas Tech became Texas Tier Ones and gained access to NRUF in 2012, followed by UT-Dallas in 2018 and UT-Arlington in 2021. Now, UT-San Antonio is likely to become a Texas Tier One this year.
The horizon is bright for even more Tier One universities. For example, Texas State launched a $250 million campaign last year aimed at achieving Tier One recognition, and Prairie View A&M achieved Carnegie’s second highest designation last month. Among private universities, Southern Methodist University has made impressive gains in recent years and is steadily closing in on Tier One status.
To achieve the vision of Texas becoming the preeminent state for students and research, Texas leaders should consider a pair of prudent investments.
First, state lawmakers should materially increase the size of NRUF distributions, which they can achieve without touching the fund’s principal. Since 2012, NRUF has averaged allocations of less than $20 million per year — less than the fund’s growth — even as the number of Tier Ones divvying up those dollars has quadrupled. Consequently, while the NRUF corpus has grown by $264 million over the last 13 years, each Texas Tier One received just $6 million last year.
Second, budget writers should honor our state’s commitment to generous Texans. Since 2017, a queue of IOUs has formed because officials have not appropriated enough funds to TRIP to keep up with private donations Clearing this backlog would invest $247 million in our state’s rising Tier Ones, encourage additional private giving and resharpen a tool that has had massive success in attracting private funds for our state’s emerging public research universities.
Tier One universities provide our students with an affordable, transformative education and attract and supercharge innovative businesses that help make Texas a global destination for corporate relocations and business expansions. As a result of the Tier One Competition, Texas has won great laurels. On them, we dare not rest.
Dan Branch represented Dallas in the Texas House from 2003 to 2015. He is the author of House Bill 51 and was the Chairman of the Texas House Committee on Higher Education from 2009 to 2015. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.
Dan Branch
DMN
How competition for top research university status transformed Texas (dallasnews.com)
How competition for top research university status transformed Texas
Texas now boasts more public Tier 1 research universities than any other state.
Texas is home to the most public Tier One universities in the nation, after the University of Texas at San Antonio’s recent recognition by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
Over the last 13 years, our Carnegie Tier Ones have increased from three to 11, the number of undergraduates receiving a first-class education has quadrupled from 81,000 to 316,000, and investment in highest-level research has doubled from $1.3 billion to $2.8 billion.
Understanding where we were, where we are now and how we got here is key to realizing our bright future.
At the start of 2009, Texas was not prepared to thrive in the knowledge economy. Businesses wanted top universities to fill high-paying jobs and generate marketable ideas, but our supply of skilled workers and innovations was insufficient. Texas had three Tier Ones, the same number as Indiana. North Texas was the nation’s most populous region without a Tier One. And four of our six largest cities lacked a top tier university to serve as a hub of innovation.
To add insult to injury, we trailed our biggest rivals: California had eight public and three private Tier Ones and New York City was powered by eight nearby Tier One research universities.
As 2022 begins, our Tier One landscape has improved dramatically. The University of Houston joined UT in Austin, Rice and Texas A&M as a Tier One in 2011, followed by Texas Tech, UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington and University of North Texas in 2016, UT-El Paso in 2019, and Baylor University and UT-San Antonio in 2021.
This spring, these universities will teach more than 316,000 undergraduates and conduct more than $2.8 billion in research, four times and two times the 2009 levels, respectively. North Texas is now supported by three Tier Ones, and each of our six major cities has easy access to a Tier One.
This transformation has been a team effort in pursuit of a shared goal. In the 2009 Legislative Session, Texas passed House Bill 51 and established the Tier One Competition, which was designed to encourage eight emerging research universities to strive toward relevant, measurable and outcomes-based objectives on the road to Tier One status. House Bill 51 also created two funds, the Texas Research Incentive Program (TRIP) and National Research University Fund (NRUF), that promised additional resources as institutions reached major milestones on the journey to becoming national research universities.
Over the last 13 years, the Tier One Competition has made a billion-dollar impact. TRIP, a public-private matching fund, has used $394 million in state dollars to attract $838 million in private gifts. NRUF has distributed nearly $200 million to qualifying universities, even as the NRUF corpus has grown to $797 million.
More important, four emerging research universities have delivered on House Bill 51′s objectives to become Texas Tier Ones, to meet the state’s standards for sharing the research program funding. The University of Houston and Texas Tech became Texas Tier Ones and gained access to NRUF in 2012, followed by UT-Dallas in 2018 and UT-Arlington in 2021. Now, UT-San Antonio is likely to become a Texas Tier One this year.
