But wait....Alger and the Madison 2020 Plan are very very clear - move toward more research and more graduate education, yet balance that with what makes JMU special - student:faculty ration, community engagement, and undergrad taught by docs.

(07-10-2017 05:55 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  But wait....Alger and the Madison 2020 Plan are very very clear - move toward more research and more graduate education, yet balance that with what makes JMU special - student:faculty ration, community engagement, and undergrad taught by docs.

Nothing I've shared is in conflict with the goals and objectives laid out in any of JMU's future planning documents. Expectations, however, that there's a magic moment that by 2020 JMU will have finished its transformation would be naive.

yes, but this is unclear when you state that there is an "issue" over whether we should be more research / more phd programs.

that implies it's up for debate - it just is not - the master plan is very clear...and the goal is 2020. what'st he issue to sort out?

that doesn't mean every single thing is done...JMU is always changing and growing (one of the best things about JMU!) ... but shouldn't we at least be national by then? Or will it go as an un-met goal?

i think it would be a BIG mistake to try and turn JMU into massive research and yuge grad school - i really like Alger's balanced model, excited for it to happen, but times a tickin

(07-10-2017 05:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:   You certainly know how to pick 'em.

I'm tempted to just ignore your post as it's completely bonkers, but you obviously did some research because the institutions you list are defined as "national universities"...now, let's take a closer look as to how these schools measure up based on USNWR data.

Shenandoah University #220 (the one school that was actually ranked as a national university); #372 (tie) Business; 4yr grad rate 35%
Cleveland State University RNP; #283 Business; 4yr grad rate 16%
Lamar University RNP; #372 Business (tie); 4yr grad rate 11%
Morgan State University RNP; #372 Business (tie); 4yr grad rate 10%
Northern Arizona University RNP; #186 Business; 4yr grad rate 33%
Prairie View A&M University RNP; #481 Business (tie); 4yr grad rate 11%
Regent University RNP; No Business; 4yr grad rate 34%
Sam Houston State University RNP; #283 Business (tie); 4yr grad rate 26%
Trevecca Nazarene University RNP; No Business; 4yr grad rate 40%
Texas Woman's University RNP; No Business; 4yr grad rate 21%
Trinity International University RNP; No Business; 4yr grad rate 33%
University of Louisiana—Monroe RNP; #372 Business (tie); 4yr grad rate 19%
University of Northern Colorado RNP; #218 Business; 4yr grad rate 27%
University of the Cumberlands RNP; No Business; 4yr grad rate 24%
Wayne State University RNP; #218 Business (tie); 4yr grad rate 11%

With one exception, none of the schools listed above are ranked (despite being classified as a "national university"), and their business schools and 4yr graduation rates are atrocious. FWIW, JMU's Business school is ranked #114, and JMU's 4yr graduation rate is over 65%.

If your point is that JMU would be considered better, or ranked above these schools as a "national university" you'd be correct, but JMU is already considered a better institution than any of the schools you listed, and most of the "national universities" you listed play either FCS FB, or don't play FB at all.

Obviously, you don't just add "some doctoral programs" in a random manner. Doctoral programs cost the Commonwealth big bucks in terms of faculty, facilities, fellowships, and program recruitment. Each faculty line alone is a commitment by the Commonwealth in the multiple millions of $$. SCHEV is another factor, and the VA state council on higher ed (who advises the General Assembly) won't approve doctoral programs that duplicate other doctoral programs unless there is a convincing market demand.

Believe it or not, the classification of "national" or "regional" isn't the issue JMU fans should be concerned about. The issue is whether the institution should be reoriented towards more research and more graduate education, or remain focused on undergraduate teaching. I personally think there is room for a more robust investment in graduate education at JMU, and to do it in a way that it compliments the undergraduate experience. JMU provides a superior undergraduate experience, and I'd hate to see that compromised in pursuit of becoming another "University of Louisiana--Monroe" with a FBS FB program.

My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

These are our Regional, Master Level peers according to Carnegie classification. Publics between 15k - 25k sorted by smallest to largest. This is where our leaders want to be?

