(08-17-2016 12:27 AM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 08:01 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  It's tough being a UC, captain.

You're not kidding. Let's start filtering out the private schools and the medical research centers to see where the UC campuses fit relative to their institutional peers.

3 UC Berkeley
10 UCLA
12 UC San Diego
13 Washington
17 Michigan
21 Wisconsin
23 Illinois
24 Minnesota
25 North Carolina
27 Colorado
28 UC Santa Barbara
30 Texas
32 Maryland
33 UC Irvine
35 Purdue
37 Pitt
39 UC Davis
41 Penn State
42 Ohio State
43 UC Santa Cruz
45 Florida
47 Georgia Tech
48 Rutgers
50 Utah
51-61 Arizona State
51-61 Indiana
51-61 Michigan State
51-61 Texas A&M
51-61 Arizona
62-71 Oregon State
62-71 UC Riverside
62-71 Delaware
62-71 Hawaii
62-71 Iowa
62-71 UMass
62-71 Virginia

There are 36 public universities (not including the medical centers) in the rankings by the time you get to the lowest-ranked UC campus (not counting the still very new UC Merced.)

Here is how those 36 campuses break down:

27 are in P5 conferences
2 are in G5 conferences
2 are in the FCS
And the other 5 are all campuses of the University of California system

There are 39 million people in California. Hopefully someday they will start caring enough about collegiate sports to place the remaining UC campuses among their proper peers.

And the 2 G5s and 1 FCS that is NOT a UC school are tied with the bottom UC school.

(08-16-2016 04:14 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here

AAU in bold

All of these schools have Phi Beta Kappa chapters (undergrad liberal arts excellence) except where noted:

Big 12
Texas 30
Iowa St 72-98
Kansas 72-98
Okla St 120-137
Texas Tech 120-137
West Va 120-137
Oklahoma NR
Kansas St NR
TCU NR
Baylor NR

G5
Rice 38

Colo St 72-98
New Mexico 72-98
Cincy 72-98
Houston 72-98
USF 72-98 (no PBK)

UConn 99-119
Temple 99-119

San Diego St 120-137
Wyoming 120-137
UCF 120-137 (no PBK)
BYU 120-137 (no PBK)

PBK but no ARWU
Tulane
SMU
Tulsa

Neither
Memphis
East Carolina
Boise St
Fresno St
NIU
Service Academies

Seems like the Big 12 will raise its academic profile in this expansion, almost no matter who it chooses.

(08-16-2016 08:44 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 07:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 05:38 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  USF, Cincy, and Houston tied for 2nd in B12 academics !!!

Cincinnati would be 2nd in the Big 12 in number of students (44,000), number of living alumni (285,000), dollar amount of research funding (and just about any other measure of research activity or quality), NCAA Final Four appearances, NCAA tournament wins, and NCAA basketball titles. We would also be 3rd in number of wins in football over the past decade (90 wins from 2006-2015).

We would also be first in the Big 12 in number of U.S. presidents and Supreme Court Justices that are alums. We also have 5 pro Hall of Famers in the 3 big sports (and others in smaller sports), including the best lefthanded pitcher of all time (Sandy Koufax) and arguably the 2nd best basketball player of all time (The Big O).

With numbers like those, it's curious why anyone in the Big 12 not named Texas would be hesitant to call us a peer.

Nice try. You actually have 34,000 on the "uptown" campus and 44,000 total of all campuses. USF has 49,000. Wiki is your friend if you use it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi...Cincinnati
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi...th_Florida

And USF has over 300,000 living alumni which beats you too http://www.unstoppable.usf.edu/fnd_web_a...nts/aa.pdf

Yes, USF's numbers are also impressive - you're just about the closest thing Cincinnati has to an institutional peer.

In any "institutional quality" rankings, USF is certainly much more impressive than UCF on the "feels like a peer to the Big 12" scale.

Where USF comes up short is in their athletic department. Cincinnati has athletic achievements in both major and minor sports that match up nicely to the Big 12 - both in recent years and historically (other than football from 1977-1999). In conference reallignment, that matters.

(08-17-2016 12:10 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 08:44 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 07:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 05:38 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  USF, Cincy, and Houston tied for 2nd in B12 academics !!!

