Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

      
Post Reply 
2018 USNWR Rankings
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Bearcat 1985 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 805
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #41
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-27-2017 10:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 09:48 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 09:40 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  So OSU just went Dean Wormer and dropped the big one. Beginning next year, any Ohio resident who qualifies for a Pell Grant (55K or lower family income) can attend OSU tuition free. Does this pull kids at UC, UT or Ohio into going to OSU if they qualify for this program? They still have to get into OSU, so assume 27+ ACT kids, which means they'd be luring away some of the top quarter or fifth from the other state schools.

Wow, that's huge. And, begrudgingly, somewhat admirable.

What they failed to mention is that these students still need to qualify for their programs or else they'll be languishing out in Mansfield or Lima.

Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.
 
09-27-2017 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geef Offline
JV Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 297
I Root For: Binturongs
Location: Cascadia
Post: #42
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 09:48 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 09:40 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  So OSU just went Dean Wormer and dropped the big one. Beginning next year, any Ohio resident who qualifies for a Pell Grant (55K or lower family income) can attend OSU tuition free. Does this pull kids at UC, UT or Ohio into going to OSU if they qualify for this program? They still have to get into OSU, so assume 27+ ACT kids, which means they'd be luring away some of the top quarter or fifth from the other state schools.

Wow, that's huge. And, begrudgingly, somewhat admirable.

What they failed to mention is that these students still need to qualify for their programs or else they'll be languishing out in Mansfield or Lima.

Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.

For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).
 
09-27-2017 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 24,162
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #43
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-27-2017 10:54 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 09:48 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 09:40 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  So OSU just went Dean Wormer and dropped the big one. Beginning next year, any Ohio resident who qualifies for a Pell Grant (55K or lower family income) can attend OSU tuition free. Does this pull kids at UC, UT or Ohio into going to OSU if they qualify for this program? They still have to get into OSU, so assume 27+ ACT kids, which means they'd be luring away some of the top quarter or fifth from the other state schools.

Wow, that's huge. And, begrudgingly, somewhat admirable.

What they failed to mention is that these students still need to qualify for their programs or else they'll be languishing out in Mansfield or Lima.

Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.

For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).

It was in reference to the fact that there is an diminishing population of Pell Eligible Students who would qualify for their main campus admission standards in Ohio, thus forcing them to other campuses and likely not allowing them to take advantage of the program. This will not affect enrollment at other institutions as most of those students were already heading to OSU to begin with due to their high level of gift aid for Pell Eligible Students at the 28 ACT threshold (right about a full tuition scholarship as of last year)...I forwarded this along to a former colleague at one of the listed institutions in the OP who said it would "maybe cause a loss of 10 students per class". As you state, policies like this are for positive press, which they will receive, but inevitably do not affect much more. Please note that this only applies to tuition, not cost of attendance, so these students will still be on the books for $10,000 plus.

Also...I simply love that the fact that this is being funded by a publicly sponsored program that only OSU has the capacity to be involved in (Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership), which was created by way of state legislature to further affect the Single Flagship model. No one will ever report that.

The craziest thing is how they're a campus of 60,000 but only have 3,500 students who qualify for Pell. I bet UC quadruples that easily with 60% of the enrollment.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-27-2017 04:11 PM by BearcatMan.)
09-27-2017 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #44
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-27-2017 04:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:54 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 09:48 AM)geef Wrote:  Wow, that's huge. And, begrudgingly, somewhat admirable.

What they failed to mention is that these students still need to qualify for their programs or else they'll be languishing out in Mansfield or Lima.

Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.

For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).

It was in reference to the fact that there is an diminishing population of Pell Eligible Students who would qualify for their main campus admission standards in Ohio, thus forcing them to other campuses and likely not allowing them to take advantage of the program. This will not affect enrollment at other institutions as most of those students were already heading to OSU to begin with due to their high level of gift aid for Pell Eligible Students at the 28 ACT threshold (right about a full tuition scholarship as of last year)...I forwarded this along to a former colleague at one of the listed institutions in the OP who said it would "maybe cause a loss of 10 students per class". As you state, policies like this are for positive press, which they will receive, but inevitably do not affect much more. Please note that this only applies to tuition, not cost of attendance, so these students will still be on the books for $10,000 plus.

Also...I simply love that the fact that this is being funded by a publicly sponsored program that only OSU has the capacity to be involved in (Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership), which was created by way of state legislature to further affect the Single Flagship model. No one will ever report that.

The craziest thing is how they're a campus of 60,000 but only have 3,500 students who qualify for Pell. I bet UC quadruples that easily with 60% of the enrollment.

Is the Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership publicly funded? The press releases don't mention that. It looks to me like all they did was sell all their university owned utilities to a private firm for $1.15 billion for 50 years in a sale-leaseback deal. They also get a $50 million energy research center out of the deal.

Another article I found said that Oklahoma is the only other school that has done this. But I don't think there's anything preventing another school (like UC) from doing it if they wanted to.
 
09-27-2017 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 24,162
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #45
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-27-2017 04:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 04:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:54 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  What they failed to mention is that these students still need to qualify for their programs or else they'll be languishing out in Mansfield or Lima.

Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.

For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).

It was in reference to the fact that there is an diminishing population of Pell Eligible Students who would qualify for their main campus admission standards in Ohio, thus forcing them to other campuses and likely not allowing them to take advantage of the program. This will not affect enrollment at other institutions as most of those students were already heading to OSU to begin with due to their high level of gift aid for Pell Eligible Students at the 28 ACT threshold (right about a full tuition scholarship as of last year)...I forwarded this along to a former colleague at one of the listed institutions in the OP who said it would "maybe cause a loss of 10 students per class". As you state, policies like this are for positive press, which they will receive, but inevitably do not affect much more. Please note that this only applies to tuition, not cost of attendance, so these students will still be on the books for $10,000 plus.

