(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  And to answer your question about Harvard, much of its reputation comes from its size. Compare its law school with (insert random law school here) and compare its business school with (insert random school here). To imply that the professors at Williams are not at the top of their field is silly. Similarly, to suggest that Harvard has a reputation that is better than Williams is also silly, but admittedly true to some extent (weirdly enough). Harvard is certainly better known (see size), but, amongst those who know what they are talking about, it isn't seen as being tangibly better than the universities that you named. Unfortunately for Williams et pals, many (who have no idea what they're talking about) look down on Williams and every other small New England college because there is a terrible (and untrue) stereotype that small liberal arts schools are somehow worse than big schools (aka degree factories) and their grads are unprepared for the real world. However, Williams grads still manage to get jobs, so I don't feel too bad for them.

BTW, Harvard kicks everyone's ass when it comes to cross admits. I haven't seen the stats, but I'm willing to bet that Harvard demolishes Williams in cross admit yield as well.

I'm not sure who these "people who know what they are talking about" are who think Williams is a better school than Harvard. I'm going to guess Williams alums?

(04-23-2013 01:59 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  And to answer your question about Harvard, much of its reputation comes from its size. Compare its law school with (insert random law school here) and compare its business school with (insert random school here). To imply that the professors at Williams are not at the top of their field is silly. Similarly, to suggest that Harvard has a reputation that is better than Williams is also silly, but admittedly true to some extent (weirdly enough). Harvard is certainly better known (see size), but, amongst those who know what they are talking about, it isn't seen as being tangibly better than the universities that you named. Unfortunately for Williams et pals, many (who have no idea what they're talking about) look down on Williams and every other small New England college because there is a terrible (and untrue) stereotype that small liberal arts schools are somehow worse than big schools (aka degree factories) and their grads are unprepared for the real world. However, Williams grads still manage to get jobs, so I don't feel too bad for them.

BTW, Harvard kicks everyone's ass when it comes to cross admits. I haven't seen the stats, but I'm willing to bet that Harvard demolishes Williams in cross admit yield as well.

I'm not sure who these "people who know what they are talking about" are who think Williams is a better school than Harvard. I'm going to guess Williams alums?

Evidently you don’t know what the phrase “isn’t tangibly better” means.

(04-22-2013 02:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  As a general message, I don't get why everyone here is freaking out like I said that it was a bad move. I simply said that I didn't know enough about the move to understand it, and then I asked for the missing infor.

This board is in constant attack mode. If this message board was a bar, it would be the Double Deuce from Roadhouse. Maybe we could take a poll on who would be Dalton.

(04-23-2013 01:55 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I do not dispute that UC Berkley is a good school, and I do not dispute that Rutgers is a good school, but unlike UC Boulder, they have a measureable reputation for being good. Many complain about the way US News does its rankings, but I have yet to hear anyone, including you, claim that it wasn't at least a popularity contest that based schools on reputations. Rutgers is around #60 UC Berkley is around #20, Harvard is around #1, and UC Boulder is around #100. You might have a point if any one of those schools that you mentioned had a strong reputation but a weak ranking, but none of them do. Your logic argument (there's a better word, but it isn't coming to me) that “Cal, Harvard, and RU are all good schools and they all do a lot of research, therefore doing research makes a school good” isn't valid. It would be like me saying that Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, and Florida are all HUGE southern schools and field football teams that are more followed than Miami, a smallish private school. Therefore, for a school to have a substantial following, it must be in the south and it must be a HUGE public school. Furthermore, since UCF is in the south and HUGE, it must have a strong following. Obviously that reasoning doesn't hold water. UCF doesn't have a strong following and some small private schools in the north do (i.e. Notre Dame).

You can search my post history. I've made several posts defending the US News rankings are the most accurate...when it comes to undergrad. But college realignment is not about undergrad rankings. It's about large research schools. AAU and all that jazz.

Stop using undergrad rankings in discussions about academics that are desirable to conferences like the PAC and B1G.

Yes, Penn State (77,000 undergrads and 14,000 grads) demanded Rutgers and Maryland because they thought that it would improve their grad schools' profile by association.

The B1G added Nebraska for its strong gaduate programs, and not its football team, and the B1G really, really cares about AAU membership, even though multiple B1G schools votes in favor of revoking UNL's AAU membership.

The ND has a standing offer from the B1G because they are in the AAU and not because they have great undergraduate academics, great olympic sports, decent basketball, and elite football. In fact, there was a rumor that Syracuse, Pitt, and ND were in talks with the B1G before all 3 ended up going to the ACC. I'm sure that's because SU is an AAU member, like ND.

