collapse

* '23-'24 SOTG Tally


2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Crean vs Buzz vs Wojo vs Shaka by brewcity77
[May 07, 2024, 11:31:29 PM]


Big East 2024 Offseason by MU82
[May 07, 2024, 10:45:05 PM]


Bill Scholl Retiring by Zog from Margo
[May 07, 2024, 10:42:23 PM]


Marquette NBA Thread by Skatastrophy
[May 07, 2024, 07:21:58 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Dawson Rental
[May 07, 2024, 06:51:10 PM]


MU appearance in The Athletic's college hoops mailbag by lawdog77
[May 07, 2024, 05:44:34 PM]


2025 Bracketology by tower912
[May 07, 2024, 04:14:43 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: The long cold summer

Marquette
Marquette

Open Practice

Date/Time: Oct 11, 2024 ???
TV: NA
Schedule for 2023-24
27-10

Author Topic: Harvard of the Midwest  (Read 37380 times)

Eldon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2945
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #75 on: April 02, 2015, 09:39:49 PM »
Northwestern has an 8 billion dollar endowment (top 10 in the world and larger than Michigan) it has campuses in foreign countries, it is a leading research institution.

It will not move from this position should you apply this criteria.

My general sense is the the Bschools and Law schools are of similar rank.  But regarding research-based grad programs, I would bet that Michigan beats Nwestern in every department.  I know for certain that Michigan beats Nwestern in philosophy (handily) and also economics (not handily, but a notably stronger department and grad program nevertheless).  I also get the sense that Michigan also beats them in other humanities and social sciences as well.  

I don't know anything about medicine, natural science, or engineering, but

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13305/

shows that Michigan is #2 in the country in research and development spending, compared to Nwestern's spot at 29. (Though Johns Hopkins is number 1 so my hunch is that medical schools strongly influence these numbers).

Don't read me as saying that because Michigan is a better research institution, Northwestern therefore sucks.  Nwestern is an absolutely phenomenal school.  A world-leader in research, as you note.  But Michigan is simply that good.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #76 on: April 02, 2015, 10:14:09 PM »
Their is this animal called the "Academic Rankings of World Universities"

These rankings are largely driven by research and the top 500 are ranked.

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html

Here is the top 30

1 Harvard University 1 100 100
2 Stanford University 2 72.1 41.8
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 3 70.5 68.4
4 University of California-Berkeley 4 70.1 66.8
5 University of Cambridge 1 69.2 79.1
6 Princeton University 5 60.7 52.1
7 California Institute of Technology 6 60.5 48.5
8 Columbia University 7 59.6 65.1
9 University of Chicago 8 57.4 61.4
9 University of Oxford 2 57.4 51
11 Yale University 9 55.2 48.8
12 University of California, Los Angeles 10 51.9 30.2
13 Cornell University 11 50.6 37.6
14 University of California, San Diego 12 49.3 19.7
15 University of Washington 13 48.1 21.7
16 University of Pennsylvania 14 47.1 32.4
17 The Johns Hopkins University 15 47 38.7
18 University of California, San Francisco 16 45.2 0
19 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich 1 43.9 30.2
20 University College London 3 43.3 28.8
21 The University of Tokyo 1 43.2 31.6
22 The Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine 4 42.3 14.9
22 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 17 42.3 35.3
24 University of Toronto 1 41.8 20.4
24 University of Wisconsin - Madison 18 41.8 31.6
26 Kyoto University 2 39.9 30.2
27 New York University 19 39.6 28.8
28 Northwestern University 20 39.4 15.8
28 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 20 39.4 30.7

30 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 22 39.3 30.2
31 Duke University 23 38.4 15.8
32 Washington University in St. Louis 24 37.8 19


Couple of thoughts ...

Michigan does out rank Northwestern.  

The first number after the name is the country rank.  So Michigan is 17 and Northwestern is 20.

The second number is an index of research spending.  Harvard is 100 (because it is no. 1, thanks to a $32 billion endowment).  Stanford is number to at 2 with a rating of 72.1.  So Stanford spend 3/4 of Harvard.  Michigan is 42.3 and Northwestern is 39.4.  Harvard spends well more than twice what they do in research.  Note how fast these numbers drop off after Harvard.

Marquette does not make this list.  Since it it based on research spending, that is not a shock.

