A disturbing metric from page 173 of our Board of Trustees agenda, here. We have about 2,000 faculty. This means that, on average, it takes each of us 50 years to produce one idea.
UO Faculty’s New Ideas plunge by 16.3%
A disturbing metric from page 173 of our Board of Trustees agenda, here. We have about 2,000 faculty. This means that, on average, it takes each of us 50 years to produce one idea.
you mean new ideas that are recorded because they spin off into dollars ….
actually not bad for a university that is ranked in #600-650 ( aka “garbage university”) group. But, wait, do not all those gender, sexuality, diversity etc profs that we hire in bunches have any new ideas?
Please provide some links and explanation.
They seem to use the rankings from here: https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-oregon/undergrad
Provided by QS, a study abroad prep site, which bases the rankings on how many international students there are and how international the faculty is.
That is not exactly true. QS is one of the “Big Three” rankings that is largely a function of “reputation” (individual surveys), whereas the other two ( UO is in the fourth hundreed in both) are mostly bibliometric. In other words the sheer number of articles and ciations put UO in the 350th range, while its reputation in academic and industrial communties put it in 600th range ( garbage). All rankings are marketing tools for international students (aka $$$) for universities worldwide, and QS is probably the most influential. The problem for the UO with being that low is that there many universities around the world that are ranked way higher, and provide educaton for a fraction of UO price. Most international students look for highest ranked schools that they can get into and afford. That is why UO has been loosing them steadily. This situation is a total failure of UO International office, which in most universities “groom” those agencies, knowing how important they are for international students $$$. But UO is loser university with loser International office which does not understand obvious things and hurts income
“But, wait, do not all those gender, sexuality, diversity etc profs that we hire in bunches have any new ideas?”
As an outsider I will never understand why UO has been so late to the applied science push. The CS department is one of the oldest on the West Coast, yet is comparatively small. Why didn’t admin prioritize growing CS 10-20 years ago? Admin likes “environmental” , “ethnic” …
Luckily enterprising faculty have developed innovative new applied science programs in recent years.
It’s not hard to see why innovation is down — fear is the mind-killer. Innovation is diminished in a fearful environment.