https://twitter.com/CoachBailiffFB/statu...40/photo/1

I am skeptical of the median salary claim but I'll roll with it.

I wonder where that $95k number comes from? Only football players? All students, including Jones School? It certainly isn't all undergrads, as median starting salary was $53k 2 years ago.
http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-r...of-schools

There are very few jobs that are going to pay someone fresh out of school near 6 figures.

(02-20-2015 11:06 PM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  I wonder where that $95k number comes from? Only football players? All students, including Jones School? It certainly isn't all undergrads, as median starting salary was $53k 2 years ago.
http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-r...of-schools

There are very few jobs that are going to pay someone fresh out of school near 6 figures.

I agree. Also, Payscale relies on self-reported salary info and uses only annual pay for bachelor’s graduates without higher degrees. (Typical starting graduates have two years of experience; mid-career graduates have 15 years.)

(Link to Payscale methodology.)

(02-20-2015 11:06 PM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  I wonder where that $95k number comes from? Only football players? All students, including Jones School? It certainly isn't all undergrads, as median starting salary was $53k 2 years ago.
http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-r...of-schools

There are very few jobs that are going to pay someone fresh out of school near 6 figures.

Had that same thought.

I think the median starting salary coming out of the Jones School (full time MBA) is just over $100,000 plus starting and annual bonus.

I'm wondering if that salary is inclusive of benefits. Pension, insurance and other perks can boost base salary by 25% or more.

From the title, I thought this thread was about Thrill.

"Starting" is the typo?

This was one was also posted. Except, in the latest rankings, Rice was #2 in Quality of Life and #6 in Happiest Students.

http://news.rice.edu/2014/08/05/rice-has...ege-guide/

(02-24-2015 04:05 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  

This was one was also posted. Except, in the latest rankings, Rice was #2 in Quality of Life and #6 in Happiest Students.

http://news.rice.edu/2014/08/05/rice-has...ege-guide/

Technically it's not false. We were ranked #1 in both of those categories, just not this last year.

Some good spin/marketing here as the exact words on poster are 'Rice graduates make $95K as a median starting salary'

Does not define what a 'Rice graduate' means. Could include all PhD, Jones School, etc. and be technically accurate. Could also include undergrads who go to other Med/Law/Biz schools and then include salary from their first professional job and also be technically accurate.

Highly unlikely that it means 'Rice undergrads median starting salary as first job within 90-days of graduation from Rice' which is what the average reader is going to think it means.

(02-25-2015 04:58 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Some good spin/marketing here as the exact words on poster are 'Rice graduates make $95K as a median starting salary'

Does not define what a 'Rice graduate' means. Could include all PhD, Jones School, etc. and be technically accurate. Could also include undergrads who go to other Med/Law/Biz schools and then include salary from their first professional job and also be technically accurate.

Highly unlikely that it means 'Rice undergrads median starting salary as first job within 90-days of graduation from Rice' which is what the average reader is going to think it means.

The poster looked good, but when I first saw that figure it seemed to be an obvious mistake.

They might have done a better job by either being clearer or more specific with the data they chose for that one. It comes across as pretty far-fetched, even to the average person, likely raises some serious doubts as to its factual basis, and could perhaps even be used counter-productively to recruit against us (Something like: 'Rice football coaches lie about starting salaries on their promotional posters, what else are the football coaches lying to you about? (playing time, position, success, how much they like you as a player?," etc...)

I get what they were trying to do here, but to me using this figure is a Fail on this poster for the reasons Owl40 cites above. Needs a redo IMO.

Maybe they are using figures only for the 2015 graduates and only for ones who had accepted an offer at the time the poster was produced? (I am joking, but under these circumstances Nordstrom's 6-figure job could conceivably balance out one or two other salaries to come to the $95,000 figure).

(02-25-2015 05:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Maybe they are using figures only for the 2015 graduates and only for ones who had accepted an offer at the time the poster was produced? (I am joking, but under these circumstances Nordstrom's 6-figure job could conceivably balance out one or two other salaries to come to the $95,000 figure).

big, I'm pretty sure they have a rational explanation for the figure they used. I'm not saying they don't. I am saying that it looks suspect, especially on first glance which might be all many potential recruits would possibly give it. However, that might be used by other competing schools to call into question their integrity since they would need more than a simple explanation, and I doubt an opposing coach would provide it for them to a potential recruit who was on the fence. My point is, the figure should require no explanation at all, yet unfortunately it appears it does. In my opinion, they would have done better to use the straight starting salary figure for an undergrad, as another Parliament poster mentioned above (and it appears they chose not to do that.)

I understand our football coaches trying to maximize their point, and I can see what they intended. It just doesn't seem to have worked out as well as they might have planned when you see the actual figure on that particular poster. I do like the design of the poster, and the rest of it is good.

(02-25-2015 11:29 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 05:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Maybe they are using figures only for the 2015 graduates and only for ones who had accepted an offer at the time the poster was produced? (I am joking, but under these circumstances Nordstrom's 6-figure job could conceivably balance out one or two other salaries to come to the $95,000 figure).

big, I'm pretty sure they have a rational explanation for the figure they used. I'm not saying they don't. I am saying that it looks suspect, especially on first glance which might be all many potential recruits would possibly give it. However, that might be used by other competing schools to call into question their integrity since they would need more than a simple explanation, and I doubt an opposing coach would provide it for them to a potential recruit who was on the fence. My point is, the figure should require no explanation at all, yet unfortunately it appears it does. In my opinion, they would have done better to use the straight starting salary figure for an undergrad, as another Parliament poster mentioned above (and it appears they chose not to do that.)