Most research is done at the graduate school level.  Except in the sciences and medicine, this has no affect on the undergraduate experience.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #77 on: April 02, 2015, 10:27:02 PM »
Quick defense of MU

Lots of majors do not require tons of money for research.  Business, liberal arts, journalism, nursing, theater are not expensive like sciences, engineering and medicine.

A very valid and honorable mission for a university is to emphasize teaching over research.  Prepare students with skills required for critical thinking.   This is even more important at the undergraduate level.  Teach them to think, question and understand.  Leave the intense research for the next level.

A big research university, like a Harvard, has labs sequencing DNA and the humans genome.  The scientists and computer power involved in this could run tens of millions or more a year.  A school like Marquette can turn out hundreds of smart critical thinking graduates every year that can spend decades being valuable member of society for the same price.  In the long run, both might have the same value for the country.

So why we all "like toys" and the research budgets of large universities are necessary and important.  Let's not devalue the mission of a teaching university like Marquette and what they are doing within their mission.

Lastly, the Jesuit universities are all way behind in their endowments.  Until the 1960s/1970s these Catholic istutuitons viewed helping the poor as a primary mission.  So they kept their expenses down and gave away an excess money to the poor.  So their intention and design was to have zero endowments.  Only in the 50 years has this thinking changed, which is why they have such small endowments

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4775
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #78 on: April 02, 2015, 10:36:25 PM »
Quick defense of MU

Lots of majors do not require tons of money for research.  Business, liberal arts, journalism, nursing, theater are not expensive like sciences, engineering and medicine.

A very valid and honorable mission for a university is to emphasize teaching over research.  Prepare students with skills required for critical thinking.   This is even more important at the undergraduate level.  Teach them to think, question and understand.  Leave the intense research for the next level.

A big research university, like a Harvard, has labs sequencing DNA and the humans genome.  The scientists and computer power involved in this could run tens of millions or more a year.  A school like Marquette can turn out hundreds of smart critical thinking graduates every year that can spend decades being valuable member of society for the same price.  In the long run, both might have the same value for the country.


So why we all "like toys" and the research budgets of large universities are necessary and important.  Let's not devalue the mission of a teaching university like Marquette and what they are doing within their mission.

Lastly, the Jesuit universities are all way behind in their endowments.  Until the 1960s/1970s these Catholic istutuitons viewed helping the poor as a primary mission.  So they kept their expenses down and gave away an excess money to the poor.  So their intention and design was to have zero endowments.  Only in the 50 years has this thinking changed, which is why they have such small endowments

A few things.  The way you prepare students in critical thinking, questioning and understanding is to do research.  Although, you do not have to invest as heavily as Harvard, you have to invest at a far higher level than MU. 

As for DNA sequencing and the human genome.  A top of the line high-throughput sequencing machine can be had for under $1M.  Computing power to analyze genomes for under $50k.  That isn't where the costs at Harvard are going (and the money isn't coming from an endowment).  The costs are going to provide funds for researchers to take risks and make world-changing discoveries. 

I support a teaching mission, but teaching at the University level requires a significant investment in research.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22954
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #79 on: April 02, 2015, 10:38:31 PM »
A few things.  The way you prepare students in critical thinking, questioning and understanding is to do research.  Although, you do not have to invest as heavily as Harvard, you have to invest at a far higher level than MU. 

As for DNA sequencing and the human genome.  A top of the line high-throughput sequencing machine can be had for under $1M.  Computing power to analyze genomes for under $50k.  That isn't where the costs at Harvard are going (and the money isn't coming from an endowment).  The costs are going to provide funds for researchers to take risks and make world-changing discoveries. 

I support a teaching mission, but teaching at the University level requires a significant investment in research.

Marquette made a significant enough investment to turn out a fine, upstanding, young man such as myself.

And it's all about me!
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #80 on: April 02, 2015, 10:45:33 PM »
A few things.  The way you prepare students in critical thinking, questioning and understanding is to do research.  Although, you do not have to invest as heavily as Harvard, you have to invest at a far higher level than MU.  

As for DNA sequencing and the human genome.  A top of the line high-throughput sequencing machine can be had for under $1M.  Computing power to analyze genomes for under $50k.  That isn't where the costs at Harvard are going (and the money isn't coming from an endowment).  The costs are going to provide funds for researchers to take risks and make world-changing discoveries.  

I support a teaching mission, but teaching at the University level requires a significant investment in research.

To get to the $1M sequencing machine ad $50k computing power, didn't the Harvards of the world spent a kings ransom in research?

