This is why Alger didn't want us in the SunBelt to start with. The academics are WEAK (putting it politely). Marshall and ODU are ~300 and those are the #3 and #4 in the new SunBelt...it's kinda sad. However, gotta hand it to Keith Gill...he not only added some great teams, but MUCH better schools. #1, #3, and #4 best nationally ranked schools in the SBC were added this round.

(09-12-2022 10:28 AM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  This is why Alger didn't want us in the SunBelt to start with. The academics are WEAK (putting it politely). Marshall and ODU are ~300 and those are the #3 and #4 in the new SunBelt...it's kinda sad. However, gotta hand it to Keith Gill...he not only added some great teams, but MUCH better schools. #1, #3, and #4 best nationally ranked schools in the SBC were added this round.

No doubt, University presidents like the company they keep. That being said, I'd rather have more in common athletically with our athletics conference mates than be surrounded by small/more prestigious schools. JMU needs to grow it's visibility to improve it's ranking, and there is no question to me that the SBC helps in that regard.

(09-12-2022 09:43 AM)Potomac Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 07:27 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 03:47 PM)jmu98 Wrote:  Would be interesting to know why USNWR thinks the salaries of faculty should make up 7% of a schools rating. Seems to heavily favor the high class schools.

More than anything, it favors urban schools. Obviously elite universities have higher salaries as well, but all else equal, urban schools pay much higher salaries. Your money goes a lot further in Harrisonburg than in Fairfax.

Yeah, that creates a bias towards urban and suburban universities that have to pay more due to cost of living in their metro areas. Rural universities don't have to pay as highly due to lower COL. That's a very arbitrary metric to set a ranking on.

I think that may also be used as a 'confirmation bias'/justification for their rankings. I'm sure if you went on totally objective measures the rankings would look a bit different, so you sprinkle in a few subjective measures disguised as objective metrics and use that to help confirm the story they want to tell. No doubt that Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth and Brown are great schools but are kids coming out of those schools really any better (and more importantly better prepared) than kids from schools like W&M, UVA, UNC, UCLA, Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, etc?

My personal professional interactions with people in industry makes me say no, not really...if anything some of the Ivy Leaguers are twits who have no real understanding of how the world actually works because they were so sheltered and indoctrinated. For certain professions, sure, there are schools that are above and beyond the rest. The MIT, CalTech and Stanford nerds are top of the game for IT related fields and John's Hopkins is up there on medical students.

I'd take someone from JMU (work hard, play hard, party hard) who can be both professional and social at the same time over an Ivy League grad who wants you to know how self absorbed they are by interjecting it into every conversation.

If we’re only considering undergraduate experience and quality of education, JMU would likely fare higher. As an alum of both JMU and GMU, there are a lot of things that JMU does well that a Mason undergrad probably does not get. However, as one of many who have been a part of the JMU to Mason pipeline for grad school, research and graduate programs simply do not compare.

Frankly, JMU did quite well for being a school without a law or med school that still hasn’t grown into its size. We ended up beating schools with much longer histories. Placing higher would’ve been nice but the sky is still standing.

(09-12-2022 11:18 AM)MarginalDuke Wrote:  If we’re only considering undergraduate experience and quality of education, JMU would likely fare higher. As an alum of both JMU and GMU, there are a lot of things that JMU does well that a Mason undergrad probably does not get. However, as one of many who have been a part of the JMU to Mason pipeline for grad school, research and graduate programs simply do not compare.

Frankly, JMU did quite well for being a school without a law or med school that still hasn’t grown into its size. We ended up beating schools with much longer history, higher would’ve been nicer but the sky is still standing.

I think this is very true. JMU is a top notch undergrad university, but we need to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that our gradate programs are not at a scale or quality to sniff the top 100 -- yet. I would like to continue to see us make investments in the graduate programs, with an emphasis on research.

Categories JMU did rank in the top 100:
#18: Best Undergraduate Engineering Program (no doctorate offered)
#41: Best Undergraduate Teaching
#93: Nursing

Quote:Many colleges have a strong commitment to teaching undergraduates instead of conducting graduate-level research. In a survey conducted in spring and summer 2022, the schools on these lists received the most votes from top college administrators for putting a particular focus on undergraduate teaching.

I think this aligns with what a lot of us aleady know. JMU has excellent undergrad instruction, but has work to do on expanding graduate degrees and research.

(09-12-2022 07:29 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  Longhorn had a really good post about his prediction, but I can't seem to find it. I'd like to hear his take on the actual ranking vs. his expectations.

A bit disappointed, but not surprised.

Obviously, there’s a great deal of work to be done. It’s going to be a slog moving forward.

Overall, this ranking can be equated to JMU’s move up to play FBS FB. While we’re good, we’re also not going to get ranked at this point in our development.