The horizon is bright for even more Tier One universities. For example, Texas State launched a $250 million campaign last year aimed at achieving Tier One recognition, and Prairie View A&M achieved Carnegie’s second highest designation last month. Among private universities, Southern Methodist University has made impressive gains in recent years and is steadily closing in on Tier One status.
To achieve the vision of Texas becoming the preeminent state for students and research, Texas leaders should consider a pair of prudent investments.
First, state lawmakers should materially increase the size of NRUF distributions, which they can achieve without touching the fund’s principal. Since 2012, NRUF has averaged allocations of less than $20 million per year — less than the fund’s growth — even as the number of Tier Ones divvying up those dollars has quadrupled. Consequently, while the NRUF corpus has grown by $264 million over the last 13 years, each Texas Tier One received just $6 million last year.
Second, budget writers should honor our state’s commitment to generous Texans. Since 2017, a queue of IOUs has formed because officials have not appropriated enough funds to TRIP to keep up with private donations Clearing this backlog would invest $247 million in our state’s rising Tier Ones, encourage additional private giving and resharpen a tool that has had massive success in attracting private funds for our state’s emerging public research universities.
Tier One universities provide our students with an affordable, transformative education and attract and supercharge innovative businesses that help make Texas a global destination for corporate relocations and business expansions. As a result of the Tier One Competition, Texas has won great laurels. On them, we dare not rest.
Dan Branch represented Dallas in the Texas House from 2003 to 2015. He is the author of House Bill 51 and was the Chairman of the Texas House Committee on Higher Education from 2009 to 2015. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.
Dan Branch
LadyMango
Member
R2 is huge for PVAM. Way to go!
people need to understand that "tier 1" is an idiots term used by the most lazy and useless of brain dead and academically and intellectually bankrupt university administrators
1. lets go over some very basic FACTS that cannot be refuted
right here from the Carnegie Classification website
carnegieclassifications.iu.edu
the above is from the current site of the organization that does the classifications now....they have clearly capitulated to academic stupidity and administrative malfeasance with losers collecting larger paychecks based on BS "rankings" and non achievements
here is the past site when The Carnegie Foundation was still in charge
web.archive.org
Where are the Carnegie rankings?
The Carnegie Foundation does not rank colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences.
What happened to Research I, Research II, etc.? Has the Carnegie Foundation altered its traditional classification framework?
The Research I & II and Doctoral I & II categories of doctorate-granting institutions last appeared in the 1994 edition. The use of Roman numerals was discontinued to avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences. The traditional classification framework was updated in 2005 and since identified as the Basic Classification. Many of the category definitions and labels changed with this revision.
Why did the Carnegie Foundation move away from its original single classification system?
A single classification cannot do justice to the complex nature of higher education today. When the Carnegie Classification was created in 1970, there were about 2,800 U.S. colleges and universities. Today there are more than 4,500.
Colleges and universities are complex organizations, and a single classification masks the range of ways they can resemble or differ from one another. As valuable as it has been, the basic framework has blind spots. For example, it says nothing about undergraduate education for institutions that award more than a minimum number of graduate degrees. Yet most of these institutions enroll more undergraduates than graduate or professional students.
Another motivation for these changes has to do with the persistent confusion of classification and ranking. For years, both the Carnegie Foundation and others in the higher education community have been concerned about the extent to which the Carnegie Classification dominates considerations of institutional differences, and especially the extent to which it is misinterpreted as an assessment of quality, thereby establishing aspirational targets. This phenomenon has been most pronounced among doctorate-granting institutions, where it is not uncommon to find explicit strategic ambitions to “move up” the perceived hierarchy. By introducing a new set of classifications we hope to call attention to the range of ways that institutions resemble and differ from one another and also to de-emphasize the improper use of the classification as informal quality touchstone.
Why doesn’t the Carnegie Foundation rank institutions according to teaching quality?
Classification is different from ranking, and the Carnegie Foundation does not rank institutions. Teaching quality is very important, and it is at the heart of many Carnegie Foundation programs, but it is not something that can be reliably assessed at a distance on the basis of available quantitative measures such as faculty salaries or instructional expenditures. Apart from the question of appropriate measures, it is not clear that teaching quality is best assessed at the institutional level, rather than at the department or classroom level.
