Carnegie Foundation has designated 108 Research Universities in the category of Research/Very High. They conduct 80% of the research carried out with federal funds and include many private and public schools. The top 10 schools conduct 20% of all research and the top 50 conduct 60% of all research. Thus, the top two quartiles are the most active research universities in the country. So what does this mean for the rest of the universities that belong in the lower two quartiles? Is the picture so bleak for these universities that they have no role in moving the research endeavors in this country?

Research (R) and development (D) funds are the backbone of innovation in the United States that has kept us as the preeminent economy in the world. In 2013, the United States spent $456 billion in R&D funds. Basic research activities, which are the backbone of university research, is 18% of total R&D expenditures, while the applied portion is 20%, and developmental funds constitute 68%. Most of the developmental work and a significant portion of applied research are done mainly by industry and other dedicated labs. The federal portion of funding as a function of the GDP that universities generally relied on has decreased by over 50% since the early 1960s. Thus, the share of funds available to universities for basic research has dwindled since the second half of the 20^th century. Therefore, those universities in the lower tier hoping to move up further have lost the level playing field they once had. So, how does one move ahead in research performance? There are several pathways that are being currently explored. Let me summarize a few here:

• Cluster hires: Universities are trying to develop spires of excellence and to do so, they are employing “cluster” hire concepts. This involves either “buying” talent from elsewhere wholesale or piecemeal. Only those universities with a substantial state or private philanthropic support can afford this pathway.

• Grand challenges: A second effort is to pool resources regionally to develop a consortium and then to allow them to work on “grand” challenges such that the group of universities stands out as strong competitors.

• Trans-disciplinary research: In some cases universities are totally reinventing schools around the concept of “trans-disciplinary” research thus allowing them to compete on very large, multidisciplinary projects.

• Globalization: Globally large investments in research are now more apparent in developing countries and Europe and our universities are tying up with those partners to further their research agenda and gain international credibility and prestige.

• Translational research: Most agencies that fund basic research are now focusing increasingly on “translational” research that directly impact societal needs. Universities that have teams focused on this aspect can make quick inroads into higher rankings because of impactful research.

If we take any of the above pathways, there is still the assumption that as a lower tier university attempts to make a move, there has to be a vacancy created at the top as a result of some deficiencies. No single top university is likely to cede such advantages and hence outperforming them will be an onerous task for any low ranking university. In reality, movements of a few steps within one’s cohorts are the only likely scenarios. Reinventing the entire university, such as that of Arizona State University will require substantial courage on the part of the President and the Board of Trustees to abandon the existing and move to another model. Thus, it is my assertion that lower ranking universities can only hope to stand out of the crowd for some specific unique characteristics and make them more visible, but not much of a change in their rankings. If, however, a low ranking university can quickly raise a large amount of cash through philanthropy (which requires a very loyal and rich alumni base), then there is the possibility that unique changes can be attempted within its curriculum and research culture and thereby take a few forward steps to move into another quartile. It is apparent that the unfavorable climate towards appropriations at both the federal and state levels make it unlikely that many changes can be seen within these universities.