Cincinnati would be 2nd in the Big 12 in number of students (44,000), number of living alumni (285,000), dollar amount of research funding (and just about any other measure of research activity or quality), NCAA Final Four appearances, NCAA tournament wins, and NCAA basketball titles. We would also be 3rd in number of wins in football over the past decade (90 wins from 2006-2015).

We would also be first in the Big 12 in number of U.S. presidents and Supreme Court Justices that are alums. We also have 5 pro Hall of Famers in the 3 big sports (and others in smaller sports), including the best lefthanded pitcher of all time (Sandy Koufax) and arguably the 2nd best basketball player of all time (The Big O).

With numbers like those, it's curious why anyone in the Big 12 not named Texas would be hesitant to call us a peer.

Nice try. You actually have 34,000 on the "uptown" campus and 44,000 total of all campuses. USF has 49,000. Wiki is your friend if you use it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi...Cincinnati
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universi...th_Florida

And USF has over 300,000 living alumni which beats you too http://www.unstoppable.usf.edu/fnd_web_a...nts/aa.pdf

Yes, USF's numbers are also impressive - you're just about the closest thing Cincinnati has to an institutional peer.

In any "institutional quality" rankings, USF is certainly much more impressive than UCF on the "feels like a peer to the Big 12" scale.

Where USF comes up short is in their athletic department. Cincinnati has athletic achievements in both major and minor sports that match up nicely to the Big 12 - both in recent years and historically (other than football from 1977-1999). In conference reallignment, that matters.

Good points. The size of UC endowment is also substantially larger than USF's
UC = $1.2 billion
USF = $420 million
UCF = $156 million


Just wish our PR department knew how to spellcheck things.

(08-17-2016 01:00 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  GiveEmTheAxe, Mongoose - I was referring to Cincy. Since they are known as the University of Cincinnati, I include them as part of the "UC" family also. Honorary, of course.

With origins dating back to 1819, the University of Cincinnati is the senior institution, so maybe we should consider California's system as an honorary member of our family. In a couple of years, all of you other UCs can wish us a happy 200th birthday.

Google uc.edu for more information.

(08-17-2016 11:37 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:00 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  GiveEmTheAxe, Mongoose - I was referring to Cincy. Since they are known as the University of Cincinnati, I include them as part of the "UC" family also. Honorary, of course.

With origins dating back to 1819, the University of Cincinnati is the senior institution, so maybe we should consider California's system as an honorary member of our family. In a couple of years, all of you other UCs can wish us a happy 200th birthday.

Google uc.edu for more information.

Haha. I heard a story years ago that people at Berkley were furious when they found out they couldn't get uc.edu. They thought that they were entitled to that name. And with them being so close to the center of the tech industry, they were shocked that another school thought to register the domain name before them.

Fun fact: if Cincinnati joined Cal's UC system, the University of Cincinnati would have the largest enrollment of any university in the system.

(08-18-2016 03:26 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 11:37 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 01:00 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  GiveEmTheAxe, Mongoose - I was referring to Cincy. Since they are known as the University of Cincinnati, I include them as part of the "UC" family also. Honorary, of course.

With origins dating back to 1819, the University of Cincinnati is the senior institution, so maybe we should consider California's system as an honorary member of our family. In a couple of years, all of you other UCs can wish us a happy 200th birthday.

Google uc.edu for more information.

Haha. I heard a story years ago that people at Berkley were furious when they found out they couldn't get uc.edu. They thought that they were entitled to that name. And with them being so close to the center of the tech industry, they were shocked that another school thought to register the domain name before them.

Fun fact: if Cincinnati joined Cal's UC system, the University of Cincinnati would have the largest enrollment of any university in the system.

Good thing they were able to secure stanfordrejects.com

We may not be a B12 candidate but added us..

