(05-07-2018 09:36 AM)PaulJ Wrote: (05-07-2018 09:25 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote: (05-07-2018 08:52 AM)NashHall61 Wrote: (05-06-2018 12:31 PM)San Giuseppe Jato Rocket Wrote: Thanks to amazing lack of imagination, it's got less charm than an I475 ODOT replacement bridge.
It's way overdue but I will miss the "bounciness"
I received a second degree from Seton Hall prior to their participation in the Big East. The campus was small and pretty antiquated in the late 60's when I attended. I returned recently for one of the few BB games that they still play on campus, and was surprised to see how the campus had drastically changed over the years. Besides internal support and donations I would think a large part of their campus improvement $$$$$$ comes from their sports affiliation with the Big East. I sure Toledo doesn't get anywhere near the financial support from being a Mid American Conference member!
Maybe, but the BE revenue is a fly speck compared to the football driven P5 football schools. BE schools bring in an average of $4.5 million each from the conference, about twice what MAC schools get. By comparison, the Big Ten is paying out $40 million plus and rising quickly.
Yea we should probably stop trying to compare UT to any of the P5 football schools or flagship state colleges, the differences in revenue are huge. For a mid sized public college UT is in pretty good shape in terms of facilities and buildings.
I'd compare the change in campus from the 60s to now against anybody. I never set foot on campus I think until the 90s but have seen old photos.
One of my points is UT never should have attempted to compare to a P5. That's not UT's niche. Some don't like to admit they need a niche, but they do. Not everyone wants to go to a mega campus and few can afford actual tuition at a small quant private, whether LA to Tech school. But it does need to do that niche better, while looking modern.
The most affordable improvements are always instruction. These are sweat equity intensive if you've got the leadership and the training and place those demands with will.
UT (IN MY opinion/experience for the irrationally homeristic) doesn't have that. They will say "do it this way" but not "train to do it this way." They are primarily a "get someone to fill the front of the room" school at the core subject areas and it's strongly a "who you know" fill-in the blanks place, not a competitive and value-added place, regardless what marketing might want to throw out. I'm not talking about a subjective "engaging." I'm talking about objectively constructing a simple instructional activity or learning environment. It's way too hit-or-miss.
And for the slathering, I still have those rankings on my side. Listen to my observations, don't listen. But not listening is how the University got in this mess of becoming the "only option."
Regardless what spin anyone wants to put on their personal experience at the school, it's those rankings that don't care what marketing says.
Those rankings don't care about "GPA's. They care what graduates do on their professional tests. They care what graduates go on to accomplish. They care more about the whole then the individual strengths.