FSU, Wake Forest, and Clemson demanded UL because they thought that it would improve their grad schools' profile.

Virginia Tech was added to the ACC because of the strength of their grad schools, and not because the gov. of Virginia at the time was a big Tech supporter and refused to let UVA vote in favor of adding Miami unless VPI was also included.

Miami was also added for its grad school, not it's killer football program and well-respected undergrad academics.

The ACC has flirted with Syracuse since 1991 because of its grad schools and not undergrad academics, basketball, football, and lax.

West Virginia was added to the Big XII to raise the conference's graduate academic profile.

Want me to keep going?


The CIC, ACCAIC, SECCIC, SECAC, etc. are little more than pooled purchasing groups. Admittedly the CIC is experimenting with ...joint UNDERGRADUATE classes (lightning strike), which I think is the way of the future. But as of right now, the main advantage to CIC-like organizations is achieving economies of scale when buying products. To think that a school will be added in an effort to make pencils $0.000000002 cheaper is laughable. However, adding a school so that the ...undergrad (lightning strike again) students of that school are exposed to four years of your school's marketing materials is not laughable.

You've thrown out #97 in the US News report ranking as if it is not in line with other PAC12 school's academics. However, you are incorrect about that.
Of the PAC12 schools CU @ #97 is behind the 4 California schools and the University of Washington. So, using the US News rankings it is 6th in academics among PAC12 schools. In addition, as others have mention it is an AAU School (there are only 34).
While the football team has been in the wilderness for a while, the men's basketball team has made 2 straight NCAA tournaments since joining the PAC.
Colorado is a fit in every conceivable category for the PAC12 (and the PAC had been trying to lure them over for years)--that's why they were invited.

If you are trying to say that CU football is dreadful (and recently it has been) and therefore, CU shouldn't have been invited because it is the only criteria that mattered in conference realignment that is a different discussion. I would say its a rather short-sighted view of conference realignment, but to each their own.

Why is CU (not UC) in the PAC? I'll give you almost one billion reasons. The CU and its non-sports sister school UC-Denver, were awarded almost $1,000,000,000 in research grants last year. Much of it is for joint research with the PAC 12 schools.

The PAC 10 first started looking at CU in the early 1990's. In 1994, the CU Board of Regents voted 5-4 against accepting an imminent invitation to the PAC to go with Texas to the new Big 12. Notice, that I did not say they voted to stay with their Big 8 mates. CU had extensive ties to UT, and decided to go with them when UT advised the PAC 10 that they were not interested.

And, yes, it is strange that it is CU-Boulder and UC-Denver.

(04-23-2013 09:19 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  You've thrown out #97 in the US News report ranking as if it is not in line with other PAC12 school's academics. However, you are incorrect about that.
Of the PAC12 schools CU @ #97 is behind the 4 California schools and the University of Washington. So, using the US News rankings it is 6th in academics among PAC12 schools. In addition, as others have mention it is an AAU School (there are only 34).
While the football team has been in the wilderness for a while, the men's basketball team has made 2 straight NCAA tournaments since joining the PAC.
Colorado is a fit in every conceivable category for the PAC12 (and the PAC had been trying to lure them over for years)--that's why they were invited.

If you are trying to say that CU football is dreadful (and recently it has been) and therefore, CU shouldn't have been invited because it is the only criteria that mattered in conference realignment that is a different discussion. I would say its a rather short-sighted view of conference realignment, but to each their own.

Stop being dramatic. You're making it sound like I am trying to argue that CU to the Pac was a bad move. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind it. It was a question.

You also distorted much of what I said. I said "[CU isn't] consistently good in football." I never said "CU football is dreadful."

I said "[t]o clarify, I am not trying to put UC Boulder down. I am just saying I don't see it being elite enough to warrant an academic add. IMO, that is very hard to do and requires having the reputation of Duke, NW, and/or Stanford. I do cede that (obviously) the academics are good-enough to not block an invite (i.e. what would happen if Syracuse* tried to get into the IVY League), and I have never said, or meant to indicate otherwise." I never mentioned "#97 in the US News report ranking as if it is not in line with other PAC12 school's academics." I may have said that it was below average for the conference (and it is), but I never said that it was out of left field. And yes, people have mentioned its status as an AAU school, but nobody has been able to put together a coherent argument that explains why that matters.

