The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(09-14-2021 10:27 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 10:15 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:57 AM)geef Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:53 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 07:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  UC's ranking improved when it was a strategic focus of the administration. It requires that focus from the top to create tactical plans that improve performance in key areas to drive the ranking up. We all want it to be higher. But we also should be concerned about directionality--are we rising a little or falling a little?

One indicator used to be what UC was offering National Merit Scholars compared with an Alabama or a Miami (OH). I'm aware of a particular student who took that higher offer from Miami (in engineering of all things), but later came to regret not choosing UC. But financially incenting academically high achieving students is just one among many tactics to consider in raising the overall academic profile of an entering class.

While I would agree U.S. News rankings are often measuring prestige more than quality, millions of parents and prospective students don't know that or even care. So to be dismissive of this ranking comes at great peril for any university.

I'd also say that the initial move to selective admissions was kind of the low hanging fruit period. As we pared off the bottom quartile of our applicant pool, our profile showed quick and immediate improvements. We quickly became the third most selective school in the system, but that momentum inevitably began to plateau and slow. Now, we're trying to sway kids to choose us over OSU, Miami or--if they have the money--going out of state somewhere. That's going to be harder, and the gains are going to be more incremental than that initial flush of improvement. And as others have pointed out growing our pot of merit and need-based scholarships is crucial to keep moving forward.

On Selectivity, it's interesting to look at the US News stats - it shows Miami at 92% acceptance, and UC at 76% acceptance. I would have thought they'd be more in line. Given that it's 2020 numbers, could that be Covid related?

Miami gets more applicants

Then their yield must be god awful.

18%

https://www.thoughtco.com/miami-universi...ata-786547

Just checked in with our friends over on hawktalk. Not a peep about dropping out of the top 100. My earlier post was only half-joking. The Miami community (administration and alums) are going to flush this down their psychological memory holes and keep talking about their precious forty year old "public ivy" book, as if that has any relevance at all today.

(09-14-2021 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 05:41 PM)colohank Wrote:  Disappointing. No other word for it.

Unless of course you consider that UC was one of only 5 schools in the Great Lakes states to increase total headcount over the past two years...which is a far more specific goal due to a need to increase overall financial flexibility (which would then be used to improve programs). Admin shifted focus from being ranked higher in needless polls to being a more productive institution with a wider reach...judging by their record research dollars and enrollment, I'd say they're doing both of those just fine. By our nature as an institution, we will NEVER be top 100 in USNWR [see my post above for that], I'm far more interested in being as productive as possible in both producing quality alumni worldwide and in developing new and exciting technologies at a far higher rate.

We shouldn't have to choose between quantity and quality, but if we must, then we should opt for the latter. Reputation matters.

I would never suggest that UC focus on being higher ranked just for the sake of being higher ranked. I would suggest that UC should strive for ever-improving, across-the-board academic excellence. If successful, then the ratings will follow.

We will never be be in the top 100 of USN&WR rankings if we focus on ever-larger enrollments at the expense of selectivity. But large enrollments and success aren't mutually exclusive. There are a lot of larger public universities than UC which consistently rank higher -- much higher -- in the USN&WR rankings. UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and others come to mind. For UC to rank down there with Ole Miss is a disgrace.

We've slipped twenty places in the USN&WR rankings over the last decade or so. We can do better, and we should.

(09-14-2021 11:04 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 05:41 PM)colohank Wrote:  Disappointing. No other word for it.

Unless of course you consider that UC was one of only 5 schools in the Great Lakes states to increase total headcount over the past two years...which is a far more specific goal due to a need to increase overall financial flexibility (which would then be used to improve programs). Admin shifted focus from being ranked higher in needless polls to being a more productive institution with a wider reach...judging by their record research dollars and enrollment, I'd say they're doing both of those just fine. By our nature as an institution, we will NEVER be top 100 in USNWR [see my post above for that], I'm far more interested in being as productive as possible in both producing quality alumni worldwide and in developing new and exciting technologies at a far higher rate.

We shouldn't have to choose between quantity and quality, but if we must, then we should opt for the latter. Reputation matters.

I would never suggest that UC focus on being higher ranked just for the sake of being higher ranked. I would suggest that UC should strive for ever-improving, across-the-board academic excellence. If successful, then the ratings will follow.

