^^ Longhorn wins the battle of...nothing..congrats

(07-11-2017 04:25 PM)91Alum Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 01:35 PM)DirtyDukes Wrote:  http://time.com/money/best-colleges/rank...-colleges/

That's good to see. We've always been rated very high on these sorts of "best bang for you buck" lists. I remember them touting that during my campus tour in 1986. Virginia schools tend to do well on those lists (with 5 of the Top 50 this year).

Hijack warning: That said, I can see why we're de-emphasizing SAT scores to the point of being optional. Median is 1140 now? CNU's is 1160. So is VMI's. VT's median is nearly 100 points higher than us now. WM, UR and UVA are 200 points higher. Even Mason's is 1150. Yeesh.

here we go...I've yet to see an explanation as to why UVA, W&M and VT have not taken the optional SAT route. Could it possibly be that they are protecting their academic reputations?

(07-11-2017 04:31 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  ^^ Longhorn wins the battle of...nothing..congrats

Thank you; your post is better than the one I typed and deleted. For all of his insight and information, he's often the worst. Watch out; he might call one of us immature or something.

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 05:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Obviously, you don't just add "some doctoral programs" in a random manner. Doctoral programs cost the Commonwealth big bucks in terms of faculty, facilities, fellowships, and program recruitment. Each faculty line alone is a commitment by the Commonwealth in the multiple millions of $$. SCHEV is another factor, and the VA state council on higher ed (who advises the General Assembly) won't approve doctoral programs that duplicate other doctoral programs unless there is a convincing market demand.

Believe it or not, the classification of "national" or "regional" isn't the issue JMU fans should be concerned about. The issue is whether the institution should be reoriented towards more research and more graduate education, or remain focused on undergraduate teaching. I personally think there is room for a more robust investment in graduate education at JMU, and to do it in a way that it compliments the undergraduate experience. JMU provides a superior undergraduate experience, and I'd hate to see that compromised in pursuit of becoming another "University of Louisiana--Monroe" with a FBS FB program.

My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

Really? You see the growth as the same due to their percentage increase? I guess this is proof that numbers can be used to make an argument either way.

8000+ growth for JMU and 1800 for CNU. I believe those are the more relevant numbers.

We should have killed this thread at page 1908...symbolically, and for many other reasons...

But mainly for immature reasons

Someone clearly hasn't changed the number of posts per page. I only see 768, so we still have over a millennium to go.

That said, in 768, Charlemagne ascended to the throne of France along with his brother, Carloman, after the death of his father, Pepin III aka Pepin the Short.

Not sure what you guys have your settings on but I'm at 384. No need to flip the page more than necessary.

(07-12-2017 01:49 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Not sure what you guys have your settings on but I'm at 384. No need to flip the page more than necessary.

Me too.

What about page 69

This thread needs a bit more Cameraman

(07-12-2017 01:49 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Not sure what you guys have your settings on but I'm at 384. No need to flip the page more than necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/384

We should rename this thread the "keep hope alive" thread. If we abandon this thread, it means we have abandoned all hope.

(07-11-2017 10:41 PM)JMUNation Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 05:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Obviously, you don't just add "some doctoral programs" in a random manner. Doctoral programs cost the Commonwealth big bucks in terms of faculty, facilities, fellowships, and program recruitment. Each faculty line alone is a commitment by the Commonwealth in the multiple millions of $$. SCHEV is another factor, and the VA state council on higher ed (who advises the General Assembly) won't approve doctoral programs that duplicate other doctoral programs unless there is a convincing market demand.

Believe it or not, the classification of "national" or "regional" isn't the issue JMU fans should be concerned about. The issue is whether the institution should be reoriented towards more research and more graduate education, or remain focused on undergraduate teaching. I personally think there is room for a more robust investment in graduate education at JMU, and to do it in a way that it compliments the undergraduate experience. JMU provides a superior undergraduate experience, and I'd hate to see that compromised in pursuit of becoming another "University of Louisiana--Monroe" with a FBS FB program.

My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

Really? You see the growth as the same due to their percentage increase? I guess this is proof that numbers can be used to make an argument either way.

8000+ growth for JMU and 1800 for CNU. I believe those are the more relevant numbers.

Of course I don't think those numbers are the same... but LH said "virtually double" ... "none of the other schools (CNU) have experienced" ...

I was JUST pointing out that CNU actually did "virtually double" as they increased by the EXACT same percentage that JMU did over the exact same time frame.... use a different phrase or be called out for inaccurate facts.

(07-13-2017 10:44 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:41 PM)JMUNation Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

Really? You see the growth as the same due to their percentage increase? I guess this is proof that numbers can be used to make an argument either way.

8000+ growth for JMU and 1800 for CNU. I believe those are the more relevant numbers.

Of course I don't think those numbers are the same... but LH said "virtually double" ... "none of the other schools (CNU) have experienced" ...

I was JUST pointing out that CNU actually did "virtually double" as they increased by the EXACT same percentage that JMU did over the exact same time frame.... use a different phrase or be called out for inaccurate facts.

JMUrcc06, stop "sounding" immature.

(07-13-2017 08:03 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 01:49 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Not sure what you guys have your settings on but I'm at 384. No need to flip the page more than necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/384

A sliver of an opening might develop for JMU if they've changed their mind regarding the Sun Belt.

I think as things stand now, that the Belt isn't interested in JMU because the conference wants to stay at 10 and the Western schools are concerned about the Eastern shift of the conference.