Also...I simply love that the fact that this is being funded by a publicly sponsored program that only OSU has the capacity to be involved in (Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership), which was created by way of state legislature to further affect the Single Flagship model. No one will ever report that.

The craziest thing is how they're a campus of 60,000 but only have 3,500 students who qualify for Pell. I bet UC quadruples that easily with 60% of the enrollment.

Is the Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership publicly funded? The press releases don't mention that. It looks to me like all they did was sell all their university owned utilities to a private firm for $1.15 billion for 50 years in a sale-leaseback deal. They also get a $50 million energy research center out of the deal.

Another article I found said that Oklahoma is the only other school that has done this. But I don't think there's anything preventing another school (like UC) from doing it if they wanted to.

According to the information I received from a colleague at OSU, they were granted an exemption grant from the state in order to fund the leaseback, which was then deferred and made completely inaccessible when another University applied for the same state treatment due to "unanticipated loss of liquid state assets". The reason why most schools don't do this is due to the massive backside expenses it will incur without the guarantee of coverage by the state. I have no sense of the math, but values in those amounts would probably incur an interest and mark up at least in the eight figure area when the leaseback is complete.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-27-2017 09:23 PM by BearcatMan.)
09-27-2017 05:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OKIcat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,619
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #46
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-27-2017 05:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 04:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 04:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:54 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.

For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).

It was in reference to the fact that there is an diminishing population of Pell Eligible Students who would qualify for their main campus admission standards in Ohio, thus forcing them to other campuses and likely not allowing them to take advantage of the program. This will not affect enrollment at other institutions as most of those students were already heading to OSU to begin with due to their high level of gift aid for Pell Eligible Students at the 28 ACT threshold (right about a full tuition scholarship as of last year)...I forwarded this along to a former colleague at one of the listed institutions in the OP who said it would "maybe cause a loss of 10 students per class". As you state, policies like this are for positive press, which they will receive, but inevitably do not affect much more. Please note that this only applies to tuition, not cost of attendance, so these students will still be on the books for $10,000 plus.

Also...I simply love that the fact that this is being funded by a publicly sponsored program that only OSU has the capacity to be involved in (Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership), which was created by way of state legislature to further affect the Single Flagship model. No one will ever report that.

The craziest thing is how they're a campus of 60,000 but only have 3,500 students who qualify for Pell. I bet UC quadruples that easily with 60% of the enrollment.

Is the Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership publicly funded? The press releases don't mention that. It looks to me like all they did was sell all their university owned utilities to a private firm for $1.15 billion for 50 years in a sale-leaseback deal. They also get a $50 million energy research center out of the deal.

Another article I found said that Oklahoma is the only other school that has done this. But I don't think there's anything preventing another school (like UC) from doing it if they wanted to.

According to the information I received from a colleague at OSU, they were granted an exemption grant from the state in order to fund the leaseback, which was then deferred and made completely inaccessible when another University applied for the same state treatment due to "unanticipated loss of liquid state assets". The reason why most schools don't do this is due to the massive backside expenses it will incur without the guarantee of coverage by the state. I have no sense of the math, but values in those amounts would probably incur an interest and mark up at least with figures when the leaseback is complete.

Bottom line, as has been the case for decades, OSU gets to play by their own set of rules once again and control the sandbox in this single flagship model.
 
09-27-2017 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcat 1985 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 805
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #47
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-27-2017 04:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:54 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 09:48 AM)geef Wrote:  Wow, that's huge. And, begrudgingly, somewhat admirable.

What they failed to mention is that these students still need to qualify for their programs or else they'll be languishing out in Mansfield or Lima.

Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.

For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).

It was in reference to the fact that there is an diminishing population of Pell Eligible Students who would qualify for their main campus admission standards in Ohio, thus forcing them to other campuses and likely not allowing them to take advantage of the program. This will not affect enrollment at other institutions as most of those students were already heading to OSU to begin with due to their high level of gift aid for Pell Eligible Students at the 28 ACT threshold (right about a full tuition scholarship as of last year)...I forwarded this along to a former colleague at one of the listed institutions in the OP who said it would "maybe cause a loss of 10 students per class". As you state, policies like this are for positive press, which they will receive, but inevitably do not affect much more. Please note that this only applies to tuition, not cost of attendance, so these students will still be on the books for $10,000 plus.

Also...I simply love that the fact that this is being funded by a publicly sponsored program that only OSU has the capacity to be involved in (Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership), which was created by way of state legislature to further affect the Single Flagship model. No one will ever report that.

The craziest thing is how they're a campus of 60,000 but only have 3,500 students who qualify for Pell. I bet UC quadruples that easily with 60% of the enrollment.

The 3500 number can't be correct. I've always heard that they've done a pretty good job of maintaining socio-economic diversity and haven't let themselves turn into another Miami. THIS has their Columbus campus Pell Grant recipient percentage at 23% (UC->25%). The 3500 must be the number of Pell Grant recipients who have some tuition left to pay after all grants, need based scholarships and merit scholarships are taken into consideration.

So bringing this back to that $1B addition to the endowment going to fund financial aid. At a 4.5% annual disbursement, that's going to pump out $45M/year. Be conservative and take $15M off the top for this program. That leaves another $30M for merit aid. Miami is utterly delusional if they think they are ever going to have admissions parity with (much less superiority over) OSU again.

