I don't see any real changes. Miami, Ohio U. and Buffalo rank among the top 120 or so.
<a href='http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ranknatudoc_brief.php' target='_blank'>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/r...tudoc_brief.php</a>
And this is interesting. They ranked national universities according to diversity.
Check out who is at the bottom of the list in the MAC:
<a href='http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/natudoc_campdiv_brief.php' target='_blank'>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/r...mpdiv_brief.php</a>
(Hint. It ain't Miami)
Miami at #62, OU at 98, and Buffalo at 120 among all schools. Miami was #22 among national public Universities.
P.S. I think Kit Kat will be very unhappy about this..................
Oh my.......the home of "free thinking", Ohio U, is one of the least diverse campuses!
I quickly scanned the various rankings for national Universities.......here's how the MAC did:
National Universities top tier:
Miami, OU and Buffalo
National Universities 3rd tier: (there isn't a 2nd tier per se):
Ball State, BGSU, WMU (and UC I might add as a non-MAC related addition)
National Universities 4th tier:
CMU, Kent, NIU, UT and UCF.
I presume Marshall andEMU are considered regional Universities, as I didn't see them listed in the national categories.
Two last comments: One: Based on some of the past rhetoric I've seen posted here at times, I guess I'm a little surprised that UCF is ranked in the lowest category. Second: In a way these kind of ratings are pretty silly and probably biased, but lotsa people pay attention to them I guess, especially if you have kids considering their college choice.
If there is no tier two, why don't they just change the name of tier 3 to tier two?
well...considering over 80% of OU's student body comes from southeast ohio...of course it won't be diverse. heh
You're right, lots of people do pay attention to them. So much so that some schools try to manage to the rankings. ( And, no, I don't think this is true of MU, OU, or Buffalo).
The most interesting data to me is how schools rate each other's academic reputations and the SAT scores. The first is subjective, I know, but its always interesting to learn what peers think. The second is obviously more objective.
Can't speak for other schools, but Kent State will never show well on these ratings due to factors that 1) we are not going to change and 2) would bore the rest of you. But that does not mean that the ratings don't mean anything or that those at MU, OU, and SUNY Buffalo should not feel pretty good. As for me, knowing Kent's main campus has its third straight year of enrollment growth with over 11,000 applications for 3,500 spots and a waiting list is enough proof of progress.
It's funny how every year it's the same rhetoric after this poll comes out. The schools on the bottom claim it's unscientific, biased and basically bogus. The schools in the upper tier say how proud they are and how hugely important this is for their image and for recruiting top notch students and faculty.
Any way you slice it, right or wrong, high school students, parents and teachers read this stuff and it influences them to some extent.
You are right, zrb2, and it's because they are trying to quantify and objectify something that is by nature very subjective, personal, and unquantifiable. It's like almost any ranking done by combining a variety of factors. Yeah, you get a number when you are done, but what does it really mean?
Nobody can argue that some schools aren't better in a broad sense than others (though they will
) but deciding your future by a ranking is pretty shallow.
The real world only cares about what YOU can do and doesn't care if your school was ranked 15th or 115th or whether you sat in a library and edumacated yerself.
MacLord Wrote:If there is no tier two, why don't they just change the name of tier 3 to tier two?
"Tier Two," "Tier Three" etc. have probably gained a life of their own and U.S. News probably concluded change would have confused people.
The new president of O.U. happens to be an African American, so one can assume its Board of Trustees is doings its part to raise the diversity profile.
I hear the man is very impressive.
Gads, how I despise counting and tracking people based on their melanin level.
From an NIU perspective, we always get burned by the $/student measure and the fact that we are limited in the number of doctorate programs. An example of the first is the fact that some schools have Medical and Professional schools were there are much bigger amounts spent per student. This is then averaged over the entire student population and the numbers per student are skewed. The academic rankings are sent to Deans and Presidents with Doctorate level credentials. They tend to rank schools with heavy Doctorate programs much higher. Don't believe for one minute that being a directional named
does not bring you down to uninformed rankers either. Just like the mid major label, you can get away from this one on a national level.
Eck, You left out Akron as a Tier 4.
MacLord Wrote:Eck, You left out Akron as a Tier 4.
These rankings are unscientific, biased and basically bogus. :mad:
CMU 's location (relatively rural) probably has a lot to do with its low diversity ranking. Also, many of CMU's students come from upper Michigan, including the UP, which is pretty white on the whole. Come to think, with the exception of the Detroit and Grand Rapids areas, I'd guess most of Michigan is not considered ethnically diverse.