(08-17-2016 11:24 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-16-2016 04:14 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Here

AAU in bold

All of these schools have Phi Beta Kappa chapters (undergrad liberal arts excellence) except where noted:

Big 12
Texas 30
Iowa St 72-98
Kansas 72-98
Okla St 120-137
Texas Tech 120-137
West Va 120-137
Oklahoma NR
Kansas St NR
TCU NR
Baylor NR

G5
Rice 38

UMass 62-71
Colo St 72-98
New Mexico 72-98
Cincy 72-98
Houston 72-98
USF 72-98 (no PBK)

UConn 99-119
Temple 99-119

San Diego St 120-137
Wyoming 120-137
UCF 120-137 (no PBK)
BYU 120-137 (no PBK)

PBK but no ARWU
Tulane
SMU
Tulsa

Neither
Memphis
East Carolina
Boise St
Fresno St
NIU
Service Academies

Seems like the Big 12 will raise its academic profile in this expansion, almost no matter who it chooses.

(08-16-2016 04:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  What are the criteria these rankings are based on? I'm glad to see us in the top 100, but have mixed feelings once I see us above the likes of Georgetown, BC, and Wake Forest.

They don't really rank the quality of education. They're better at ranking research and the quality thereof.

They're important, but they should be used correctly.

Barring a clear and meaningful connection between research at a school and research at its conference mates' schools, I honestly question the relevance of these rankings to conference realignment.

Just noticing Maryland and Rutgers rankings. I see why the Big 10 expanded with them despite their less than worthy athletics. The Big 10 expands with academics as the first requirement and staying focus to being an academic conference and not just an athletic one.

Same for the PAC-12 which is why they only focused with teams they were interested in to go to 16.

It looks like these rankings weigh in grad schools more heavily, than other large academic rankings. As a result, schools like Miami (I think others like Colorado Mines and William & Mary fit into this category as well) with limited grad programs are ranked lower than they would be otherwise. Just knowing Miami, we only really have a smattering of PhD departments and a great accounting master's program, and that's it. No law or med school works against you in a lot of ways, even if benefits undergrad education in a lot of ways.

By the same token, it probably overrates a few schools with a heavy focus on grad schools. I don't know who that applies to, but they're probably out there.

(08-19-2016 12:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It looks like these rankings weigh in grad schools more heavily, than other large academic rankings.

The AWRU (and CWUR) are rankings of research universities. Having a strong graduate school program in a field tends to go along with having strong research output in that field.

If you are thinking of the USNWR rankings, that is a high school student (and student parent's) buyers guide. Schools that rank highly in it obviously stress it to potential applicants, like any good salesman highlights whatever ranking put their product first ... but it doesn't bear much weight in terms of status among academic snobs.

(08-19-2016 09:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It looks like these rankings weigh in grad schools more heavily, than other large academic rankings.

The AWRU (and CWUR) are rankings of research universities. Having a strong graduate school program in a field tends to go along with having strong research output in that field.

If you are thinking of the USNWR rankings, that is a high school student (and student parent's) buyers guide. Schools that rank highly in it obviously stress it to potential applicants, like any good salesman highlights whatever ranking put their product first ... but it doesn't bear much weight in terms of status among academic snobs.

It depends who the snobs are. If you think for a second that SUNY at Buffalo is more snobbish than Georgetown, then I think you're nuts.

If you think that USNWR rankings don't weigh heavily on the minds of academic snobs, then read about Northeastern.

If you think that academic snobs look down on Williams, then I vehemently disagree.

The truth is that research and research rankings matter to an extent. Living in a world with great inventions and scientific advancements is great. Also, research professors definitely care about their research, which rolls up into rankings. However, the degree to which research and research rankings matter is severely overblown in these sports forums. Posters like harping over research numbers because they're easy to understand and they're quantifiable. Most people like those characteristics, and they will do insane mental gymnastics to not upset the apple cart.

Look no further than the B1G. The B1G is supposedly the most research-driven conference in the land. However, B1G members voted to boot fellow B1G member, Nebraska, out of the AAU. Go figure.

However, I do agree with the part of your post where you said that research metrics are far more important for grad students than undergrads. They are - especially STEM students.

(08-19-2016 11:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It looks like these rankings weigh in grad schools more heavily, than other large academic rankings.

The AWRU (and CWUR) are rankings of research universities. Having a strong graduate school program in a field tends to go along with having strong research output in that field.

If you are thinking of the USNWR rankings, that is a high school student (and student parent's) buyers guide. Schools that rank highly in it obviously stress it to potential applicants, like any good salesman highlights whatever ranking put their product first ... but it doesn't bear much weight in terms of status among academic snobs.

