(04-05-2023 11:24 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 11:10 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 10:30 PM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  Also, does JMU want to be R1?

As I've heard it straight from the mouths of administrators, R2 is where we want to be (no goals of pursuing R1).

That's what I've always heard as well and it makes sense to me. A lot of people fail to appreciate that R1 isn't "better" than R2. They're just different missions.

When you get into athletics discussions, a lot of poster from low-quality R1 schools make it seem like R1 vs. R2 designation makes a difference in conference realignment, because universities want to be with similar institutions.

I'm just a little skeptical. The SBC is a mix of R1, R2, and regionals. R2 designation also doesn't seem to be hurting schools like TCU, BYU, San Diego State, and (possibly) SMU as we look at conference realignment.

I think it depends on the conference you are looking to move to. Some conferences may want R1 to fit in with the rest of the club, or some may be fine with R2.

(04-05-2023 11:29 AM)JMUDuke4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 11:24 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 11:10 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 10:30 PM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  Also, does JMU want to be R1?

As I've heard it straight from the mouths of administrators, R2 is where we want to be (no goals of pursuing R1).

That's what I've always heard as well and it makes sense to me. A lot of people fail to appreciate that R1 isn't "better" than R2. They're just different missions.

When you get into athletics discussions, a lot of poster from low-quality R1 schools make it seem like R1 vs. R2 designation makes a difference in conference realignment, because universities want to be with similar institutions.

I'm just a little skeptical. The SBC is a mix of R1, R2, and regionals. R2 designation also doesn't seem to be hurting schools like TCU, BYU, San Diego State, and (possibly) SMU as we look at conference realignment.

I think it depends on the conference you are looking to move to. Some conferences may want R1 to fit in with the rest of the club, or some may be fine with R2.

I think R1 and AAU membership is an expectation of the B1G, but they're an outlier. The SEC doesn't have any R2 schools, but I don't necessarily see that being ideologically driven. The SEC would probably welcome a regional school that could pack a 90k seat stadium and add meaningfully to their media deal.

All the other P5 and G5 either already have R2 members (ACC, Big 12, AAC, CUSA, MAC, MWC, SBC) or are adding R2 members during this round of expansion (PAC).

(04-05-2023 11:24 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 11:10 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 10:30 PM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  Also, does JMU want to be R1?

As I've heard it straight from the mouths of administrators, R2 is where we want to be (no goals of pursuing R1).

That's what I've always heard as well and it makes sense to me. A lot of people fail to appreciate that R1 isn't "better" than R2. They're just different missions.

When you get into athletics discussions, a lot of poster from low-quality R1 schools make it seem like R1 vs. R2 designation makes a difference in conference realignment, because universities want to be with similar institutions.

I'm just a little skeptical. The SBC is a mix of R1, R2, and regionals. R2 designation also doesn't seem to be hurting schools like TCU, BYU, San Diego State, and (possibly) SMU as we look at conference realignment.

R2 -> R1 would involve a substantial shift in faculty expectations and roles which would only be possible with a generational turnover of faculty. At VT, the tenure-track faculty teach 0-3 courses per year in most departments. At JMU I would imagine most are teaching 6 courses per year. When I was at a regional university, I was actually teaching 10 (?!) per year.

As those course loads decrease, the research expectations increase. Faculty that were attracted to JMU were interested in mostly teaching with some modest research expectations. If you were to go to the JMU faculty and tell them they have to be publishing 3 peer-reviewed articles a year and applying/receiving large grants because we were pursuing R1 status, it would result in middle fingers all around. Given the teaching loads at JMU, I am pleasantly surprised with the research output. However, the jump needed to get to R1 would take decades and would involve recruiting a different type of academic to the faculty. R1 pursuit would result in large impacts to the undergraduate experience as well, with many courses being taught by graduate students and/or instructors. This would be devastating to the reputation JMU has built as a leader in exemplary undergraduate education.