And yes, research is key to critical thinking.  But not all research requires a huge investment in dollars.  Liberals art educations can require thousands of hours of research but you don't need state of the art labs for a philosophy degree.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4775
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #81 on: April 02, 2015, 11:29:16 PM »
To get to the $1M sequencing machine ad $50k computing power, didn't the Harvards of the world spent a kings ransom in research?

And yes, research is key to critical thinking.  But not all research requires a huge investment in dollars.  Liberals art educations can require thousands of hours of research but you don't need state of the art labs for a philosophy degree.

A lot of that technology was constructed by guys like George Church.  He has millions of dollars in grants each year, Harvard makes a gigantic profit off him and his research.  He's spawned 9 companies that Harvard gets some of the money from in addition to his grant dollars. 

They made a kings ransom on the research, they didn't spend one.

Also, no offense to liberal arts majors, but they do not provide the same training/education in critical thinking as research does.

Eldon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2945
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #82 on: April 02, 2015, 11:37:22 PM »
A lot of that technology was constructed by guys like George Church.  He has millions of dollars in grants each year, Harvard makes a gigantic profit off him and his research.  He's spawned 9 companies that Harvard gets some of the money from in addition to his grant dollars. 

They made a kings ransom on the research, they didn't spend one.

Also, no offense to liberal arts majors, but they do not provide the same training/education in critical thinking as research does.

How are you defining 'research'?  Lab work?

HouWarrior

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #83 on: April 03, 2015, 04:05:12 AM »
Heisenberg:
[

(side note, watch how the Texas and Texas A&M endowments tumbles down the list in the next few years with the oil bust now underway.)
[/quote]


The United States did not want to take on liability for the war debts of the Republic of Texas when it joined as a new state; accordingly, unique among our 50 states, Texas retained sovereign right over its lands (its why secession talk exists here). The state's sovereign ownership of massive West Texas fields funded and vested the huge Permanent University Fund Endowment, for UT and TAMU.

Your claim of the PUF tumbling down, however, is not accurate...With the new drilling/recovery methods, this area has actually increased production in older played fields of the Permian basin... unexpectedly adding to the fund, in recent years. I have clients drilling there and its one of the best field "plays" in North America. The PUF is quite pleased with its position.

Once this increased revenue is collected and vested, the PUF invests its money, the same as the other endowments ....with 90 percent placed on Wall Street. So...lower oil prices...and slowed production programs will merely slow the rate of principal increase of the PUF....but any decline to the PUF will be attributable to a Wall Street returns decline, not to oil prices.

I understand the Schadenfreude toward Texas by many, but your PUF decreasing assumption is not right, here.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 04:08:56 AM by houwarrior »
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #84 on: April 03, 2015, 04:31:43 AM »
Heisenberg:
[

(side note, watch how the Texas and Texas A&M endowments tumbles down the list in the next few years with the oil bust now underway.)


The United States did not want to take on liability for the war debts of the Republic of Texas when it joined as a new state; accordingly, unique among our 50 states, Texas retained sovereign right over its lands (its why secession talk exists here). The state's sovereign ownership of massive West Texas fields funded and vested the huge Permanent University Fund Endowment, for UT and TAMU.

Your claim of the PUF tumbling down, however, is not accurate...With the new drilling/recovery methods, this area has actually increased production in older played fields of the Permian basin... unexpectedly adding to the fund, in recent years. I have clients drilling there and its one of the best field "plays" in North America. The PUF is quite pleased with its position.

Once this increased revenue is collected and vested, the PUF invests its money, the same as the other endowments ....with 90 percent placed on Wall Street. So...lower oil prices...and slowed production programs will merely slow the rate of principal increase of the PUF....but any decline to the PUF will be attributable to a Wall Street returns decline, not to oil prices.

I understand the Schadenfreude toward Texas by many, but your PUF decreasing assumption is not right, here.

Keep drinking the kook-aid about the oil industry.  It's a busted bubble and we are waiting for the Harold Hamms and Aubrey McClendons to do what they do best, first become billionaires and then lose it all.

The US produces too much oil given the demand it is serving.  That is why inventories are spiking.  Oil companies borrowed too much and will not stop producing at breakneck pace.  The price of WTI was $107 last July, $48 now.  The price will keep falling until they stop producing.  Your argument about technologies only means it might have to go to scary low prices to break production.

