The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2022/08...-2022.html

Up significantly from last year.

Quantity vs. quality. Should we expect another downgrade when the next USN&WR ratings come out?

(08-22-2022 10:44 AM)colohank Wrote:  Quantity vs. quality. Should we expect another downgrade when the next USN&WR ratings come out?

UC gave up on cracking the top 100 in the USNWR almost a decade ago. The goal is clearly to expand enrollment. This spring/early summer Dr. Pinto said the goal is to be at 60,000 students by 2030.

(08-22-2022 10:48 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:44 AM)colohank Wrote:  Quantity vs. quality. Should we expect another downgrade when the next USN&WR ratings come out?

UC gave up on cracking the top 100 in the USNWR almost a decade ago. The goal is clearly to expand enrollment. This spring/early summer Dr. Pinto said the goal is to be at 60,000 students by 2030.

It was noted in the link “This will not only be the largest number of students attending UC in its history but also our largest freshman class, our most academically prepared, and our most diverse class in history,” says Jack Miner, vice provost of enrollment management.

Average high school GPA of 3.74, the highest in the university’s history seems to be the figure he makes that statement from.

As everyone knows, high school GPA is so dependent on the individual high school and with it being the most diverse (including low vs high income families, not just race) my guess is ACT/SAT will stay about the same although average ACT looks to have increased to 26. IIRC it was 23-24 when I was applying in '12. Many would argue that test is not the same and easier than when I took it, and when I took it not the same and easier than in 2000 and so on.

(08-22-2022 08:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2022/08...-2022.html

Up significantly from last year.

Does anyone know how the enrolment total ranks amongst the largest universities in the U.S.?

(08-22-2022 10:58 AM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  and our most diverse class in history,” says Jack Miner, vice provost of enrollment management.

% of African American people in the Ohio - 14.4%
% of African American people in the U.S. - 13.4%
% of African American people in this class - 23%

% of Latinix American people in Ohio - 4.3%
% of Latinix American people in the U.S. - 16.7%
% of African American people in this class - 21%

Looks to me like UC is acting a bit racist by disproportionately favoring these demographics. I hope these students were selected due to their academic portfolio any not because of their race.

Oh FFS

(08-22-2022 11:36 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:58 AM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  and our most diverse class in history,” says Jack Miner, vice provost of enrollment management.

% of African American people in the Ohio - 14.4%
% of African American people in the U.S. - 13.4%
% of African American people in this class - 23%

% of Latinix American people in Ohio - 4.3%
% of Latinix American people in the U.S. - 16.7%
% of African American people in this class - 21%

Looks to me like UC is acting a bit racist by disproportionately favoring these demographics. I hope these students were selected due to their academic portfolio any not because of their race.

Here's what the article specifically said regarding the race of the incoming students..."23% increase in Black students in incoming class
21% increase in Latinx students in incoming class."

You left out the most important word...INCREASE. That doesn't mean 21% of this class is African American. It means this class has seen an INCREASE of 21% of African American students from last year.

That's a very important distinction and shows that while UC diversity is improving, it is still much lower the national averages for the minority groups you pointed out.

For the numbers...

UC's student body population is 7.1% Black and 3.8 % Latinx.

But sure. UC is racist because those percentages went up this year, though still are below a representative population.

(08-22-2022 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  For the numbers...

UC's student body population is 7.1% Black and 3.8 % Latinx.

But sure. UC is racist because those percentages went up this year, though still are below a representative population.

So the black population % is better than that of OSU, the Latinx numbers worse. Participation rates are different for the various race classifications but they don't differ as much as I would have thought. I guess one could twist the numbers in a lot of different ways.

(08-22-2022 10:48 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:44 AM)colohank Wrote:  Quantity vs. quality. Should we expect another downgrade when the next USN&WR ratings come out?

UC gave up on cracking the top 100 in the USNWR almost a decade ago. The goal is clearly to expand enrollment. This spring/early summer Dr. Pinto said the goal is to be at 60,000 students by 2030.

Bolded, and they're doing a fine job at that. Bigger isn't always better but it's still more--more tuition revenue, more state support for operations and capital improvements in the way Ohio funds the public universities.