But, UALR just announced a football study. I don't think they pull the trigger, but if they did, the Sun Belt is required to extend membership to them in FBS. Texas Arlington has a similar deal, but I doubt theyre interested That would be almost perfect for JMU. Because it would placate the Western schools and create uneven divisions that might allow for a school from the East to get a look.

I doubt that your admin is interested, but a 'last look' for the next 7 or so years might present itself.

(07-13-2017 10:44 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:41 PM)JMUNation Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

Really? You see the growth as the same due to their percentage increase? I guess this is proof that numbers can be used to make an argument either way.

8000+ growth for JMU and 1800 for CNU. I believe those are the more relevant numbers.

Of course I don't think those numbers are the same... but LH said "virtually double" ... "none of the other schools (CNU) have experienced" ...

I was JUST pointing out that CNU actually did "virtually double" as they increased by the EXACT same percentage that JMU did over the exact same time frame.... use a different phrase or be called out for inaccurate facts.

CNU is a very good school academically. I have a niece attending there and encouraged my son to go there as well.

President Tribble stated years ago that he would keep enrollment at 5000 so that he could keep the academic performance of the student body high. A lower enrollment allows CNU to pick the best students to attend there.

It doesn't make any sense to compare CNU to JMU. W&M would be a much better comparison. Similar size and I believe CNU would like to pattern themselves to be more like W&M rather than JMU.

(07-13-2017 10:29 PM)JMUNation Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 10:44 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:41 PM)JMUNation Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

Really? You see the growth as the same due to their percentage increase? I guess this is proof that numbers can be used to make an argument either way.

8000+ growth for JMU and 1800 for CNU. I believe those are the more relevant numbers.

Of course I don't think those numbers are the same... but LH said "virtually double" ... "none of the other schools (CNU) have experienced" ...

I was JUST pointing out that CNU actually did "virtually double" as they increased by the EXACT same percentage that JMU did over the exact same time frame.... use a different phrase or be called out for inaccurate facts.

CNU is a very good school academically. I have a niece attending there and encouraged my son to go there as well.

President Tribble stated years ago that he would keep enrollment at 5000 so that he could keep the academic performance of the student body high. A lower enrollment allows CNU to pick the best students to attend there.

It doesn't make any sense to compare CNU to JMU. W&M would be a much better comparison. Similar size and I believe CNU would like to pattern themselves to be more like W&M rather than JMU.

I didn't compare JMU to CNU and never would, LH did when he listed CNU and MW. Worse, did so incorrectly stating that no other VA school "virtually doubled" in enrollment from '96-'16 because actually, CNU did. CNU increased in enrollment by 64% in 20 years, JMU increased in enrollment by 61% in the same 20 year period.

That's all, LH is quick to call anyone else out when they mess up their facts, so I did the same.

(07-14-2017 07:09 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 10:29 PM)JMUNation Wrote:  President Tribble stated years ago that he would keep enrollment at 5000 so that he could keep the academic performance of the student body high. A lower enrollment allows CNU to pick the best students to attend there.

It doesn't make any sense to compare CNU to JMU. W&M would be a much better comparison. Similar size and I believe CNU would like to pattern themselves to be more like W&M rather than JMU.

I didn't compare JMU to CNU and never would, LH did when he listed CNU and MW. Worse, did so incorrectly stating that no other VA school "virtually doubled" in enrollment from '96-'16 because actually, CNU did. CNU increased in enrollment by 64% in 20 years, JMU increased in enrollment by 61% in the same 20 year period.

That's all, LH is quick to call anyone else out when they mess up their facts, so I did the same.

I was the one who originally referenced them to demonstrate how JMU has slipped academically in our "masters regional" classification while schools that weren't even close to us when I attended have closed the gap. Among the many excuses was JMU's "growth" compared to other schools. Apparently we're the only school that has experienced growth.

(07-14-2017 01:20 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 07:09 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 10:29 PM)JMUNation Wrote:  President Tribble stated years ago that he would keep enrollment at 5000 so that he could keep the academic performance of the student body high. A lower enrollment allows CNU to pick the best students to attend there.

It doesn't make any sense to compare CNU to JMU. W&M would be a much better comparison. Similar size and I believe CNU would like to pattern themselves to be more like W&M rather than JMU.

I didn't compare JMU to CNU and never would, LH did when he listed CNU and MW. Worse, did so incorrectly stating that no other VA school "virtually doubled" in enrollment from '96-'16 because actually, CNU did. CNU increased in enrollment by 64% in 20 years, JMU increased in enrollment by 61% in the same 20 year period.

That's all, LH is quick to call anyone else out when they mess up their facts, so I did the same.

I was the one who originally referenced them to demonstrate how JMU has slipped academically in our "masters regional" classification while schools that weren't even close to us when I attended have closed the gap. Among the many excuses was JMU's "growth" compared to other schools. Apparently we're the only school that has experienced growth.

Your comments are interesting to me in light of a great meeting I had with someone from University Advancement the other day. This person is an alumnus and loves JMU but seems unaware of the acceptance rate reality and the fact that others have "closed the gap." Definitely in the JMU bubble and seeing through purple lenses. This person pointed to our endowment as one of the largest challenges, and that has been documented here many times. I pointed to the fact that JMU lacks an identity here in the 757. Everyone is aware of and generally respects the school, but it has no real academic identity (not the case in nova or other areas perhaps). We must do a better job of communicating how solid and top rate many of our acadmic programs are. Said advancement person didn't agree with me until we ran into a rising high school senior who is an employee of the establishment we were visiting, this student was talking about colleges and briefly mentioned JMU as an afterthought, not knowing that it has an excellent program in the area she wants to pursue. By the way, the meeting with the JMU advancement person was well worth the time.