And it is not Schadenfreude because it is a net negative for the U.S. economy.  Oil is an economic indicator.  It stays high and moves up because the economy is humming and demand is high.  It is a good thing when oil is high (not counting spikes because of middle east problems or supply disruptions).  We produce too much now because the economy is slowing and demand is off.  The catalyst for all this is a "remarkable fall" in demand for oil starting in Q2 of last year as chronicled by the EIA (Energy Information Agency).  Oil down means the economy is in trouble.

So yes, UT and TAMUs endowments are going to take it right in the shorts.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 04:54:23 AM by Heisenberg »

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #85 on: April 03, 2015, 04:50:51 AM »
A lot of that technology was constructed by guys like George Church.  He has millions of dollars in grants each year, Harvard makes a gigantic profit off him and his research.  He's spawned 9 companies that Harvard gets some of the money from in addition to his grant dollars. 

They made a kings ransom on the research, they didn't spend one.

Also, no offense to liberal arts majors, but they do not provide the same training/education in critical thinking as research does.

I don't have a liberal arts degree (business major) so I'm not defending anything when I say ... You're right a liberal arts and/or a humanities degree does not provide the same training or education in critical thinking as research.  It provides a far more intense and difficult course of study.  Why don't more do it!  Because when done properly, it is hard (yet many "blowoff courses" are in these areas making some incorrectly think it is easy) and they provide limited economic opportunity.

Some of the most uncritical and least creative people I have ever met work in research in sciences, engineering and medicine.  Conservely some of the most creative work in this area too.  The big expensive lab, with all its shiny fun toys to play with have a strange effect on the human psyche, it drives them to a consensus non-risk taking approach precisely because they want to stay in the lab playing with their toys.  Tell them the approach is all wrong and everything has to be changed and watch the push back you will get.

HouWarrior

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #86 on: April 03, 2015, 04:58:47 AM »
Keep drinking the kook-aid about the oil industry.  It's a busted bubble and we are waiting for the Harold Hamms and Aubrey McClendons to do what they do best, first become billionaires and then lose it all.

The US produces too much oil given the demand it is serving.  That is why inventories are spiking.  Oil companies borrowed too much and will not stop producing at breakneck pace.  The price of WTI was $107 last July, $48 now.  The price will keep falling until they stop producing.  Your argument about technologies only means it might have to go to scary low prices to break production.

And it is not Schadenfreude because it is a net negative for the U.S. economy.  Oil is an economic indicator.  It stays high and moves up because the economy is humming and demand is high.  It is a good thing when oil is high (not counting spikes because of middle east problems or supply disruptions).  We produce too much now because the economy is slowing and demand is off.  The catalyst for all this is a "remarkable fall" in demand for oil starting in last year as chronicled by the EIA (Energy Information Agency).  Oil down means the economy is in trouble.

So yes, UT and TAMUs endowments are going to take it right in the shorts.

Wow, this was laden with ignorance and insult...an ungentlemanly response. I had merely challenged a flawed understanding of the PUF endowment investment.

I do not chose to challenge your flawed views/presumptions of world oil pricing, production, exploration  modeling, and on high energy costs being good for an economy.  You appear to not be very open to any detailed review...you didnt even grasp my endowment explanation, so lets not you and I jump into an even deeper pool of this broader subject.

I guess you are a type just waiting to hear....gosh you are so right, so well informed, and your opinions are the best...so ...you da' man and I am the fool. lmao
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #87 on: April 03, 2015, 05:33:34 AM »
Wow, this was laden with ignorance and insult...an ungentlemanly response. I had merely challenged a flawed understanding of the PUF endowment investment.

I do not chose to challenge your flawed views/presumptions of world oil pricing, production, exploration  modeling, and on high energy costs being good for an economy.  You appear to not be very open to any detailed review...you didnt even grasp my endowment explanation, so lets not you and I jump into an even deeper pool of this broader subject.

I guess you are a type just waiting to hear....gosh you are so right, so well informed, and your opinions are the best...so ...you da' man and I am the fool. lmao

The PUF has a giant exposure to oil that will hurt its value when every "gets it" about the bust taking place in the energy patch.  Energy is the single worst investment one can make right now.  It will be number 1 in a few years but not before immense pain is given out to current investors, like the PUF.  You cannot ride it out, it needs to be avoided.

And it is the single worst investment because everyone thinks it is a great investment.  100% of Wall Street analysts (39 of 39) surveyed by Bloomberg last month are predicting the price of oil will be higher at the end of the year.  Money started pouring into energy investments after the initial break last fall.  This is precisely the problem.  It encourages the very thing that is driving down the price, over-production for slowing demand.  Now we have an 80-year high in oil inventories and they keep soaring, too much oil that is being pumped is going into storage tanks in Cushing.  That is a big warning sign.