Western Washington University
Northern Kentucky University
Minnesota State University-Mankato
University of North Florida
University of North Georgia
Saint Cloud State University
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Eastern Kentucky University
University of Central Oklahoma
California State University-Chico
Appalachian State University
California State University-San Bernardino
Troy University
Western Kentucky University
California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo
James Madison University
Missouri State University-Springfield
Towson University
California State Polytechnic University-Pomona
California State University-Los Angeles
Grand Valley State University
Weber State University

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 05:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Obviously, you don't just add "some doctoral programs" in a random manner. Doctoral programs cost the Commonwealth big bucks in terms of faculty, facilities, fellowships, and program recruitment. Each faculty line alone is a commitment by the Commonwealth in the multiple millions of $$. SCHEV is another factor, and the VA state council on higher ed (who advises the General Assembly) won't approve doctoral programs that duplicate other doctoral programs unless there is a convincing market demand.

Believe it or not, the classification of "national" or "regional" isn't the issue JMU fans should be concerned about. The issue is whether the institution should be reoriented towards more research and more graduate education, or remain focused on undergraduate teaching. I personally think there is room for a more robust investment in graduate education at JMU, and to do it in a way that it compliments the undergraduate experience. JMU provides a superior undergraduate experience, and I'd hate to see that compromised in pursuit of becoming another "University of Louisiana--Monroe" with a FBS FB program.

My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

Mythical rankings? I just cant...

Anyhow, yes - we are in rarified territory as you say... a large public grouped with mostly small private schools - BFLP forever it seems!

Mythical rankings? I just cant...

Anyhow, yes - we are in rarified territory as you say... a large public grouped with mostly small private schools - BFLP forever it seems!

(07-11-2017 09:02 AM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Mythical rankings? I just cant...

Anyhow, yes - we are in rarified territory as you say... a large public grouped with mostly small private schools - BFLP forever it seems!

Yes...mthyical. Don't play so ignorant.

Myths are stories, and USNWR is just that, one of many "stories" purporting to tell a particular account of how colleges and universities compare using variable indexes. In the end, all of the various publications that purport to "rank" schools create their own myths which are then presented for public consumption. Apparently you are one of the more gullible consumers of this type of info if you think they amount to something more than they are intended. They are simply guides for future students looking to find the right school for them, nothing more.

Somehow you (and you are not alone in this mindset) have come to the conclusion that JMU is now "large" and should be classified differently in these type of mythical rankings. I'm curious as to when you think the transformation of JMU from small (or medium) sized public university to a "large" institution took place? Did it happen when JMU surpassed 15k in enrollment? Was it 20k? Perhaps you have some other index in mind, and could share it with us as you're particularly upset being "grouped" with "small private schools." I'm also curious as to why you assume enrollment has anything to do with classification as a national vs. regional university (clue, it doesn't).

There appears to be a well known psychological principle in play here, and in common terms it's often expressed as having unleashed a "rising tide of expectations." The many successes witnessed at JMU (as it has grown over the last 20 years) has created expectations of even higher and more immediate accomplishments, which on their own is not a bad thing at all. However, left uncontrolled, the ever rising tide of expectations can generate the type of snarky commentary so often aimed at the leaders who are responsible for JMU.

Seriously, gross immaturity strikes me as a mindset of "I want such and such, and I want it now"...an attitude akin to a child throwing a temper tantrum. BFS, (undoubtedly one of the finest FCS FB venues in America), wasn't built soon enough, ...growth of academic programs like Engineering, the introduction of select doctoral programs and the Honors College hasn't happened fast enough. BFS "is lopsided"... and "why is JMU is not already FBS with a facility like BFS?" JMU now has doctoral programs, but "why doesn't JMU have more?" and "why is JMU still classified as a regional school?"

I'm not saying JMU fans shouldn't question decisions that are made by the leaders of our beloved institution, or express ambitious expectations for the school, but good grief, the unreasonable negativity gets tiresome

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 05:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Obviously, you don't just add "some doctoral programs" in a random manner. Doctoral programs cost the Commonwealth big bucks in terms of faculty, facilities, fellowships, and program recruitment. Each faculty line alone is a commitment by the Commonwealth in the multiple millions of $$. SCHEV is another factor, and the VA state council on higher ed (who advises the General Assembly) won't approve doctoral programs that duplicate other doctoral programs unless there is a convincing market demand.