In other words, I don't see things changing anytime soon, demographic-wise.
UCF's boardscores and grade averages for incoming freshmen have been pretty high the last couple of years. I can't believe the ranking is that accurate.
ex Cincy Kid Wrote:Two last comments: One: Based on some of the past rhetoric I've seen posted here at times, I guess I'm a little surprised that UCF is ranked in the lowest category. Second: In a way these kind of ratings are pretty silly and probably biased, but lotsa people pay attention to them I guess, especially if you have kids considering their college choice.
For the most part, what is posted on this board about UCF ("the rhetoric") would fall in the "hard data" category. Things like average SAT/ACT, GPA, acceptance rate, class rank, etc. UCF does very well in those and US News recognizes that as well, because for selectivity (a "hard data" category) they have us rated in the second highest category, More Selective. The 4 categories are: Most Selective, More Selective, Selective and Less Selective. UCF doesn't do as well in the more subjective criteria and US News has quite a few of those. When you see "hard data" posted on this board it's usually in response to someone making incorrect assumptions, usually from personal biases. Maybe US News has the same problem. In Tier 4 there are over 60 schools and yet <a href='http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3954_brief.php' target='_blank'>UCF</a> is one of only three that are rated "More Selective" (Biola University, a small private school and Missouri-KC). The others are either Selective or Less Selective. Tier 3 has many schools that are just rated Selective as well (South Florida for example).
I think the UCF administration needs to try and figure out a way to get better scores in the subjective areas, because these rankings do get a lot of pub. It obviously doesn't hurt our ability to attract quality students because we get about 7K more applications from high school students than USF (and they are supposedly Tier 3). But, there is no reason we should be lumped in with for the most part, Selective and Less Selective schools. The vast majority of the other More Selective schools are in the Top Tier or high Tier 3.
I'll try to make this my last post to avoid turning it into one of "those" threads.
AS a Kent grad, I do not want to see my University become this Miami-like selective almost private school. Kent State is great for what it is: A comprehensive University that educates the kids from Northeast Ohio, who primarily plan to stay in NE Ohio to work, live and raise a family. I got a great education from Kent. I am proud of my degree, and had some fantastic teachers.
Akron has the same mission. Basically for most kids in this area it comes down to individual programs and what campus you like. Plus Akron has a higer proportion of non-traditional and commuter students. Both schools exist to serve the communities they are in. The higher ranked schools are generally A: more selective and B cost more. It's good that whe have both types of schools in Ohio.
WestwoodKnight Wrote:UCF doesn't do as well in the more subjective criteria
In my opinion, a lot of MAC schools get dragged down by subjective criteria. Last time I really looked at Bowling Green's data, that seemed to be the case.
ex Cincy Kid Wrote:National Universities 4th tier:
CMU, Kent, NIU, UT and UCF.
I presume Marshall andEMU are considered regional Universities, as I didn't see them listed in the national categories.
Two last comments: One: Based on some of the past rhetoric I've seen posted here at times, I guess I'm a little surprised that UCF is ranked in the lowest category. Second: In a way these kind of ratings are pretty silly and probably biased, but lotsa people pay attention to them I guess, especially if you have kids considering their college choice.
Its very easy to understand why UCF is listed as a Tier 4 School.
UCF is just entering its 36th year of classes.
Much of the rankings deal with historic preception and past accomplishments.
Since most schools have been around for almost 100 plus years...its not surprised to see where UCF is listed at.
Plus, since UCF doesn't have a Law or Medical School (must be approved and supported by the State...other Universities are against UCF getting either), that hurts your ranking as well.
But...yes...to see what UCF has been able to accomplish in the very short history of the school (44,000 students this year..."very selective" in regards to admissions, increase GPA/Class Ranking/ACT/SAT scores for Freshmen every year, plus the explosion in National Repuation, especially in regards to Photronics & Optics, Engineering, etc...is almost amazing).
Much of the credit has to go to UCF's School President John Hitt.
He wanted UCF to grow as far as Research and in Undergraduate roll...but wanted to improve the student population base every single year.
Rankings have obviously not stopped the explosion of success UCF has seen...mainly over the past 10-15 plus years.
UCF is on a very, very, nice track for years to come.
KL