https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2020/09/n20945578.html
We dropped again in these rankings, now #143. It wasn’t that long ago we were rising in this rankings and made it to #126. We used to be ahead of USF in these rankings, they are now at #103. We are accepting 77% of the applicants. Seems like all we are interested in now is enrollment growth instead of quality.
(09-14-2020 07:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2020/09/n20945578.html
We dropped again in these rankings, now #143. It wasn’t that long ago we were rising in this rankings and made it to #126. We used to be ahead of USF in these rankings, they are now at #103. We are accepting 77% of the applicants. Seems like all we are interested in now is enrollment growth instead of quality.
Do these ranking mean anything to us? Do we really care at all?
I guess being higher ranked might help with getting UC into a new conference some day but that didn't seem to hinder Louisville. The elitist academics like to think that this ranking matters but TV market, fan support, facilities, on-field success and name recognition will be the driving factor that decides whether or not UC is ever invited to a P5 conference.
(09-14-2020 08:32 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 07:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2020/09/n20945578.html
We dropped again in these rankings, now #143. It wasn’t that long ago we were rising in this rankings and made it to #126. We used to be ahead of USF in these rankings, they are now at #103. We are accepting 77% of the applicants. Seems like all we are interested in now is enrollment growth instead of quality.
Do these ranking mean anything to us? Do we really care at all?
I guess being higher ranked might help with getting UC into a new conference some day but that didn't seem to hinder Louisville. The elitist academics like to think that this ranking matters but TV market, fan support, facilities, on-field success and name recognition will be the driving factor that decides whether or not UC is ever invited to a P5 conference.
I guess I should have put OT in front of my OP, because I am not coming at this from the prospective of conference realignment. It was not even a decade ago that one of the goals of the university was to crack the Top 100 of this report. I realize some external facts have come into play (less state funding, recalibration of the metrics of this report, etc.) but the university has shifted its narrative with respects to all this.
Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
(09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
(09-14-2020 09:19 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
(09-14-2020 09:26 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:19 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
(09-14-2020 09:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:26 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:19 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
(09-14-2020 09:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:26 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:19 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
Great explanation. I'd also add that changing demographics exacerbates the cannibalizing. Ohio schools simply cannot be selective because the number of high school graduates has not grown appreciably for years. Compare this to California, for example, where UC schools like Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz have shot up the rankings in part because they've suddenly become quite selective. Same holds true for many of the publics in Texas and Florida.....
(09-14-2020 11:31 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:26 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:19 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
Great explanation. I'd also add that changing demographics exacerbates the cannibalizing. Ohio schools simply cannot be selective because the number of high school graduates has not grown appreciably for years. Compare this to California, for example, where UC schools like Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz have shot up the rankings in part because they've suddenly become quite selective. Same holds true for many of the publics in Texas and Florida.....
A few months I was looking at the number of applicants the Florida schools get every year and was floored. It’s not just within the state, they get tens of thousands of applicants every year from kids wanting to escape the weather in the Midwest and East Coast. UCF, USF, FIU, and FAU all accept less than 50% of their applicants because they have so many.
(09-14-2020 09:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:26 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:19 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
A more charitable way of looking at Ohio's "redundant" system it is that it provides options to all Ohio residents to stay in their home region. Ohio has more large distinct regions than most states, and our university system reflects that.
I read somewhere that was actually the motivation for why Cleveland State and Pawnee State were started - the goal was to let every Ohioan have a 4-year public option close to home.
(09-14-2020 11:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 11:31 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:26 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
Great explanation. I'd also add that changing demographics exacerbates the cannibalizing. Ohio schools simply cannot be selective because the number of high school graduates has not grown appreciably for years. Compare this to California, for example, where UC schools like Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz have shot up the rankings in part because they've suddenly become quite selective. Same holds true for many of the publics in Texas and Florida.....
A few months I was looking at the number of applicants the Florida schools get every year and was floored. It’s not just within the state, they get tens of thousands of applicants every year from kids wanting to escape the weather in the Midwest and East Coast. UCF, USF, FIU, and FAU all accept less than 50% of their applicants because they have so many.
