CSNbbs

That time of year again, UC moves up from #135 last year to #133. This is basically a wash from the year's prior ranking.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges

Yeah, lumped in with a bunch of other schools, like U.K., LSU, and Arkansas. Any type of slip lands you in the 140's. climbing appears to be tougher, though it seems that UC has been happier growing quantity more than quality.

(09-12-2017 08:10 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, lumped in with a bunch of other schools, like U.K., LSU, and Arkansas. Any type of slip lands you in the 140's. climbing appears to be tougher, though it seems that UC has been happier growing quantity more than quality.

As Josef Stalin once observed while responding to doubts about the quality of his immense but poorly trained and equipped armies, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

That said, UC should be tightening admission requirements, strengthening faculty, and attracting more peer-approved research dollars in a quest to earn that coveted AAU designation. Quality has a quality all its own, too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't UC's admissions standards and student quality (ie. test scores and high school class ranking) risen dramatically over the past decade? That said, I believe one of the challenges for public institutions in the Midwest will be population. You're essentially competing for a similarly-sized pool of candidates each year, whereas other states are growing by leaps and bounds, with substantial growth in high school graduates.

(09-12-2017 09:57 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't UC's admissions standards and student quality (ie. test scores and high school class ranking) risen dramatically over the past decade? That said, I believe one of the challenges for public institutions in the Midwest will be population. You're essentially competing for a similarly-sized pool of candidates each year, whereas other states are growing by leaps and bounds, with substantial growth in high school graduates.

We've risen but we have petered off at the 130-135 mark the past several years (I think we reached as high as #129 a couple years back).

We get dinged significantly in this publication because we don't have the four year graduation rate of the liberal arts colleges. This is primarily due the fact that we have a co-op program that pushes these programs out to five years.

(09-12-2017 10:04 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2017 09:57 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't UC's admissions standards and student quality (ie. test scores and high school class ranking) risen dramatically over the past decade? That said, I believe one of the challenges for public institutions in the Midwest will be population. You're essentially competing for a similarly-sized pool of candidates each year, whereas other states are growing by leaps and bounds, with substantial growth in high school graduates.

We've risen but we have petered off at the 130-135 mark the past several years (I think we reached as high as #129 a couple years back).

We get dinged significantly in this publication because we don't have the four year graduation rate of the liberal arts colleges. This is primarily due the fact that we have a co-op program that pushes these programs out to five years.

To answer the initial question, yes, UC's admission standards and student quality have risen basically every year since 2007. Student quality has very little bearing on USNWR rankings, which is just another reason why they're basically irrelevant to anyone working in higher education.

(09-12-2017 10:04 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2017 09:57 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't UC's admissions standards and student quality (ie. test scores and high school class ranking) risen dramatically over the past decade? That said, I believe one of the challenges for public institutions in the Midwest will be population. You're essentially competing for a similarly-sized pool of candidates each year, whereas other states are growing by leaps and bounds, with substantial growth in high school graduates.

We've risen but we have petered off at the 130-135 mark the past several years (I think we reached as high as #129 a couple years back).

We get dinged significantly in this publication because we don't have the four year graduation rate of the liberal arts colleges. This is primarily due the fact that we have a co-op program that pushes these programs out to five years.

I understand that UC has risen in the US News Rankings (for whatever that's worth), but I'm referring to a comment about quality over quantity. I know that the number of undergrads has been rising, but hasn't the quality of student been increasing quite a bit as well?

For decades UC mostly ignored rankings like this and had an open door admissions policy. I'm not saying that was wrong for that time and place but this continues to be remarkable success in quantity with improved quality. Today's students want to attend a school that is "selective" in terms of entry. I was always skeptical that quantity and quality could rise together for UC. But what I didn't factor in was how selective, but not prestigious, private universities would surpass a tipping point where the ROI just isn't sufficient to justify the growing cost differential.