In this moment we’ve got to continue to punch above our weight, but eventually there’s a limit. Manny Pacquiao might be record-setting holder of 8 different weight-class world championships in boxing, but he never fought in the light heavyweight division, much less for the heavyweight title.

Research dollars, faculty salaries, investments in graduate programs (particularly in professional programs related to medicine and science) will all play a role if the goal is to move higher in USNWR rankings.

The simple solution to climb higher in the rankings is the old saw “all it takes is (more) money”…however, that is only partially true. Massive increases in JMU’s endowment can expedite some of the necessary growth, but continued good stewardship of JMU by the current administration, and successive future administrations, will tell the tale.

Just as JMU FB has benefitted from a succession of good HC hires (MM to Withers to Houston to CC), JMU has benefitted from several successful Presidents in its modern age (Carrier to Rose to Alger). The stability and solid leadership over the 110+ years of the institution’s history is remarkable, but it’s no guarantee that the future will be as steady and solid. If the next Presidential hire (or hires) turn out more like the Keener/Rowe variety much of the positive trajectory we’re currently on could be squandered.

What’s the ceiling for JMU? Like Pacquiao not being a heavyweight, JMU will never be an Ivy or a Tier-one state flagship like Michigan, UVA, or Cal. Also, does JMU really want to focus on becoming a R1 institution? One is a reality, the other a choice.

I’m sum, JMU’s debut at #151 (tied with the likes of Oregon State) is a so-so ranking. The spin that JMU is #72 among publics is a…well, a spin. Kudos to the JMU communications office for spinning it. JMU can, and hopefully will, continue to move forward.

(09-12-2022 07:41 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 07:27 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 03:47 PM)jmu98 Wrote:  Would be interesting to know why USNWR thinks the salaries of faculty should make up 7% of a schools rating. Seems to heavily favor the high class schools.

More than anything, it favors urban schools. Obviously elite universities have higher salaries as well, but all else equal, urban schools pay much higher salaries. Your money goes a lot further in Harrisonburg than in Fairfax.

Seems they presume a higher salary is going to draw better faculty, but 80k in a location like Harrisonburg is very different than 80k in DC, New York or San Francisco in terms of housing and lifestyle.

True enough…up to a point. Problem is, JMU is not hiring it’s starting ASSISTANT professors at $80k, and $80k won’t buy a decent home in H’Burg. Additionally, you hire on the low-end, that Assistant Prof will teach a few years at JMU, publish or do whatever they need to develop their professional rep, and then take the first legit offer from an institution higher-up on the food chain. Low salaries is a formula for making JMU a minor-league farm system feeding the R1-Tier One schools with deeper pockets.

The COB has difficulties hiring because the low salaries for qualified and credentialed business faculty have to compete with market rates. So, the market has helped COB salaries move higher than newbie History or English hires, however, both (COB & Liberal Arts) salaries are not necessarily competitive or where they need to be, and cost of living in H’Burg has very little to do with hiring excellent faculty and retaining them.

Alger has done his best in helping combat this depressed salary issue at JMU (Rose didn’t really care, nor did he address it, and the problem was just emerging during Carrier’s last years), and as a result Alger enjoys a better than average relationship with the faculty. But salaries remain a real problem at JMU. I can guarantee you that the salaries of faculty who teach undergrads at Marshall, Coastal, Georgia Southern, Troy, etc. contribute to their poor rankings, and JMU faculty are not looking to move to those schools. Young JMU faculty will leave to take positions at ACC, Big 10 schools and their like. Coastal faculty (beach access be damned) will jump on an opportunity to take a JMU appointment.

Saw this thread was updated and went straight to the US News site. Once I hit Mason and didn't see us I knew it would be disappointing, but it's a start. Great to see us get continued national exposure.

We had lots of close predictions, JMU fell within the 138-165 range so technically all the posters below may have been correct (my hope is DukesDominion was right).

But, closest to the "tie" number is JMU08, congratulations! PM me your desired beverage and contact info so you can get pished.


138 - DukesDominion
141 - s2dsayer
143 - purplesanman
143 - JMU
146 - JMUrcc06
148 - Purplehazed
149 - JMU08
156 - JMUDunk

(09-12-2022 11:34 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 07:29 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  Longhorn had a really good post about his prediction, but I can't seem to find it. I'd like to hear his take on the actual ranking vs. his expectations.

A bit disappointed, but not surprised.

Obviously, there’s a great deal of work to be done. It’s going to be a slog moving forward.

Overall, this ranking can be equated to JMU’s move up to play FBS FB. While we’re good, we’re also not going to get ranked at this point in our development.