As for griping about the single-flagship model. As I've mentioned before, that's how Ohio was set up, and it fundamentally benefited UC back in the day. Hell, it's the very reason that OSU was founded. What UC needs to do is find a way to separate itself from the rest of the pack and establish itself as Ohio's Virginia Tech or Michigan State rather than taking the Ono path and tilting at the windmill of co-flagship status or "multiple flagships" which accomplished nothing. The waste, duplication and redundancies of the other 11 campuses hold UC back much more than big, bad OSU.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2017 07:41 AM by Bearcat 1985.)
09-28-2017 07:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 24,162
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #48
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 07:19 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 04:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:54 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:09 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  What they failed to mention is that these students still need to qualify for their programs or else they'll be languishing out in Mansfield or Lima.

Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.

For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).

It was in reference to the fact that there is an diminishing population of Pell Eligible Students who would qualify for their main campus admission standards in Ohio, thus forcing them to other campuses and likely not allowing them to take advantage of the program. This will not affect enrollment at other institutions as most of those students were already heading to OSU to begin with due to their high level of gift aid for Pell Eligible Students at the 28 ACT threshold (right about a full tuition scholarship as of last year)...I forwarded this along to a former colleague at one of the listed institutions in the OP who said it would "maybe cause a loss of 10 students per class". As you state, policies like this are for positive press, which they will receive, but inevitably do not affect much more. Please note that this only applies to tuition, not cost of attendance, so these students will still be on the books for $10,000 plus.

Also...I simply love that the fact that this is being funded by a publicly sponsored program that only OSU has the capacity to be involved in (Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership), which was created by way of state legislature to further affect the Single Flagship model. No one will ever report that.

The craziest thing is how they're a campus of 60,000 but only have 3,500 students who qualify for Pell. I bet UC quadruples that easily with 60% of the enrollment.

The 3500 number can't be correct. I've always heard that they've done a pretty good job of maintaining socio-economic diversity and haven't let themselves turn into another Miami. THIS has their Columbus campus Pell Grant recipient percentage at 23% (UC->25%). The 3500 must be the number of Pell Grant recipients who have some tuition left to pay after all grants, need based scholarships and merit scholarships are taken into consideration.

So bringing this back to that $1B addition to the endowment going to fund financial aid. At a 4.5% annual disbursement, that's going to pump out $45M/year. Be conservative and take $15M off the top for this program. That leaves another $30M for merit aid. Miami is utterly delusional if they think they are ever going to have admissions parity with (much less superiority over) OSU again.

As for griping about the single-flagship model. As I've mentioned before, that's how Ohio was set up, and it fundamentally benefited UC back in the day. Hell, it's the very reason that OSU was founded. What UC needs to do is find a way to separate itself from the rest of the pack and establish itself as Ohio's Virginia Tech or Michigan State rather than taking the Ono path and tilting at the windmill of co-flagship status or "multiple flagships" which accomplished nothing. The waste, duplication and redundancies of the other 11 campuses hold UC back much more than big, bad OSU.

Oh, I completely agree, and I've always been an advocate for a regional institution model. Instead of having all of these 20,000 person universities running budget deficits every year because they're trying to do to much, have them do what they're good at and create a regional consortium that allows students to choose between the two based on their interests and transfer between the two if need be. In a way, create a STEM environment and a Liberal Arts environment in each corner of the state with an overarching leadership for both (UT/BGSU in NWO, Akron/Kent in NEO, UC/Miami in SWO, and OU/Shawnee in SEO) with student fees pooled between the two singular and tuition being the same at either with that pooled money split per headcount. Sure that leaves out Wright State, who are dying, Cleveland State, who probably shouldn't have left municipal status, and Central State, who is it's own entity entirely...but that model works, and doesn't cause for erroneous spending.
 
09-28-2017 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TubaCat Offline
1st Chair
*

Posts: 2,403
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: Bearcats, tubas
Location: Murphy's
Post: #49
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 08:13 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 07:19 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 04:09 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:54 AM)geef Wrote:  
(09-27-2017 10:22 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  Not sure what you mean. I doubt that program is applicable to the branch campuses otherwise you'd see a literal flood of 22 ACT kids going there who qualify for the program. The student still has to get accepted at OSU-Columbus to get the free tuition, so I'm assuming that it's going to pull students away from the top quarter to fifth of the classes at other Ohio publics, say 27+ ACT kids.

I'm pretty sure that every university President in Ohio just had his admissions officer pull up this year's freshmen class stats to see how many 27+ ACT kids qualified for Pell Grants and how many of them didn't have their full tuition covered.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that comment meant either.

For Ohio State, it was an easy decision. They estimate that 3,500 students on their main campus qualify for Pell. That number will go up slightly as a result of this, but the annual cost is only $11 million. For a relatively small investment, they're doing the right thing, and they'll be getting a whole lot of positive press and leverage out of it (which, undoubtedly, is part of the equation).

It was in reference to the fact that there is an diminishing population of Pell Eligible Students who would qualify for their main campus admission standards in Ohio, thus forcing them to other campuses and likely not allowing them to take advantage of the program. This will not affect enrollment at other institutions as most of those students were already heading to OSU to begin with due to their high level of gift aid for Pell Eligible Students at the 28 ACT threshold (right about a full tuition scholarship as of last year)...I forwarded this along to a former colleague at one of the listed institutions in the OP who said it would "maybe cause a loss of 10 students per class". As you state, policies like this are for positive press, which they will receive, but inevitably do not affect much more. Please note that this only applies to tuition, not cost of attendance, so these students will still be on the books for $10,000 plus.

Also...I simply love that the fact that this is being funded by a publicly sponsored program that only OSU has the capacity to be involved in (Comprehensive Energy Management Partnership), which was created by way of state legislature to further affect the Single Flagship model. No one will ever report that.