I understand that the Florida publics have some kind of quota system in place to ensure that each school accepts a more representative share of the state's high school grads. What they don't want is for all of the elite kids to gravitate toward the flagship and all of the more average students to end up at the lesser schools. A lot of qualified kids apply to all schools with the assurance that they'll be accepted at one of them, but personal preference plays a minor role.
As regards UC, the drop in ranking is a damned shame. The school needs to strive for greater selectivity. Sports-minded folks complain about Nancy Zimpher, but at least she knew that institutional reputations are built on quality, not quantity.
(09-14-2020 12:11 PM)colohank Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 11:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 11:31 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
Great explanation. I'd also add that changing demographics exacerbates the cannibalizing. Ohio schools simply cannot be selective because the number of high school graduates has not grown appreciably for years. Compare this to California, for example, where UC schools like Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz have shot up the rankings in part because they've suddenly become quite selective. Same holds true for many of the publics in Texas and Florida.....
A few months I was looking at the number of applicants the Florida schools get every year and was floored. It’s not just within the state, they get tens of thousands of applicants every year from kids wanting to escape the weather in the Midwest and East Coast. UCF, USF, FIU, and FAU all accept less than 50% of their applicants because they have so many.
I understand that the Florida publics have some kind of quota system in place to ensure that each school accepts a more representative share of the state's high school grads. What they don't want is for all of the elite kids to gravitate toward the flagship and all of the more average students to end up at the lesser schools. A lot of qualified kids apply to all schools with the assurance that they'll be accepted at one of them, but personal preference plays a minor role.
As regards UC, the drop in ranking is a damned shame. The school needs to strive for greater selectivity. Sports-minded folks complain about Nancy Zimpher, but at least she knew that institutional reputations are built on quality, not quantity.
At UC there is always a tension between aspiring to be a globally/nationally recognized research university and its founding mission of educating the people that make up the Cincinnati region. This is detailed extensively in David Stradling's book "In Service to the City - A History of the University of Cincinnati."
I suspect the drop in US News ranking directly cocorrelates to the significant increase in student population (and thus less selectivity) that the occurred in the last 10 years +. UC has a beautiful campus, but that costs money/debt. I'm not an insider, but its pretty obvious that you need more tuition paying students to service that debt if you are trying to operate a sustainable model.
(09-14-2020 12:26 PM)stpnum4 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 12:11 PM)colohank Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 11:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 11:31 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
Great explanation. I'd also add that changing demographics exacerbates the cannibalizing. Ohio schools simply cannot be selective because the number of high school graduates has not grown appreciably for years. Compare this to California, for example, where UC schools like Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz have shot up the rankings in part because they've suddenly become quite selective. Same holds true for many of the publics in Texas and Florida.....
A few months I was looking at the number of applicants the Florida schools get every year and was floored. It’s not just within the state, they get tens of thousands of applicants every year from kids wanting to escape the weather in the Midwest and East Coast. UCF, USF, FIU, and FAU all accept less than 50% of their applicants because they have so many.
I understand that the Florida publics have some kind of quota system in place to ensure that each school accepts a more representative share of the state's high school grads. What they don't want is for all of the elite kids to gravitate toward the flagship and all of the more average students to end up at the lesser schools. A lot of qualified kids apply to all schools with the assurance that they'll be accepted at one of them, but personal preference plays a minor role.
As regards UC, the drop in ranking is a damned shame. The school needs to strive for greater selectivity. Sports-minded folks complain about Nancy Zimpher, but at least she knew that institutional reputations are built on quality, not quantity.
At UC there is always a tension between aspiring to be a globally/nationally recognized research university and its founding mission of educating the people that make up the Cincinnati region. This is detailed extensively in David Stradling's book "In Service to the City - A History of the University of Cincinnati."
I suspect the drop in US News ranking directly cocorrelates to the significant increase in student population (and thus less selectivity) that the occurred in the last 10 years +. UC has a beautiful campus, but that costs money/debt. I'm not an insider, but its pretty obvious that you need more tuition paying students to service that debt if you are trying to operate a sustainable model.
