But I really don't get some of those choices. Is VT really behind Arizona State and USF? Seriously?

A variety of factors including good ol' boy network, type of research, and other factors. Someone on this site spelled it out pretty good. The biomedical (NIH funding) is a huge component of government funding. Biomedical research also typically has peer-peer review which AAU requires or heavily leans on when deciding if the research qualifies for their metrics. Ag research gets the short end of the stick. Ag research heavy, biomedical limited --- > no AAU Ag research limited, biomedical heavy --- > AAU For ag research, the researchers could design and plant a new strain of soybean. AAU committee: "Did anybody else duplicate or review your findings?" Ag university: "Not yet, it took us 2 years to plant but...." AAU committee: "Doesn't qualify." ** Edited by HouClone at 4/15/2024, 4:37:01 PM

I think pretty much all of *funded* research is legit. It's certainly not all "ground breaking," but it doesn't have to be ground breaking to be important. Studies build upon each other...one (or more) researcher's important, non-headline work might lead to ground breaking results for someone else. For waste, depends what you mean. I don't think many (any?) whole projects are wasteful, but you can certainly find inefficiencies in all kinds of research. Corruption? Nah. I think if AAU status is a significant priority for VT, that's a mistake. AAU is basically just an honor society. I'm not sure that there are really any benefits beyond some pat-yourself-on-the back press releases. Sure, in the context of this board, everyone sweats it because of the B1G's supposed requirement/preference for AAU status...which, if it really has teeth, is a really stupid requirement/preference.

Some institutions who want a top tiered research institution will say investigate AAU institutions. the AAU institutions can lead and seek secondary partners. and other non AAU schools will come in but the results are championed by the lead. Also, sometimes AAU institutions will partner together, and when competing for research grants, a team lead for example stanford and John Hopkins international world renown research team, can be award more awards than a team of small schools, with less infrastructure.

Sure, Stanford and Hopkins are going to (generally) find more success in research funding than lots of other schools...because they can pull together world-renowned research teams, not because they're AAU. It's a bit of chicken/egg, except I think the answer is clear. Stanford and Hopkins got AAU status because they have world class researchers. They didn't become world-renowned because of AAU. AAU is basically just a badge of honor. Also, research efforts are not university-level, they're very niche. VT getting more funding in a specialty within ISE than a specialty in CHEM has little to do with the university and everything to do with the field and the people and facilities. A world-renowned researcher in a specific field is world-renowned because of their work, not because of AAU status. As great as Stanford and Hopkins are, there are certainly fields they're stronger in and those they're weaker in. Those weaker fields are not going to get funding because "but, but...we're AAU!"

That's why you end up with professors that are not good teachers, They are not really there to teach.

It has been my experience that that best teachers are also among the best researchers at VT and elsewhere. There are exceptions, but talented faculty usually take great pride in their mission, whether research, teaching or extension. Those exceptional faculty with large research programs also offer great research/learning opportunities to undergrads. As a land Grant University, VT must address 3 missions - teaching, research, and extension. Appointments are typically joint between teaching-research or extension-research. The type of research that normally contributes to higher rankings of research universities is basic research, which attempts to improve our understanding of a particular phenomenon, study or law of nature. Basic research is designed to learn how processes or concepts work and often creates a foundation for applied studies. The federal government funds these from grants made from agencies such as National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD). Applied (or translational) research is designed to discover practical solutions to problems. Such research is often not valued as highly as basic research in the rankings of research universities, but land grant universities perform much of this research through their colleges of agriculture, natural resources, engineering, urban affairs, transportation, etc.. Such research is a bulwark of faculty who have extension-research appointments, as their research must directly inform their clientele's (e.g., farmers, foresters, land managers, health and nutrition specialists, civil and environmental engineering firms, local government, and the citizens of the Commonwealth) practical questions. However, many well-designed applied/translational research includes components of basic research so that the graduate students who conduct these studies develop a foundation for both basic and applied discovery. Federal agencies, such as DOE, DOD, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce, etc. may be large funders of applied-translational research. Land Grant University research ratings can be hamstrung by their need to perform applied research, but many of the highest ranked research universities are land grants nonetheless, e.g., MIT, Texas A&M, Michigan State U, Univ of California-Davis, Purdue, Univ of Wisconsin. I have often been asked why universities so value research at the expense of teaching. The answer is complex, but realize that textbooks and other teaching resources can only be written and updated from contemporary research. An end to research will result in an end to new teaching knowledge. Because basic research often provides the foundation for applied/translational research to solve practical problems, the federal government must fund such research because private companies typically are interested in applied research from which they can profit. Most of the great advances made by private sector research have their basis in prior government-funded research. The continued reliance on both is necessary for a prospering economy and quality of life. ** Edited by Gadfly at 4/14/2024, 8:40:27 AM

"clinical professor" and "professor of practice" have become popular...teaching positions with little to no research expectation

There are numerous granting agencies. Some schools do get funding from private sources, but most are via government grants. This has been how science has operated since WWII. To the best of my knowledge the largest granting agency for science is the National Institutes of Health. By and large they fund biomedical research. That type of work is far more expensive, and gets more funding than other fields, such as agriculture and engineering. Virginia Tech does get a lot of grant money, but compared to schools with a hospital and large medical school they lag behind. Duke and UNC are two of the largest in the US and dwarf what VT brings in. I have never worked with any of the B1G schools but I have seen figures before for a few of them. To grow research revenue you need to bring in professors with large grant budgets and enhance facilities. It’s an “arms race” that all large schools are fighting. VT’s research standing is somewhat comparable to how we’ve embeem in football over the last 10 years. University research is not corrupt. There are a few cases of people falsifying data, but that ends a career and is they anre extremely small outliers. I can honestly only think of two cases in the south east of note in the last 25 years. Basic research at a university is not done the way it would be at a private business and so in some ways it may be less efficient BUT it also allows people to address questions that would not otherwise be answered. Additionally some of those questions lead to business ventures that are critical to a specific sector of our economy. Plus a lot of the work done at universities is used by business who cannot justify spending they money on projects but use the answers to fuel commercial development. That answer was somewhat rambling but if you have any follow up let me know.

