(08-06-2016 06:35 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-06-2016 06:21 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-06-2016 05:49 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(08-06-2016 05:19 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 12:50 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  They still haven't gotten full ABET accredidation there (or BGSU). So anyone who says they're going to either of those institutions for an Engineering degree truthfully doesn't know what they're getting into and is probably a lesser candidate. The only Engineering Schools worth their salt in Ohio at the moment and their typical minimum requirements are UC (mandatory Co-op; 3.5, 25 ACT), OSU (3.75, 27 ACT), Dayton (3.25, 22), Toledo (mandatory Co-op; 3.25, 23), and Case (3.5, 23).

Those ACT scores look waaay too low for engineering schools.

Please note, I said those were minimums...not averages. Last year's EIS data puts the lowest average ACT for an engineering school on that list at Dayton with a 26.4, then Toledo at a 27.1, then Case at a 27.7, then UC at a 28.5, the OSU at a 30.4.

And as per the other part of this thread's conversation...as of the Directors Meeting that just took place at OU this past week, Cincinnati was 450 over their enrollment goal with an increased academic profile. Nothing on specific stats until census day, but they're looking good. Really, the only public schools in Ohio that aren't are Akron, Shawnee State, and OU at the moment.

Wow. I went to Case for undergrad in engineering from 2001-05. I'd bet it was way ahead of OSU then. I'm continually shocked by how far that school has fallen since I went there.

It's more an indictment of the cost of college than one of their quality. Not many people will choose to spend $50,000/year when there are numerous options with just as good if not better products for half as much. The more impressive thing to me is OSU...check out their class statistics from the mid-90's through the early 00's and compare them to now. Absolutely incredible how much they've risen over the past two decades.

From 2005-2008, they expanded from 3200 undergrads to 4600. They had built these palatial new dorms that they had to fill. It's practically impossible to expand enrollment by 40% in a few years without sacrificing quality. Also their endowment didn't grow proportionally so a lot of their top professors got poached by other schools.

That's why I'm so impressed that UC has been able to consistently grow enrollment AND quality simultaneously. And the endowment is keeping pace so we're able to keep most of our top professors.

A business professor friend of mine did a study comparing incoming ACT/SAT score to graduating GPA at UC. There was no correlation. In the end there is no substitute for an interview, emotional IQ, work ethic, and perseverance that a standardized score can't measure. Yet UC continues to beat it's chest at accepting "better" and "more qualified" students. Whatever makes us look better in US News I suppose.

(08-08-2016 11:02 AM)Fubar Wrote:  A business professor friend of mine did a study comparing incoming ACT/SAT score to graduating GPA at UC. There was no correlation. In the end there is no substitute for an interview, emotional IQ, work ethic, and perseverance that a standardized score can't measure. Yet UC continues to beat it's chest at accepting "better" and "more qualified" students. Whatever makes us look better in US News I suppose.

The truth of the matter is that retention is and always will be an issue at every institution, regardless of the quality of the students coming in. That's part of the reason why retention has become the primary funding model for institutions in Ohio, rather than the old per student funding model. It focuses efforts on providing support and ensuring that students of all levels graduate.

With that being said, there is a reason why students with better qualifications are sought after. I'd be very interested in reading this study, as almost every one I've read or taken part in shows there is a fairly strong correlation between higher qualifications and retention when all other factors are the same.

https://t.co/EDceO6QqKL

Updated today. Enrollment now 45,000. For those who previously asked the academic prowess of the incoming class is listed.

(08-17-2016 07:29 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://t.co/EDceO6QqKL

Updated today. Enrollment now 45,000. For those who previously asked the academic prowess of the incoming class is listed.

Those retention values are incredibly strong for the diverse class that UC still brings in. Many schools in the state would die for those numbers. Just as a comparison, UT, Kent State, and BGSU are floating around 75% retention and they're happy with the bump up...before ODE started using Retention in their funding model, many of the lesser 4-years (Akron, Cleveland State, Shawnee State) were seeing under 50% retention to put things into perspective.

Funny, when I went to college, a low retention rate was a sign of a quality school.

"Look at the person to the left of you and the person to the right of you. Only one of you three will be good enough to finish this program and earn a degree."

(08-17-2016 08:12 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Funny, when I went to college, a low retention rate was a sign of a quality school.

"Look at the person to the left of you and the person to the right of you. Only one of you three will be good enough to finish this program and earn a degree."

Sounds like Dr. Tuan's Freshman Engineering Physics class in 1984.

(08-17-2016 07:29 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://t.co/EDceO6QqKL

Updated today. Enrollment now 45,000. For those who previously asked the academic prowess of the incoming class is listed.

It appears that enrollment is up over 700, with the bulk of that being new freshman. The ACT score of 25.7 is unchanged, so it looks like UC is still focused on growth over "quality."

A while back, I read that UC's ultimate enrollment goal is around 48,000. That goal can be at odds with its other goal of attaining an average ACT score of 27.