It is housing in 2008 all over again, when housing was toast and Ara Hovanian and Bob Toll were smiling on TV telling everyone "the home is the single best investment you can make"  Right after the words got out of their mouths home prices tumbled the most since 1890 (when Bob Shiller started keeping records) and  have barely recovered (unless you own a home in the million dollar, or several million dollar, price range).  Toll Brothers and Hovanian Homes were almost wiped out and needed a Government bailout of the entire industry to stay in business.

Today oil companies are not run by business people.  They are run by risk-takers, and a lot of them are reckless, like Aubrey Mclendon (image below) and Harold Hamm.





Supply is half the equation.  What is never considered is demand.  That is the thing that caught all the risk-takers by surprise is the fall in demand because of economies of the US and the world are slowing and we need less of it.  The price is what will make production slow.  It needs to fall enough to force it to slow.  And when it does an the Permian base and Eagle-Ford plays leveraged to the hilt (because they all are) are toast.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 05:37:33 AM by Heisenberg »

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #88 on: April 03, 2015, 08:11:30 AM »
The PUF has a giant exposure to oil that will hurt its value when every "gets it" about the bust taking place in the energy patch.  Energy is the single worst investment one can make right now.  It will be number 1 in a few years but not before immense pain is given out to current investors, like the PUF.  You cannot ride it out, it needs to be avoided.

And it is the single worst investment because everyone thinks it is a great investment.  100% of Wall Street analysts (39 of 39) surveyed by Bloomberg last month are predicting the price of oil will be higher at the end of the year.  Money started pouring into energy investments after the initial break last fall.  This is precisely the problem.  It encourages the very thing that is driving down the price, over-production for slowing demand.  Now we have an 80-year high in oil inventories and they keep soaring, too much oil that is being pumped is going into storage tanks in Cushing.  That is a big warning sign.

It is housing in 2008 all over again, when housing was toast and Ara Hovanian and Bob Toll were smiling on TV telling everyone "the home is the single best investment you can make"  Right after the words got out of their mouths home prices tumbled the most since 1890 (when Bob Shiller started keeping records) and  have barely recovered (unless you own a home in the million dollar, or several million dollar, price range).  Toll Brothers and Hovanian Homes were almost wiped out and needed a Government bailout of the entire industry to stay in business.

Today oil companies are not run by business people.  They are run by risk-takers, and a lot of them are reckless, like Aubrey Mclendon (image below) and Harold Hamm.





Supply is half the equation.  What is never considered is demand.  That is the thing that caught all the risk-takers by surprise is the fall in demand because of economies of the US and the world are slowing and we need less of it.  The price is what will make production slow.  It needs to fall enough to force it to slow.  And when it does an the Permian base and Eagle-Ford plays leveraged to the hilt (because they all are) are toast.


I'm not quite sure you are really getting what houwarrior was saying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he is basically saying that the health of the UT endowment is not directly tied to the oil industry, rather that it increases based on revenue from the oil industry, that is then invested elsewhere.  So for example, if their endowment is currently $20b, most of it is invested in the stock market, not in oil, and if oil takes a large hit, their endowment only suffers the reciprocal effects that that decline takes on the stock market.

The UT investment in the oil industry can only add to the endowment.  I may be wrong on this, and I really don't know anything about this personally, but I think this is what houwarrior was getting at.

You're really jumping into the deep end with the oil industry here.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26487
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #89 on: April 03, 2015, 08:27:23 AM »
Some of the most uncritical and least creative people I have ever met work in research in sciences, engineering and medicine.  Conservely some of the most creative work in this area too.  The big expensive lab, with all its shiny fun toys to play with have a strange effect on the human psyche, it drives them to a consensus non-risk taking approach precisely because they want to stay in the lab playing with their toys.  Tell them the approach is all wrong and everything has to be changed and watch the push back you will get.

This made me laugh because I hear it from my wife every day about her work. She works in a hospital lab, mostly analysis with only a few people doing real research, but it's almost like a commandment, "Thou shalt not question how we have been doing things for 40 years." She came over from another lab and initially was told to bring her suggestions to management. Well, co-workers and managers stamped on every effort she made to streamline processes and finding better, easier ways to do things, saying she was trying to disrupt "their way".