The craziest thing is how they're a campus of 60,000 but only have 3,500 students who qualify for Pell. I bet UC quadruples that easily with 60% of the enrollment.

The 3500 number can't be correct. I've always heard that they've done a pretty good job of maintaining socio-economic diversity and haven't let themselves turn into another Miami. THIS has their Columbus campus Pell Grant recipient percentage at 23% (UC->25%). The 3500 must be the number of Pell Grant recipients who have some tuition left to pay after all grants, need based scholarships and merit scholarships are taken into consideration.

So bringing this back to that $1B addition to the endowment going to fund financial aid. At a 4.5% annual disbursement, that's going to pump out $45M/year. Be conservative and take $15M off the top for this program. That leaves another $30M for merit aid. Miami is utterly delusional if they think they are ever going to have admissions parity with (much less superiority over) OSU again.

As for griping about the single-flagship model. As I've mentioned before, that's how Ohio was set up, and it fundamentally benefited UC back in the day. Hell, it's the very reason that OSU was founded. What UC needs to do is find a way to separate itself from the rest of the pack and establish itself as Ohio's Virginia Tech or Michigan State rather than taking the Ono path and tilting at the windmill of co-flagship status or "multiple flagships" which accomplished nothing. The waste, duplication and redundancies of the other 11 campuses hold UC back much more than big, bad OSU.

Oh, I completely agree, and I've always been an advocate for a regional institution model. Instead of having all of these 20,000 person universities running budget deficits every year because they're trying to do to much, have them do what they're good at and create a regional consortium that allows students to choose between the two based on their interests and transfer between the two if need be. In a way, create a STEM environment and a Liberal Arts environment in each corner of the state with an overarching leadership for both (UT/BGSU in NWO, Akron/Kent in NEO, UC/Miami in SWO, and OU/Shawnee in SEO) with student fees pooled between the two singular and tuition being the same at either with that pooled money split per headcount. Sure that leaves out Wright State, who are dying, Cleveland State, who probably shouldn't have left municipal status, and Central State, who is it's own entity entirely...but that model works, and doesn't cause for erroneous spending.

You know more about higher education than I ever will, but being in the same tier as those schools doesn't seem to be "good for optics." Why couldn't we be the clear #2 in this state, like Michigan State or Virginia Tech? Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?
 
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2017 08:41 AM by TubaCat.)
09-28-2017 08:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bruce Monnin Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,532
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 157
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Minster, Ohio
Post: #50
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 08:30 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?

Wouldn't "a power in liberal arts" be a contradiction of terms?
 
09-28-2017 08:49 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Online
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,155
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2150
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #51
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-12-2017 10:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 10:33 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Did anyone else notice how Ohio U has tanked to 151?

The biggest issue there is the amount of brain drain they have had. If you look at intake/outflow from a transfer perspective, they are far and away the largest negative net in the state...something that wasn't happening until recently. That has effect graduation and retention rates, which both cause funding vacuums in the state of Ohio that really cannot be filled. Plus, with the downfall of the journalism industry, their most prominent college/department (Scripps College of Communication and Journalism) has fallen flat.

OU also stopped giving full rides to students with above a 30 ACT with a high GPA. Lots of very bright kids from all over used to go there for free until 3 years ago.
 
09-28-2017 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TubaCat Offline
1st Chair
*

Posts: 2,403
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: Bearcats, tubas
Location: Murphy's
Post: #52
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 08:49 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:30 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?

Wouldn't "a power in liberal arts" be a contradiction of terms?

I think a "Titan" of liberal arts might be most appropriate.
 
09-28-2017 08:52 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 24,162
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #53
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 08:30 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:13 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 07:19 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  The waste, duplication and redundancies of the other 11 campuses hold UC back much more than big, bad OSU.

Oh, I completely agree, and I've always been an advocate for a regional institution model. Instead of having all of these 20,000 person universities running budget deficits every year because they're trying to do to much, have them do what they're good at and create a regional consortium that allows students to choose between the two based on their interests and transfer between the two if need be. In a way, create a STEM environment and a Liberal Arts environment in each corner of the state with an overarching leadership for both (UT/BGSU in NWO, Akron/Kent in NEO, UC/Miami in SWO, and OU/Shawnee in SEO) with student fees pooled between the two singular and tuition being the same at either with that pooled money split per headcount. Sure that leaves out Wright State, who are dying, Cleveland State, who probably shouldn't have left municipal status, and Central State, who is it's own entity entirely...but that model works, and doesn't cause for erroneous spending.

You know more about higher education than I ever will, but being in the same tier as those schools doesn't seem to be "good for optics." Why couldn't we be the clear #2 in this state, like Michigan State or Virginia Tech? Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?

I think UC would be thrilled to be in the same tier as Miami. I'm not saying that all of them are their own tier, just that they operate as similar entities.

As for you question about STEM/Liberal Arts presence, I think that's more perception versus reality type thing. It's insane to me how many people do not know about the arts/music programs at UC even 100 miles away in Northern Ohio. There are kids constantly telling me that Kenyon and ONU are where they need to go, and I tell them that UC is globally known for performance arts programs and it's like I told them the earth was flat. The problem, if you can call it that, with the brand identity and outward marketing that UC provides is that it is by and large dedicated to the sciences. The truth of the matter is that there are many more students out there looking in STEM areas than liberal arts now, and the ones who are dedicated to liberal arts don't tend to look at urban research institutions.

I still personally think UC missed a golden opportunity when they went state/public to switch to Ohio Polytechnic Institute and State University. From what I was told, that was at one point on the table way back when.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2017 09:25 AM by BearcatMan.)
09-28-2017 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcat 1985 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 805
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #54
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 09:22 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:30 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:13 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 07:19 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  The waste, duplication and redundancies of the other 11 campuses hold UC back much more than big, bad OSU.