UC is now clearly separated from the regional publics as Ohio's "other" major public research engine and the undergraduate school of choice in Ohio, alongside that school up I-71. OSU first got big, then upped its game on enrollment selectivity. Maybe UC follows this same playbook, albeit decades later.

As we all know too, being part of a "power" conference in athletics was another step forward on a big stage. Prospective students don't always make rational choices for their undergraduate education, but if big-time athletics is a draw, the Bearcats have helped the cause and this will only get better with the increased exposure of the Big 12.

(08-22-2022 01:43 PM)Cat_Litter Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  For the numbers...

UC's student body population is 7.1% Black and 3.8 % Latinx.

But sure. UC is racist because those percentages went up this year, though still are below a representative population.

So the black population % is better than that of OSU, the Latinx numbers worse. Participation rates are different for the various race classifications but they don't differ as much as I would have thought. I guess one could twist the numbers in a lot of different ways.

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at, maybe I'm just missing it (not saying that to be confrontational).

There shouldn't be an expectation that student body population will always align with state population data (and there isn't) or be the same school to school. I only brought it up because of the absurd, knee jerk, post that outright said it looks racist that there was an increase in black/latinx students.

(08-22-2022 02:12 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 01:43 PM)Cat_Litter Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  For the numbers...

UC's student body population is 7.1% Black and 3.8 % Latinx.

But sure. UC is racist because those percentages went up this year, though still are below a representative population.

So the black population % is better than that of OSU, the Latinx numbers worse. Participation rates are different for the various race classifications but they don't differ as much as I would have thought. I guess one could twist the numbers in a lot of different ways.

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at, maybe I'm just missing it (not saying that to be confrontational).

There shouldn't be an expectation that student body population will always align with state population data (and there isn't) or be the same school to school. I only brought it up because of the absurd, knee jerk, post that outright said it looks racist that there was an increase in black/latinx students.

When I was a student at UC in the early/mid 90s I believe the percentage of black students was 10-12%. In total of gross numbers there are probably as many if not more black students at UC today at 7.1% than there was then. The number is always going to be unbalanced unless you intentionally exclude people because the region is predominantly white.

A big change from 1992 to 2022 is that the percentage of Latino, Asian, Middle Eastern, and mixed-raced people is much higher today. This also takes a bite out of the black percentages when you look at it from that perspective.

Bottom line is I am glad they are all Bearcats, I don't care what color they are or where they come from.

(08-22-2022 02:12 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 01:43 PM)Cat_Litter Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  For the numbers...

UC's student body population is 7.1% Black and 3.8 % Latinx.

But sure. UC is racist because those percentages went up this year, though still are below a representative population.

So the black population % is better than that of OSU, the Latinx numbers worse. Participation rates are different for the various race classifications but they don't differ as much as I would have thought. I guess one could twist the numbers in a lot of different ways.

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at, maybe I'm just missing it (not saying that to be confrontational).

There shouldn't be an expectation that student body population will always align with state population data (and there isn't) or be the same school to school. I only brought it up because of the absurd, knee jerk, post that outright said it looks racist that there was an increase in black/latinx students.

What I was trying to say is that a lower percentage of blacks and Latinos got to ANY college as compared to caucasians, this isn't limited to UC. Students identifying as Asian generally have the highest representation rate for secondary education.

College participation by race.

(08-22-2022 03:06 PM)Cat_Litter Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 02:12 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 01:43 PM)Cat_Litter Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  For the numbers...

UC's student body population is 7.1% Black and 3.8 % Latinx.

But sure. UC is racist because those percentages went up this year, though still are below a representative population.

So the black population % is better than that of OSU, the Latinx numbers worse. Participation rates are different for the various race classifications but they don't differ as much as I would have thought. I guess one could twist the numbers in a lot of different ways.

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at, maybe I'm just missing it (not saying that to be confrontational).

There shouldn't be an expectation that student body population will always align with state population data (and there isn't) or be the same school to school. I only brought it up because of the absurd, knee jerk, post that outright said it looks racist that there was an increase in black/latinx students.

