<p>“Another glaring problem is the arbitrary separation of state university schools: for some, they count all campuses’ research expenditures, while for others they list them separately.”</p>
<p>Phantasmagoric, among the top 15 research-spending public universities, only 4 counted all campuses; Michigan, Ohio State, Pitt and TAMU. It turns out that in all 4 cases, 99% of research expenditure takes place at the flagship campus. Heck, I did not even know that OSU and Pitt had more than one entity, but in the case of Michigan and TAMU, close to 100% of research activity takes place at Ann Arbor and College Station respectively. For example, in the case of the University of Michigan, only $6 million of its $1.1 billion research expenditure took place at the Dearborn and Flint campuses. The rest all took place at the Ann Arbor campus.</p>
<p>Phanta, I’m shocked you think adding UCSF to Berkeley’s total gives it an unfair advantage. :D</p>
<p>USC has pharmacy and dentistry too… it is an academic program that’s offered. Why discriminate?</p>
<p>Well if not having a medical school is unfair to Berkeley, then isn’t the inclusion of certain health science schools like dentistry, nursing, and pharmacy - which most medical schools don’t offer - unfair to universities that don’t have them? USC has them, of course, as does UPenn and some others, but if you’re going to say including medical schools is a double-standard against Berkeley, then by the same token including all of UCSF is a double-standard against other universities without the health science schools that UCSF has.</p>
<p>I also neglected to mention that Berkeley’s figure includes lots of science expenditures that most other schools don’t have. For example, public health, optometry, and natural resources and agricultural sciences (which receive non-competitive research grants because Berkeley is a land-grant school) all contribute to Berkeley’s R&D expenditures in S&E. So if another university doesn’t have those, then fine - Berkeley doesn’t have a medical school and shouldn’t include UCSF.</p>
<p>My point is not to knock down or push up certain universities; it’s to show that the comparisons are necessarily difficult and ultimately there’s no ‘right or wrong’ for including or excluding certain R&D.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t know, because the NSF study didn’t separate them. ;)</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking just about the top 15 though - U Minnesota, U Colorado, Indiana U, etc. are ‘all campuses.’ The separation seems rather arbitrary.</p>
<p>I understand Phantasmagoric. In the case of endowments, the UTs and the UCs lump their totals into all campuses. In that case, it does make a difference. However, when it comes to research spending, the UTs and the UCs separate campuses. The only ones that do not are systems with a dominant flagship that accounts for over 99% of the system’s endowment and research spending. I have attached a link for Michigan. Pages 4 and 9 clearly show how little of the $1.14 billion spent on research last year took place at the Dearborn and Flint campuses.</p>
<p><a href=“http://research.umich.edu/content/2011/01/fy10-financial-report.pdf[/url]”>http://research.umich.edu/content/2011/01/fy10-financial-report.pdf</a></p>
<p>Phanta, I get your point. You’d need to do a line by line or department by department audit to compare apples to apples. </p>
<p>I was mainly chiding you…but as Barron’s said earlier, why argue amongst friends?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>seeing how you all even argue with yourselves even after I left the argument just validates my inference that you all need a life.</p>