Oh, I completely agree, and I've always been an advocate for a regional institution model. Instead of having all of these 20,000 person universities running budget deficits every year because they're trying to do to much, have them do what they're good at and create a regional consortium that allows students to choose between the two based on their interests and transfer between the two if need be. In a way, create a STEM environment and a Liberal Arts environment in each corner of the state with an overarching leadership for both (UT/BGSU in NWO, Akron/Kent in NEO, UC/Miami in SWO, and OU/Shawnee in SEO) with student fees pooled between the two singular and tuition being the same at either with that pooled money split per headcount. Sure that leaves out Wright State, who are dying, Cleveland State, who probably shouldn't have left municipal status, and Central State, who is it's own entity entirely...but that model works, and doesn't cause for erroneous spending.

You know more about higher education than I ever will, but being in the same tier as those schools doesn't seem to be "good for optics." Why couldn't we be the clear #2 in this state, like Michigan State or Virginia Tech? Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?

I think UC would be thrilled to be in the same tier as Miami. I'm not saying that all of them are their own tier, just that they operate as similar entities.

As for you question about STEM/Liberal Arts presence, I think that's more perception versus reality type thing. It's insane to me how many people do not know about the arts/music programs at UC even 100 miles away in Northern Ohio. There are kids constantly telling me that Kenyon and ONU are where they need to go, and I tell them that UC is globally known for performance arts programs and it's like I told them the earth was flat. The problem, if you can call it that, with the brand identity and outward marketing that UC provides is that it is by and large dedicated to the sciences. The truth of the matter is that there are many more students out there looking in STEM areas than liberal arts now, and the ones who are dedicated to liberal arts don't tend to look at urban research institutions.

I still personally think UC missed a golden opportunity when they went state/public to switch to Ohio Polytechnic Institute and State University. From what I was told, that was at one point on the table way back when.

If UC is ever going to get into the AAU, it can't neglect the classical arts, humanities and hard sciences. The AAU cautions existing members not to shortchange them in pursuit of med and engineering research dollars. For a new university to get an invite, I think two assumptions can be made. First, it can't simply be equal to the bottom tier of AAU schools by the various research and faculty quality metrics. UC would probably need to rank around the median for existing public members. Second, it needs to be a well respected, comprehensive university and that starts with the foundation of traditional arts & sciences.
 
09-28-2017 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TubaCat Offline
1st Chair
*

Posts: 2,403
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: Bearcats, tubas
Location: Murphy's
Post: #55
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 09:22 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:30 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:13 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 07:19 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  The waste, duplication and redundancies of the other 11 campuses hold UC back much more than big, bad OSU.

Oh, I completely agree, and I've always been an advocate for a regional institution model. Instead of having all of these 20,000 person universities running budget deficits every year because they're trying to do to much, have them do what they're good at and create a regional consortium that allows students to choose between the two based on their interests and transfer between the two if need be. In a way, create a STEM environment and a Liberal Arts environment in each corner of the state with an overarching leadership for both (UT/BGSU in NWO, Akron/Kent in NEO, UC/Miami in SWO, and OU/Shawnee in SEO) with student fees pooled between the two singular and tuition being the same at either with that pooled money split per headcount. Sure that leaves out Wright State, who are dying, Cleveland State, who probably shouldn't have left municipal status, and Central State, who is it's own entity entirely...but that model works, and doesn't cause for erroneous spending.

You know more about higher education than I ever will, but being in the same tier as those schools doesn't seem to be "good for optics." Why couldn't we be the clear #2 in this state, like Michigan State or Virginia Tech? Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?

I think UC would be thrilled to be in the same tier as Miami. I'm not saying that all of them are their own tier, just that they operate as similar entities.

As for you question about STEM/Liberal Arts presence, I think that's more perception versus reality type thing. It's insane to me how many people do not know about the arts/music programs at UC even 100 miles away in Northern Ohio. There are kids constantly telling me that Kenyon and ONU are where they need to go, and I tell them that UC is globally known for performance arts programs and it's like I told them the earth was flat. The problem, if you can call it that, with the brand identity and outward marketing that UC provides is that it is by and large dedicated to the sciences. The truth of the matter is that there are many more students out there looking in STEM areas than liberal arts now, and the ones who are dedicated to liberal arts don't tend to look at urban research institutions.

I still personally think UC missed a golden opportunity when they went state/public to switch to Ohio Polytechnic Institute and State University. From what I was told, that was at one point on the table way back when.

Thanks for your response. That makes a lot of sense to me, and we don't seem to get as much recognition as we should for those programs. I can also see the potential value in rebranding back when UC joined the state system.

What is the likelihood or timeline, in your opinion, that UC could catch up to or surpass Miami in USNWR metrics? From my limited knowledge, I could see it possibly happening in about 20 years, but it wouldn't be easy or cheap.
 
09-28-2017 09:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 24,162
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #56
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 09:56 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 09:22 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:30 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:13 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 07:19 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  The waste, duplication and redundancies of the other 11 campuses hold UC back much more than big, bad OSU.

Oh, I completely agree, and I've always been an advocate for a regional institution model. Instead of having all of these 20,000 person universities running budget deficits every year because they're trying to do to much, have them do what they're good at and create a regional consortium that allows students to choose between the two based on their interests and transfer between the two if need be. In a way, create a STEM environment and a Liberal Arts environment in each corner of the state with an overarching leadership for both (UT/BGSU in NWO, Akron/Kent in NEO, UC/Miami in SWO, and OU/Shawnee in SEO) with student fees pooled between the two singular and tuition being the same at either with that pooled money split per headcount. Sure that leaves out Wright State, who are dying, Cleveland State, who probably shouldn't have left municipal status, and Central State, who is it's own entity entirely...but that model works, and doesn't cause for erroneous spending.