It depends who the snobs are. If you think for a second that SUNY at Buffalo is more snobbish than Georgetown, then I think you're nuts.

If you think that USNWR rankings don't weigh heavily on the minds of academic snobs, then read about Northeastern.

If you think that academic snobs look down on Williams, then I vehemently disagree.

The truth is that research and research rankings matter to an extent. Living in a world with great inventions and scientific advancements is great. Also, research professors definitely care about their research, which rolls up into rankings. However, the degree to which research and research rankings matter is severely overblown in these sports forums. Posters like harping over research numbers because they're easy to understand and they're quantifiable. Most people like those characteristics, and they will do insane mental gymnastics to not upset the apple cart.

Look no further than the B1G. The B1G is supposedly the most research-driven conference in the land. However, B1G members voted to boot fellow B1G member, Nebraska, out of the AAU. Go figure.

However, I do agree with the part of your post where you said that research metrics are far more important for grad students than undergrads. They are - especially STEM students.

As an academic, I can assure you that a lot of academic snobs look down on Northeastern. Teachers are 2nd class citizens in academia; it's researchers who run the show and get paid the big bucks. And Northeastern is filled to the brim with great teachers who do little research.

As for Williams, it's so far off the radar that most academics outside of liberal arts have probably never heard of it.


I don't know why you bring up Nebraska. It ranks last in the Big 10 in both USNWR and AWRU, but it's still respectable in both. It doesn't really prove anything other than that a great football program is more important than being an elite academic school - but I think everyone already knew that before we started debating which academic rankings are more important.

(08-19-2016 12:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It looks like these rankings weigh in grad schools more heavily, than other large academic rankings. As a result, schools like Miami (I think others like Colorado Mines and William & Mary fit into this category as well) with limited grad programs are ranked lower than they would be otherwise. Just knowing Miami, we only really have a smattering of PhD departments and a great accounting master's program, and that's it. No law or med school works against you in a lot of ways, even if benefits undergrad education in a lot of ways.

By the same token, it probably overrates a few schools with a heavy focus on grad schools. I don't know who that applies to, but they're probably out there.

In particular, these research rankings typically overweight schools with med schools. Laws schools don't usually have much research output. Med schools publish a lot of crappy, crappy studies (most MDs never take any statistics courses, and it shows), but they're still publications & they still get cited by other crappy medical studies, so they get counted.

This hurts schools like Miami, SDSU, and ag schools like Purdue and a lot of SEC schools. It helps schools like Pitt, Cincinnati, USF, and IUPUI where the med school is one of their best departments. Someone should really do a second set of rankings that excludes any research in the health sciences.

(08-20-2016 01:36 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It looks like these rankings weigh in grad schools more heavily, than other large academic rankings. As a result, schools like Miami (I think others like Colorado Mines and William & Mary fit into this category as well) with limited grad programs are ranked lower than they would be otherwise. Just knowing Miami, we only really have a smattering of PhD departments and a great accounting master's program, and that's it. No law or med school works against you in a lot of ways, even if benefits undergrad education in a lot of ways.

By the same token, it probably overrates a few schools with a heavy focus on grad schools. I don't know who that applies to, but they're probably out there.

In particular, these research rankings typically overweight schools with med schools. Laws schools don't usually have much research output. Med schools publish a lot of crappy, crappy studies (most MDs never take any statistics courses, and it shows), but they're still publications & they still get cited by other crappy medical studies, so they get counted.

This hurts schools like Miami, SDSU, and ag schools like Purdue and a lot of SEC schools. It helps schools like Pitt, Cincinnati, USF, and IUPUI where the med school is one of their best departments. Someone should really do a second set of rankings that excludes any research in the health sciences.

Universities with no med school are ranked 3-4-5-6 among U.S. universities in the latest ARWU, though, and those schools (Cal, MIT, Princeton, Caltech) are always near the top in these research rankings. So maybe, in general, a med school helps (or the absence of one hurts) in these rankings a little but not a lot.

ARWU shows its subject area ranking for each school if you click on the school name, so you can see for any one school whether their ranking for medical research is significantly higher or lower than their overall ranking.

(08-20-2016 01:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 11:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It looks like these rankings weigh in grad schools more heavily, than other large academic rankings.

