|
|
Post by sleepy on Jul 1, 2010 7:31:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Old School on Jul 1, 2010 8:13:37 GMT -8
Cool.
Oldie Out
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 1, 2010 11:55:34 GMT -8
UCSD gets a ton of research bucks coming to its med school and Scripps, so their number is always going to be way higher than ours. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 1, 2010 13:39:36 GMT -8
Older news, this came out a couple months ago, and the CSU system's quote at that time was they were worried that SDSU was becoming too research based - seriously the only major university that has regents and the legislature that are worried about it becoming too much of a major university. Also, UCSD might get a ton more, but the other half of the UCs do less research than SDSU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 1, 2010 16:59:35 GMT -8
Older news, this came out a couple months ago, and the CSU system's quote at that time was they were worried that SDSU was becoming too research based - seriously the only major university that has regents and the legislature that are worried about it becoming too much of a major university. Also, UCSD might get a ton more, but the other half of the UCs do less research than SDSU. Quite true. What needs to be looked at is how many bucks their medical program and Scripps gets as opposed to how much their business and social science programs bring in. Had a running argument with a Ute about 10 years ago on that subject and after some research I discovered that Utah got close to squat in social science and business grants - most of what they got came to the medical school. I cannot think of any reason to disagree with you on the UC system being worried about SDSU's research activities. The more we get, the more problems they have justifying their bull$#!+ position that only they are capable of being "research institutions". As budgets get cut, this is only going to get uglier. The UC system is seeing their budgets cut and they will try as hard as they can to argue that the CSU budgets, and in particular, SDSU's budget get cut more while they whine up one side and down the other about the totally out-dated "compact" from the '60s. This is total bull$#!+ - give us independent doctoral programs and let us compete on an even playing field with the UC system. Hell, ain't like we can't compete with Riverside, Santa Cruz and the other weak sisters in that system. Give us our own doctoral programs and we will be considered one of the better schools in the nation within 5 years. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 1, 2010 17:24:15 GMT -8
Older news, this came out a couple months ago, and the CSU system's quote at that time was they were worried that SDSU was becoming too research based - seriously the only major university that has regents and the legislature that are worried about it becoming too much of a major university. Also, UCSD might get a ton more, but the other half of the UCs do less research than SDSU. Quite true. What needs to be looked at is how many bucks their medical program and Scripps gets as opposed to how much their business and social science programs bring in. Had a running argument with a Ute about 10 years ago on that subject and after some research I discovered that Utah got close to squat in social science and business grants - most of what they got came to the medical school. I cannot think of any reason to disagree with you on the UC system being worried about SDSU's research activities. The more we get, the more problems they have justifying their bull$#!+ position that only they are capable of being "research institutions". As budgets get cut, this is only going to get uglier. The UC system is seeing their budgets cut and they will try as hard as they can to argue that the CSU budgets, and in particular, SDSU's budget get cut more while they whine up one side and down the other about the totally out-dated "compact" from the '60s. This is total bull$#!+ - give us independent doctoral programs and let us compete on an even playing field with the UC system. Hell, ain't like we can't compete with Riverside, Santa Cruz and the other weak sisters in that system. Give us our own doctoral programs and we will be considered one of the better schools in the nation within 5 years. =Bob It was broken down and Berkely, UCLA, and UCSD all had huge research grants/funding and someone else, I think riverside (i think they have a med school by the way) or maybe irvine were above SDSU, and then SDSU was above the rest of the UC system. And it worse than the UC system holding SDSU back, it was the Cal State (whatever they call the regents/trustees/or whatever) officials that sounded the alarm and then Weber and the spokesman had to come out in this article and justify the importance of research and that they were still assuring quality teaching to the undergrads. It really is a f'n joke - The state of california has a chance to have 4 truly outstanding state run universities (UCB, UCLA, UCSD and SDSU) but instead the choose 3 at the pressure of the UC system and more painfully the CSU system. |
|