You know more about higher education than I ever will, but being in the same tier as those schools doesn't seem to be "good for optics." Why couldn't we be the clear #2 in this state, like Michigan State or Virginia Tech? Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?

I think UC would be thrilled to be in the same tier as Miami. I'm not saying that all of them are their own tier, just that they operate as similar entities.

As for you question about STEM/Liberal Arts presence, I think that's more perception versus reality type thing. It's insane to me how many people do not know about the arts/music programs at UC even 100 miles away in Northern Ohio. There are kids constantly telling me that Kenyon and ONU are where they need to go, and I tell them that UC is globally known for performance arts programs and it's like I told them the earth was flat. The problem, if you can call it that, with the brand identity and outward marketing that UC provides is that it is by and large dedicated to the sciences. The truth of the matter is that there are many more students out there looking in STEM areas than liberal arts now, and the ones who are dedicated to liberal arts don't tend to look at urban research institutions.

I still personally think UC missed a golden opportunity when they went state/public to switch to Ohio Polytechnic Institute and State University. From what I was told, that was at one point on the table way back when.

Thanks for your response. That makes a lot of sense to me, and we don't seem to get as much recognition as we should for those programs. I can also see the potential value in rebranding back when UC joined the state system.

What is the likelihood or timeline, in your opinion, that UC could catch up to or surpass Miami in USNWR metrics? From my limited knowledge, I could see it possibly happening in about 20 years, but it wouldn't be easy or cheap.

I don't know that they ever will, as that specific ranking system favors schools like Miami over UC and it requires the student population to improve and UC isn't in the position to be able to pull what OSU did and just cut off it's foot for a few years to save it's leg. Plus, by nature of it being a ranking system, it would also rely on schools above it to falter, and I don't see many really doing that either. The "meteoric rise" in that ranking system was due to so many schools being grouped so close together in quality, not necessarily because the programs at UC got that much better.
 
09-28-2017 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OKIcat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,619
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #57
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 12:29 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 09:56 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 09:22 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:30 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:13 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Oh, I completely agree, and I've always been an advocate for a regional institution model. Instead of having all of these 20,000 person universities running budget deficits every year because they're trying to do to much, have them do what they're good at and create a regional consortium that allows students to choose between the two based on their interests and transfer between the two if need be. In a way, create a STEM environment and a Liberal Arts environment in each corner of the state with an overarching leadership for both (UT/BGSU in NWO, Akron/Kent in NEO, UC/Miami in SWO, and OU/Shawnee in SEO) with student fees pooled between the two singular and tuition being the same at either with that pooled money split per headcount. Sure that leaves out Wright State, who are dying, Cleveland State, who probably shouldn't have left municipal status, and Central State, who is it's own entity entirely...but that model works, and doesn't cause for erroneous spending.

You know more about higher education than I ever will, but being in the same tier as those schools doesn't seem to be "good for optics." Why couldn't we be the clear #2 in this state, like Michigan State or Virginia Tech? Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?

I think UC would be thrilled to be in the same tier as Miami. I'm not saying that all of them are their own tier, just that they operate as similar entities.

As for you question about STEM/Liberal Arts presence, I think that's more perception versus reality type thing. It's insane to me how many people do not know about the arts/music programs at UC even 100 miles away in Northern Ohio. There are kids constantly telling me that Kenyon and ONU are where they need to go, and I tell them that UC is globally known for performance arts programs and it's like I told them the earth was flat. The problem, if you can call it that, with the brand identity and outward marketing that UC provides is that it is by and large dedicated to the sciences. The truth of the matter is that there are many more students out there looking in STEM areas than liberal arts now, and the ones who are dedicated to liberal arts don't tend to look at urban research institutions.

I still personally think UC missed a golden opportunity when they went state/public to switch to Ohio Polytechnic Institute and State University. From what I was told, that was at one point on the table way back when.

Thanks for your response. That makes a lot of sense to me, and we don't seem to get as much recognition as we should for those programs. I can also see the potential value in rebranding back when UC joined the state system.

What is the likelihood or timeline, in your opinion, that UC could catch up to or surpass Miami in USNWR metrics? From my limited knowledge, I could see it possibly happening in about 20 years, but it wouldn't be easy or cheap.

I don't know that they ever will, as that specific ranking system favors schools like Miami over UC and it requires the student population to improve and UC isn't in the position to be able to pull what OSU did and just cut off it's foot for a few years to save it's leg. Plus, by nature of it being a ranking system, it would also rely on schools above it to falter, and I don't see many really doing that either. The "meteoric rise" in that ranking system was due to so many schools being grouped so close together in quality, not necessarily because the programs at UC got that much better.

BearcatMan, well stated regarding UC and Miami. Miami has carved out a very unique spot in public higher education. I'm thrilled about the strides UC has made and continues to make in the rankings. I've always seen the missions of the two universities so differently that I don't see their admissions standard as a benchmark for UC. Pitt, maybe; Miami (O) not so much.
 
09-28-2017 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcat 1985 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 805
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #58
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-28-2017 01:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 12:29 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 09:56 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 09:22 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 08:30 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  You know more about higher education than I ever will, but being in the same tier as those schools doesn't seem to be "good for optics." Why couldn't we be the clear #2 in this state, like Michigan State or Virginia Tech? Is there a reason why we can't be a power in both STEM and liberal arts?

I think UC would be thrilled to be in the same tier as Miami. I'm not saying that all of them are their own tier, just that they operate as similar entities.