(04-05-2023 12:28 PM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 11:29 AM)JMUDuke4Ever Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 11:24 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 11:10 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 10:30 PM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  Also, does JMU want to be R1?

As I've heard it straight from the mouths of administrators, R2 is where we want to be (no goals of pursuing R1).

That's what I've always heard as well and it makes sense to me. A lot of people fail to appreciate that R1 isn't "better" than R2. They're just different missions.

When you get into athletics discussions, a lot of poster from low-quality R1 schools make it seem like R1 vs. R2 designation makes a difference in conference realignment, because universities want to be with similar institutions.

I'm just a little skeptical. The SBC is a mix of R1, R2, and regionals. R2 designation also doesn't seem to be hurting schools like TCU, BYU, San Diego State, and (possibly) SMU as we look at conference realignment.

I think it depends on the conference you are looking to move to. Some conferences may want R1 to fit in with the rest of the club, or some may be fine with R2.

I think R1 and AAU membership is an expectation of the B1G, but they're an outlier. The SEC doesn't have any R2 schools, but I don't necessarily see that being ideologically driven. The SEC would probably welcome a regional school that could pack a 90k seat stadium and add meaningfully to their media deal.

All the other P5 and G5 either already have R2 members (ACC, Big 12, AAC, CUSA, MAC, MWC, SBC) or are adding R2 members during this round of expansion (PAC).

The only R2/non-R1 ACC member is Wake Forest. And if I'm not mistaken they once were a R1 and lost their status or there was some other controversy with it. B1G is definitely all R1. So for if JMU eyes the next move as being the ACC, then they will likely need it (on top of being self sufficient financially and not relying on $45M in student fees a year...and all sorts of other factors).

As for the SEC I think they would only look for those "big hitters" still out there in the ACC and Big12 (Clemson, Florida St., Miami (FL)) types before looking at a more "regional" school all of which can pack a decent size stadium and add value of regional rivalries that attract the national market.

(04-05-2023 08:32 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 11:12 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 07:38 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Didn't know where to post this, but I saw JMU received just under 37k applications this year good for a roughly 17% increase from prior year. Class size is still 4,750.

Admit rate should also drop from the 75% of 2022, I would imagine.

Not necessarily.

The admission rate (% of applicants offered admission) will not drop if all 37k met currently established admission standards. If all 37k met established admission criteria they would all be offered admission.

The % of all applicants offered admission will “drop” (in a significant manner) only if the established admission standards are raised, or if the applicant pool (the 37k) somehow showed a precipitous decline in the number of qualified applicants, or the number of “early action” students accepting their offer of admission increased.

At present, JMU’s projected budgetary needs to fill those 4750 seats is balanced against raising or lowering admission standards. The “balancing act” is a delicate one.

The hope is that a larger pool of qualified applicants would result in a lower admission rate (as you suggest), however, the process is a bit more complicated and fluidly dynamic than that.

What? There is no way JMU would offer admission to all 37k if they met the standards. How could you possibly manage enrollment in that scenario?

I'm not going to get into a battle over this, but if you grow your applicant pool while maintaining the same target class size, then either the admit rate OR the yield has to drop, otherwise you are going to end up with a freshman class that you can not accommodate. Indeed, if the JMU admits 75% (2022 rate) of 37k and the yield is still ~ 20% (2022 rate) , then the freshman class will be nearly 5,550. Is JMU able to accommodate another 800 freshmen?

It is a delicate dance often managed through the wait list, but the admit rate will almost always go down as the applicant pool grows. The only caveat is for a school targeting enrollment growth.

You’re being too logical, and taking my written comment about offering admission to 37,000 students too literally.

The yield rate…the percentage of students who accept an offer of admission and who subsequently enroll is generally (but not always) lower than the size of the class JMU is trying to fill. Hence all qualified students could (in theory) be offered admission, because JMU knows they won’t all show up.