I understand our football coaches trying to maximize their point, and I can see what they intended. It just doesn't seem to have worked out as well as they might have planned when you see the actual figure on that particular poster. I do like the design of the poster, and the rest of it is good.

Without arguing the point, or knowing what the number does represent, it would seem fair to point out that the poster was likely designed by someone in the athletic department, someone likely involved in marketing. It is just my assumption that it wasn't the "football coaches", much less Coach Bailiff, who assembled all of those talking points, and that just maybe Coach Bailiff was just passing along the efforts of others.

Or maybe our defensive coordinator also has a talent for graphic design?

We've been commenting about how proactive the athletic department has become (positively commenting) recently under the new administration. It's possible this is another 'good', proactive thing the department as a whole worked on, but they didn't qualify one of the talking points, and failed to comprehend the literal nature of all of us on the Parliament?

Heck, even if it was our football coaches, I'd be impressed that they went to the trouble, and that they're thinking about those things at that level.

But at this point, I'll opt for the likelihood that their role was supervisory at best, and distributor at a minimum.

(02-26-2015 12:02 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Without arguing the point, or knowing what the number does represent, it would seem fair to point out that the poster was likely designed by someone in the athletic department, someone likely involved in marketing. It is just my assumption that it wasn't the "football coaches", much less Coach Bailiff, who assembled all of those talking points, and that just maybe Coach Bailiff was just passing along the efforts of others.

Or maybe our defensive coordinator also has a talent for graphic design?

We've been commenting about how proactive the athletic department has become (positively commenting) recently under the new administration. It's possible this is another 'good', proactive thing the department as a whole worked on, but they didn't qualify one of the talking points, and failed to comprehend the literal nature of all of us on the Parliament?

Heck, even if it was our football coaches, I'd be impressed that they went to the trouble, and that they're thinking about those things at that level.

But at this point, I'll opt for the likelihood that their role was supervisory at best, and distributor at a minimum.

I agree with you, Rick that it is highly unlikely the head coach designed the poster. I don't blame him for that. And I am happy they want to be proactive and market Rice's strengths to potential recruits. That is a good thing. It is a nice-looking poster.

But before tweeting it out on his own official twitter account, might the head coach have asked about that figure and done some due diligence to be sure it didn't look too suspect and would be easily comprehended by 17 and 18 year olds? Or consider how other schools' coaches could potentially use it against him when talking to 17 and 18 year old potential recruits?

I just don't know that enough undergrads graduate from Rice after four or five years to start at $95,000 per year. Yes, I see it says "median," and understand that is different from average, but still it seems high. I surmise many people just read it as 'Rice grads start at $95,000' and think to themselves "That can't be true, is it?" Perhaps things are even better than I thought these days, but the figure appears strange, and that's a shame because otherwise the poster is good.

(02-26-2015 12:44 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 12:02 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Without arguing the point, or knowing what the number does represent, it would seem fair to point out that the poster was likely designed by someone in the athletic department, someone likely involved in marketing. It is just my assumption that it wasn't the "football coaches", much less Coach Bailiff, who assembled all of those talking points, and that just maybe Coach Bailiff was just passing along the efforts of others.

Or maybe our defensive coordinator also has a talent for graphic design?

We've been commenting about how proactive the athletic department has become (positively commenting) recently under the new administration. It's possible this is another 'good', proactive thing the department as a whole worked on, but they didn't qualify one of the talking points, and failed to comprehend the literal nature of all of us on the Parliament?

Heck, even if it was our football coaches, I'd be impressed that they went to the trouble, and that they're thinking about those things at that level.

But at this point, I'll opt for the likelihood that their role was supervisory at best, and distributor at a minimum.

I agree with you, Rick that it is highly unlikely the head coach designed the poster. I don't blame him for that. And I am happy they want to be proactive and market Rice's strengths to potential recruits. That is a good thing. It is a nice-looking poster.

But before tweeting it out on his own official twitter account, might the head coach have asked about that figure and done some due diligence to be sure it didn't look too suspect and would be easily comprehended by 17 and 18 year olds? Or consider how other schools' coaches could potentially use it against him when talking to 17 and 18 year old potential recruits?

I just don't know that enough undergrads graduate from Rice after four or five years to start at $95,000 per year. Yes, I see it says "median," and understand that is different from average, but still it seems high. I surmise many people just read it as 'Rice grads start at $95,000' and think to themselves "That can't be true, is it?" Perhaps things are even better than I thought these days, but the figure appears strange, and that's a shame because otherwise the poster is good.

Whoever created the poster has a supervisor who theoretically has review responsibility. If you follow that up the food chain, I think responsibility lands on some Assistant AD's desk, if not the AD himself.

In theory the coach sending it should check it also. But it's not necessarily realistic to think the coach is going to check specific dates or figures. At some point, he probably assumed that the number had been checked. I would reasonably assume that the final product I had received had gone through several draft stages, and may have seen the drafts, and assumed the drafts changing connoted review by those in charge.

And if the issue isn't accuracy, if it's semantics and qualifications as we assume, a coach (or the assistant AD) may have asked the question, is figure X correct? And having been told 'yes, looking at it this way', may have dropped the issue. What I mean is that he or someone else may have questioned the figure and then deferred to whomever provided the research.