What are you talking about? I've seen plenty of collaborations/consortiums that apply for money. And almost always they have an advantage over a lone applicant trying to receive money. I take it you've never been involved with a collaboration/consortium application?
If ISU was invited to the Big10 I would question who is in charge of financial decisions.
If the BIG was forced to go out and find a school to add - ISU wouldn't even be in the top 30 schools across the country that would make sense to add. Not saying we could get every school we would consider, but clearly they bring minimal value to the BIG.
Each grant is applied for via a primary or a collaborator. There are exceptions, but that is far from the norm. There should be no institutional bias, and each grant is graded on particular criterium. So you either don’t know what you are discussing, or work on a very specific subset. You do not work for NIH or NSF
I know how applications for governemnt funding work. But there are other types of research funding outside grants.
A collaborator can come from any institution, hell we don’t have a collaborator from another big ten institution, most of the time it is what field you work in. Grants are far and above the primary funding source, which is why I continue to bring up NIH and NSF
Let me add to that, being a collaborator is not often as beneficial because the bulk of the funding does not come to your institution
And the collaborator comes from another institition because you are working on a joint application???
A collaborator can come from the same institution as well, so once again this is an expert that will work on a small portion of the grant.
But having a collaboration makes your application stronger!! Clearly pooled resources, acadmic and research credentials, and countless other advantages come into play when you work with other institutions.
Pooled resources have nothing to do with it. Again it is about having an expertise, this consortium does not mean more funding. It is the individual research that bring the money.
And likely it's a much smaller grant application in a very specific area of technology/science/etc. But if you want access to much larger grants - don't tell me Iowa competes with Johns Hopkins and the other giants very well except in very rare/unique situations. If Iowa and other smaller instituations want a chance at some of the largest pools, being part of a collaboration is the best way to compete.
lol, you have zero idea what you are talking about. NIH grants for example are everyone against everyone. Iowa has plenty of these grants. Otherwise those soft funded roles would not be filled at Iowa.
Yes, and there is clearly more expertise across institutions than a single institution. Except for unique situations like Ponseti where there is a clear expert in a narrow field - those situations can exist in most fields. But it would be a very bad idea for funding to consistently only back one expert/insitution. Clearly, it's better to fund as many viable/possible paths forward as we can afford as we never know where science will lead.
Bro, honestly I don’t understand wtf you are talking about at this point. NIH R grants are the primary medical research funding source. Give those a read over and get back to me. These fund, basic research to rare diseases, every grant is a narrow field.
I don't get why you are so determined to pretend collaborations don't add value. Obviously Iowa does team up apply for grants. What I don't understand is why you're so stuck trying to deny the value of the collaborations across the Big Ten - it's really odd. Clearly the collaboration of institutions can make an application more competive. I mean - why would the academic alliance and the Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium exist if they don't add value?
Have you ever been on a team that applied for money in collaboration with other instutions?
Not a team, and this doesn’t exist in the type of research I have discussed, there may be another single researcher that is listed as a collaborator. I’m literally telling you look up those grants.
Good lord, hang it up bro, this is getting boring. NSF works the same way. I have had funding from both.
I find it hard to believe the Big Ten presidents would every allow their sports programs go independent. The money in sports is a small fraction of the money in research/academics. I don't believe the tail will wag the dog. The idea it will is just propoganda coming from the sports networks as they try to gain more control.
What am I hanging up? Are you claiming the Big Ten Academic Alliance adds no value and there is no reason for the Big Ten Cancer Reserach Consortium to exist? Is it your stance those people who put them together are a bunch of dummies because clearly they add no value and don't ever have an effect on the granting of an award? I really would like to hear your opinion as to why these collaborations exist if they are worthless.
That consortium does not net guarantees funding, you act as though being in the big ten is better than the sec. I am telling you research doesn’t give a shit about what conference you belong to. You have no grasp on how funding is achieved, allocated, or utilized.
You're including arguments I'm not making. I know what you are saying - and have understood it the entire time. The grant goes to the specific research/researcher that is deemed superior, regardless of institution or conference, etc. It's not hard to understand. What seems difficult to grasp is that being in a consortium/collaboration may be part of why that evaluation was deemed superior. When you pool researchers/expertise/etc - for many areas of R&D that is the superior path forward. And clearly that's one of the many reasons the Big Ten has an Academic Alliance and a Cancer Consortium.
you brought up funding, so I'm telling you they are doing these consortiums to try to enhance intra-conference collaborations. These do not guarantee funding, and I would go as far to indicate they may not even increase funding. If the BIG was interested in research funding they would have pulled in Stanford/Cal. It is truly that simple.
I never ever once claimed they guaranteed anything. Stop adding arguments I'm not making. I have stated over and over they can increase the competitiveness of a proposal. Does that apply to all areas? Of course not. R&D is a massive area with a lot of spending across countless categories. But the Big Ten doesn't have an alliance/consortium for fun - they do it because it adds value to ALL of the schools overall. (and can help make them more competitive)
They are competitive on their own merit, R&D is literally mostly basic science funding through NSF, this includes any type of fundamental research that is on topics like chemistry, biology that is not necessarily medically related, physics...etc. I really don't wish to go back and forth other than to state that if this were a factor, you can damn well bet the other two California schools would have been included.
It's funny you act like you know everything about research funding when you admit you are in a very specific area of one type of medical research.
It's funny how you have yet to make a legitimate point, without listing a particular funding source. Funny that I mentioned NSF already and you come back with R&D funding which is literally NSF funded.
Yep, another issue for them getting in the B1G. It's SEC or bust and I don't think it happens before they descend into irrelevance unfortunately.