these same FAQs were on the current website until a year or two ago, but seem to have been scrubbed
so lets look they make it CLEAR AS DAY for anyone that does not have their head in their ass or a PhD and a university administrative position that these are not rankings.....they make it clear as day they do not even look at the quality or usefulness of the research conducted or the sources of funds....just total dollars.....they make it clear as day they do nothing to evaluate actual teaching quality.....and they even make it clear that they changed the use of Roman numerals to try and stop the use of "tier 1" and other total BS
the most laughable thing about all of that is the very universities that were trying to put distance between themselves and others by abusing and outright misusing these CLASSIFICATIONS are now right back swimming in that same pool with those same universities they wanted to distance from and there is no other method or system for them to try and lie about to make themselves look better while being intellectually bankrupt at the same time
a few are sad enough to try and make themselves look like they are "AAU Ready" while again failing to have a remote understanding of the AAU or how they evaluate universities or how far away they are from membership consideration much less membership if EVER
so again no one with a functioning brain or any type of integrity or academic honesty can look at the above FAQs and talk about "tier 1" or a "ranking" or "prestige"
nest less look at post #10......let me clear this is not directed at the forum member that posted #10.....it is directed at the stupidity of the actual article
I can assure you that no one in California or New York is impressed by the "most tier 1" claim and in fact I am sure California would mock it and rightfully so
next when HB 51 was passed there were only 7 Emerging Research Universities in Texas because Texas State was not yet an emerging research university.....also while the bill and the discussions prior to that did use the idiotic term "tier 1" at the time The State of Texas was counting "tier 1" universities as AAU members and the goal was to have more AAU members or more Texas universities with very close to AAU metrics (not the faked up nonsense lack of AAU evaluation method of evaluation, but real AAU metrics)
so the writer of that article is ignorant of basic facts and too stupid to know that the NRUF and TRIP have nothing to do with The Carnegie Classifications or fake "tier 1" nor was the goal to meet NRUF funding eligibility and then say "tier 1" (with or without a matching misuse of the Carnegie Classifications) the goal was AFTER getting NRUF funding the universities would then advance towards REALISTIC AAU like metrics or even membership
next the writer is too stupid to know that UTSA could be "Texas Tier 1" (an even more stupid term) next year because you have to qualify for 2 years and so far UTSA has not met the qualifications in 2020 and hopefully by the end of this month the 2021 NRUF report will be released and UTSA will need to have increased their doctoral graduates by 47 to qualify for a single year 2021 and then will need to meet the qualifications for 2022 as well, but "likely" seems a stretch for growing doctoral graduates by 47 in a single year.....more likely would be they meet 2022 and 2023 and get funding in 2024
next Texas universities have not come close to fulfilling the goals of HB 51 because no university in Texas is anywhere close to meeting AAU metrics or AAU evaluation criteria and really none of them have made any meaningful advancement at all mainly because it was said at the time that to meet those metrics it would take $50 to $70 million in additional funding PER YEAR PER UNIVERSITY in 2009 dollars to elevate even a single Texas emerging Research University to AAU like metrics.....and the NRUF has never paid out more than about $10 million per qualifying university per year and as the article correctly states as more universities qualify the payout decreases per university because the growth of the endowment has not kept pace
the author is correct that the TRIP matching backlog needs to be paid off and additional funding needs to be placed in the NRUF endowment probably to the tune of $500 million per year for at least 4 years to get it close to being meaningful as more universities qualify, but that would still only pay out about $30 million per year per qualifying university if 5 universities qualified and that would shrink as more qualified
probably would be better off with $750 million over 4 years into the endowment and then $250 million to $500 million per year as additional universities qualify until all 8 have qualified.....so as one qualifies another $250 to $500 million is added that year
1. lets go over some very basic FACTS that cannot be refuted
right here from the Carnegie Classification website
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education®
The Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education® are the nation’s leading framework for categorizing diverse U.S. higher education institutions.
carnegieclassifications.iu.edu
- Where are the Carnegie rankings?
The Carnegie Classification is not a ranking of colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences.
the above is from the current site of the organization that does the classifications now....they have clearly capitulated to academic stupidity and administrative malfeasance with losers collecting larger paychecks based on BS "rankings" and non achievements
here is the past site when The Carnegie Foundation was still in charge
Carnegie Classifications | FAQs
Where are the Carnegie rankings?The Carnegie Foundation does not rank colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions, but they do not imply quality differences.
What happened to Research I, Research II, etc.? Has the Carnegie Foundation altered its traditional classification framework?The Research I & II and Doctoral I & II categories of doctorate-granting institutions last appeared in the 1994 edition. The use of Roman numerals was discontinued to avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences. The traditional classification framework was updated in 2005 and since identified as the Basic Classification. Many of the category definitions and labels changed with this revision.
Why did the Carnegie Foundation move away from its original single classification system?
A single classification cannot do justice to the complex nature of higher education today. When the Carnegie Classification was created in 1970, there were about 2,800 U.S. colleges and universities. Today there are more than 4,500.