I don't think that I ever said CU bball was bad. I just said that it wasn't especially good (I believe my exact words were "[CU isn't] any good in basketball"). The fact that "the men's basketball team has made 2 straight NCAA tournaments since joining the PAC" isn't terribly impressive. Many schools make the tourney most years. Actually, the fact that you are boasting about just making the tourney kind of proves my point. CU isn't a basketball power. Obviously the team isn't bad enough to block an invite, but it's not like CU is Duke and might get an invite because of the team.

Finally, it is my understanding that UC has been trying to get into the Pac for years, not the other way around. [EDIT: In light of the previous post, my understanding may be flawed. I do not claim to be an expert on CU Boulder/Pac 10/12 happenings, nor have I ever made that claim.]

(04-23-2013 09:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Stop being dramatic. You're making it sound like I am trying to argue that CU to the Pac was a bad move. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind it. It was a question.

You also distorted much of what I said. I said "[CU isn't] consistently good in football." I never said "CU football is dreadful."

I said "[t]o clarify, I am not trying to put UC Boulder down. I am just saying I don't see it being elite enough to warrant an academic add. IMO, that is very hard to do and requires having the reputation of Duke, NW, and/or Stanford. I do cede that (obviously) the academics are good-enough to not block an invite (i.e. what would happen if Syracuse* tried to get into the IVY League), and I have never said, or meant to indicate otherwise." I never mentioned "#97 in the US News report ranking as if it is not in line with other PAC12 school's academics." I may have said that it was below average for the conference (and it is), but I never said that it was out of left field. And yes, people have mentioned its status as an AAU school, but nobody has been able to put together a coherent argument that explains why that matters.

I don't think that I ever said CU bball was bad. I just said that it wasn't especially good (I believe my exact words were "[CU isn't] any good in basketball"). The fact that "the men's basketball team has made 2 straight NCAA tournaments since joining the PAC" isn't terribly impressive. Many schools make the tourney most years. Actually, the fact that you are boasting about just making the tourney kind of proves my point. CU isn't a basketball power. Obviously the team isn't bad enough to block an invite, but it's not like CU is Duke and might get an invite because of the team.

Finally, it is my understanding that UC has been trying to get into the Pac for years, not the other way around. [EDIT: In light of the previous post, my understanding may be flawed. I do not claim to be an expert on CU Boulder/Pac 10/12 happenings, nor have I ever made that claim.]

I'm not being dramatic, simply answering the question you posed. You don't have to like the answers but that doesn't mean they aren't true. How can CU academics be, your words, "below average for the conference" when they are in fact in THE TOP HALF of the conference according to the report you want to use. You can choose to ignore other factors because you feel they haven't been adequately explained--but your own metric shows they are the sixth best academic school in the PAC. That's not below average.

You are correct about CU basketball, it isn't a household name ala syracuse. But my point was it has a pulse unlike some football dominated BCS schools.

In the end, now that CU and Utah have been added the PAC has zero expansion options. The PAC12 expanded because 2 schools within (or close to) their regional footprint added significant value in lots of different areas but most importantly to the bottom line. CU wasn't an academic add, they were an everything add.

The PAC12 tried to make a play for Texas but it fell through. At this point, unless Texas changes its mind (something I think most consider highly unlikely) the PAC will be at 12 for a decade+. Additionally, CU probably wouldn't be in favor of adding the Big12 schools because it would likely cut CU off from California. No other schools near their footprint (this includes Oklahoma and Ok St by themselves) bring enough to the table or fit culturally.

(04-23-2013 10:16 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 09:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Stop being dramatic. You're making it sound like I am trying to argue that CU to the Pac was a bad move. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind it. It was a question.

You also distorted much of what I said. I said "[CU isn't] consistently good in football." I never said "CU football is dreadful."

I said "[t]o clarify, I am not trying to put UC Boulder down. I am just saying I don't see it being elite enough to warrant an academic add. IMO, that is very hard to do and requires having the reputation of Duke, NW, and/or Stanford. I do cede that (obviously) the academics are good-enough to not block an invite (i.e. what would happen if Syracuse* tried to get into the IVY League), and I have never said, or meant to indicate otherwise." I never mentioned "#97 in the US News report ranking as if it is not in line with other PAC12 school's academics." I may have said that it was below average for the conference (and it is), but I never said that it was out of left field. And yes, people have mentioned its status as an AAU school, but nobody has been able to put together a coherent argument that explains why that matters.