Believe it or not, the classification of "national" or "regional" isn't the issue JMU fans should be concerned about. The issue is whether the institution should be reoriented towards more research and more graduate education, or remain focused on undergraduate teaching. I personally think there is room for a more robust investment in graduate education at JMU, and to do it in a way that it compliments the undergraduate experience. JMU provides a superior undergraduate experience, and I'd hate to see that compromised in pursuit of becoming another "University of Louisiana--Monroe" with a FBS FB program.

My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

LH - I wish you fight adamantly for MORE JMU instead of status quo JMU....what's wrong with us moving up? Nobody said it was easy....but JMU is about being more than it was in the past, always has been.

just won't engage on this since you see us as "ignorant" and "immature"... where did you learn such manners?

Alger's goal is for us to be a National university - go argue with him :)

Go Deyukes!!!

http://time.com/money/best-colleges/rank...-colleges/

(07-11-2017 12:24 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  LH - I wish you fight adamantly for MORE JMU instead of status quo JMU....what's wrong with us moving up? Nobody said it was easy....but JMU is about being more than it was in the past, always has been.

just won't engage on this since you see us as "ignorant" and "immature"... where did you learn such manners?

Alger's goal is for us to be a National university - go argue with him :)

Go Deyukes!!!

First, I've been at JMU for decades, and have been intimately involved in advancing the institution. I have no plans to stop my efforts to improve the university.

Secondly, if you feel ignorant or immature because my posts have begun to open your eyes for some self-reflection, then all I can say is good. There may be some hope for you yet. Oh, and you'll find my "manners" informed by my adherence to honest dialogue.

Third, I have no argument with President Alger, CK or anyone else in the Senior Administration. At times I do question the language they've chosen to use and optics they've created when presenting aspirational goals and objectives for the university. That shared, I have full confidence in the current direction of the institution, while having no illusions about how far JMU has yet to progress to realize it's full potential.

(07-11-2017 01:35 PM)DirtyDukes Wrote:  http://time.com/money/best-colleges/rank...-colleges/

Another listing (one which is highly complementary of JMU), but OMG, how can those of us who care about JMU put up being listed with the likes of Brown, Dartmouth, Swarthmore and Hamilton College?

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 05:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Obviously, you don't just add "some doctoral programs" in a random manner. Doctoral programs cost the Commonwealth big bucks in terms of faculty, facilities, fellowships, and program recruitment. Each faculty line alone is a commitment by the Commonwealth in the multiple millions of $$. SCHEV is another factor, and the VA state council on higher ed (who advises the General Assembly) won't approve doctoral programs that duplicate other doctoral programs unless there is a convincing market demand.

Believe it or not, the classification of "national" or "regional" isn't the issue JMU fans should be concerned about. The issue is whether the institution should be reoriented towards more research and more graduate education, or remain focused on undergraduate teaching. I personally think there is room for a more robust investment in graduate education at JMU, and to do it in a way that it compliments the undergraduate experience. JMU provides a superior undergraduate experience, and I'd hate to see that compromised in pursuit of becoming another "University of Louisiana--Monroe" with a FBS FB program.

My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

So what? You're seriously suggesting that managing the growth of 1700 students to a total of 5,100 is the same as dealing with the instructional growth of over 8,000 students to 21,000? Sorry, one is a mom-n-pop operation, and the other is a major corporate entity. You might want to compare the budgets of the two institutions while you're at it, which will only serve to highlight the absurdity of the comparison.

(07-11-2017 01:36 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 12:24 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  LH - I wish you fight adamantly for MORE JMU instead of status quo JMU....what's wrong with us moving up? Nobody said it was easy....but JMU is about being more than it was in the past, always has been.

just won't engage on this since you see us as "ignorant" and "immature"... where did you learn such manners?

Alger's goal is for us to be a National university - go argue with him :)

Go Deyukes!!!

First, I've been at JMU for decades, and have been intimately involved in advancing the institution. I have no plans to stop my efforts to improve the university.