Colleges and universities are complex organizations, and a single classification masks the range of ways they can resemble or differ from one another. As valuable as it has been, the basic framework has blind spots. For example, it says nothing about undergraduate education for institutions that award more than a minimum number of graduate degrees. Yet most of these institutions enroll more undergraduates than graduate or professional students.
Another motivation for these changes has to do with the persistent confusion of classification and ranking. For years, both the Carnegie Foundation and others in the higher education community have been concerned about the extent to which the Carnegie Classification dominates considerations of institutional differences, and especially the extent to which it is misinterpreted as an assessment of quality, thereby establishing aspirational targets. This phenomenon has been most pronounced among doctorate-granting institutions, where it is not uncommon to find explicit strategic ambitions to “move up” the perceived hierarchy. By introducing a new set of classifications we hope to call attention to the range of ways that institutions resemble and differ from one another and also to de-emphasize the improper use of the classification as informal quality touchstone.
Why doesn’t the Carnegie Foundation rank institutions according to teaching quality?
Classification is different from ranking, and the Carnegie Foundation does not rank institutions. Teaching quality is very important, and it is at the heart of many Carnegie Foundation programs, but it is not something that can be reliably assessed at a distance on the basis of available quantitative measures such as faculty salaries or instructional expenditures. Apart from the question of appropriate measures, it is not clear that teaching quality is best assessed at the institutional level, rather than at the department or classroom level.
these same FAQs were on the current website until a year or two ago, but seem to have been scrubbed
so lets look they make it CLEAR AS DAY for anyone that does not have their head in their ass or a PhD and a university administrative position that these are not rankings.....they make it clear as day they do not even look at the quality or usefulness of the research conducted or the sources of funds....just total dollars.....they make it clear as day they do nothing to evaluate actual teaching quality.....and they even make it clear that they changed the use of Roman numerals to try and stop the use of "tier 1" and other total BS
the most laughable thing about all of that is the very universities that were trying to put distance between themselves and others by abusing and outright misusing these CLASSIFICATIONS are now right back swimming in that same pool with those same universities they wanted to distance from and there is no other method or system for them to try and lie about to make themselves look better while being intellectually bankrupt at the same time
a few are sad enough to try and make themselves look like they are "AAU Ready" while again failing to have a remote understanding of the AAU or how they evaluate universities or how far away they are from membership consideration much less membership if EVER
so again no one with a functioning brain or any type of integrity or academic honesty can look at the above FAQs and talk about "tier 1" or a "ranking" or "prestige"
nest less look at post #10......let me clear this is not directed at the forum member that posted #10.....it is directed at the stupidity of the actual article
I can assure you that no one in California or New York is impressed by the "most tier 1" claim and in fact I am sure California would mock it and rightfully so
next when HB 51 was passed there were only 7 Emerging Research Universities in Texas because Texas State was not yet an emerging research university.....also while the bill and the discussions prior to that did use the idiotic term "tier 1" at the time The State of Texas was counting "tier 1" universities as AAU members and the goal was to have more AAU members or more Texas universities with very close to AAU metrics (not the faked up nonsense lack of AAU evaluation method of evaluation, but real AAU metrics)
so the writer of that article is ignorant of basic facts and too stupid to know that the NRUF and TRIP have nothing to do with The Carnegie Classifications or fake "tier 1" nor was the goal to meet NRUF funding eligibility and then say "tier 1" (with or without a matching misuse of the Carnegie Classifications) the goal was AFTER getting NRUF funding the universities would then advance towards REALISTIC AAU like metrics or even membership
next the writer is too stupid to know that UTSA could be "Texas Tier 1" (an even more stupid term) next year because you have to qualify for 2 years and so far UTSA has not met the qualifications in 2020 and hopefully by the end of this month the 2021 NRUF report will be released and UTSA will need to have increased their doctoral graduates by 47 to qualify for a single year 2021 and then will need to meet the qualifications for 2022 as well, but "likely" seems a stretch for growing doctoral graduates by 47 in a single year.....more likely would be they meet 2022 and 2023 and get funding in 2024