We will never be be in the top 100 of USN&WR rankings if we focus on ever-larger enrollments at the expense of selectivity. But large enrollments and success aren't mutually exclusive. There are a lot of larger public universities than UC which consistently rank higher -- much higher -- in the USN&WR rankings. UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and others come to mind. For UC to rank down there with Ole Miss is a disgrace.

We've slipped twenty places in the USN&WR rankings over the last decade or so. We can do better, and we should.

World class cities need world class universities. UC is a very large state university in a state of 11.7m people and a region of over 3m. There is NO reason why UC can’t be ranked 48 spots higher. UC has a habit of aiming low.

(09-14-2021 11:04 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 05:41 PM)colohank Wrote:  Disappointing. No other word for it.

Unless of course you consider that UC was one of only 5 schools in the Great Lakes states to increase total headcount over the past two years...which is a far more specific goal due to a need to increase overall financial flexibility (which would then be used to improve programs). Admin shifted focus from being ranked higher in needless polls to being a more productive institution with a wider reach...judging by their record research dollars and enrollment, I'd say they're doing both of those just fine. By our nature as an institution, we will NEVER be top 100 in USNWR [see my post above for that], I'm far more interested in being as productive as possible in both producing quality alumni worldwide and in developing new and exciting technologies at a far higher rate.

We shouldn't have to choose between quantity and quality, but if we must, then we should opt for the latter. Reputation matters.

I would never suggest that UC focus on being higher ranked just for the sake of being higher ranked. I would suggest that UC should strive for ever-improving, across-the-board academic excellence. If successful, then the ratings will follow.

We will never be be in the top 100 of USN&WR rankings if we focus on ever-larger enrollments at the expense of selectivity. But large enrollments and success aren't mutually exclusive. There are a lot of larger public universities than UC which consistently rank higher -- much higher -- in the USN&WR rankings. UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and others come to mind. For UC to rank down there with Ole Miss is a disgrace.

We've slipped twenty places in the USN&WR rankings over the last decade or so. We can do better, and we should.

All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

(09-14-2021 11:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:04 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 05:41 PM)colohank Wrote:  Disappointing. No other word for it.

Unless of course you consider that UC was one of only 5 schools in the Great Lakes states to increase total headcount over the past two years...which is a far more specific goal due to a need to increase overall financial flexibility (which would then be used to improve programs). Admin shifted focus from being ranked higher in needless polls to being a more productive institution with a wider reach...judging by their record research dollars and enrollment, I'd say they're doing both of those just fine. By our nature as an institution, we will NEVER be top 100 in USNWR [see my post above for that], I'm far more interested in being as productive as possible in both producing quality alumni worldwide and in developing new and exciting technologies at a far higher rate.

We shouldn't have to choose between quantity and quality, but if we must, then we should opt for the latter. Reputation matters.

I would never suggest that UC focus on being higher ranked just for the sake of being higher ranked. I would suggest that UC should strive for ever-improving, across-the-board academic excellence. If successful, then the ratings will follow.

We will never be be in the top 100 of USN&WR rankings if we focus on ever-larger enrollments at the expense of selectivity. But large enrollments and success aren't mutually exclusive. There are a lot of larger public universities than UC which consistently rank higher -- much higher -- in the USN&WR rankings. UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and others come to mind. For UC to rank down there with Ole Miss is a disgrace.

We've slipped twenty places in the USN&WR rankings over the last decade or so. We can do better, and we should.

All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

(09-14-2021 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:04 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 05:41 PM)colohank Wrote:  Disappointing. No other word for it.

Unless of course you consider that UC was one of only 5 schools in the Great Lakes states to increase total headcount over the past two years...which is a far more specific goal due to a need to increase overall financial flexibility (which would then be used to improve programs). Admin shifted focus from being ranked higher in needless polls to being a more productive institution with a wider reach...judging by their record research dollars and enrollment, I'd say they're doing both of those just fine. By our nature as an institution, we will NEVER be top 100 in USNWR [see my post above for that], I'm far more interested in being as productive as possible in both producing quality alumni worldwide and in developing new and exciting technologies at a far higher rate.

We shouldn't have to choose between quantity and quality, but if we must, then we should opt for the latter. Reputation matters.

I would never suggest that UC focus on being higher ranked just for the sake of being higher ranked. I would suggest that UC should strive for ever-improving, across-the-board academic excellence. If successful, then the ratings will follow.

