(09-15-2016 11:57 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 11:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 10:40 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Looking at the schools ahead of us, I think you could make the case we should be trying to get into the Ivy League rather than the Big 12 to be top 10 in US News.
Look at UNC, formerly top 10 in the 1980s, and arguably just as well known for round ball success as Duke, yet they have dropped to below us, circa 25 iirc from the chart referenced above. I have previously believed the same idea about Duke, but looking at the data makes me doubt it.
ETA: see also Michigan, top 10 in the 1980s down to mid 20s. Still famous for football. And the fab 5 didn't save them in the 1990s either so it can't be a basketball specific effect.

We have no shot at the Ivies. Their travel rules would preclude it. Any Ivy would need a waiver to play us home and home. I think it would be worth pursuing a waiver to get a home and home with Yale or Harvard, but it's far from automatic.
Dennis Green had been an assistant at Cornell under George Seifert. When he got the Stanford job, he scheduled a home and home with Cornell. That's the only time that I'm aware that an Ivy got a waiver of the travel restrictions (they apply to football only).

Pretty sure Harvard played San Diego a couple of years ago...
Found the article: http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/09/harva...diego-2013

OK, another exception. But article starts with comment that it was Harvard's first trip to Cali since 1949. What it does suggest is that waivers can be granted. I'd really like to see us go for it with Harvard and Yale.

How Big Data Transformed Applying to College:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/m...nsive.html

(09-15-2016 08:53 PM)Viejobuho Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 03:18 PM)OwlRon87 Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 11:24 AM)Viejobuho Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 11:05 AM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  I know several alums who donated for the first time last year. The reasoning was always the same - USNWR rankings.

This stuff matters. Here's an interesting archived page that shows where Rice was in the past (as good as #9): http://web.archive.org/web/2007090814245...ats/usnews

I am a little surprised by these historical records because they do not appear to support my (and perhaps others' in this board) theory that athletic success correlates to improved USNWR rankings.

I could not disagree more. Take a look at Duke rankings (early to mid 1980's). That coincides with a basketball coach named Krzyzewski becoming head coach (1980). Duke has since become a household name. I don't believe that was quite the case before Coach K. I recall my chemistry teacher at boarding school in CT telling me Rice was a much better school than Duke at that time. Also, look at Northwestern. Their rise in the rankings coincides with their turnaround in football which began in the 90's (won first of back to back Big 10 championships in 1995. They jumped to #9 in the wake of those championships. While more up and down, Pat Fitzgerald has been competitive in the Big 10 most years. Then look at Rice. We got left out of a Power 5 conference beginning in 1995, which significantly reduced our visibility. Reputation is weighted 15% by USNWR. It makes a big difference.

I agree 100% with your statement that Duke became a household name after Coach K, but the data that I am seeing (83,85, 88-07) to me is not enough to show a clear cause/effect. The footnotes say that these USNWR rankings started in 1983. Maybe you are looking at some additional rankings; it certainly would be interesting to see "data" before 1983.

What happen at Penn, Chicago, Wash U?

Rice's variances before and after 1995 do not seem that different.

I also agree with your CT (Choate, my alma-mater?) chemistry teacher--- I also had the same experience.

Anyway, my gut feeling is that you should be right---I hope so!

I went to Kent, so we played you in athletics every year. I recall Choate's facilities being much nicer back then. Probably still are.

(09-16-2016 08:58 AM)JSA Wrote:  How Big Data Transformed Applying to College:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/m...nsive.html

Free-market optimization, baby! What's not to like or emulate?

The article is an excerpt from "mathbabe" Cathy O'Neil's National Book Award non-fiction finalist, "Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy"

I doubt many of us would find any of this surprising.

Quote:Rankings go up if colleges appear exclusive, which is determined by various metrics including what proportion of applicants get accepted (better to be low), what proportion of accepted applicants actually enroll (better to be high), and what the average SAT score is of those enrolled. That means there’s stiff competition for the high-end student, and things like extremely plush living quarters and fancy athletic facilities ... are becoming par for the course. There’s nothing inherently academic about most of these changes, but they cost money, both in their construction and in the number of administrators it takes to arrange it all.

The more the model is gamed, the more expensive colleges become.

There’s no penalty for high tuition, because the U.S. News model doesn’t track cost. Over time, the widespread gaming has led to outrageous tuitions but not necessarily a better education. The pool of high school kids hasn’t changed much, but that hasn’t stopped the college system from entering an expensive arms race of prestige. The more prestige, the more students apply, and the more you can reject—thus, greater selectivity, higher U.S. News ratings, and—presto—still more prestige. Those who have, get.