My comment that if all JMU applicants (the discussed 37k number) met entrance requirements is simply a THEORETICAL “what if.” Qualified students will be offered admission to JMU. End of story.

Obviously, however, not all applicants are going to measure up to JMU’s admission criteria, so the point is moot. Yet, and here’s where it gets interesting…JMU is still going to offer admission to far more qualified students than can be expected to enroll, and this number of “potential admits” is exclusive of the “wait listed” students.

The “overbooking” of admits (if you’d like to think of it that way) is like an airline selling more tickets than actual seats on the plane. Things only go sideways when more passengers (or students in this case) actually show up at the gate.

Obviously, overbooked airlines can’t fit more passengers than a plane can hold, and so they offer deals to some passengers to get “bumped.” But a university can’t rescind offers of admission. This problem has only happened once in my time at JMU.

Back some 25+ years ago (circa 1996-97) the number of students offered admission to JMU (and who accepted) spiked…exceeding the anticipated yield rate. This issue has been discussed before…the extra 300+ students who showed up had JMU scrambling to find rooms to house the “extra” freshmen.

JMU purchased the old Howard Johnson motel, got Bill Neff to build and lease the craptastic “Blue Ridge Hall” to JMU (on land now occupied by the AUBC), and housed some students 3 to a dorm room. And that phenomenon all happened because the expected yield rate jumped by only about 1% (a historic and expected 39% to around 40.5% yield rate).

A larger applicant pool will have some impact on the percentage of students offered admission, but it’s not necessarily a direct correlation. There’s more at play than simply trying to increase the enrollment of the university.

I’ve already pointed out a couple of the reasons, but another reason supporting raising the % of admits is the fact that the number of potential applicants is trending downwards. Even though the number of applications is growing (a good thing) there’s no guarantee that the applicant pool will yield the number of new students JMU wants to enroll.

Just three years ago JMU had to hustle to meet its enrollment target. ODU and Radford missed their targets, and as a result there were significant impacts on their budgets. In an earlier post (at least 2 years ago) I shared part of the blame for this situation was due to an aggressive admission move by VT.

Bottom line, JMU is extraordinarily well managed, and the people making enrollment decisions are pros.

(04-05-2023 03:26 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 08:32 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 11:12 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-04-2023 07:38 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Didn't know where to post this, but I saw JMU received just under 37k applications this year good for a roughly 17% increase from prior year. Class size is still 4,750.

Admit rate should also drop from the 75% of 2022, I would imagine.

Not necessarily.

The admission rate (% of applicants offered admission) will not drop if all 37k met currently established admission standards. If all 37k met established admission criteria they would all be offered admission.

The % of all applicants offered admission will “drop” (in a significant manner) only if the established admission standards are raised, or if the applicant pool (the 37k) somehow showed a precipitous decline in the number of qualified applicants, or the number of “early action” students accepting their offer of admission increased.

At present, JMU’s projected budgetary needs to fill those 4750 seats is balanced against raising or lowering admission standards. The “balancing act” is a delicate one.

The hope is that a larger pool of qualified applicants would result in a lower admission rate (as you suggest), however, the process is a bit more complicated and fluidly dynamic than that.

What? There is no way JMU would offer admission to all 37k if they met the standards. How could you possibly manage enrollment in that scenario?

I'm not going to get into a battle over this, but if you grow your applicant pool while maintaining the same target class size, then either the admit rate OR the yield has to drop, otherwise you are going to end up with a freshman class that you can not accommodate. Indeed, if the JMU admits 75% (2022 rate) of 37k and the yield is still ~ 20% (2022 rate) , then the freshman class will be nearly 5,550. Is JMU able to accommodate another 800 freshmen?

It is a delicate dance often managed through the wait list, but the admit rate will almost always go down as the applicant pool grows. The only caveat is for a school targeting enrollment growth.

You’re being too logical, and taking my written comment about offering admission to 37,000 students too literally.