next Texas universities have not come close to fulfilling the goals of HB 51 because no university in Texas is anywhere close to meeting AAU metrics or AAU evaluation criteria and really none of them have made any meaningful advancement at all mainly because it was said at the time that to meet those metrics it would take $50 to $70 million in additional funding PER YEAR PER UNIVERSITY in 2009 dollars to elevate even a single Texas emerging Research University to AAU like metrics.....and the NRUF has never paid out more than about $10 million per qualifying university per year and as the article correctly states as more universities qualify the payout decreases per university because the growth of the endowment has not kept pace
the author is correct that the TRIP matching backlog needs to be paid off and additional funding needs to be placed in the NRUF endowment probably to the tune of $500 million per year for at least 4 years to get it close to being meaningful as more universities qualify, but that would still only pay out about $30 million per year per qualifying university if 5 universities qualified and that would shrink as more qualified
probably would be better off with $750 million over 4 years into the endowment and then $250 million to $500 million per year as additional universities qualify until all 8 have qualified.....so as one qualifies another $250 to $500 million is added that year
I believe the above tweet is not quite accurate
you need to meet the criteria for TWO years in a row
looking a the 2021 report UTSA met the main criteria needed before any others matter of $45 million in restricted research, but they did not meet 4 of the other 6 criteria they only met two
it appears that UTSA had 5 faculty of national stature in 2021, but one or more of them could have been hired in 2021 prior to the report thus they were not there for the full year to qualify for that year......hence showing them with 5, but not showing them meet the metric......but then in 2022 report it shows they met it for both years
interestingly UTSA used the one criteria thought would not be used and that is graduate programs at a level of "AAU universities"
there is nothing at all about that in the 2021 report and in the 2022 report it shows that site visits for 2 of the programs were in 2022 and the other 3 would have been after fiscal year 2021 was over......thus UTSA would not qualify in that category at all for 2021 only in 2022 and they would not get the funding until after they meet the 4 qualifications again in 2023.....lets be clear they almost certainly will unless something happens like they lose one of their 5 high quality faculty members between now and 2023
I seriously doubt any of their graduate programs would decline in quality (barring some massive issue with one of them) and there is no way they will let freshman class slip
so this is not a knock on them they are going to get the funding, but I do not believe it will be until 2023 so that tweet is one year early unless I am reading those NRUF reports wrong (I don't think I am)
the major changes for Texas state are being in the ARL.....a significant achievement, but Texas State already was meeting that metric so no help there
the next is the decline on freshman class in the top 10%.....more than likely with "the covidz" Texas State tossed out SAT/ACT scores, but if Texas State limits "review" admissions they will probably see an enrollment drop of 750 to 1,000 (who knows), but they can massage the numbers to get the top 10% auto admits inline with being 50% of the freshman class.....or they should be able to if they know how to play the game
the other thing is $299 million in endowment.....so $101 million away while north Texas state has moved up slightly ahead of Texas state with $306 million.....Texas State does have the semi-public fundraiser going to meet "tier 1" (stupid name), but of course the timeline is way too long.....but north Texas state is crappy at raising funds so Texas State should be able to get to $400 million before they do
Texas State needs to use that last $101 million to hire 5 high quality faculty members (north Texas state has 3) or perhaps Texas State thinks they can meet 5 high quality graduate programs....perhaps Aquatics, Geography, and I am not sure what else Math, Forensics??????
Texas State better know they can get that done or the better thing is hire in the 5 high quality faculty members and bag that ASAP
most importantly Texas State is at $33 million in restricted research (the hardest one to just brute force bump up rapidly) (so $12 million away) and Texas State has been making good (really good) steady progress moving that metric up while north Texas state is at $20 million (so $25 million away) and north Texas state has been making up and down progress on that.....but north Texas state has pumped a bunch of money just recently into "institutionally funded research" so most likely trying to build up their research infrastructure to get more competitive grants (restricted research)
with a HARD push Texas State should be able to meet the metrics in the first year 3 years from now or maybe 4 and then the second year in 4 or 5 years and be a year or two ahead of north Texas state.......without that who knows north Texas state might get it at the same time or before Texas State
really with $101 million needed there is ZERO reason to not get 5 high quality faculty with that money....ZERO and no reason to rely on "graduate program evaluations"
Texas State will qualify before UTEP I believe barring a disaster...and with any meaningful effort they should quality a year or two before north Texas state.....they should have about the same time as UTSA, but the surprise to me was the 5 quality graduate programs metric being used I figured that was not going to be used by any university
you need to meet the criteria for TWO years in a row
looking a the 2021 report UTSA met the main criteria needed before any others matter of $45 million in restricted research, but they did not meet 4 of the other 6 criteria they only met two