After a year, she transferred to a smaller department working with one other employee that was also new to the department. During training, the two of them saw the same kind of flawed processes, but because their department has little oversight and no other co-workers, they were able to change virtually every process. With the two employees that used to work there, the department was mired in overtime, problems with specimens, and work backlogs. Now, my wife is usually done with everything by noon and spends the rest of the day bored staring at her iPhone.

Weighing in on the oil stuff and endowments is way over my head, but in the case of people in the sciences, both she and I have been amazed at the lack of critical thinking and resistance to change that exists in those fields. I realize fully this is a small microcosm of a much larger field, and I have no doubt that there exist plenty of places ready and willing to evolve, but in the places where they resist change, walking through the door for a young employee must be like stepping 30 years back in time.
This space reserved for a 2024 2025 National Championship celebration banner.

HouWarrior

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #90 on: April 03, 2015, 08:29:22 AM »
The PUF has a giant exposure to oil that will hurt its value when every "gets it" about the bust taking place in the energy patch.  Energy is the single worst investment one can make right now.  It will be number 1 in a few years but not before immense pain is given out to current investors, like the PUF.  You cannot ride it out, it needs to be avoided.

And it is the single worst investment because everyone thinks it is a great investment.  100% of Wall Street analysts (39 of 39) surveyed by Bloomberg last month are predicting the price of oil will be higher at the end of the year.  Money started pouring into energy investments after the initial break last fall.  This is precisely the problem.  It encourages the very thing that is driving down the price, over-production for slowing demand.  Now we have an 80-year high in oil inventories and they keep soaring, too much oil that is being pumped is going into storage tanks in Cushing.  That is a big warning sign.

It is housing in 2008 all over again, when housing was toast and Ara Hovanian and Bob Toll were smiling on TV telling everyone "the home is the single best investment you can make"  Right after the words got out of their mouths home prices tumbled the most since 1890 (when Bob Shiller started keeping records) and  have barely recovered (unless you own a home in the million dollar, or several million dollar, price range).  Toll Brothers and Hovanian Homes were almost wiped out and needed a Government bailout of the entire industry to stay in business.

Today oil companies are not run by business people.  They are run by risk-takers, and a lot of them are reckless, like Aubrey Mclendon (image below) and Harold Hamm.





Supply is half the equation.  What is never considered is demand.  That is the thing that caught all the risk-takers by surprise is the fall in demand because of economies of the US and the world are slowing and we need less of it.  The price is what will make production slow.  It needs to fall enough to force it to slow.  And when it does an the Permian base and Eagle-Ford plays leveraged to the hilt (because they all are) are toast.


Against my better judgment lets review one last time your claim of a falling PUF, as due to oil prices.
The amount of the PUF is solely measured by its accumulated cash income...ie the market/ or income value of the West Texas fields plays no part in its in current endowment amount.
 Think of this like a rent house; the field is the rent house, and the endowment is the accumulated rent income from the house; The PUF takes this cash (like other endowments) to Wall Street and depends on it, NOT OIL Prices to invest and increase the PUF.
Whether or not the House (field) value or its rent income decreases will not affect the fund's current size. The PUF will simply grow at slower rate if the rent income reduces. You'd be right to say the rate of growth of the principal amount of the PUF may slow due to less oil income....but the principal sums will only drop ...move downward ...if Wall Street returns fail (not oil Prices).

Your hammering of the claim the PUF size will shrink due to oil pricing variations  leads me to realize you simply didnt know that neither the market, or income value of the fields accounts for a penny of the PUF endowment amount... the PUF amount is simply the accumulated cash income to date...not the house.


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #91 on: April 03, 2015, 09:21:31 AM »
Against my better judgment lets review one last time your claim of a falling PUF, as due to oil prices.
The amount of the PUF is solely measured by its accumulated cash income...ie the market/ or income value of the West Texas fields plays no part in its in current endowment amount.
 Think of this like a rent house; the field is the rent house, and the endowment is the accumulated rent income from the house; The PUF takes this cash (like other endowments) to Wall Street and depends on it, NOT OIL Prices to invest and increase the PUF.
Whether or not the House (field) value or its rent income decreases will not affect the fund's current size. The PUF will simply grow at slower rate if the rent income reduces. You'd be right to say the rate of growth of the principal amount of the PUF may slow due to less oil income....but the principal sums will only drop ...move downward ...if Wall Street returns fail (not oil Prices).