In this moment we’ve got to continue to punch above our weight, but eventually there’s a limit. Manny Pacquiao might be record-setting holder of 8 different weight-class world championships in boxing, but he never fought in the light heavyweight division, much less for the heavyweight title.

Research dollars, faculty salaries, investments in graduate programs (particularly in professional programs related to medicine and science) will all play a role if the goal is to move higher in USNWR rankings.

The simple solution to climb higher in the rankings is the old saw “all it takes is (more) money”…however, that is only partially true. Massive increases in JMU’s endowment can expedite some of the necessary growth, but continued good stewardship of JMU by the current administration, and successive future administrations, will tell the tale.

Just as JMU FB has benefitted from a succession of good HC hires (MM to Withers to Houston to CC), JMU has benefitted from several successful Presidents in its modern age (Carrier to Rose to Alger). The stability and solid leadership over the 110+ years of the institution’s history is remarkable, but it’s no guarantee that the future will be as steady and solid. If the next Presidential hire (or hires) turn out more like the Keener/Rowe variety much of the positive trajectory we’re currently on could be squandered.

What’s the ceiling for JMU? Like Pacquiao not being a heavyweight, JMU will never be an Ivy or a Tier-one state flagship like Michigan, UVA, or Cal. Also, does JMU really want to focus on becoming a R1 institution? One is a reality, the other a choice.

I’m sum, JMU’s debut at #151 (tied with the likes of Oregon State) is a so-so ranking. The spin that JMU is #72 among publics is a…well, a spin. Kudos to the JMU communications office for spinning it. JMU can, and hopefully will, continue to move forward.

Thanks for the response. I thought you had the most well thought out prediction a while back. For some reason I thought I remembered you saying that anything better than 125 would be surprising, this didn't seem too terribly far off from what I was expecting. I was hoping closer to 120-130, but didn't have much hope for better than that.

I have to assume that Alger isn't thrilled with this ranking and I would love to hear him lay out his strategy for improving it in both the short term and long term. I completely appreciate that that's not something you lay out publicly, but I guess I'd love to be a fly on the wall. I feel like (low) top 100 is a reasonable goal for JMU.

Obviously a lot of improvements (major expansion of graduate programs, increased research, significant increase in financial aid, etc.) could take years or decades to fully implement, but I suspect there may be some short-term tactical steps that could result in marginal improvements in the short run. I've found that in the corporate world, there are ways to play the metrics game. You can't fundamentally change outcomes with the metrics game, but you can move things at the margin. Hopefully there are some short-term steps that can be taken to move us up a bit in the next couple years. It seems like there's enough movement in the rankings from year to year that it's clearly not all driven by long-term improvement/regression.

I'll equate it to this: Over the course of my career, I've mentored a lot of people and nearly every year someone comes to me upset about the rating they received through the performance management process. Usually, these are some of the highest performers in reality, but they haven't checked the right boxes in the same way as lower performers. As a result, they're rated below their lower performing peers, despite the fact that literally everyone in leadership agrees they're the best. And every year I remind these high performers that this is a game, and to win a game you need to recognize how to score points. In other words, check the right boxes instead of just being the best. Being the best isn't enough. This is true at every company I've worked with. I do wonder how much JMU can move its rating by checking the right boxes in the short term. I know you can argue that we shouldn't be worried about that, but I assume our competition is doing it.

I think you've very clearly laid out the long-term strategic steps that JMU needs to take to continue improving. Any thoughts on on short-term tactical steps?

i wonder how much feedback USNWR provides to the school?

In addition to the good points already raised, I think 20% of this calculation is based on the reputation as qualitatively assessed by an "expert panel of academics". This is where there is a lot of hand waving and room to move. When we were assessed for this category in our regional category, that panel was more familiar with JMU because of its reputation in the Mid-Atlantic. The way I understand it in the National University category, we are dealing with an expanded group of peer panelists, some of which may be west of the Mississippi, they may be less familiar with JMU.

It is pretty bizarre that Elon and JMU were always neck-and-neck as regional universities but as soon as we moved categories, Elon went to #89 in their debut and we are #151. As an academic, I hate these rankings but I know our admissions folks point to these being important for prospective parents and students, whether any of us like it or not.

JMU's regional academic reputation has always been stellar. Forbes recognizes the quality of JMU's education by grad rates, salaries, etc. JMU is still growing into doubling in size over the last couple decades, so financial measures and alumni donations will catch up.

Schools like South Florida and other second tier big state schools in parts of the country with explosive growth may have upticks in acceptance rates and SATs, but are no match for the quality of undergrad education.

Also, LOL at the reactions of our fans about this vs. how the rest of the Sunbelt views it on Twitter. We're all over here ranging from "meh, not bad I guess for our debut" to "this sucks and it's rigged". Our conference mates are looking at us like we're Harvard lol.