Secondly, if you feel ignorant or immature because my posts have begun to open your eyes for some self-reflection, then all I can say is good. There may be some hope for you yet. Oh, and you'll find my "manners" informed by my adherence to honest dialogue.

Third, I have no argument with President Alger, CK or anyone else in the Senior Administration. At times I do question the language they've chosen to use and optics they've created when presenting aspirational goals and objectives for the university. That shared, I have full confidence in the current direction of the institution, while having no illusions about how far JMU has yet to progress to realize it's full potential.

Nobody feels ignorant or immature...those are just the labels you throw around. Maybe you can work on that? Civil discourse matters...but go ahead and keep throwing mud and thinking you are in the right

Thanks for your work at JMU -let's hope you keep pushing for more and better. Again, nobody thinks it's easy work...but we do want more and better for JMU - we can agree on that.

(07-11-2017 01:51 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 05:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Obviously, you don't just add "some doctoral programs" in a random manner. Doctoral programs cost the Commonwealth big bucks in terms of faculty, facilities, fellowships, and program recruitment. Each faculty line alone is a commitment by the Commonwealth in the multiple millions of $$. SCHEV is another factor, and the VA state council on higher ed (who advises the General Assembly) won't approve doctoral programs that duplicate other doctoral programs unless there is a convincing market demand.

Believe it or not, the classification of "national" or "regional" isn't the issue JMU fans should be concerned about. The issue is whether the institution should be reoriented towards more research and more graduate education, or remain focused on undergraduate teaching. I personally think there is room for a more robust investment in graduate education at JMU, and to do it in a way that it compliments the undergraduate experience. JMU provides a superior undergraduate experience, and I'd hate to see that compromised in pursuit of becoming another "University of Louisiana--Monroe" with a FBS FB program.

My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

So what? You're seriously suggesting that managing the growth of 1700 students to a total of 5,100 is the same as dealing with the instructional growth of over 8,000 students to 21,000? Sorry, one is a mom-n-pop operation, and the other is a major corporate entity. You might want to compare the budgets of the two institutions while you're at it, which will only serve to highlight the absurdity of the comparison.

look, I like you and I appreciate the level headed and well-rounded approach you bring to the boards... I typically read your post with genuine interest... BUT you're the one that decided to speak in percentages, I was merely pointing out that the "virtually double" percentage was the exact same for JMU and CNU over the same 20 year period. If you said something like "JMU GREW by virtually more than double CNU's entire current enrollment..." then I would have nodded in agreement and kept on reading. percentages are a funny thing like that!

(07-11-2017 03:03 PM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 01:51 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:32 AM)JMUrcc06 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:09 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:22 PM)2Buck Wrote:  My point (reinforced by your additional data) is that if these institutions were able to reach the national university classification there is no reason JMU couldn't have done the same by now, let along 10 or 20 years ago. And to state that those schools I listed have more resources or resolve or aptitude than JMU is bullsh1t. It's a lack of vision and leadership, nothing more. To blather about JMU being the "national" model of anything is a complete contradiction to way we've not only been stuck in the regional kiddie pool, we've slipped from an overall #1 ranking to #8.

I chose JMU over UConn, Rutgers, and Purdue, and didn't even consider schools like Maryland and Penn State on the same level. Now the admin is promoting us being tied for innovation with Kennisaw State and we'll soon be taken over by Christopher Newport and Mary Washington??? And people are just sitting around whining about how "difficult" it is to add a few more doctoral programs? We don't have tracks that could benefit from the growth and maturity graduate programs could offer? It doesn't take a medical school and I have no doubt Charlie King could find the money within the current budget if leadership made this any kind of priority. Money is a red herring, the fact that we have vast numbers of highly compensated alumni and such a huge portion go without engagement shows there's no desire to get us to a national classification. We're just a 20k+ public university in regional liberal arts college clothing.

And I agree, the fact that those schools are national universities and we're still regional is "bonkers".

Sorry for the rant guys, this cluster just pisses me off. How long til the ECU game?

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the process of elevating an institution to a different category, while simultaneously ignoring what I've pointed out is that the concern over classification is misplaced.