The way you square the circle is by inducing more of the top Cincinnati-area students to choose UC. Alas, my son's merit scholarship offer from UC was a joke compared to Miami, U. of Alabama, and several others.
I am less interested in what the overall university is rated than I am in what our top programs are rated.
What have the ratings been like for CCM, DAAP, Engineering, etc?
(09-14-2020 03:11 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: [ -> ]I am less interested in what the overall university is rated than I am in what our top programs are rated.
What have the ratings been like for CCM, DAAP, Engineering, etc?
Most program level rankings are done on the Graduate side anyways...and truthfully, rankings only matter for the students who are attempting to push through academia (and even then it's way less emphasized than it used to be in PhD and Faculty candidates).
(09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
TY Clifton and 1985!!
I find this topic fascinating. I was reading Clifton's message, thinking you would likely add some info. I appreciate the knowledge you 2 guys, BearcatMan and others drop on us!
(09-14-2020 11:31 AM)geef Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:26 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:19 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
Great explanation. I'd also add that changing demographics exacerbates the cannibalizing. Ohio schools simply cannot be selective because the number of high school graduates has not grown appreciably for years. Compare this to California, for example, where UC schools like Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz have shot up the rankings in part because they've suddenly become quite selective. Same holds true for many of the publics in Texas and Florida.....
Why don't these rankings have some type of correction factor??
(09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
Exactly! People look at this report in particular. In addition, as an alumnus, I take pride in a good ranking, and it reflects upon the grads. It is a way people compare, just like Top 25 polls (both have their flaws too).
(09-14-2020 09:46 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:26 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 09:19 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-14-2020 08:57 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it matters. Not as much as some think, but it does matter. It's the easy go to source for parents and prospective students to gauge where a college sits on the food chain and how well a degree from there will be recognized and respected. For UC, it's particularly important in attempting to become a truly statewide university and to set ourselves apart from the rest of the system. Cracking the top 100 would go a long way towards getting that perception out to every high school in Ohio.
#42 Case Western
#53 tOSU
#103 Miami University
#133 Dayton
#143 UC
#176 Ohio University
#217 Kent State
#258 Bowling Green State University
#272 Akron
#298-389 Toledo
It looks like Miami has dropped about 10 spots and fallen out of the top 100. Despite UC's slip, I wonder if the gap between it and Miami is the smallest it's ever been. I seem to remember in the late 90s early 00s that Miami was at least within striking distance of OSU (50-something versus 60-something). Today, they can't even make the argument that they're in the same discussion academically.
I realize I was the one who started this thread, but as I just looked at the Ohio rankings, it is quite noticeable everyone but Ohio State is down. Really makes me question the state funding issue and whether a disproportionate share of the money is staying in Columbus and not distributed to the rest of the schools.
Money is not the issue. Ohio has about as equitable a funding model as any state in the country. Up until a few years ago, it was literally based solely on a head count. In other words, a student at Ohio's highest ranked and only public AAU university counted for the same amount of state support as one at Shawnee State. Personally, I think that was ludicrous. It would be like California funding Berkeley or UCLA no differently than the most commuter dominated Cal State campus. Today, there are some slight bonuses for retention and graduation rates that OSU clearly benefits from as the state's most selective school, but it doesn't really tilt the scales in their direction in any fundamental manner.
What is the issue is student selectivity and national reputation, and OSU clearly benefits in these two matrix in a way that no other Ohio public can compete with. They have the big time AAU/billion dollar research budget and the cache and reputation that brings in the peer assessment score, and they have an average ACT of 30 and reject half their applicants. Those two factors weigh heavily in the final ranking.
Everyone else being down is just a factor of Ohio having an overbuilt and redundant system where all the other schools not named OSU cannibalize each other. OSU has the endowment, demand from potential students and AAU status to float above the fray. It's why I would like to see a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles. Yes, that would mean formally acknowledging OSU's "flagship" status and probably giving them a separate funding model from the rest of the system (which is what they had until the 1960s anyways), but it would also mean separating UC from the rest of the pack in terms of formally recognized role and funding model.
"a much more structured system that does fund campuses differently based on their roles." Is anything like this on the horizon? Creative solutions in the works??