I'm not suggesting that's a good development for higher education in this country, but I do believe we'll see many private colleges merge, downsize or close altogether in the coming decades.

(09-12-2017 10:10 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2017 10:04 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2017 09:57 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't UC's admissions standards and student quality (ie. test scores and high school class ranking) risen dramatically over the past decade? That said, I believe one of the challenges for public institutions in the Midwest will be population. You're essentially competing for a similarly-sized pool of candidates each year, whereas other states are growing by leaps and bounds, with substantial growth in high school graduates.

We've risen but we have petered off at the 130-135 mark the past several years (I think we reached as high as #129 a couple years back).

We get dinged significantly in this publication because we don't have the four year graduation rate of the liberal arts colleges. This is primarily due the fact that we have a co-op program that pushes these programs out to five years.

I understand that UC has risen in the US News Rankings (for whatever that's worth), but I'm referring to a comment about quality over quantity. I know that the number of undergrads has been rising, but hasn't the quality of student been increasing quite a bit as well?

I know the average ACT score has stalled at 25.7, and I think this is the third year at that mark - which is interesting given that UC had a previouly-stated goal of 27 by 2019. Average GPA has risen. Retention and graduation rates have been steadily rising, and those do count towards the USNews rankings.

I'm guessing there is a positive correlation between The quality of the student and graduation rates/retention rates, so I'm not sure it's fair - as one poster said - to say that USNews does not account for student quality. Plus, ACT scores and % in top 10% of high school class are calculated as part of USNews' selectivity score.

Did anyone else notice how Ohio U has tanked to 151?

(09-12-2017 10:22 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]For decades UC mostly ignored rankings like this and had an open door admissions policy. I'm not saying that was wrong for that time and place but this continues to be remarkable success in quantity with improved quality. Today's students want to attend a school that is "selective" in terms of entry. I was always skeptical that quantity and quality could rise together for UC. But what I didn't factor in was how selective, but not prestigious, private universities would surpass a tipping point where the ROI just isn't sufficient to justify the growing cost differential.

I'm not suggesting that's a good development for higher education in this country, but I do believe we'll see many private colleges merge, downsize or close altogether in the coming decades.

The bigger reason why we're able to do this is the selectivity of OSU Main Campus. Ohioans are not being admitted to OSU-Columbus in the rates that they were, so there are more mid-upper level students available for other schools to take in. OSU's avg. ACT this year will be around 31, and they rarely take students under a 26 to Main Campus...so all of those kids, and some who are even higher rated but applying for more prestigious programs, are available when they weren't before.

Private schools falling off a cliff due to ROI have very little to do about the bulk increases in quantity and quality, because it's a different target audience. The truth of the matter is that UC would not have been able to grow the way that they have without OSU getting legislative approval to push students to their branch campuses rather than simply "offering them the option" which caused them to become much more selective during the late 90's through today.

(09-12-2017 10:33 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]Did anyone else notice how Ohio U has tanked to 151?

The biggest issue there is the amount of brain drain they have had. If you look at intake/outflow from a transfer perspective, they are far and away the largest negative net in the state...something that wasn't happening until recently. That has effect graduation and retention rates, which both cause funding vacuums in the state of Ohio that really cannot be filled. Plus, with the downfall of the journalism industry, their most prominent college/department (Scripps College of Communication and Journalism) has fallen flat.

(09-12-2017 10:04 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2017 09:57 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't UC's admissions standards and student quality (ie. test scores and high school class ranking) risen dramatically over the past decade? That said, I believe one of the challenges for public institutions in the Midwest will be population. You're essentially competing for a similarly-sized pool of candidates each year, whereas other states are growing by leaps and bounds, with substantial growth in high school graduates.

We've risen but we have petered off at the 130-135 mark the past several years (I think we reached as high as #129 a couple years back).

We get dinged significantly in this publication because we don't have the four year graduation rate of the liberal arts colleges. This is primarily due the fact that we have a co-op program that pushes these programs out to five years.