it appears that UTSA had 5 faculty of national stature in 2021, but one or more of them could have been hired in 2021 prior to the report thus they were not there for the full year to qualify for that year......hence showing them with 5, but not showing them meet the metric......but then in 2022 report it shows they met it for both years
interestingly UTSA used the one criteria thought would not be used and that is graduate programs at a level of "AAU universities"
there is nothing at all about that in the 2021 report and in the 2022 report it shows that site visits for 2 of the programs were in 2022 and the other 3 would have been after fiscal year 2021 was over......thus UTSA would not qualify in that category at all for 2021 only in 2022 and they would not get the funding until after they meet the 4 qualifications again in 2023.....lets be clear they almost certainly will unless something happens like they lose one of their 5 high quality faculty members between now and 2023
I seriously doubt any of their graduate programs would decline in quality (barring some massive issue with one of them) and there is no way they will let freshman class slip
so this is not a knock on them they are going to get the funding, but I do not believe it will be until 2023 so that tweet is one year early unless I am reading those NRUF reports wrong (I don't think I am)
the major changes for Texas state are being in the ARL.....a significant achievement, but Texas State already was meeting that metric so no help there
the next is the decline on freshman class in the top 10%.....more than likely with "the covidz" Texas State tossed out SAT/ACT scores, but if Texas State limits "review" admissions they will probably see an enrollment drop of 750 to 1,000 (who knows), but they can massage the numbers to get the top 10% auto admits inline with being 50% of the freshman class.....or they should be able to if they know how to play the game
the other thing is $299 million in endowment.....so $101 million away while north Texas state has moved up slightly ahead of Texas state with $306 million.....Texas State does have the semi-public fundraiser going to meet "tier 1" (stupid name), but of course the timeline is way too long.....but north Texas state is crappy at raising funds so Texas State should be able to get to $400 million before they do
Texas State needs to use that last $101 million to hire 5 high quality faculty members (north Texas state has 3) or perhaps Texas State thinks they can meet 5 high quality graduate programs....perhaps Aquatics, Geography, and I am not sure what else Math, Forensics??????
Texas State better know they can get that done or the better thing is hire in the 5 high quality faculty members and bag that ASAP
most importantly Texas State is at $33 million in restricted research (the hardest one to just brute force bump up rapidly) (so $12 million away) and Texas State has been making good (really good) steady progress moving that metric up while north Texas state is at $20 million (so $25 million away) and north Texas state has been making up and down progress on that.....but north Texas state has pumped a bunch of money just recently into "institutionally funded research" so most likely trying to build up their research infrastructure to get more competitive grants (restricted research)
with a HARD push Texas State should be able to meet the metrics in the first year 3 years from now or maybe 4 and then the second year in 4 or 5 years and be a year or two ahead of north Texas state.......without that who knows north Texas state might get it at the same time or before Texas State
really with $101 million needed there is ZERO reason to not get 5 high quality faculty with that money....ZERO and no reason to rely on "graduate program evaluations"
Texas State will qualify before UTEP I believe barring a disaster...and with any meaningful effort they should quality a year or two before north Texas state.....they should have about the same time as UTSA, but the surprise to me was the 5 quality graduate programs metric being used I figured that was not going to be used by any university
The "Tier 1" mentioned here is a state designation. Private schools are not in this designation. UT Austin and Texas A&M are designated Flagship Universities by the state. They are also AAU members and are a higher designation than we are. I don't really see a scenario where we are members of AAU. I think Houston and perhaps UT-Dallas, TTU or UTA might achieve that one day but we would need a major breakthrough to have a shot at that status. Otherwise, the state universities that have achieved Carnegie R1 status are the ones that are designated Tier 1 universities. Right now, these are Houston, Texas Tech, North Texas, UTA, UT-Dallas, UTSA. These are the universities that were given access to the Emerging University Fund. As of that funds creation Houston, Texas Tech and North Texas were R1 and then designated at Tier 1. UT-Dallas, UTA and now UTSA have followed. We have risen from Carnegie R4 to R2 during the same time period and should get to R1 over the next 5-10 years maybe sooner but will get there and will then be designated Tier 1 by the state. The sky was falling at UTA when UT-Dallas achieved R1 and then Tier 1 status before UTA did. Some mention that UT-Dallas pulled ahead of UTA but nobody informed says that anymore. The same will be said when we achieve R1 and Tier 1 designation. Yes, continue to discuss how to get there but we shouldn't worry too much about how UTSA who is the only major state university in a city as large as San Antonio made it there before us.