And also the VT's research trajectory mirrors that of your football ebbs and flows.

The rate varies by university, but the average is 50%. The money is used for facilities, salaries, graduate tuition, etc., etc.. As a result, research universities are always looking for top talent. Specifically ones that bring in the most grant dollars. A lot of professors start at one level, get funding and move up to a bigger “program”. Per the 2022 NSF Research Expenditures list, Tech ranked 53. There are 71 AAU schools. We certainly have the budget. To join we need a 3/4ths vote for entry. It’s not a stretch to think Tech could earn an AAU designation.

or at least a research oriented med school. I know that VT has made an effort to stand one up.

on-campus medical schools just because of population (supply and demand). Penn State's medical facilities are located in Hershey. I think FSU is in the process of building a medical research facility on their campus. Of course, Tech's is located in Roanoke. I don't know how some other universities do it but I see Baylor Medical and Baylor U. separately on the NSF's R&D rankings. Maryland-College Park has the U. Maryland College of Medicine in Baltimore.

in what’s defined as a major urban area.

contracting officer and my department supports another DOI bureau that came about as a result of Deepwater Horizon. Both bureaus have done business with VT over the years. Some of the research/studies were done as cost (no fee) contracts and others were done as cooperative agreement (which are similar to grants). Given both bureau's mission involves the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), I doubt we will do a whole lot of business with VT. If VT is looking to grow its research, then that may be one area VT could focus on particularly as offshore wind farms start popping up in the Atlantic. Now the money may not be as great as medical research, but it could lead to other opportunities and more collaborations with universities that have a much larger research budget than VT.

sister agency for deepwater horizon response for the peninsula i think the term they used was "Single Point of Contact"; which roughly translates to if anything goes really wrong, your ass will be thrown under the bus quite the circus and stress was off the charts, but we actually managed to do a few good things. many of us were good friends, trust was high, and communication was excellent at least locally ** Edited by daveinop at 4/15/2024, 7:47:32 PM

I was FWS; none of our juicy sex stuff made news, just who was sleeping with who...and where (lol). I can recall a Director/AD, an Assistant Secretary/AD, SOL/AD, Division Chief/SOL, and a few prominent career folks in leadership positions in the field and regions. I am very happy to be retired. Other than a 3 year stint in DC, I elected to stay in leadership in the field. Found that we could influence national policy from the field as effectively as from HQ, very much a more casual and family friendly atmosphere...and a short commute.

cutting red tape for the response in the field in the panhandle. The response for the peninsula (panhandle was under the New Orleans group) was at St Pete where USCG is effectively co-located with FWRI (FWC) and NOAA/NMFS, as well as USF's big research vessel that was tracking oil movement. So it was mostly a very well staffed, fairly calm, and coordinated planning exercise interrupted by BP contractors acting like morons...until they learned that we could get them whatever they needed in terms of data and local cooperation. Regional/National agency leadership kept trying to send us people from Alaska to tell us how to do stuff. I fended that off and convinced them not to send anyone I didn't ask for. I had been a part of 3 major spill responses years before in Texas, and FWRI and USF folks knew enough about the gulf currents to know we weren't in any real danger of significant problems. Nevertheless we spent the early days writing a contingency plan for the peninsula; and they still use it...so not a waste. Pressure was working almost 24/7 for weeks and weeks with FWC leadership in Tally who was dealing with the panhandle and the New Orleans group (which did have Alaska federal folks who were burning every bridge they came across...I got one of them sent home). My shop in FL was over sea turtles, manatees, and a few dozen other listed species for the agency. So the species experts they were using in the response were almost exclusively my staff. Sea turtles were a headliner in the response. So we were integral in setting up the hatchery at Merritt Island/KSC and making sure FWC could staff out what they needed to in terms of handling fed trust stuff. BP's demands of our experts was literally abusive. We had no backups in terms of expertise so we were quickly educated how to record our time. I never rotated out and my turtle and manatee leads never rotated out. Not the healthiest decision but there literally wasn't anyone else who could cover those jobs. I approved the decision to release the hatchlings in the Atlantic rather than the Gulf and since that had never been tried, and there would never be any data to show one way or the other, we didn't credit BP with saving any of them. I don't know if BP ever got that assumption overturned; I'm sure they tried. Politically, large spills probably have to be federalized. No President is ever going on TV to say; "well we're keeping a eye on things, but you know, I'm sure they'll do a good job". But if at all possible, that should always be a last resort. Federalizing a response puts the responsible party in a position of leverage over the federal agencies...until the last penny is spent years and years later. We quickly learned that lesson in Texas so two of our large spills were not federalized. That puts the onus on the spiller to account for everything and come up with remediation plans/measures. And that is a FAR better and more effective position to be in and the money gets spent where it needs to be spent years faster. ** Edited by daveinop at 4/18/2024, 9:12:43 AM

way to go. However, if deaths occur as a result of the spill, like what had happened with Deepwater Horizon, then I am not sure the federal government or state government (if it occurs within the state's waters) has much of choice in the matter. Now whether that reason is politically motivated or for another reason (i.e. legal) may be up for debate.

a hill to die on. And nothing about BP suggested they were interested/capable of stepping up to the plate. They were in spin mode from the get-go. I don't think death was/is a factor...more of a trust resource issue.