(06-03-2016 09:50 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 06:34 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 06:33 AM)back2vinyl Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:34 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  From Jeremy Fowler at CBS:

"A prominent official from an ACC school told me Louisville and UConn both have something to offer but stressed academics will matter to presidents. This favors UConn, widely considered a top-75 national university. The Hartford area also is larger than Louisville's, but the Cardinals have a strong football/basketball product and aggressive AD Tom Jurich"

This was reported a few days before Louisville was invited to join The ACC.

http://www.theuconnblog.com/2012/11/26/3...in/3431031

The pattern seems to be give lip-service to academics prior to announcing, then pick the school with the best athletic department.

Which unfortunately for the Tiger fans still does not favor Memphis in this case.

Except that expansion is about football, geography, and fan support which doesn't favor Uconn... You can have academics, but I don't watch college sports because my team won the spelling bee.

What part of your response addresses my point?

(06-03-2016 02:37 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 02:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  # of academic faculty:
Memphis: 930
UConn: 4,624
Oklahoma: 2,937
Cincinnati: 5,928
Kansas: 2,623

It's not so much the number of faculty as the research output per faculty member that drives a lot of academic status games. But it is also true that a larger institution will have a research presence in more fields, and since academics tend to be very parochial about status in our own field of study, the more fields where your institution is making a name for itself, the easier it will be to get broader recognition for its academic standing.

It definitely costs more to build reputation than it costs to hold onto it, since if you are building reputation, you will have to be offering tempting salaries to established and promising researchers in a range of fields of study, while if you already have a reputation, that gives you an advantage in attracting them even at the same salary level.

Very true.

However, at better schools, more classes are taught by professors, and professors have lower teaching loads. Also, faculty have higher service requirements at lower ranking schools. In other words, they have to spend more time sitting on administration rather than doing research.

For example, in my field:
The University of Chicago has 41 professors and 7 instructors. The professors teach 2 courses per year.
Illinois-Chicago has 13 professors and 4 instructors. The professors teach 3 courses per year.
Northern Illinois has 6 professors and 3 instructors. The professors typically teach 4 courses a year.

Interestingly, the 3 schools all have a similar number of students in my field (although Chicago has a higher proportion of grad students).

There is a lot of truth in this post. When I hire a manager for one of my facilities, if all things are equal between two applicants I will always hire the candidate that worked their way through school. No offense to the party boys that went to school on Daddy's money, but like Muffin says "it shows drive and effort." I also like to hire ex-athletes. My daughter played college ball so I know the dedication that it takes to study, practice and play. The last guy I hired was an offensive lineman from Murray State.

I have never hired anyone because of where they went to school but I have certainly not hired them because of where they went to school.

The first cut I make of any stack of resumes on my desk is I eliminate all the UK grads.

As UK grads leave my company I replace them with Louisville grads if I can find one that I like if not I look to Cincinnati, Purdue, Eastern, or Western grads.

I don't like having many UK fans around...lol
CJ

(06-03-2016 11:27 AM)muffinman Wrote:  Its funny.. Rankings only matter to academics..

Ive never hired a guy (even straight out of college) based off what school he went too.

The students I want are the ones who did internships, Co-ops, or worked while in school. Because they show drive. Getting a degree in 4 years doesnt matter either. Those guys who got it in 7 or 8 years part-time, because they had to work full time during school is the kind of employee I would prefer. Again, it shows drive and effort.

As the working world gravitates more towards wanting folks with experience, you will start to see a lot of urban universities start to outpace those who are 100 miles from the nearest major metropolitan center. Its easier to find a internship or whatever in those places, than the latter.