Last edited:
really the term "tier 1" is just an idiots term
when The State of Texas started the NRUF/TRIP programs they unfortunately did talk about "tier 1", but when they counted "tier 1" universities they strictly counted AAU members (public AND private in other states) and stated that Texas should have more "tier 1 universities" with those either being AAU members or having very similar metrics to AAU members in the same type of situation (the AAU does not do straight line evaluations they evaluate universities compared to "peer" universities)
when The State of Texas started the NRUF/TRIP programs it was said that to elevate a single "emerging research university" (there were 7 at that time Texas State was not one of them) to AAU like metrics it would take $50 to $70 million per year per university to do that.....the NRUF endowment is woefully underfunded to ever come close to paying that out to NRUF qualified universities
the idea was instead of picking "winners and losers" they would set criteria for universities to meet, that criteria is met, and additional funding is given and THEN those universities try and move to AAU membership or "AAU like metrics"
unfortunately along the way idiot administrators at a couple of universities and in the state legislature started saying that just qualifying for the meager NRUF funding was attaining "tier 1 status"......when of course $6 or $7 million per year in 2022 is nowhere close to getting $50 to $70 million per year in 2010 dollars....so every university that gets NRUF funding is still a long way from what was ever envisioned as "tier 1" by The state of Texas in 2009 when the NRUF/TRIP started because none of the qualifiers are anywhere close to being AAU members or having AAU like metrics
then of course there is the Carnegie CLASSIFICATIONS that are not rankings at all and in fact make clear in their FAQs that they are not rankings, should not be used as rankings, they make no measure at all of educational quality and no measure of the actual quality of the research conducted...in fact in their older FAQs they made it clear at least 4 times they were not rankings and had even moved away from Roman numeral nomenclature to try and stop the "tier 1" talk and the abuse of their classifications as rankings
UH is probably the worse offender in the USA for abusing the Carnegie Classifications as a ranking probably followed by UNLV and it has just gotten worse
the "tier 1" in the UTSA tweet is for obtaining NRUF funding , but again The State of Texas never ever intended qualifying for the funding to be any type of "ranking" or anything meaningful other than gaining additional funding to try and get to AAU like metrics or even the slight chance of AAU membership.....and again no university in Texas that gets NRUF funding is anywhere close to AAU membership at this time....it was intended as a way to gain funding without the legislature simply picking "winners and losers" and then a LONG journey to what the 2009 legislation talked about as "tier 1" which was AAU membership or AAU like metrics
as for a "flagship" again there is no universial definition, but Texas, A&M, Tech, UH, and north Texas state-Denton can all say they are a "flagship" based on being the oldest, largest, and the PhD/Doctoral/Professional degree granting university in their system....but of course Texas is unique along with Louisiana and possibly another state or two in having more than two university systems
most others have a single system or they have a UT like system and an A&M like system (the land grant university).....or in California they have a PhD/Research/Professional/Doctoral system that are all now land grant (even though Davis is looked at as the ag school and Berkeley was originally the land grant school) and then the CSU System that is limited to masters only with few exceptions......and really Cal is technically not the "flagship" of the UC System, but most people consider it to be and there is no CSU Flagship......just like the Texas State University System has no flagship
there is sadly a lot of stupidity in the term "tier 1" and The State of Texas in 2009 did not help anything by even including that term in the legislation, but the term in that legislation meant AAU Membership or AAU like metrics and nothing else......and it certainly did not mean simply obtaining $6 million or so in additional state funding when $50 to $70 million in 2010 dollars was the estimate to get a single university to AAU standards
and "tier 1" and Carnegie is simply intellectual bankruptcy by those that use the two together or consider Carnegie a ranking
I am not saying there is any "worry", but it is nice to get additional funding before others do especially when the more that qualify the less the funding becomes for all barring a large influx of state dollars to the NRUF endowment (Abbott has talked about this).....and Texas State was not a state classified emerging research university in 2009 they moved to that in 2012 (I believe) so the fact that Texas State is even close to qualifying so soon is nice......but with a harder push for private dollars over the last 3 or 4 years Texas State could be close to qualifying for NRUF funding now not in 3 or 4 years (with a push still needed)
but private fundraising was the main weakenss of the outgoing administration in spite of all the very good things they did accomplish
when The State of Texas started the NRUF/TRIP programs they unfortunately did talk about "tier 1", but when they counted "tier 1" universities they strictly counted AAU members (public AND private in other states) and stated that Texas should have more "tier 1 universities" with those either being AAU members or having very similar metrics to AAU members in the same type of situation (the AAU does not do straight line evaluations they evaluate universities compared to "peer" universities)
when The State of Texas started the NRUF/TRIP programs it was said that to elevate a single "emerging research university" (there were 7 at that time Texas State was not one of them) to AAU like metrics it would take $50 to $70 million per year per university to do that.....the NRUF endowment is woefully underfunded to ever come close to paying that out to NRUF qualified universities
the idea was instead of picking "winners and losers" they would set criteria for universities to meet, that criteria is met, and additional funding is given and THEN those universities try and move to AAU membership or "AAU like metrics"