We will never be be in the top 100 of USN&WR rankings if we focus on ever-larger enrollments at the expense of selectivity. But large enrollments and success aren't mutually exclusive. There are a lot of larger public universities than UC which consistently rank higher -- much higher -- in the USN&WR rankings. UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and others come to mind. For UC to rank down there with Ole Miss is a disgrace.

We've slipped twenty places in the USN&WR rankings over the last decade or so. We can do better, and we should.

All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

(09-14-2021 01:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:04 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 07:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Unless of course you consider that UC was one of only 5 schools in the Great Lakes states to increase total headcount over the past two years...which is a far more specific goal due to a need to increase overall financial flexibility (which would then be used to improve programs). Admin shifted focus from being ranked higher in needless polls to being a more productive institution with a wider reach...judging by their record research dollars and enrollment, I'd say they're doing both of those just fine. By our nature as an institution, we will NEVER be top 100 in USNWR [see my post above for that], I'm far more interested in being as productive as possible in both producing quality alumni worldwide and in developing new and exciting technologies at a far higher rate.

We shouldn't have to choose between quantity and quality, but if we must, then we should opt for the latter. Reputation matters.

I would never suggest that UC focus on being higher ranked just for the sake of being higher ranked. I would suggest that UC should strive for ever-improving, across-the-board academic excellence. If successful, then the ratings will follow.

We will never be be in the top 100 of USN&WR rankings if we focus on ever-larger enrollments at the expense of selectivity. But large enrollments and success aren't mutually exclusive. There are a lot of larger public universities than UC which consistently rank higher -- much higher -- in the USN&WR rankings. UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and others come to mind. For UC to rank down there with Ole Miss is a disgrace.

We've slipped twenty places in the USN&WR rankings over the last decade or so. We can do better, and we should.

All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

US news lists the undergrad enrollment at 28,000 and something, and Im pretty sure that’s a main campus only number. UC’s own site lists undergrad enrollment at about 38,000.

https://www.uc.edu/about/factsheet.html

So my position still stands. UC doesn’t restrict access and they can place lower performers at branch campuses and allow them to prove themselves without lowering the numbers for the main campus.

(09-14-2021 02:39 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:04 AM)colohank Wrote:  We shouldn't have to choose between quantity and quality, but if we must, then we should opt for the latter. Reputation matters.

I would never suggest that UC focus on being higher ranked just for the sake of being higher ranked. I would suggest that UC should strive for ever-improving, across-the-board academic excellence. If successful, then the ratings will follow.

We will never be be in the top 100 of USN&WR rankings if we focus on ever-larger enrollments at the expense of selectivity. But large enrollments and success aren't mutually exclusive. There are a lot of larger public universities than UC which consistently rank higher -- much higher -- in the USN&WR rankings. UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and others come to mind. For UC to rank down there with Ole Miss is a disgrace.

We've slipped twenty places in the USN&WR rankings over the last decade or so. We can do better, and we should.

All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

US news lists the undergrad enrollment at 28,000 and something, and Im pretty sure that’s a main campus only number. UC’s own site lists undergrad enrollment at about 38,000.

https://www.uc.edu/about/factsheet.html

So my position still stands. UC doesn’t restrict access and they can place lower performers at branch campuses and allow them to prove themselves without lowering the numbers for the main campus.

I'm telling you, the institutional data includes UC Blue Ash College and UC Clermont College as entities underneath UC-General...whether or not USNWR includes that as their count for MC enrollment doesn't speak to the fact that those Colleges do contribute to the metrics they assign varying levels of importance to in their worthless rankings. I know it for a fact having been in the room with representatives where that was hashed out at two separate Universities who have the same problem. If you want to, you can just straight dump the Associates Degree programs...but again, is that what UC is "for"? We're talking about changing from a serving the City/State, to only serving a subset of that City/State, and that's fine if it's what we believe is the best path forward, but at some point you have to determine if you're willing to do that, to completely disregard a large population of people, for the purpose of turning and 3-digit number to a 2-digit number.

(09-14-2021 02:39 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:04 AM)colohank Wrote:  We shouldn't have to choose between quantity and quality, but if we must, then we should opt for the latter. Reputation matters.