While you are worked up over what you characterize as slippage (from #2 to #8) you seem to forget JMU has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years (virtually doubling in enrollment), which none of the schools you are so concerned about (CNU and MW) have experienced. And while you can always second guess CK's and the President's decisions where money is spent (it certainly did not go to faculty salaries, reducing the teaching load in favor of promoting research, and graduate programs), the decisions by the senior admin has actually lowered and stabilized the student-teacher ratio at 16-1, provided the type and size of appropriate facilities to meet the needs of our larger enrollment (new chem, physics, nursing, etc.), supported the creation of new academic units (Engineering, the CVPA, Honors College, 8 new doctoral programs...the list could go on), the tripling of the campus grounds (from 250 acres to over 700), and actually improving the 6 year graduation rate to the highest it's ever been, to around 82%...a number that is real (as opposed to a mythical "ranking" by USNWR), and that's reported to the Feds and puts JMU in rarified territory for a "large" public.

JMU is not done growing, and I really like your zeal and passion promoting excellence for the institution. I share your ambitions, I don't share your concerns that the right decisions haven't been made over the past 2 decades (or are not being made).

CNU Enrollment in '96: 3,300
CNU Enrollment in '16: 5,100

JMU Enrollment in '96: 12,963
JMU Enrollment in '16: 21,227

virtually the same increased percentage over the same 20 year period?

So what? You're seriously suggesting that managing the growth of 1700 students to a total of 5,100 is the same as dealing with the instructional growth of over 8,000 students to 21,000? Sorry, one is a mom-n-pop operation, and the other is a major corporate entity. You might want to compare the budgets of the two institutions while you're at it, which will only serve to highlight the absurdity of the comparison.

look, I like you and I appreciate the level headed and well-rounded approach you bring to the boards... I typically read your post with genuine interest... BUT you're the one that decided to speak in percentages, I was merely pointing out that the "virtually double" percentage was the exact same for JMU and CNU over the same 20 year period. If you said something like "JMU GREW by virtually more than double CNU's entire current enrollment..." then I would have nodded in agreement and kept on reading. percentages are a funny thing like that!

So enlighten us as to what the point of your post was. I don't recall making an earlier reference that was based on percentages, especially as it concerned CNU.

(07-11-2017 02:36 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 01:36 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 12:24 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  LH - I wish you fight adamantly for MORE JMU instead of status quo JMU....what's wrong with us moving up? Nobody said it was easy....but JMU is about being more than it was in the past, always has been.

just won't engage on this since you see us as "ignorant" and "immature"... where did you learn such manners?

Alger's goal is for us to be a National university - go argue with him :)

Go Deyukes!!!

First, I've been at JMU for decades, and have been intimately involved in advancing the institution. I have no plans to stop my efforts to improve the university.

Secondly, if you feel ignorant or immature because my posts have begun to open your eyes for some self-reflection, then all I can say is good. There may be some hope for you yet. Oh, and you'll find my "manners" informed by my adherence to honest dialogue.

Third, I have no argument with President Alger, CK or anyone else in the Senior Administration. At times I do question the language they've chosen to use and optics they've created when presenting aspirational goals and objectives for the university. That shared, I have full confidence in the current direction of the institution, while having no illusions about how far JMU has yet to progress to realize it's full potential.

Nobody feels ignorant or immature...those are just the labels you throw around. Maybe you can work on that? Civil discourse matters...but go ahead and keep throwing mud and thinking you are in the right

Thanks for your work at JMU -let's hope you keep pushing for more and better. Again, nobody thinks it's easy work...but we do want more and better for JMU - we can agree on that.

I accept that you don't feel ignorant or immature...but your posts sure come across that way. Maybe you can work on that.

(07-11-2017 01:35 PM)DirtyDukes Wrote:  http://time.com/money/best-colleges/rank...-colleges/

That's good to see. We've always been rated very high on these sorts of "best bang for you buck" lists. I remember them touting that during my campus tour in 1986. Virginia schools tend to do well on those lists (with 5 of the Top 50 this year).

Hijack warning: That said, I can see why we're de-emphasizing SAT scores to the point of being optional. Median is 1140 now? CNU's is 1160. So is VMI's. VT's median is nearly 100 points higher than us now. WM, UR and UVA are 200 points higher. Even Mason's is 1150. Yeesh.