unfortunately along the way idiot administrators at a couple of universities and in the state legislature started saying that just qualifying for the meager NRUF funding was attaining "tier 1 status"......when of course $6 or $7 million per year in 2022 is nowhere close to getting $50 to $70 million per year in 2010 dollars....so every university that gets NRUF funding is still a long way from what was ever envisioned as "tier 1" by The state of Texas in 2009 when the NRUF/TRIP started because none of the qualifiers are anywhere close to being AAU members or having AAU like metrics
then of course there is the Carnegie CLASSIFICATIONS that are not rankings at all and in fact make clear in their FAQs that they are not rankings, should not be used as rankings, they make no measure at all of educational quality and no measure of the actual quality of the research conducted...in fact in their older FAQs they made it clear at least 4 times they were not rankings and had even moved away from Roman numeral nomenclature to try and stop the "tier 1" talk and the abuse of their classifications as rankings
UH is probably the worse offender in the USA for abusing the Carnegie Classifications as a ranking probably followed by UNLV and it has just gotten worse
the "tier 1" in the UTSA tweet is for obtaining NRUF funding , but again The State of Texas never ever intended qualifying for the funding to be any type of "ranking" or anything meaningful other than gaining additional funding to try and get to AAU like metrics or even the slight chance of AAU membership.....and again no university in Texas that gets NRUF funding is anywhere close to AAU membership at this time....it was intended as a way to gain funding without the legislature simply picking "winners and losers" and then a LONG journey to what the 2009 legislation talked about as "tier 1" which was AAU membership or AAU like metrics
as for a "flagship" again there is no universial definition, but Texas, A&M, Tech, UH, and north Texas state-Denton can all say they are a "flagship" based on being the oldest, largest, and the PhD/Doctoral/Professional degree granting university in their system....but of course Texas is unique along with Louisiana and possibly another state or two in having more than two university systems
most others have a single system or they have a UT like system and an A&M like system (the land grant university).....or in California they have a PhD/Research/Professional/Doctoral system that are all now land grant (even though Davis is looked at as the ag school and Berkeley was originally the land grant school) and then the CSU System that is limited to masters only with few exceptions......and really Cal is technically not the "flagship" of the UC System, but most people consider it to be and there is no CSU Flagship......just like the Texas State University System has no flagship
there is sadly a lot of stupidity in the term "tier 1" and The State of Texas in 2009 did not help anything by even including that term in the legislation, but the term in that legislation meant AAU Membership or AAU like metrics and nothing else......and it certainly did not mean simply obtaining $6 million or so in additional state funding when $50 to $70 million in 2010 dollars was the estimate to get a single university to AAU standards
and "tier 1" and Carnegie is simply intellectual bankruptcy by those that use the two together or consider Carnegie a ranking
I am not saying there is any "worry", but it is nice to get additional funding before others do especially when the more that qualify the less the funding becomes for all barring a large influx of state dollars to the NRUF endowment (Abbott has talked about this).....and Texas State was not a state classified emerging research university in 2009 they moved to that in 2012 (I believe) so the fact that Texas State is even close to qualifying so soon is nice......but with a harder push for private dollars over the last 3 or 4 years Texas State could be close to qualifying for NRUF funding now not in 3 or 4 years (with a push still needed)
but private fundraising was the main weakenss of the outgoing administration in spite of all the very good things they did accomplish
franslasttwinkie
Active member
Would we really get to R1 status before TCU or SMU does? Maybe those 2 schools have no desire to become one but still...
the reality is there is no "status" to Carnegie Classifications
they specifically state in their FAQs they are not rankings
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education®
The Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education® are the nation’s leading framework for categorizing diverse U.S. higher education institutions.
carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu
in the past when the Carnegie Foundation was still in charge they made it much more clear they are not "rankings" and they specifically stopped using Roman Numerals to try and prevent universities from saying "tier 1" or "R1" and acting like they are rankings
Carnegie Classifications | FAQs
they also make clear they do not judge the significance or the quality of research it is strictly a baseline numbers game
they also make clear they do not do anything related to teaching quality of a university
SMU and TCU have historically not been research oriented they were more oriented to teaching quality and faculty quality and faculty to student ratio
SMU has made efforts starting about 15 years or so ago to elevate their research profile and TCU is really just starting to so the same
Goldievirtuoso
M&G Gift Contributor
I was driving on the Interstate in Waco the other day and saw a billboard from Baylor touting their “R1” status. It’s pretty funny to think about this now after reading this comment!in the past when the Carnegie Foundation was still in charge they made it much more clear they are not "rankings" and they specifically stopped using Roman Numerals to try and prevent universities from saying "tier 1" or "R1" and acting like they are rankings
Carnegie Classifications | FAQs
web.archive.org
sadly a ton of universities do it.....it is intellectual bankruptcy
when an organization clearly states they are not putting out rankings and makes it clear why they are not rankings nor should they be used as that....and UNIVERSITIES willfully ignore that and do the exact opposite people should be fired