I would never suggest that UC focus on being higher ranked just for the sake of being higher ranked. I would suggest that UC should strive for ever-improving, across-the-board academic excellence. If successful, then the ratings will follow.

We will never be be in the top 100 of USN&WR rankings if we focus on ever-larger enrollments at the expense of selectivity. But large enrollments and success aren't mutually exclusive. There are a lot of larger public universities than UC which consistently rank higher -- much higher -- in the USN&WR rankings. UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan, and others come to mind. For UC to rank down there with Ole Miss is a disgrace.

We've slipped twenty places in the USN&WR rankings over the last decade or so. We can do better, and we should.

All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

US news lists the undergrad enrollment at 28,000 and something, and Im pretty sure that’s a main campus only number. UC’s own site lists undergrad enrollment at about 38,000.

https://www.uc.edu/about/factsheet.html

So my position still stands. UC doesn’t restrict access and they can place lower performers at branch campuses and allow them to prove themselves without lowering the numbers for the main campus.

So what explains the steady, several-year decline in our USN&WR ranking? Are we getting worse, or are we simply failing to keep up with other institutions that are working hard to get better?

I think it's because we're placing to much emphasis on quantity -- sacrificing selectivity so we can brag each year that our enrollments are reaching new highs. Wouldn't it be better to brag about academic achievement? UC is an educational institution, after all, not a state fair.

And don't give me that baloney about a mission to educate everybody. Not everyone needs to attend college, and the proof is in the pudding. It's painfully obvious that UC is admitting a lot of freshmen who don't have what it takes to complete their degrees.

(09-14-2021 03:27 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 02:39 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

US news lists the undergrad enrollment at 28,000 and something, and Im pretty sure that’s a main campus only number. UC’s own site lists undergrad enrollment at about 38,000.

https://www.uc.edu/about/factsheet.html

So my position still stands. UC doesn’t restrict access and they can place lower performers at branch campuses and allow them to prove themselves without lowering the numbers for the main campus.

So what explains the steady, several-year decline in our USN&WR ranking? Are we getting worse, or are we simply failing to keep up with other institutions that are working hard to get better?

I think it's because we're placing to much emphasis on quantity -- sacrificing selectivity so we can brag each year that our enrollments are reaching new highs. Wouldn't it be better to brag about academic achievement? UC is an educational institution, after all, not a state fair.

And don't give me that baloney about a mission to educate everybody. Not everyone needs to attend college, and the proof is in the pudding. It's painfully obvious that UC is admitting a lot of freshmen who don't have what it takes to complete their degrees.

The Ohio State President who led them in the 80s and is really the one who deserves the credit for how they undid the Rhodes era and what they've become (Gee just glommed onto taking credit for everything) had a famous saying that he'd drop on any state legislator, CEO or newspaper editorial board that he could. He'd say, "Ohio can have a prestigious, internationally renowned flagship university or it can have an open admissions flagship university; it can't have both."

As many here understand, UC is clearly Ohio's only shot at having a second prestigious, internationally renowned research university (even if it's not the flagship), so I'll rework that saying to "The University of Cincinnati can be a prestigious, internationally renowned research university or it can be a quantity over quality, easy admission university; it can't be both."

(09-14-2021 03:27 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 02:39 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

US news lists the undergrad enrollment at 28,000 and something, and Im pretty sure that’s a main campus only number. UC’s own site lists undergrad enrollment at about 38,000.

https://www.uc.edu/about/factsheet.html

So my position still stands. UC doesn’t restrict access and they can place lower performers at branch campuses and allow them to prove themselves without lowering the numbers for the main campus.

So what explains the steady, several-year decline in our USN&WR ranking? Are we getting worse, or are we simply failing to keep up with other institutions that are working hard to get better?

I think it's because we're placing to much emphasis on quantity -- sacrificing selectivity so we can brag each year that our enrollments are reaching new highs. Wouldn't it be better to brag about academic achievement? UC is an educational institution, after all, not a state fair.

And don't give me that baloney about a mission to educate everybody. Not everyone needs to attend college, and the proof is in the pudding. It's painfully obvious that UC is admitting a lot of freshmen who don't have what it takes to complete their degrees.