As for you question about STEM/Liberal Arts presence, I think that's more perception versus reality type thing. It's insane to me how many people do not know about the arts/music programs at UC even 100 miles away in Northern Ohio. There are kids constantly telling me that Kenyon and ONU are where they need to go, and I tell them that UC is globally known for performance arts programs and it's like I told them the earth was flat. The problem, if you can call it that, with the brand identity and outward marketing that UC provides is that it is by and large dedicated to the sciences. The truth of the matter is that there are many more students out there looking in STEM areas than liberal arts now, and the ones who are dedicated to liberal arts don't tend to look at urban research institutions.

I still personally think UC missed a golden opportunity when they went state/public to switch to Ohio Polytechnic Institute and State University. From what I was told, that was at one point on the table way back when.

Thanks for your response. That makes a lot of sense to me, and we don't seem to get as much recognition as we should for those programs. I can also see the potential value in rebranding back when UC joined the state system.

What is the likelihood or timeline, in your opinion, that UC could catch up to or surpass Miami in USNWR metrics? From my limited knowledge, I could see it possibly happening in about 20 years, but it wouldn't be easy or cheap.

I don't know that they ever will, as that specific ranking system favors schools like Miami over UC and it requires the student population to improve and UC isn't in the position to be able to pull what OSU did and just cut off it's foot for a few years to save it's leg. Plus, by nature of it being a ranking system, it would also rely on schools above it to falter, and I don't see many really doing that either. The "meteoric rise" in that ranking system was due to so many schools being grouped so close together in quality, not necessarily because the programs at UC got that much better.

BearcatMan, well stated regarding UC and Miami. Miami has carved out a very unique spot in public higher education. I'm thrilled about the strides UC has made and continues to make in the rankings. I've always seen the missions of the two universities so differently that I don't see their admissions standard as a benchmark for UC. Pitt, maybe; Miami (O) not so much.

Without checking, I'd bet Pitt's admission standards are higher than Miami's and probably somewhere close to OSU. That being said, we're closer to Miami than most people, even UC people, would think. Average freshman ACT at Miami this year was 28 versus 25.7 at UC. Recent classes should also improve UC's marks in retention and six-year grad rates.

All that being said, BearcatMan is correct that it will be hard to catch Miami. The freshman ACT score will start to plateau. We saw a dramatic jump with the move away from open admissions, but the higher up the food chain we go, the harder the competition will be. It's much easier to convince a 26 ACT kid from Cincy to stay home over OU or Toledo than it is to convince a 30 ACT kid from Cleveland to choose UC over OSU, Miami or out of state. And as BCM noted, UC doesn't have the financial cushion to just lop off the bottom five or six hundred students in the class to improve the numbers.

Miami's recruiting though isn't all that stable. They're keeping their numbers up and somewhat competitive with OSU by trolling the Chicago suburbs for kids shot down by Big Ten schools. I'm not exaggerating. They literally put billboards up all over the Chicago suburbs. 25% of their freshman classes are coming from the Chicago area these days. That of course could change if there was a severe economic downturn that dissuaded upper middle class parents in Illinois from sending their kids out of state for college.

I think some realistic 10 year goals for UC would be the following:
-Crack the US News top 100/top 50 public, which puts us in roughly the same grouping as Miami
-Get to within 2 points of Miami for average freshman ACT
-Improve our position as the undisputed #2 grad/research public in the state
-Improve and broaden our strengths and rankings to areas outside of medicine, DAAP and engineering.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2017 07:27 AM by Bearcat 1985.)
09-29-2017 06:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatMan Offline
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
*

Posts: 24,162
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #59
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-29-2017 06:54 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 01:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 12:29 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 09:56 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 09:22 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I think UC would be thrilled to be in the same tier as Miami. I'm not saying that all of them are their own tier, just that they operate as similar entities.

As for you question about STEM/Liberal Arts presence, I think that's more perception versus reality type thing. It's insane to me how many people do not know about the arts/music programs at UC even 100 miles away in Northern Ohio. There are kids constantly telling me that Kenyon and ONU are where they need to go, and I tell them that UC is globally known for performance arts programs and it's like I told them the earth was flat. The problem, if you can call it that, with the brand identity and outward marketing that UC provides is that it is by and large dedicated to the sciences. The truth of the matter is that there are many more students out there looking in STEM areas than liberal arts now, and the ones who are dedicated to liberal arts don't tend to look at urban research institutions.

I still personally think UC missed a golden opportunity when they went state/public to switch to Ohio Polytechnic Institute and State University. From what I was told, that was at one point on the table way back when.

Thanks for your response. That makes a lot of sense to me, and we don't seem to get as much recognition as we should for those programs. I can also see the potential value in rebranding back when UC joined the state system.

What is the likelihood or timeline, in your opinion, that UC could catch up to or surpass Miami in USNWR metrics? From my limited knowledge, I could see it possibly happening in about 20 years, but it wouldn't be easy or cheap.

I don't know that they ever will, as that specific ranking system favors schools like Miami over UC and it requires the student population to improve and UC isn't in the position to be able to pull what OSU did and just cut off it's foot for a few years to save it's leg. Plus, by nature of it being a ranking system, it would also rely on schools above it to falter, and I don't see many really doing that either. The "meteoric rise" in that ranking system was due to so many schools being grouped so close together in quality, not necessarily because the programs at UC got that much better.

BearcatMan, well stated regarding UC and Miami. Miami has carved out a very unique spot in public higher education. I'm thrilled about the strides UC has made and continues to make in the rankings. I've always seen the missions of the two universities so differently that I don't see their admissions standard as a benchmark for UC. Pitt, maybe; Miami (O) not so much.