Your hammering of the claim the PUF size will shrink due to oil pricing variations  leads me to realize you simply didnt know that neither the market, or income value of the fields accounts for a penny of the PUF endowment amount... the PUF amount is simply the accumulated cash income to date...not the house.

Ok you're right and I'm wrong, the oil industry is a perpetual motion machine that will never lose money and can only go up.

Seriously, the last time I got push back like this was from builders and mortgage traders in 2008 about housing prices.

Good luck with you energy investments.  Bookmark this post and let's check back in a few years and let's see how insulated the PUF is to a collapse (yes collapse) in the oil market

I'm not quite sure you are really getting what houwarrior was saying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he is basically saying that the health of the UT endowment is not directly tied to the oil industry, rather that it increases based on revenue from the oil industry, that is then invested elsewhere.  So for example, if their endowment is currently $20b, most of it is invested in the stock market, not in oil, and if oil takes a large hit, their endowment only suffers the reciprocal effects that that decline takes on the stock market.

The UT investment in the oil industry can only add to the endowment.  I may be wrong on this, and I really don't know anything about this personally, but I think this is what houwarrior was getting at.

You're really jumping into the deep end with the oil industry here.
.

PUF revenue, leases, rent and land values are all going to take a hit because of the collapse in the oil business.  Did I say PUF was going to zero?  No, I said they are going to tumble down the endowment list.  That is the easiest call here.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 09:23:15 AM by Heisenberg »

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #92 on: April 03, 2015, 09:31:44 AM »
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/university-of-texas-endowment-tops-25-billion-surpassing-yale

The value of the Texas System’s fund grew 24 percent to $25.4 billion in the year ended June 30, the biggest after Harvard University’s $35.9 billion. Yale’s endowment, which had ranked second since at least 2002, increased 15 percent to $23.9 billion.

Royalty revenue from oil and natural gas reserves on land owned by the University of Texas helped drive the gains, said Bruce Zimmerman, chief executive officer of the University of Texas Investment Management Co.

“The price of oil and hydraulic fracking out in West Texas has been very, very good,” Zimmerman said in a phone interview. “One of the sources of growth in the overall assets has come from those contributions into the fund from the oil and gas royalty revenue.”

The value of the lands held by the University of Texas increased 70 percent to $8 billion during the fiscal year that ended Aug. 31 because of the rising value of oil and gas reserves, according to the system’s annual financial report. The prices of oil and natural gas have since fallen about 54 percent and 29 percent, respectively.

---------------

It is actually worse than I thought, all these gains are getting reversed and then some.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2015, 09:36:15 AM by Heisenberg »

ChitownSpaceForRent

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6315
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #93 on: April 03, 2015, 09:36:07 AM »
For what it's worth, this whole thread was made tongue in cheek, but like all off season threads on scoop it became serious and then a completely different topic all together. time to superbar it.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4775
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #94 on: April 03, 2015, 12:50:03 PM »
I don't have a liberal arts degree (business major) so I'm not defending anything when I say ... You're right a liberal arts and/or a humanities degree does not provide the same training or education in critical thinking as research.  It provides a far more intense and difficult course of study.  Why don't more do it!  Because when done properly, it is hard (yet many "blowoff courses" are in these areas making some incorrectly think it is easy) and they provide limited economic opportunity.

Some of the most uncritical and least creative people I have ever met work in research in sciences, engineering and medicine.  Conservely some of the most creative work in this area too.  The big expensive lab, with all its shiny fun toys to play with have a strange effect on the human psyche, it drives them to a consensus non-risk taking approach precisely because they want to stay in the lab playing with their toys.  Tell them the approach is all wrong and everything has to be changed and watch the push back you will get.

Your statements couldn't be more wrong or any less based in fact.  There have been several recent studies (can't link as they are research articles behind pay walls), showing that scientists, because of their training are more creative or as creative as arts majors (art/music/drama/creative writing). 

Even in business, major consulting firms like McKinsey/Bain/BCG love to recruit scientists with no business background because of their superior critical thinking and creativity. 

As for the big expensive lab on psyche, again so far off base it is interesting.  Go ask any major research scientist, they'll disagree.  They may say that they avoid risk taking now, but the reason will not be what you say.  The reason is because of a decrease in funding and too many non-scientists in funding decisions.  They want immediate results and guaranteed success.  So, if they take risks, they will have no immediate results and sometimes won't succeed, because of that they will not get any funding and need to shut down their lab.