Agreed...but, it's the admin's decision what direction they want to take the institution, for better or worse. I think you'll see a headcount where we start to move things in the "right" direction with regard to prestige vs. enrollment, and we're probably pushing up against it right now honestly. Schools like Wright State, Toledo, Cleveland State, Akron, etc. should be the ones opening their doors, not UC...but UC is still in that weird transition phase where they aren't certain they can hold up without that bottom end student. I think the Big 12 inclusion and the national recruiting boon in states that are growing (specifically Texas) that it will afford UC will definitely help in shoring up that potential sinkhole and allow for them to start pushing higher admissions standards and being more strategic about how they allocated "parachute" admits.

(09-14-2021 03:11 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 02:39 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  All of that, while our student population has both grown AND been far more prepared. Weird how that ends up happening...almost like when more people go into majors that require a greater than 4 year time investment, certain rankings go down to now fault of their own. I'm perfectly fine with being 100, 148, etc. If we're in that range, we are highly reputable, but still service a greater cause (educating the entire population). Do I want us to be in the 50-60 range? Sure...but I also now that is borderline impossible based on the institutional mission AND our own administrative/academic programs.

We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

US news lists the undergrad enrollment at 28,000 and something, and Im pretty sure that’s a main campus only number. UC’s own site lists undergrad enrollment at about 38,000.

https://www.uc.edu/about/factsheet.html

So my position still stands. UC doesn’t restrict access and they can place lower performers at branch campuses and allow them to prove themselves without lowering the numbers for the main campus.

I'm telling you, the institutional data includes UC Blue Ash College and UC Clermont College as entities underneath UC-General...whether or not USNWR includes that as their count for MC enrollment doesn't speak to the fact that those Colleges do contribute to the metrics they assign varying levels of importance to in their worthless rankings. I know it for a fact having been in the room with representatives where that was hashed out at two separate Universities who have the same problem. If you want to, you can just straight dump the Associates Degree programs...but again, is that what UC is "for"? We're talking about changing from a serving the City/State, to only serving a subset of that City/State, and that's fine if it's what we believe is the best path forward, but at some point you have to determine if you're willing to do that, to completely disregard a large population of people, for the purpose of turning and 3-digit number to a 2-digit number.

I come from a background that if one of the numbers doesn’t mesh then the rest have to be questioned as well.

US News numbers also mesh with other sites that specifically identify “Main Campus” with regards to not only enrollment, but retention, graduation, etc. It’s confusing.

(09-14-2021 04:13 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 03:11 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 02:39 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  We have UC Blue Ash, UC Clermont, Cincinnati State, and Sinclair for the less prepared. UC can fulfill its mission without lowering its main campus standards. Access isn’t an issue.

Ohio State and Miami use branch campuses to sort but not reject. So does UC.

Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

US news lists the undergrad enrollment at 28,000 and something, and Im pretty sure that’s a main campus only number. UC’s own site lists undergrad enrollment at about 38,000.

https://www.uc.edu/about/factsheet.html

So my position still stands. UC doesn’t restrict access and they can place lower performers at branch campuses and allow them to prove themselves without lowering the numbers for the main campus.

I'm telling you, the institutional data includes UC Blue Ash College and UC Clermont College as entities underneath UC-General...whether or not USNWR includes that as their count for MC enrollment doesn't speak to the fact that those Colleges do contribute to the metrics they assign varying levels of importance to in their worthless rankings. I know it for a fact having been in the room with representatives where that was hashed out at two separate Universities who have the same problem. If you want to, you can just straight dump the Associates Degree programs...but again, is that what UC is "for"? We're talking about changing from a serving the City/State, to only serving a subset of that City/State, and that's fine if it's what we believe is the best path forward, but at some point you have to determine if you're willing to do that, to completely disregard a large population of people, for the purpose of turning and 3-digit number to a 2-digit number.

I come from a background that if one of the numbers doesn’t mesh then the rest have to be questioned as well.

US News numbers also mesh with other sites that specifically identify “Main Campus” with regards to not only enrollment, but retention, graduation, etc. It’s confusing.

Yep...there are literally whole offices on some campuses devoted to trying to figure out how to game these rankings. Obviously, some are ebetter than others at it, and others are more well equipped institutionally to beat them entirely.

(09-14-2021 04:40 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 04:13 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 03:11 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 02:39 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 01:45 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Those institutions are considered under the same umbrella for USNWR rankings...if the conferred degree is fully sponsored and supported by the overarching institution as per HLC and any accreditation boards, it's part of that institution.