I don't think that I ever said CU bball was bad. I just said that it wasn't especially good (I believe my exact words were "[CU isn't] any good in basketball"). The fact that "the men's basketball team has made 2 straight NCAA tournaments since joining the PAC" isn't terribly impressive. Many schools make the tourney most years. Actually, the fact that you are boasting about just making the tourney kind of proves my point. CU isn't a basketball power. Obviously the team isn't bad enough to block an invite, but it's not like CU is Duke and might get an invite because of the team.

Finally, it is my understanding that UC has been trying to get into the Pac for years, not the other way around. [EDIT: In light of the previous post, my understanding may be flawed. I do not claim to be an expert on CU Boulder/Pac 10/12 happenings, nor have I ever made that claim.]

I'm not being dramatic, simply answering the question you posed. You don't have to like the answers but that doesn't mean they aren't true. How can CU academics be, your words, "below average for the conference" when they are in fact in THE TOP HALF of the conference according to the report you want to use. You can choose to ignore other factors because you feel they haven't been adequately explained--but your own metric shows they are the sixth best academic school in the PAC. That's not below average.

You are correct about CU basketball, it isn't a household name ala syracuse. But my point was it has a pulse unlike some football dominated BCS schools.

In the end, now that CU and Utah have been added the PAC has zero expansion options. The PAC12 expanded because 2 schools within (or close to) their regional footprint added significant value in lots of different areas but most importantly to the bottom line. CU wasn't an academic add, they were an everything add.

The PAC12 tried to make a play for Texas but it fell through. At this point, unless Texas changes its mind (something I think most consider highly unlikely) the PAC will be at 12 for a decade+. Additionally, CU probably wouldn't be in favor of adding the Big12 schools because it would likely cut CU off from California. No other schools near their footprint (this includes Oklahoma and Ok St by themselves) bring enough to the table or fit culturally.

No. They are above the "media," but below the "mean." "Average" means "mean."

2, 8, and 10 have a median of 8 and an average of 6.67. 7 is below the median but above the average. If these were school rankings, where having a numerically low number is a high ranking, 7 would be below the average, but above the median. You keep mistaking the median for the average. I never said anything about the median. I only commented on the average.

(04-23-2013 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

No. They are above the "media," but below the "mean." "Average" means "mean."

No, it doesn't. Average is a colloquial term under which terms like mean, median and mode (for example), which have mathematical definitions, fall.

You argue that CU doesn't belong in the Pac-12 because of its academics. It is clearly among peers at both the undergraduate and graduate level as well (as other people pointed out) as culturally.

US News Ranking

Arizona: 120
ASU: 139
Berkeley: 21
CU: 94
Oregon: 115
Oregon State: 139
Stanford: 6
UCLA: 24
USC: 24
Utah: 125
Washington: 46
Washington State: 115



Since you refuse to accept any of the valid points that people have made to answer your question, you must be messing about. I have to say that when I was brushing my teeth last night, I realized that I have been well and truly trolled.

(04-23-2013 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:16 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 09:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Stop being dramatic. You're making it sound like I am trying to argue that CU to the Pac was a bad move. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind it. It was a question.

You also distorted much of what I said. I said "[CU isn't] consistently good in football." I never said "CU football is dreadful."

I said "[t]o clarify, I am not trying to put UC Boulder down. I am just saying I don't see it being elite enough to warrant an academic add. IMO, that is very hard to do and requires having the reputation of Duke, NW, and/or Stanford. I do cede that (obviously) the academics are good-enough to not block an invite (i.e. what would happen if Syracuse* tried to get into the IVY League), and I have never said, or meant to indicate otherwise." I never mentioned "#97 in the US News report ranking as if it is not in line with other PAC12 school's academics." I may have said that it was below average for the conference (and it is), but I never said that it was out of left field. And yes, people have mentioned its status as an AAU school, but nobody has been able to put together a coherent argument that explains why that matters.

I don't think that I ever said CU bball was bad. I just said that it wasn't especially good (I believe my exact words were "[CU isn't] any good in basketball"). The fact that "the men's basketball team has made 2 straight NCAA tournaments since joining the PAC" isn't terribly impressive. Many schools make the tourney most years. Actually, the fact that you are boasting about just making the tourney kind of proves my point. CU isn't a basketball power. Obviously the team isn't bad enough to block an invite, but it's not like CU is Duke and might get an invite because of the team.

Finally, it is my understanding that UC has been trying to get into the Pac for years, not the other way around. [EDIT: In light of the previous post, my understanding may be flawed. I do not claim to be an expert on CU Boulder/Pac 10/12 happenings, nor have I ever made that claim.]

