The Dog Lord said:
FacebookFriend said:
Aggiemike96 said:
OP - I'm a PhD student at UTSA (undergrad A&M, masters UH and now in the UT system). UTSA has improved leaps and bounds over the past several years and is devoting significant resources to improving research (i.e. achieving Tier 1 status).
In the short-term, UTSA/track would make the most sense as he'll likely love his college days. In the long-term, A&M is the way to go as it's an international/Tier 1 university.
And, this is a public forum, so I'll withhold detailed thoughts...but, hopefully my brief remarks are enough to shed light. Feel free to ask questions and I'll answer.
actually UTSA has not "achieved" FAKE MADE UP "Tier 1" "status"
1. there is no such thing as "tier 1" it is just made up nonsense that less than top universities embarrassingly bestow upon themselves
2. the often abused and misused Carnegie CLASSIFICATIONS are not rankings and for the last several decades the Carnegie Foundation has done all they can to discourage and disavow and even limit the ability of less than top universities to try and abuse their CLASSIFICATIONS and use them as a "rank" or a basis of comparison of university quality
3, UTSA is actually CLASSIFIED by them as "research higher" which is not "research highest" with both being a very limited metric with next to nothing to do with overall university quality especially for undergrads
4. UTSA has taken the "tier 1" embarrassment to the next level by calling themselves "top tier" or by saying "tier 1" university on one page like the link below
http://www.utsa.edu/tierone/
BUT then when you go to "learn more" you learn they were "chosen" for the PATH to "tier 1" and then even worse they use the silly made up metrics that are NOT what the State of Texas called "tier 1" when they used that stupid term in the NRUF discussion....."tier 1" was AAU MEMBERSHIP.....those very LOW metrics listed for "tier 1" would not even get a university in the US Snooze top 200 much less sniff AAU statue
5. then there are the embarrassing "top tier" billboards (worse than the UH fake "tier 1" billboards) and the poorly named "top tier" capital campaign
while UTSA is improving and will continue to do so especially now that A&M-SA is open to take the "has pulse fogs mirror" students they are nowhere close to any "tier 1" fake, made up or otherwise by even the weakest and most BS of definitions and metrics
UTSA hasn't claimed to have achieved "Tier 1" though, as outlined by the source you provided. The closest they have said is "top tier" which you could definitely argue is implying this or a similar status. Much of your information about this "status" is correct, but it has become a common term tied to certain measurables in the state at least and is what UTSA is basing their efforts on (like the other universities also activiely pursuing it).
actually it is only a "common term" among universities that are making a very poor attempt to distance themselves from similar universities using U Phoenix type marketing campaigns and it is already coming back to haunt many of them
lets make some things clear here
1. "tier 1" as used by The State of Texas when they first counted "tier 1" universities in and outside of Texas consisted of universities that were AAU members
the report that started the NRUF/TRIP programs discussed using other metrics like US Snooze rankings, CMUP numbers and other things, but when they settled it and started counting "tier 1" universities in Texas and outside of Texas they counted AAU members and that was that
2. then the NRUF program/endowment started the way it worked (and still works) is that you meet a particular set of metrics and that qualifies you to participate in the NRUF endowment
the purpose of participating in the NRUF endowment was to THEN receive the additional funding from the NRUF endowment to help you reach AAU membership (which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY) and or to have similar metrics to AAU members
qualifying for participation in the NRUF endowment was NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OF FORM a signal or a determination of a university being "tier 1" in fact it was a clear sign that you had now qualified for additional funding to HELP YOU EVENTUALLY reach AAU like metrics
3. when the NRUF endowment program started it was stated that it would take $50 to $70 million dollars in additional funding PER PARTICIPATING UNIVERSITY ANNUALLY for each of them to move from gaining participation in the NRUF endowment to eventually having AAU like metrics
currently the endowment pays out $10 million annually to Tech and to UH so it is not even coming close to funding the lowest level of additional money to push a university to AAU like metrics
so there is no chance that a university can claim "tier 1" based on participation in the NRUF endowment because that was not a sign of "tier 1" and currently that endowment does not come close to paying the stated amount of money it would take to elevate a participant to AAU like metrics
4. the Carnegie Foundation as I have stated prior has for a decade or more (more like two) VERY CLEARLY AND EMPHATICALLY that their classifications are not rankings, they are not indications of university quality nor are they a basis of comparison for overall universities and they even clearly state the reasons they are not
so attempting to totally ignore the clear statement of an organization about the meaning of their classifications and to in tern use their classifications in the EXACT way they say not to is the height of academic and intellectual bankruptcy
5. the metrics like $100 million in annual research or Y dollars in federal research and 200 PhDs graduated and on and on that U Phoenix type university marketing departments are using for their self awarded "tier 1" are metrics that would not get most universities into the US Snooze top 200
those are not amazing metrics for a large research university they are very pedestrian and they would not come close to AAU metrics especially considering the AAU normalizes their metrics for faculty count ect
7. the universities in the AAU are not sitting still they are advancing as well so continuing to use metrics that were talked about 8 or 10 years ago (that were not close to AAU like metrics) to say "hit these and we are "tier 1" (when the State of Texas had "tier 1" as AAU membership) is all the more ignorant and intellectually bankrupt
8. the only universities out there talking about "tier 1" are universities with massive flaws in numerous areas that they have done little to rectify and they feel if they hand pick some metrics of their own choosing they believe they "excel at" (even when they are not massively impressive metrics) and then say "we hit our self chosen metrics and self awarded "tier 1" status we have arrived" somehow serious top students and top academics will believe them
they actual result has been that other universities have jumped on the band wagon and they have tweaked their self chosen metrics to best match the ones they feel they can meet and then they have also self awarded "tier 1 status"
and the result is that some universities that thought they were distancing from other universities now find themselves lumped right back in with the "tier 1" crowd and their made up, self chosen and self awarded "status" and no one with common sense ever bought into it in the first place