(09-12-2022 02:15 PM)CarRamrod Wrote:  In addition to the good points already raised, I think 20% of this calculation is based on the reputation as qualitatively assessed by an "expert panel of academics". This is where there is a lot of hand waving and room to move. When we were assessed for this category in our regional category, that panel was more familiar with JMU because of its reputation in the Mid-Atlantic. The way I understand it in the National University category, we are dealing with an expanded group of peer panelists, some of which may be west of the Mississippi, they may be less familiar with JMU.

It is pretty bizarre that Elon and JMU were always neck-and-neck as regional universities but as soon as we moved categories, Elon went to #89 in their debut and we are #151. As an academic, I hate these rankings but I know our admissions folks point to these being important for prospective parents and students, whether any of us like it or not.

You’ve pointed out something I believe may be in play. When I worked out West I was unfamiliar with most VA universities, with the exceptions of UVA and W&M. I knew VA publics we’re well thought of, but outside of the two I mentioned their history was a blank.

To answer an earlier question about whether USNWR provides feedback to the schools it ranks, the answer is no. The rankings are the feedback.

Regarding Elon, I wouldn’t put it past any school, especially small(er) private schools from “cooking the data”….the enrollment/tuition dollars are so important to schools like Elon…dollars that are existential to their very survival…they have plenty of motivation to fudge…if not outright lie…in the information they submit. Indeed, I believe a story broke today about a well-known school lying or distorting the facts related to their institution.

To the question of how to foster short-term improvements…well, I can tell you one thing JMU won’t do, and that’s lie or fudge the data. Bottom line, JMU will do it right, and won’t take short-cuts. That old ad, “we will sell no wine before it’s time” comes to mind. We’ll let Elon peddle the MD 20/20 swill.

The % weight that’s put on an institution’s academic rep is hard to sway…mostly because JMU doesn’t produce PHDs in large numbers (or across a wide-range of disciplines) who then graduate and occupy (dominate) faculty positions at major universities. It’s those PHDs from the Ivys and Flagship institutions occupying (dominating) other university faculties that weigh heavily in forming the USNWR academic rep numbers.

USNWR evaluators (the so-called academic experts polled for the USNWR numbers) know what kind of research is produced (the quality, value and importance) from places like Harvard, Stanford or UCLA. Their brand is well established, and it provides a known standard. JMU simply doesn’t have a long-line of world renown experts telling our story.

Perhaps this is a bit too low-brow to put it this way, but comparing the top 40-50 USNWR schools is like comparing the purchase of a foreign car from Germany to that of a generic domestic car. The name brand car made in Germany…the overly expensive type, has an established cache all its own. The domestic car is less expensive. Less exclusive. More common. Sure, the domestic car will get you where you’re going, just like the expensive German auto, but there’s still that “name-brand” bias. If it’s more expensive and exclusive it’s better, right?

I disagree with that logic, but I understand the power of it to sway opinions. Right now, JMU is a Chevy. JMU’s next, most immediate goal? Perhaps it is to be seen as a Buick. Then again, Chevrolet manufactures Corvettes. :cheers:

Either way, better than ODU which is seen as running a third-hand used car lot filled with Yugos. :lmfao: (Sorry, couldn’t resist taking the cheap shot)

No but seriously, ODU the school is doodoo. Plenty of hard-working people go to bad schools and succeed in life. But ODU is still a bad school.

(09-12-2022 03:49 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Regarding Elon, I wouldn’t put it past any school, especially small(er) private schools from “cooking the data”….the enrollment/tuition dollars are so important to schools like Elon…dollars that are existential to their very survival…they have plenty of motivation to fudge…if not outright lie…in the information they submit. Indeed, I believe a story broke today about a well-known school lying or distorting the facts related to their institution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/us/co...nking.html

(09-12-2022 05:32 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 03:49 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Regarding Elon, I wouldn’t put it past any school, especially small(er) private schools from “cooking the data”….the enrollment/tuition dollars are so important to schools like Elon…dollars that are existential to their very survival…they have plenty of motivation to fudge…if not outright lie…in the information they submit. Indeed, I believe a story broke today about a well-known school lying or distorting the facts related to their institution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/us/co...nking.html

This article is on how Northeastern gamed things a bit to raise to prominence. It made a real life difference for perception and student applications, and revenue/growth.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014...-rankings/

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

(09-12-2022 03:29 PM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  Also, LOL at the reactions of our fans about this vs. how the rest of the Sunbelt views it on Twitter. We're all over here ranging from "meh, not bad I guess for our debut" to "this sucks and it's rigged". Our conference mates are looking at us like we're Harvard lol.

We really are the Harvard of the south now.