I'm not being dramatic, simply answering the question you posed. You don't have to like the answers but that doesn't mean they aren't true. How can CU academics be, your words, "below average for the conference" when they are in fact in THE TOP HALF of the conference according to the report you want to use. You can choose to ignore other factors because you feel they haven't been adequately explained--but your own metric shows they are the sixth best academic school in the PAC. That's not below average.

You are correct about CU basketball, it isn't a household name ala syracuse. But my point was it has a pulse unlike some football dominated BCS schools.

In the end, now that CU and Utah have been added the PAC has zero expansion options. The PAC12 expanded because 2 schools within (or close to) their regional footprint added significant value in lots of different areas but most importantly to the bottom line. CU wasn't an academic add, they were an everything add.

The PAC12 tried to make a play for Texas but it fell through. At this point, unless Texas changes its mind (something I think most consider highly unlikely) the PAC will be at 12 for a decade+. Additionally, CU probably wouldn't be in favor of adding the Big12 schools because it would likely cut CU off from California. No other schools near their footprint (this includes Oklahoma and Ok St by themselves) bring enough to the table or fit culturally.

No. They are above the "media," but below the "mean." "Average" means "mean."

2, 8, and 10 have a median of 8 and an average of 6.67. 7 is below the median but above the average. If these were school rankings, where having a numerically low number is a high ranking, 7 would be below the average, but above the median. You keep mistaking the median for the average. I never said anything about the median. I only commented on the average.

You are the one mistaken. The median is an average. Mean, median, etc. they are all averages.

Seriously, you are trying way to hard to hold to your original point. CU is an excellent academic school and certainly compatible with the academics in the PAC12. If you insist upon looking at a single data point and drawing conclusions without any context that is your choice. But put your mind at ease, the PAC saw a lot of advantages to adding CU. I think both parties are satisfied with the decision.

I rest my case.

(04-23-2013 08:20 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Evidently you don’t know what the phrase “isn’t tangibly better” means.

So you're arguing that Colorado isn't that great academically because of its undergrad ranking, but when it comes to Williams which ranks in every way below Harvard, well it doesn't matter because intangibles?

I'm more than willing to discuss different academic rankings and have done so in the past, but if you're going to wimp out and hide behind the "intangibles" line when the argument goes against you, there's really no point.

(04-23-2013 11:22 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:20 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Evidently you don’t know what the phrase “isn’t tangibly better” means.

So you're arguing that Colorado isn't that great academically because of it's undergrad ranking, but when it comes to Williams which ranks in every way below Harvard, well it doesn't matter because intangibles?

I'm more than willing to discuss different academic rankings and have done so in the past, but if you're going to wimp out and hide behind the "intangibles" line when the argument goes against you, there's really no point.

"Harvard isn't tangibly better than Williams/Yale/etc." means that Harvard is not substantially better. It does not mean that Willaims/Yale/etc. are better and it does not mean that Harvard sin't better. Do you honestly think that there is a significant difference between Harvard academics and Yale academics?

(04-23-2013 08:48 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Want me to keep going?

Nah, you can stop. It must be pretty tiring for you to create so many strawmen.

(04-23-2013 11:13 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 10:16 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 09:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Stop being dramatic. You're making it sound like I am trying to argue that CU to the Pac was a bad move. I'm not. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning behind it. It was a question.

You also distorted much of what I said. I said "[CU isn't] consistently good in football." I never said "CU football is dreadful."

I said "[t]o clarify, I am not trying to put UC Boulder down. I am just saying I don't see it being elite enough to warrant an academic add. IMO, that is very hard to do and requires having the reputation of Duke, NW, and/or Stanford. I do cede that (obviously) the academics are good-enough to not block an invite (i.e. what would happen if Syracuse* tried to get into the IVY League), and I have never said, or meant to indicate otherwise." I never mentioned "#97 in the US News report ranking as if it is not in line with other PAC12 school's academics." I may have said that it was below average for the conference (and it is), but I never said that it was out of left field. And yes, people have mentioned its status as an AAU school, but nobody has been able to put together a coherent argument that explains why that matters.

I don't think that I ever said CU bball was bad. I just said that it wasn't especially good (I believe my exact words were "[CU isn't] any good in basketball"). The fact that "the men's basketball team has made 2 straight NCAA tournaments since joining the PAC" isn't terribly impressive. Many schools make the tourney most years. Actually, the fact that you are boasting about just making the tourney kind of proves my point. CU isn't a basketball power. Obviously the team isn't bad enough to block an invite, but it's not like CU is Duke and might get an invite because of the team.