USNews uses the six year graduation rate in its calculation.

Earlier I stated that UC was going for quantity over quality. I said that because UC had a stated goal of an average ACT score of 27 by 2019. The past three years UC's ACT score has remained at 25.7 even as other state schools such as Miami and OSU have increased their scores.

It appears to me that UC has - for now at least - selected the solid B student as it's sweet spot, and is using this group of high school students to boost enrollment.

(09-12-2017 10:34 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2017 10:22 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]For decades UC mostly ignored rankings like this and had an open door admissions policy. I'm not saying that was wrong for that time and place but this continues to be remarkable success in quantity with improved quality. Today's students want to attend a school that is "selective" in terms of entry. I was always skeptical that quantity and quality could rise together for UC. But what I didn't factor in was how selective, but not prestigious, private universities would surpass a tipping point where the ROI just isn't sufficient to justify the growing cost differential.

I'm not suggesting that's a good development for higher education in this country, but I do believe we'll see many private colleges merge, downsize or close altogether in the coming decades.

The bigger reason why we're able to do this is the selectivity of OSU Main Campus. Ohioans are not being admitted to OSU-Columbus in the rates that they were, so there are more mid-upper level students available for other schools to take in. OSU's avg. ACT this year will be around 31, and they rarely take students under a 26 to Main Campus...so all of those kids, and some who are even higher rated but applying for more prestigious programs, are available when they weren't before.

Private schools falling off a cliff due to ROI have very little to do about the bulk increases in quantity and quality, because it's a different target audience. The truth of the matter is that UC would not have been able to grow the way that they have without OSU getting legislative approval to push students to their branch campuses rather than simply "offering them the option" which caused them to become much more selective during the late 90's through today.

Good perspectives, BearcatMan, on both Ohio State and OU. I think OU will be fine, despite their struggles, and UC and Ohio State will continue to thrive, but as the population in the state effectively stalls out, it'll be interesting to see what happens to Wright State (which is struggling mightily) Bowling Greens, Kent State, Akron, and especially the non-elite private schools.......

(09-12-2017 09:57 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't UC's admissions standards and student quality (ie. test scores and high school class ranking) risen dramatically over the past decade? That said, I believe one of the challenges for public institutions in the Midwest will be population. You're essentially competing for a similarly-sized pool of candidates each year, whereas other states are growing by leaps and bounds, with substantial growth in high school graduates.

They have, but the biggest gains are going to be right after you move away from open admissions. After that, the growth curve is going to start to flatten. And UC benefited from some favorable demographic trends at the same time. The higher you move up the food chain, the more intense the competition becomes for top 10% students. Keeping Cincinnati kids with 26 ACTs from going to Ohio or BGSU was one thing. Pulling 30 ACT kids away from OSU or Miami is going to be an entire other ballgame.

(09-12-2017 10:33 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]Did anyone else notice how Ohio U has tanked to 151?

Really bad leadership for a decade. I'm hard on Ono, but he was practically Robert Maynard Hutchins compared to the OU President who talked a good game while Athens burned. They have a new guy in there now, so we'll see if he can turn things around.

(09-12-2017 10:59 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]Earlier I stated that UC was going for quantity over quality. I said that because UC had a stated goal of an average ACT score of 27 by 2019. The past three years UC's ACT score has remained at 25.7 even as other state schools such as Miami and OSU have increased their scores.

It appears to me that UC has - for now at least - selected the solid B student as it's sweet spot, and is using this group of high school students to boost enrollment.

Miami has accomplished this by making a huge push for out of state students. Somewhere around 20-25 percent of their freshmen now come from Chicagoland. The old joke was what do you call a kid in the Chicago suburbs who gets rejected by U of I? The old answer used to be Hoosier or Hawkeye. Now, it's Redhawk.