What I was trying to say is that a lower percentage of blacks and Latinos got to ANY college as compared to caucasians, this isn't limited to UC. Students identifying as Asian generally have the highest representation rate for secondary education.

College participation by race.

Understood. I wasn't criticizing UC.

(08-22-2022 12:15 PM)ucdmb Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 11:36 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:58 AM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  and our most diverse class in history,” says Jack Miner, vice provost of enrollment management.

% of African American people in the Ohio - 14.4%
% of African American people in the U.S. - 13.4%
% of African American people in this class - 23%

% of Latinix American people in Ohio - 4.3%
% of Latinix American people in the U.S. - 16.7%
% of African American people in this class - 21%

Looks to me like UC is acting a bit racist by disproportionately favoring these demographics. I hope these students were selected due to their academic portfolio any not because of their race.

Here's what the article specifically said regarding the race of the incoming students..."23% increase in Black students in incoming class
21% increase in Latinx students in incoming class."

You left out the most important word...INCREASE. That doesn't mean 21% of this class is African American. It means this class has seen an INCREASE of 21% of African American students from last year.

That's a very important distinction and shows that while UC diversity is improving, it is still much lower the national averages for the minority groups you pointed out.

What's Latinix? I guess Indians and Chinese or S. and E. Asians are considered White now?

(08-22-2022 02:02 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:48 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:44 AM)colohank Wrote:  Quantity vs. quality. Should we expect another downgrade when the next USN&WR ratings come out?

UC gave up on cracking the top 100 in the USNWR almost a decade ago. The goal is clearly to expand enrollment. This spring/early summer Dr. Pinto said the goal is to be at 60,000 students by 2030.

Bolded, and they're doing a fine job at that. Bigger isn't always better but it's still more--more tuition revenue, more state support for operations and capital improvements in the way Ohio funds the public universities.

UC is now clearly separated from the regional publics as Ohio's "other" major public research engine and the undergraduate school of choice in Ohio, alongside that school up I-71. OSU first got big, then upped its game on enrollment selectivity. Maybe UC follows this same playbook, albeit decades later.

As we all know too, being part of a "power" conference in athletics was another step forward on a big stage. Prospective students don't always make rational choices for their undergraduate education, but if big-time athletics is a draw, the Bearcats have helped the cause and this will only get better with the increased exposure of the Big 12.

Unless campus builds vertically, more capital improvements will soon require an expanded footprint, and there aren't a lot of socially or politically palatable options available. Something's gotta give. Either we acquire Burnett Woods or resume nibbling away at surrounding residential neighborhoods. Without more ground, and with the construction of more facilities to accommodate the incoming hordes, UC's campus may soon have the same panache as an in-grown toenail.

Has UC officially and publicly identified current enrollment growth and an eventual shift to greater selectivity as a strategy or goal?

(08-22-2022 03:55 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 02:02 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:48 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:44 AM)colohank Wrote:  Quantity vs. quality. Should we expect another downgrade when the next USN&WR ratings come out?

UC gave up on cracking the top 100 in the USNWR almost a decade ago. The goal is clearly to expand enrollment. This spring/early summer Dr. Pinto said the goal is to be at 60,000 students by 2030.

Bolded, and they're doing a fine job at that. Bigger isn't always better but it's still more--more tuition revenue, more state support for operations and capital improvements in the way Ohio funds the public universities.

UC is now clearly separated from the regional publics as Ohio's "other" major public research engine and the undergraduate school of choice in Ohio, alongside that school up I-71. OSU first got big, then upped its game on enrollment selectivity. Maybe UC follows this same playbook, albeit decades later.

As we all know too, being part of a "power" conference in athletics was another step forward on a big stage. Prospective students don't always make rational choices for their undergraduate education, but if big-time athletics is a draw, the Bearcats have helped the cause and this will only get better with the increased exposure of the Big 12.

Unless campus builds vertically, more capital improvements will soon require an expanded footprint, and there aren't a lot of socially or politically palatable options available. Something's gotta give. Either we acquire Burnett Woods or resume nibbling away at surrounding residential neighborhoods. Without more ground, and with the construction of more facilities to accommodate the incoming hordes, UC's campus may soon have the same panache as an in-grown toenail.