Finally, it is my understanding that UC has been trying to get into the Pac for years, not the other way around. [EDIT: In light of the previous post, my understanding may be flawed. I do not claim to be an expert on CU Boulder/Pac 10/12 happenings, nor have I ever made that claim.]

I'm not being dramatic, simply answering the question you posed. You don't have to like the answers but that doesn't mean they aren't true. How can CU academics be, your words, "below average for the conference" when they are in fact in THE TOP HALF of the conference according to the report you want to use. You can choose to ignore other factors because you feel they haven't been adequately explained--but your own metric shows they are the sixth best academic school in the PAC. That's not below average.

You are correct about CU basketball, it isn't a household name ala syracuse. But my point was it has a pulse unlike some football dominated BCS schools.

In the end, now that CU and Utah have been added the PAC has zero expansion options. The PAC12 expanded because 2 schools within (or close to) their regional footprint added significant value in lots of different areas but most importantly to the bottom line. CU wasn't an academic add, they were an everything add.

The PAC12 tried to make a play for Texas but it fell through. At this point, unless Texas changes its mind (something I think most consider highly unlikely) the PAC will be at 12 for a decade+. Additionally, CU probably wouldn't be in favor of adding the Big12 schools because it would likely cut CU off from California. No other schools near their footprint (this includes Oklahoma and Ok St by themselves) bring enough to the table or fit culturally.

No. They are above the "media," but below the "mean." "Average" means "mean."

2, 8, and 10 have a median of 8 and an average of 6.67. 7 is below the median but above the average. If these were school rankings, where having a numerically low number is a high ranking, 7 would be below the average, but above the median. You keep mistaking the median for the average. I never said anything about the median. I only commented on the average.

You are the one mistaken. The median is an average. Mean, median, etc. they are all averages.

Seriously, you are trying way to hard to hold to your original point. CU is an excellent academic school and certainly compatible with the academics in the PAC12. If you insist upon looking at a single data point and drawing conclusions without any context that is your choice. But put your mind at ease, the PAC saw a lot of advantages to adding CU. I think both parties are satisfied with the decision.

"The arithmetic mean may be contrasted with the median. The median is defined such that half the values are larger than, and half are smaller than, the median. If elements in the sample data increase arithmetically, when placed in some order, then the median and arithmetic average are equal. For example, consider the data sample {1,2,3,4}. The average is 2.5, as is the median. However, when we consider a sample that cannot be arranged so as to increase arithmetically, such as {1,2,4,8,16}, the median and arithmetic average can differ significantly. In this case the arithmetic average is 6.2 and the median is 4. In general the average value can vary significantly from most values in the sample, and can be larger or smaller than most of them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean

I rest my case.

(04-23-2013 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Harvard isn't tangibly better than Williams/Yale/etc." means that Harvard is not substantially better. It does not mean that Willaims/Yale/etc. are better and it does not mean that Harvard sin't better. Do you honestly think that there is a significant difference between Harvard academics and Yale academics?

By pretty much every measurable metric, Harvard is better than Williams.

If you think metrics for measuring schools are not meaningful and don't describe any tangible difference, then for god's sake stop throwing around CU's undergrad ranking to make a point.

(04-23-2013 11:30 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:48 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Want me to keep going?

Nah, you can stop. It must be pretty tiring for you to create so many strawmen.

LOL, I listed almost every major move by ever major conference over the last 20 years.

But then again, I'm talking to someone who doesn't know what "tangibly" means, so.....

(04-23-2013 11:32 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Harvard isn't tangibly better than Williams/Yale/etc." means that Harvard is not substantially better. It does not mean that Willaims/Yale/etc. are better and it does not mean that Harvard sin't better. Do you honestly think that there is a significant difference between Harvard academics and Yale academics?

By pretty much every measurable metric, Harvard is better than Williams.

If you think metrics for measure schools are not meaningful and don't describe any tangible difference, then for god's sake stop throwing around CU's undergrad ranking to make a point.

Apparently you don't know what "substantially" means.

(04-23-2013 11:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Apparently you don't know what "substantially" means.

Oh I know what it means. It's just a subjective term you're using because you realize you can't argue based on any objective numbers.

The funny thing is you're the one who kept throwing around rankings and numbers trying to make a point.