Without checking, I'd bet Pitt's admission standards are higher than Miami's and probably somewhere close to OSU. That being said, we're closer to Miami than most people, even UC people, would think. Average freshman ACT at Miami this year was 28 versus 25.7 at UC. Recent classes should also improve UC's marks in retention and six-year grad rates.

All that being said, BearcatMan is correct that it will be hard to catch Miami. The freshman ACT score will start to plateau. We saw a dramatic jump with the move away from open admissions, but the higher up the food chain we go, the harder the competition will be. It's much easier to convince a 26 ACT kid from Cincy to stay home over OU or Toledo than it is to convince a 30 ACT kid from Cleveland to choose UC over OSU, Miami or out of state. And as BCM noted, UC doesn't have the financial cushion to just lop off the bottom five or six hundred students in the class to improve the numbers.

Miami's recruiting though isn't all that stable. They're keeping their numbers up and somewhat competitive with OSU by trolling the Chicago suburbs for kids shot down by Big Ten schools. I'm not exaggerating. They literally put billboards up all over the Chicago suburbs. 25% of their freshman classes are coming from the Chicago area these days. That of course could change if there was a severe economic downturn that dissuaded upper middle class parents in Illinois from sending their kids out of state for college.

I think some realistic 10 year goals for UC would be the following:
-Crack the US News top 100/top 50 public, which puts us in roughly the same grouping as Miami
-Get to within 2 points of Miami for average freshman ACT
-Improve our position as the undisputed #2 grad/research public in the state
-Improve and broaden our strengths and rankings to areas outside of medicine, DAAP and engineering.

Pitt's are much higher than Miami's.

And I think your 10-year goals are very doable given the current landscape. With a president who was formerly a Dean and Faculty within Engineering, however...I doubt that last one will happen. They're going to work on the majors that matter to the wider masses, which is medical-related (nursing, medicine, therapeutic sciences, and pharmacy), engineering, business, and DAAP at UC.
 
09-29-2017 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcat 1985 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 805
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #60
RE: 2018 USNWR Rankings
(09-29-2017 07:33 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-29-2017 06:54 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 01:05 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 12:29 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
(09-28-2017 09:56 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Thanks for your response. That makes a lot of sense to me, and we don't seem to get as much recognition as we should for those programs. I can also see the potential value in rebranding back when UC joined the state system.

What is the likelihood or timeline, in your opinion, that UC could catch up to or surpass Miami in USNWR metrics? From my limited knowledge, I could see it possibly happening in about 20 years, but it wouldn't be easy or cheap.

I don't know that they ever will, as that specific ranking system favors schools like Miami over UC and it requires the student population to improve and UC isn't in the position to be able to pull what OSU did and just cut off it's foot for a few years to save it's leg. Plus, by nature of it being a ranking system, it would also rely on schools above it to falter, and I don't see many really doing that either. The "meteoric rise" in that ranking system was due to so many schools being grouped so close together in quality, not necessarily because the programs at UC got that much better.

BearcatMan, well stated regarding UC and Miami. Miami has carved out a very unique spot in public higher education. I'm thrilled about the strides UC has made and continues to make in the rankings. I've always seen the missions of the two universities so differently that I don't see their admissions standard as a benchmark for UC. Pitt, maybe; Miami (O) not so much.

Without checking, I'd bet Pitt's admission standards are higher than Miami's and probably somewhere close to OSU. That being said, we're closer to Miami than most people, even UC people, would think. Average freshman ACT at Miami this year was 28 versus 25.7 at UC. Recent classes should also improve UC's marks in retention and six-year grad rates.

All that being said, BearcatMan is correct that it will be hard to catch Miami. The freshman ACT score will start to plateau. We saw a dramatic jump with the move away from open admissions, but the higher up the food chain we go, the harder the competition will be. It's much easier to convince a 26 ACT kid from Cincy to stay home over OU or Toledo than it is to convince a 30 ACT kid from Cleveland to choose UC over OSU, Miami or out of state. And as BCM noted, UC doesn't have the financial cushion to just lop off the bottom five or six hundred students in the class to improve the numbers.

Miami's recruiting though isn't all that stable. They're keeping their numbers up and somewhat competitive with OSU by trolling the Chicago suburbs for kids shot down by Big Ten schools. I'm not exaggerating. They literally put billboards up all over the Chicago suburbs. 25% of their freshman classes are coming from the Chicago area these days. That of course could change if there was a severe economic downturn that dissuaded upper middle class parents in Illinois from sending their kids out of state for college.

I think some realistic 10 year goals for UC would be the following:
-Crack the US News top 100/top 50 public, which puts us in roughly the same grouping as Miami
-Get to within 2 points of Miami for average freshman ACT
-Improve our position as the undisputed #2 grad/research public in the state
-Improve and broaden our strengths and rankings to areas outside of medicine, DAAP and engineering.

Pitt's are much higher than Miami's.

And I think your 10-year goals are very doable given the current landscape. With a president who was formerly a Dean and Faculty within Engineering, however...I doubt that last one will happen. They're going to work on the majors that matter to the wider masses, which is medical-related (nursing, medicine, therapeutic sciences, and pharmacy), engineering, business, and DAAP at UC.

You're probably right, which is a shame because it probably keeps us out of the AAU. Beyond the hard metrics (research funding, federal research funding, research$ per tenured faculty, National Academy members and so on) there are some soft, and largely unspoken, metrics that affect the vote. Those include the strength and reputation of arts & science departments (history, economics, physics, astronomy and so on). Even a school as well respected as Georgia Tech was kept out of the AAU for a long time based on the perception that they were too one-dimensional.
 
09-29-2017 07:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.