OSU has gotten around this by having 5-10 associates degrees that are ONLY offered at each branch campus, thus making them independent institutions. Essentially OSU-Lima, OSU-Mansfield, etc. are community colleges with a block O next to their physical location, very different situation than UC-East/Clermont and UC-Blue Ash are actually "Colleges" within the University of Cincinnati system, rather than separately accredited entities...also Cincy State and Sinclair are not part of the UC system...I suspect you're just saying they are there as opportunities for students to pursue degrees should they not get into UC (which I agree with...we should be developing more skilled trades/sub-professional programs in our Community Colleges rather than forcing everyone into 4-year degrees to be perceived as "successful" in life).

US news lists the undergrad enrollment at 28,000 and something, and Im pretty sure that’s a main campus only number. UC’s own site lists undergrad enrollment at about 38,000.

https://www.uc.edu/about/factsheet.html

So my position still stands. UC doesn’t restrict access and they can place lower performers at branch campuses and allow them to prove themselves without lowering the numbers for the main campus.

I'm telling you, the institutional data includes UC Blue Ash College and UC Clermont College as entities underneath UC-General...whether or not USNWR includes that as their count for MC enrollment doesn't speak to the fact that those Colleges do contribute to the metrics they assign varying levels of importance to in their worthless rankings. I know it for a fact having been in the room with representatives where that was hashed out at two separate Universities who have the same problem. If you want to, you can just straight dump the Associates Degree programs...but again, is that what UC is "for"? We're talking about changing from a serving the City/State, to only serving a subset of that City/State, and that's fine if it's what we believe is the best path forward, but at some point you have to determine if you're willing to do that, to completely disregard a large population of people, for the purpose of turning and 3-digit number to a 2-digit number.

I come from a background that if one of the numbers doesn’t mesh then the rest have to be questioned as well.

US News numbers also mesh with other sites that specifically identify “Main Campus” with regards to not only enrollment, but retention, graduation, etc. It’s confusing.

Yep...there are literally whole offices on some campuses devoted to trying to figure out how to game these rankings. Obviously, some are ebetter than others at it, and others are more well equipped institutionally to beat them entirely.

I spent more time than i care to admit trying to make sense of UC’s fact book as it relates to widely published numbers.

Zimpher’s initiative was called UC|21, and it called for UC to be ranked in the US News top tier. At the time, UC was ranked Tier 3 by US News. The link to the progress scorecard is now broken, but I remember the goal being Top 100.

From UC|21, page 81:

“KEY STRATEGIES
1) Enter "top tier" of U.S. News & World Report rankings, which will be indicative of improved performance in a number of key areas.”

“ 2) Get UC into the Association of American Universities (AAU), which will be indicative of improved performance in a number of key academic areas.
3) Leverage the Big East membership, including athletics, for greater East Coast market penetration.”

https://www.uc.edu/president25/uc21docum...Report.pdf

Seems UC has lost some of its “oomph” since those days. And in hindsight, if you read through the substantial document linked here, it’s kind of sickening that so much time and attention was devoted towards a drunk and not towards these improvements.

Ha, I found the scorecard, but it’s saying the target was 130:

https://www.uc.edu/president25/reportcar...oal3-1.htm

I *know* I saw 100 somewhere.

If college rankings meant anything, then all those Ivy League-educated lawyers/politicians would be doing a much better job running the country.

Their basis is meaningless but, unfortunately, people believe them. Only the rich have the ability to attend the "top" schools. Those of us in the working class have to "settle" for the closest and most affordable.

I received my Aerospace Engineering degree at UC without referencing any list and have never regretted the decision. I received a great education from caring professors and had an excellent college experience.

(09-14-2021 10:03 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Ha, I found the scorecard, but it’s saying the target was 130:

https://www.uc.edu/president25/reportcar...oal3-1.htm

I *know* I saw 100 somewhere.

Maybe it was Williams? I feel like he had some Master Plan with a number in it too.

While I am definitely in favor of quality over quantity, I can see it from the administration's point. If we were to lower the size of our freshman class by 10-15 percent to increase our selectivity, reputation and rankings, we would undoubtedly be cutting those that are paying full tuition or close to it. That's a big hole in the budget for a few years until we can build the classes back up in size with higher quality applicants.