Enter the age of big data. Recently, college admissions offices have begun to use algorithms that work on an individual-student basis to profile and predict their behavior. They use social media data, as well as the data supplied by the applications, to compute the likelihood a given student will enroll if accepted, the extent of financial aid needed by the student—or needed to seduce a relatively well-off student—and the chances that student will graduate. It’s the big data version of the exact same game, with the exact same goal: to increase the college’s ranking.

Because of the increasing scrutiny and reliance on predictive algorithms, life has become increasingly miserable for high school kids. For example, we may as well hold a funeral for the concept of the safety school, since high acceptance rates are bad for rankings.

(09-15-2016 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 04:26 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 03:57 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 11:24 AM)Viejobuho Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 11:05 AM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  I know several alums who donated for the first time last year. The reasoning was always the same - USNWR rankings.

This stuff matters. Here's an interesting archived page that shows where Rice was in the past (as good as #9): http://web.archive.org/web/2007090814245...ats/usnews

I am a little surprised by these historical records because they do not appear to support my (and perhaps others' in this board) theory that athletic success correlates to improved USNWR rankings.

A major part of the explanation has to be the decline of state funding of higher ed + rise of competition for federal grant money.

Check how much money Rice gets from NSF/NIH et al. It's crazy low. (I forget the number... ~$40MM or less?). Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins? ~$1.7billion.

On this list we do not crack the top 40: http://www.bestcolleges.com/features/col...enditures/
Most of the schools above us in USNWR, and the ones that overtook us in last couple of decades are.

Winning grants requires major institutional investments -- e.g. staff to prepare/send/manage applications. The more you win, the easier it is to have effective institutions in place and win more.

Med school puts that through the roof.

Pretty much this and the fact that while we have a grad school, our university remains focused on undergraduate research and that likely dampens the ability of professors to put more effort towards winning large grants.

It's good to have medical research/school, but I was trying to point out the complementarities that exist when you get lots of med research dollars flowing through.
- You develop an infrastructure for winning grants that helps with non-med grant applications
- You offer more/better research opportunities to undergrads and thus attract better undergrads
- You enable more cross-disciplinary collaboration, which benefits non-med departments
- You attract better faculty in *non-med* departments, if they know that there are interesting collaborations going on on the med side, that you *can* join, even if you odn't
- You raise your *overall* prestige.. Here's I'm thinking of Emory getting tremendous national exposure during the big recent ebola (?) outbreak in West Africa.. the med side was benefiting the whole university

So it's good to be a major research center... and our small scale as far as federal research dollars really hurts as the system shifts more and more to those dollars

(09-16-2016 12:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 11:57 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 11:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-15-2016 10:40 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Looking at the schools ahead of us, I think you could make the case we should be trying to get into the Ivy League rather than the Big 12 to be top 10 in US News.
Look at UNC, formerly top 10 in the 1980s, and arguably just as well known for round ball success as Duke, yet they have dropped to below us, circa 25 iirc from the chart referenced above. I have previously believed the same idea about Duke, but looking at the data makes me doubt it.
ETA: see also Michigan, top 10 in the 1980s down to mid 20s. Still famous for football. And the fab 5 didn't save them in the 1990s either so it can't be a basketball specific effect.

We have no shot at the Ivies. Their travel rules would preclude it. Any Ivy would need a waiver to play us home and home. I think it would be worth pursuing a waiver to get a home and home with Yale or Harvard, but it's far from automatic.
Dennis Green had been an assistant at Cornell under George Seifert. When he got the Stanford job, he scheduled a home and home with Cornell. That's the only time that I'm aware that an Ivy got a waiver of the travel restrictions (they apply to football only).

Pretty sure Harvard played San Diego a couple of years ago...
Found the article: http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/09/harva...diego-2013

OK, another exception. But article starts with comment that it was Harvard's first trip to Cali since 1949. What it does suggest is that waivers can be granted. I'd really like to see us go for it with Harvard and Yale.

If we were a member of the Ivy League I guess the would waive the travel rule. (Duh)
Of course I agree we have no shot at the Ivy League - but it is arguably a better pie-in-the-sky fantasy than Big12 for us. Why not dream?

(09-13-2016 09:22 AM)Converted Rice Wrote:  Interesting that the only three schools to move up were Rice, SMU, and Baylor. I hear from people in academia the A&M is a hot mess right now. Sounds like Rick Perry and his buddies have really screwed things up.

Rick Perry and his buddies have screwed up a lot and if Donald Trump is elected, could screen up the entire world! ,