Innovating researchers than flock to the Harvard/MIT/Cal Tech/UW (the real one out west), because they provide support/infrastructure to promote continued risk taking.

There is an ongoing problem with the current generation lacking creativity and critical thinking skills.  That is because they are being trained to beat tests.  They are being trained formulaic ways to do everything, from writing to math to art...why, because it is easier.  But that has nothing to do with the sciences.

Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #95 on: April 03, 2015, 01:08:08 PM »
For what it's worth, this whole thread was made tongue in cheek, but like all off season threads on scoop it became serious and then a completely different topic all together. time to superbar it.
yep
"Half a billion we used to do about every two months...or as my old boss would say, 'you're on the hook for $8 million a day come hell or high water-.    Never missed in 6 years." - Chico apropos of nothing

314warrior

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #96 on: April 03, 2015, 01:17:01 PM »
A few things.  The way you prepare students in critical thinking, questioning and understanding is to do research.  Although, you do not have to invest as heavily as Harvard, you have to invest at a far higher level than MU. 

I support a teaching mission, but teaching at the University level requires a significant investment in research.

I disagree.  There are additional ways to learn critical thinking.  I did undergraduate at MU and PhD at a large top level research university.  I'd never trade my experience at MU (and not just the fun parts).  The education for undergrads at many (most?) large research universities is pretty crummy.  Classes are 4th or 5th on professors priority list and being a great educator is not a highly valued skill.  Large research universities have the advantage of allowing undergraduates to work for free in some lab cleaning dishes for 3 years.  This is okay if you would like to be a tenure track professor someday, but it does little to prepare students for a job in industry.  At Marquette, I did a co-op at big engineering company and was paid well for an excellent learning experience. 

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4775
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #97 on: April 03, 2015, 05:08:34 PM »
I disagree.  There are additional ways to learn critical thinking.  I did undergraduate at MU and PhD at a large top level research university.  I'd never trade my experience at MU (and not just the fun parts).  The education for undergrads at many (most?) large research universities is pretty crummy.  Classes are 4th or 5th on professors priority list and being a great educator is not a highly valued skill.  Large research universities have the advantage of allowing undergraduates to work for free in some lab cleaning dishes for 3 years.  This is okay if you would like to be a tenure track professor someday, but it does little to prepare students for a job in industry.  At Marquette, I did a co-op at big engineering company and was paid well for an excellent learning experience. 

I think you miss understood my statement.  I'm not saying that the best undergraduate education is at large research Universities, I actually think it is better elsewhere.  I'm saying that the best way to prepare students in critical thinking is through research. 

The best undergraduate educational opportunities are at small colleges/Universities, that invest heavily in research with an emphasis of getting undergraduates involved.  Marquette isn't there yet in investing properly.  They had been working on it, but much more investment in research is needed. 

What is interesting, is that your statement on undergraduates at large research universities progressing towards a tenure track professor position is actually wrong.  Most tenure track faculty members in the sciences started at smaller Universities that placed a large emphasis on research.  Industry also prefers people who started there as they get more hands on research experience in a laboratory setting.

Those lead to more independence, stronger critical thinking skills and enhanced creativity.  But that means these Universities (often their own dollars instead of grant dollars) have to invest heavily in research.

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #98 on: April 03, 2015, 05:27:00 PM »
This list surprised me. Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota strike me as incredibly overrated here, at least in my subjective conception of prestige. I feel like MU could leapfrog a couple of these pretty easily. 42 seems way too high for Illinois.

Given that my wife and I both went to MU, I would have agreed with you not too long ago.  But daughter #1 is about to graduate from Minnesota, and from the time we went for her orientation to today, my conclusion is that it may actually be underrated.  Its biology/pre-med programs are top-notch, as are its psychology, engineering and business programs.  It pains me to say this, but if I was doing it again today and I had MN or MU to choose from, I'd likely pick MN.

And I will add that my daughter has had a much better academic experience than her friends at Madison.

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
  • "Death From Above"
Re: Harvard of the Midwest
« Reply #99 on: April 03, 2015, 06:08:25 PM »
Their is this animal called the "Academic Rankings of World Universities"

These rankings are largely driven by research and the top 500 are ranked.

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html

Here is the top 30

1 Harvard University 1 100 100

22 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 17 42.3 35.3 [/b]

28 Northwestern University 20 39.4 15.8



Michigan does out rank Northwestern.  


You're Gawddam right it does!

Go Blue!


Death on call

 

feedback