Has UC officially and publicly identified current enrollment growth and an eventual shift to greater selectivity as a strategy or goal?

It appears Hebrew Union College will exit Cincinnati and that's a beautiful, small campus that practically connects the dots between the intersection of Clifton Avenue and MLK. I have no idea if that's been explored by UC, but with the footprint issue you've alluded to, I would think there might be a mutually beneficial opportunity there.

(08-22-2022 03:55 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 02:02 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:48 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:44 AM)colohank Wrote:  Quantity vs. quality. Should we expect another downgrade when the next USN&WR ratings come out?

UC gave up on cracking the top 100 in the USNWR almost a decade ago. The goal is clearly to expand enrollment. This spring/early summer Dr. Pinto said the goal is to be at 60,000 students by 2030.

Bolded, and they're doing a fine job at that. Bigger isn't always better but it's still more--more tuition revenue, more state support for operations and capital improvements in the way Ohio funds the public universities.

UC is now clearly separated from the regional publics as Ohio's "other" major public research engine and the undergraduate school of choice in Ohio, alongside that school up I-71. OSU first got big, then upped its game on enrollment selectivity. Maybe UC follows this same playbook, albeit decades later.

As we all know too, being part of a "power" conference in athletics was another step forward on a big stage. Prospective students don't always make rational choices for their undergraduate education, but if big-time athletics is a draw, the Bearcats have helped the cause and this will only get better with the increased exposure of the Big 12.

Unless campus builds vertically, more capital improvements will soon require an expanded footprint, and there aren't a lot of socially or politically palatable options available. Something's gotta give. Either we acquire Burnett Woods or resume nibbling away at surrounding residential neighborhoods. Without more ground, and with the construction of more facilities to accommodate the incoming hordes, UC's campus may soon have the same panache as an in-grown toenail.

Has UC officially and publicly identified current enrollment growth and an eventual shift to greater selectivity as a strategy or goal?

They plan to continue to grow, with an enrollment goal of 60,000 by 2030.
The devil is in the details on how they are getting to that number, whether they intend to buy up more land in the uptown area, an adjacent area or elsewhere.

(08-22-2022 04:13 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 03:55 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 02:02 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:48 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-22-2022 10:44 AM)colohank Wrote:  Quantity vs. quality. Should we expect another downgrade when the next USN&WR ratings come out?

UC gave up on cracking the top 100 in the USNWR almost a decade ago. The goal is clearly to expand enrollment. This spring/early summer Dr. Pinto said the goal is to be at 60,000 students by 2030.

Bolded, and they're doing a fine job at that. Bigger isn't always better but it's still more--more tuition revenue, more state support for operations and capital improvements in the way Ohio funds the public universities.

UC is now clearly separated from the regional publics as Ohio's "other" major public research engine and the undergraduate school of choice in Ohio, alongside that school up I-71. OSU first got big, then upped its game on enrollment selectivity. Maybe UC follows this same playbook, albeit decades later.

As we all know too, being part of a "power" conference in athletics was another step forward on a big stage. Prospective students don't always make rational choices for their undergraduate education, but if big-time athletics is a draw, the Bearcats have helped the cause and this will only get better with the increased exposure of the Big 12.

Unless campus builds vertically, more capital improvements will soon require an expanded footprint, and there aren't a lot of socially or politically palatable options available. Something's gotta give. Either we acquire Burnett Woods or resume nibbling away at surrounding residential neighborhoods. Without more ground, and with the construction of more facilities to accommodate the incoming hordes, UC's campus may soon have the same panache as an in-grown toenail.

Has UC officially and publicly identified current enrollment growth and an eventual shift to greater selectivity as a strategy or goal?

It appears Hebrew Union College will exit Cincinnati and that's a beautiful, small campus that practically connects the dots between the intersection of Clifton Avenue and MLK. I have no idea if that's been explored by UC, but with the footprint issue you've alluded to, I would think there might be a mutually beneficial opportunity there.

That would be a very cool addition to campus, a couple of beautiful buildings on that campus, and not really all that far off from yhe current footprint.