These #s are basically junk as presented, especially given the combined medical centers that some have. |
A lot of misinformation in the above quoted post. National Science Foundation R&D (research & development) Expenditures shows otherwise. U Michigan, Ohio State University, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State, and Northwestern all are shown to have higher R&D Expenditures than UCal-Berkeley for 2021, 2020, & 2019 and before. U Michigan, U Washington, UCLA, UC-San Diego, and University of Wisconsin-Madison all have higher R&D Expenditures than #9 ranked Stanford. |
Prove it--as the rest of the world and the National Science Foundation know otherwise. This is why other posters claim that UCal-Berkeley kids are smug & insufferable. You make outlandish claims that you cannot support than make childish remarks denigrating the facts when presented to you. |
Check out the Fields Medals or Nobel Prizes
|
|
That’s gonna be cool when they add UCLA, USC, Oregon and Washington |
Cal doesn't have a med school or hospital/medical center though, does it? I don't have any Cal affiliation (I spent my time in CA across the Bay actually disliking Cal) but it does look like the med influence is a pretty big driver of a lot of the numbers you are citing. |
|
(OP here):
Google "National Science Foundation". It will distinguish the NSF from the National Institute of Health (NIH). |
Does it matter ? The UCal-Berkeley supporter claimed that Cal is the best public research university in the US. I asked that poster for any supporting data or source. Silence. No response. So I did a quick google search & found the NSF data and presented it. |
I think you're confused. What would be needed would be an NSF list for universities that doesn't include med school and hospital data. |
|
(OP here):
Back to the thread title topic. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Cal & Stanford are going to be offered by the Big Ten Conference--at least for now. To me, adding Cal & Stanford would make sense if the goal is to form a 24 team mega-conference. The 6 West Coast teams could be in the same division which would preserve rivalries & minimize travel costs. The decision is not made by the Big Ten Conference alone; decisions are made in conjunction with the broadcast partners. My impression is that the Big Ten University Presidents wanted Stanford, but the media partners were not onboard at this time. Things can change. |
I am not confused; I am trying to help you out. Did you even bother to google "National Science Foundation" and read the Wikipedia entry that distinguishes the NSF from the NIH ? The NSF is an independent government agency. |
I don't think you understand the UC system in Northern California though. The UC medical research, med school, and hospital for the Bay Area have been intentionally separated in the system, which is what UC-SF is (#2 on your list). They have dual degrees and a lot of cooperation with UCB but that hospital research and related $ goes to them. UCB and MIT are actually real standouts being on that list with no med schools or hospitals. |
| Regardless, it is easy to understand the other posters characterization of Cal based on what has been posted in this thread recently. |
True. If Cal had better football and actual interest in their sports in the Bay Area, the Big Ten would have immediately invited them! They are missing the biggest part of the profile the members of an athletic conference are looking at
|
First you object to medical, now you want medical, yet you have presented no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that "Cal is the best research university in the US." Has UC-Berkeley objected to the National Science Foundation numbers and rankings ? No. End of story as it shows Berkeley to be #32, not #1, and about #17 among just public research universities, again not #1. All you are doing is proving the other posters characterization of Cal folks. Please stop with the silliness. I am not your enemy. All I did was ask for a source of support for a ridiculous claim made without any basis. |