OSU has just become a beast on a national level. Another ranking that I've referenced (and is superior to USNWR imo) is the Center for Measuring University Performance. They have OSU as the tenth highest median SAT score among public universities and third in the Big Ten behind only Northwestern and Michigan. There's no catching them, by Miami or by anyone else. But as pointed out by BearcatMan, that reject list opens up a lot of possibility for UC to recruit kids in that 26-28 ACT range. For some reason, that Top-50 threshold in USNWR seems to be OSU's kryptonite. They bang up against it ever year but can't seem to get through.

(09-12-2017 10:34 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2017 10:22 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]For decades UC mostly ignored rankings like this and had an open door admissions policy. I'm not saying that was wrong for that time and place but this continues to be remarkable success in quantity with improved quality. Today's students want to attend a school that is "selective" in terms of entry. I was always skeptical that quantity and quality could rise together for UC. But what I didn't factor in was how selective, but not prestigious, private universities would surpass a tipping point where the ROI just isn't sufficient to justify the growing cost differential.

I'm not suggesting that's a good development for higher education in this country, but I do believe we'll see many private colleges merge, downsize or close altogether in the coming decades.

The bigger reason why we're able to do this is the selectivity of OSU Main Campus. Ohioans are not being admitted to OSU-Columbus in the rates that they were, so there are more mid-upper level students available for other schools to take in. OSU's avg. ACT this year will be around 31, and they rarely take students under a 26 to Main Campus...so all of those kids, and some who are even higher rated but applying for more prestigious programs, are available when they weren't before.

Private schools falling off a cliff due to ROI have very little to do about the bulk increases in quantity and quality, because it's a different target audience. The truth of the matter is that UC would not have been able to grow the way that they have without OSU getting legislative approval to push students to their branch campuses rather than simply "offering them the option" which caused them to become much more selective during the late 90's through today.

Bolded, yes you are absolutely correct in this regard. There was a time when those students could then roll right into Columbus from the branches for second semester and U.S. News was none the wiser since they used traditional fall semester admissions numbers for their measures.

Your analysis is interesting. So UC has been the beneficiary in quantity from OSU's push for quality? I can buy that. But I also believe rising enrollment at UC is at least partly comprised of kids with stronger academic profiles (many from private high schools) who would have historically chosen from among scores of private colleges and universities in state, or in the region. At half the price, a selective, residential campus like UC was better positioned to compete.

(09-12-2017 10:34 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-12-2017 10:22 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]For decades UC mostly ignored rankings like this and had an open door admissions policy. I'm not saying that was wrong for that time and place but this continues to be remarkable success in quantity with improved quality. Today's students want to attend a school that is "selective" in terms of entry. I was always skeptical that quantity and quality could rise together for UC. But what I didn't factor in was how selective, but not prestigious, private universities would surpass a tipping point where the ROI just isn't sufficient to justify the growing cost differential.

I'm not suggesting that's a good development for higher education in this country, but I do believe we'll see many private colleges merge, downsize or close altogether in the coming decades.

The bigger reason why we're able to do this is the selectivity of OSU Main Campus. Ohioans are not being admitted to OSU-Columbus in the rates that they were, so there are more mid-upper level students available for other schools to take in. OSU's avg. ACT this year will be around 31, and they rarely take students under a 26 to Main Campus...so all of those kids, and some who are even higher rated but applying for more prestigious programs, are available when they weren't before.

Private schools falling off a cliff due to ROI have very little to do about the bulk increases in quantity and quality, because it's a different target audience. The truth of the matter is that UC would not have been able to grow the way that they have without OSU getting legislative approval to push students to their branch campuses rather than simply "offering them the option" which caused them to become much more selective during the late 90's through today.

This is just surreal to those of us who are old enough to remember when OSU was open admissions; now, it's more selective than Miami, the self-styled "public ivy."

The other big change is the virtual "arms race" of merit scholarships. 30 years ago, the vast majority of financial aid was need-based; today, it seems to be just the opposite. If a kid has a high ACT or SAT score, it is almost as good as cash.