(08-17-2016 08:12 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Funny, when I went to college, a low retention rate was a sign of a quality school.

"Look at the person to the left of you and the person to the right of you. Only one of you three will be good enough to finish this program and earn a degree."

I started college at OSU. Gee spoke to us and said that exact thing. Funny thing - of the 3 of us in my dorm, only one graduated from OSU. Other dorm rooms on my floor were similar. I have some nostalgia for OSU but transferring home to UC was the best thing I did as a 19 year old.

(08-17-2016 08:28 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 07:29 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://t.co/EDceO6QqKL

Updated today. Enrollment now 45,000. For those who previously asked the academic prowess of the incoming class is listed.

It appears that enrollment is up over 700, with the bulk of that being new freshman. The ACT score of 25.7 is unchanged, so it looks like UC is still focused on growth over "quality."

A while back, I read that UC's ultimate enrollment goal is around 48,000. That goal can be at odds with its other goal of attaining an average ACT score of 27.

Maybe in the short term, but people wanting to go here can only be a good thing for competition down the road.

(08-17-2016 08:26 AM)RedRocker Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 08:12 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Funny, when I went to college, a low retention rate was a sign of a quality school.

"Look at the person to the left of you and the person to the right of you. Only one of you three will be good enough to finish this program and earn a degree."

Sounds like Dr. Tuan's Freshman Engineering Physics class in 1984.

I heard it from my law school dean in 1960 - interestingly he was not far wrong!

Funny thing is, Bruce, that is the only message I recall from freshman orientation. Times they are a changing.

(08-17-2016 08:12 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Funny, when I went to college, a low retention rate was a sign of a quality school.

"Look at the person to the left of you and the person to the right of you. Only one of you three will be good enough to finish this program and earn a degree."

(08-17-2016 09:05 AM)Leojrellim Wrote:  Funny thing is, Bruce, that is the only message I recall from freshman orientation. Times they are a changing.

They aren't changing that much. I graduated from Aerospace in 2008. My freshman class had over 100 students in it. We graduated just over 30.

(08-17-2016 09:48 AM)AeroCat Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:05 AM)Leojrellim Wrote:  Funny thing is, Bruce, that is the only message I recall from freshman orientation. Times they are a changing.

They aren't changing that much. I graduated from Aerospace in 2008. My freshman class had over 100 students in it. We graduated just over 30.

Keep in mind, most of those students probably still graduated, just with a different degree.

Matriculation is always the intent of an institution of Higher Education. No school went through WANTING to have a low retention, that's poor business sense. Lower retention = less tuition money coming in...however, now the state funding structure is based on retention and not head count because some of the lesser schools were scraping the bottom of the barrel just to get their headcount subsidy and not really giving a **** if those students remained there.

(08-08-2016 11:02 AM)Fubar Wrote:  A business professor friend of mine did a study comparing incoming ACT/SAT score to graduating GPA at UC. There was no correlation. In the end there is no substitute for an interview, emotional IQ, work ethic, and perseverance that a standardized score can't measure. Yet UC continues to beat it's chest at accepting "better" and "more qualified" students. Whatever makes us look better in US News I suppose.

Why compare test scores to graduating GPA? Incoming test scores consistently rank as excellent predictors or retention and graduation at UC. Using graduating GPA as the dependent would result in dropping a ton of students with low GPA's who simply dropped out and artificially limits the range of GPA (since graduation generally requires a minimum GPA).

If the study is saying that ACT isn't predictive of the difference in GPA of students that will eventually graduate then that is probably true. I'd also bet that there is minimal correlation between income and college GPA for people earning $100,000 or more.

Did the study get published anywhere? I'd love to read it.

(08-17-2016 11:43 AM)qsilvr2531 Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 11:02 AM)Fubar Wrote:  A business professor friend of mine did a study comparing incoming ACT/SAT score to graduating GPA at UC. There was no correlation. In the end there is no substitute for an interview, emotional IQ, work ethic, and perseverance that a standardized score can't measure. Yet UC continues to beat it's chest at accepting "better" and "more qualified" students. Whatever makes us look better in US News I suppose.

Why compare test scores to graduating GPA? Incoming test scores consistently rank as excellent predictors or retention and graduation at UC. Using graduating GPA as the dependent would result in dropping a ton of students with low GPA's who simply dropped out and artificially limits the range of GPA (since graduation generally requires a minimum GPA).

If the study is saying that ACT isn't predictive of the difference in GPA of students that will eventually graduate then that is probably true. I'd also bet that there is minimal correlation between income and college GPA for people earning $100,000 or more.

Did the study get published anywhere? I'd love to read it.

Yeah, that study wouldn't really make much sense given the parameters, especially not incorporating degree difficulty. I mean, just in my own case, my college GPA (3.6) and my ACT (34) probably meant I would be considered in the negative column for that interpretation.