If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
What I'm suggesting is that they don't do it based on a conference affiliation. Academics are in such specific niches that you couldn't even say ``well lets collaborate with someone preferably in the B10'' if you wanted to.
Ding ding!
It's not as if General Motors is going to suddenly start donating money to Maryland because they play football in the same league as Michigan now.
Getting to say you're part of a huge network, sure. Sharing digital library resources, that makes sense. Do it! But $7m in annual savings, however, is not going to be Delaney's limiting factor in conquering TV cable markets one at a time.
For half a century, leaders of the CIC universities have wisely recognized that no single institution has sufficient faculty, funding or facilities to meet the escalating challenges of higher education.
That's disgusting. Of course many of them do, and have marketing materials that directly contradict this. Unless you come up with some very general blather about ``escalating challenges''. One thing I can see that's been escalating, and a lot higher than the rate of inflation, is tuition fees. Another thing I can see that's been escalating, are the number of silly organisations like these. Use the damn money to educate kids, not to appoint members of boards that exacerbate mission creep and create opportunities to stay in nice hotels and get a per diem when travelling. This looks like bureaucrats feeding at the trough.
one of the most successful cic leadership initiatives is the academic leadership program (alp). established in 1987, this intensive professional development experience develops the leadership and managerial skills of faculty who have demonstrated exceptional ability and administrative promise. Many of the program?s 960 Fellows have gone on to serve with distinction as college provosts, presidents and deans.
You can have this group without admitting or not admitting members based on whether you play them in football with a degree of regularity. Also: fuck off. A leadership fellowship for university executives can't be a factor in considering Big Ten expansion.
In 1998, CIC formed what has become a remarkably effective Purchasing Consortium for commodities and services. By joining forces, member institutions are able to negotiate better terms and gain significant price advantages on products with relatively high margins.
To date, CIC institutions have saved more than $19 million. That amount includes:
A 45 percent cost reduction on Cisco? routers, used in every campus network, with
estimated total savings of $1,947,000.
Single-university savings of as much as $500,000 per quarter on research and laboratory supplies.
Aggregate savings of $3.89 million in fiscal year 2005 for office supplies, scientific
supplies, A/v tapes, anti-virus software, networking equipment, copy paper, background check services, and underwriters insurance.
So, formed in 1958. $19m saved. Again, this is pocket change. There's no way this is a factor in decisionmaking. A discount on routers? Seriously? Furthermore $19m since 1958 does not jive with ``as much as $500,000 per quarter on research...''. Anybody can do the math and figure out that while maybe once somebody saved that much, the average must be a lot closer to $20 a quarter if $19m is the total figure spread over 50+ years. Not factoring in that sweet deal on routers.
So ... I reached the end of the PDF. Of course I didn't read all of it but skimmed parts. I didn't see a whole lot about research money shared. Just the scream-from-the-rooftops great news about fellowships and the like. At the bottom of this page, however there's something about using the Big Ten Network: http://www.cic.net/Home/StrategicDirections.aspx. Too vague to know anything.
In conclusion, if there really is some big impact from sharing research dollars, you'd think they wouldn't be so exicited about the routers. I see nothing to believe that the presence of this organisation is ever going to be a factor when academics decide with whom they collaborate. Again, I didn't spend all day looking, but I just don't see what this presents that could in any way shape decisions in which billions of dollars of sports TV revenue are at stake.
Research dollars by CIC universities: $9.3 billition...
If you don't believe the B10 is getting help by working together with their peer CIC members, I don't even wish the argue the issue with you as I can't convince a mind that's not open.
What precisely does ``Research dollars by CIC universities'' mean? What they collectively raised? What they shared amongst each other? Something else?
I don't think it's fair to say I don't have an open mind. I went to the web site. I looked at the pages in which they might explain themselves and their recent accomplishments. I don't know how you can't be skeptical when what they are bragging about is cost savings on routers.
Good work, Hack. Once again, the trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars that expansion is supposed to bring to the university aren't immediately evident. You would think that these astronomical amounts of money would be so obvious that you wouldn't have to look more than five seconds for them.
If there's that much money sloshing around this organisation can afford to spend a coupla grand on a PR person that can actually help it form a coherent message about itself.
Because the B10 is unique in its collaborative research consortium; the CIC. The CIC shares a lot of projects which not only helps them land projects they wouldn't otherwise land but saves costs too. It's why academics are a significant part of the entrance requirement to the B10, unlike the SEC, ACC, Big XII.
OK, again: $19m since 1958. So forget costs cause that's laughable when you factor in that that 54 years of savings has been split among 11-13 schools over that 54 years. If I have it right operating expenditure at UM was $5.3bn in 2010. Over the course of 55 years they probably would have saved more than $19m (split 11 ways) by never establishing this organization in the first place and therefore never having to contribute to its expenses. They could have instead established the Rackham Institute for Picking up Pennies On Campus and done much better.
And, again: specifics please. What does that figure refer to, and what projects? Why is the CIC going on about a good deal on routers if there was an actual serious impact?
Setting aside Hanni's valid question about why these schools have to play football against each other in order to do this (actually they don't, hence the U of Chicago), again: we have lots of platitudes and the assertions but no numbers. Where are the numbers? What does ``did $9.5bn in research'' mean? And so what if somebody at Maryland told the student newspaper that the Google digitization project would otherwise ``cost a fortune''? When I was in journalism school I would have gotten dinged for quoting somebody talking about the cost of something but not providing the actual number.
There's simply no reason at all to think that this is a factor for Delaney unless somebody can offer up some numbers, so my working assumption until then is that this is a canard.
I'm not arguing that this is a critical aspect of expansion or even a major one but it's a factor and the reason it is is the CIC. No it won't bring a financial windfall to Nebraska, Rutgers or Maryland but it'll bring in grant money it otherwise wouldn't.
FWIW, I agree with Stan above about the academic side of expansion and the B10. These expansion moves are largely based upon competing against the SEC, Big XII & ACC for power, popularity and profits.
The CIC business is simply window dressing so the school presidents can spout of about academics in an attempt to move the conversation away from the fact that they are nothing more than a pawn in a large media conglomeration.
@ WM, then why are we going on about it? I've kept an open mind, as is valued here, but I see nothing to think that academics are a real factor. If that's what you thought all along, then, well, WTF?
Whitley is the one that's made a HUGE deal about the research, not me. I've only said it's an issue, probably a minor one for expansion relative to expanding your footprint, gaining markets, getting tv sets and solidifying your population, power & profits for the future.
Tweet
Comment