The AWRU (and CWUR) are rankings of research universities. Having a strong graduate school program in a field tends to go along with having strong research output in that field.

If you are thinking of the USNWR rankings, that is a high school student (and student parent's) buyers guide. Schools that rank highly in it obviously stress it to potential applicants, like any good salesman highlights whatever ranking put their product first ... but it doesn't bear much weight in terms of status among academic snobs.

It depends who the snobs are. If you think for a second that SUNY at Buffalo is more snobbish than Georgetown, then I think you're nuts.

If you think that USNWR rankings don't weigh heavily on the minds of academic snobs, then read about Northeastern.

If you think that academic snobs look down on Williams, then I vehemently disagree.

The truth is that research and research rankings matter to an extent. Living in a world with great inventions and scientific advancements is great. Also, research professors definitely care about their research, which rolls up into rankings. However, the degree to which research and research rankings matter is severely overblown in these sports forums. Posters like harping over research numbers because they're easy to understand and they're quantifiable. Most people like those characteristics, and they will do insane mental gymnastics to not upset the apple cart.

Look no further than the B1G. The B1G is supposedly the most research-driven conference in the land. However, B1G members voted to boot fellow B1G member, Nebraska, out of the AAU. Go figure.

However, I do agree with the part of your post where you said that research metrics are far more important for grad students than undergrads. They are - especially STEM students.

As an academic, I can assure you that a lot of academic snobs look down on Northeastern. Teachers are 2nd class citizens in academia; it's researchers who run the show and get paid the big bucks. And Northeastern is filled to the brim with great teachers who do little research.

As for Williams, it's so far off the radar that most academics outside of liberal arts have probably never heard of it.


I don't know why you bring up Nebraska. It ranks last in the Big 10 in both USNWR and AWRU, but it's still respectable in both. It doesn't really prove anything other than that a great football program is more important than being an elite academic school - but I think everyone already knew that before we started debating which academic rankings are more important.

1) You misunderstand the Northeastern example. Read their history and it will make more sense.
2) If you're an academic (and/or a generally smart high school kid) of any worth - any at all - you've heard of Williams. It's like not having heard of Harvard.
3) You misunderstand the Nebraska example. Nebraska was CLEARLY added for their football team. We agree. However, if AAU standing really positively impacted the other members of the B1G, schools like Michigan wouldn't have voted to give them the boot from the AAU.

(08-20-2016 01:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  As for Williams, it's so far off the radar that most academics outside of liberal arts have probably never heard of it.

(08-19-2016 12:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It looks like these rankings weigh in grad schools more heavily, than other large academic rankings. As a result, schools like Miami (I think others like Colorado Mines and William & Mary fit into this category as well) with limited grad programs are ranked lower than they would be otherwise. Just knowing Miami, we only really have a smattering of PhD departments and a great accounting master's program, and that's it. No law or med school works against you in a lot of ways, even if benefits undergrad education in a lot of ways.

By the same token, it probably overrates a few schools with a heavy focus on grad schools. I don't know who that applies to, but they're probably out there.

UMass without law (UMass -Dartmouth) and med (UMass - Worcester) is rated in the 62-71 bracket and we have over 25k undergrads and close to 5k grads.

(08-19-2016 11:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Look no further than the B1G. The B1G is supposedly the most research-driven conference in the land. However, B1G members voted to boot fellow B1G member, Nebraska, out of the AAU. Go figure.

And they made sure Nebraska was already voted into the Big Ten before doing so. That's more testimony to the importance to the academic snobs they are trying to placate than demonstration of the opposite.

(08-20-2016 02:04 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 01:36 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  In particular, these research rankings typically overweight schools with med schools. Laws schools don't usually have much research output. ...

Universities with no med school are ranked 3-4-5-6 among U.S. universities in the latest ARWU, though, ...

Note that schools of engineering gives the same kinds of benefits as medical schools, both for rankings like AWRU and for rankings that include competitive grant funding.

And the AWRU, being a Chinese based ranking, is more STEM centric than, say, the CWUR, and is based purely on outputs, not on funding, so relative strengths in basic sciences & in math and statistics also boosts AWRU ranking. The impact of the MPU (minimum publishable unit) is by no means limited to just medical schools.