The yield rate…the percentage of students who accept an offer of admission and who subsequently enroll is generally (but not always) lower than the size of the class JMU is trying to fill. Hence all qualified students could (in theory) be offered admission, because JMU knows they won’t all show up.

My comment that if all JMU applicants (the discussed 37k number) met entrance requirements is simply a THEORETICAL “what if.” Qualified students will be offered admission to JMU. End of story.

Obviously, however, not all applicants are going to measure up to JMU’s admission criteria, so the point is moot. Yet, and here’s where it gets interesting…JMU is still going to offer admission to far more qualified students than can be expected to enroll, and this number of “potential admits” is exclusive of the “wait listed” students.

The “overbooking” of admits (if you’d like to think of it that way) is like an airline selling more tickets than actual seats on the plane. Things only go sideways when more passengers (or students in this case) actually show up at the gate.

Obviously, overbooked airlines can’t fit more passengers than a plane can hold, and so they offer deals to some passengers to get “bumped.” But a university can’t rescind offers of admission. This problem has only happened once in my time at JMU.

Back some 25+ years ago (circa 1996-97) the number of students offered admission to JMU (and who accepted) spiked…exceeding the anticipated yield rate. This issue has been discussed before…the extra 300+ students who showed up had JMU scrambling to find rooms to house the “extra” freshmen.

JMU purchased the old Howard Johnson motel, got Bill Neff to build and lease the craptastic “Blue Ridge Hall” to JMU (on land now occupied by the AUBC), and housed some students 3 to a dorm room. And that phenomenon all happened because the expected yield rate jumped by only about 1% (a historic and expected 39% to around 40.5% yield rate).

A larger applicant pool will have some impact on the percentage of students offered admission, but it’s not necessarily a direct correlation. There’s more at play than simply trying to increase the enrollment of the university.

I’ve already pointed out a couple of the reasons, but another reason supporting raising the % of admits is the fact that the number of potential applicants is trending downwards. Even though the number of applications is growing (a good thing) there’s no guarantee that the applicant pool will yield the number of new students JMU wants to enroll.

Just three years ago JMU had to hustle to meet its enrollment target. ODU and Radford missed their targets, and as a result there were significant impacts on their budgets. In an earlier post (at least 2 years ago) I shared part of the blame for this situation was due to an aggressive admission move by VT.

Bottom line, JMU is extraordinarily well managed, and the people making enrollment decisions are pros.

Exactly! This is spot on Longhorn. JMU definitely has this down to a science of what they can and can not offer. There are tools that the admissions office can use like deferring someone from Early Decision to Regular Decision, or putting someone on the waitlist until after they know they still have spots to fill.

Just because they "admitted" those students it doesn't mean that it was a quick admittance.

Up to #124 Nationally (was #151) and #64 Public (was #72) for 2024.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/jam...rsity-3721

(09-17-2023 11:09 PM)DooX Wrote:  Up to #124 Nationally (was #151) and #64 Public (was #72) for 2024.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/jam...rsity-3721

Improving. IMO lack of professional and graduate programs are holding JMU back. JMU’s immediate target should be to make the list of top 100 national universities, and top 40 publics.

(09-18-2023 01:56 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(09-17-2023 11:09 PM)DooX Wrote:  Up to #124 Nationally (was #151) and #64 Public (was #72) for 2024.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/jam...rsity-3721

Improving. IMO lack of professional and graduate programs are holding JMU back. JMU’s immediate target should be to make the list of top 100 national universities, and top 40 publics.

Yes, but impressive to see JMU tied with schools like the University of Missouri and one spot behind AAU newcomer the University of Utah. It is a credit to our faculty and staff and the quality of undergraduate education. Any growth in the areas you mention should put those goals within reach.

I know I'm biased as an alum but as someone in academia, I tell anyone who will listen that JMU offers a top 10 undergraduate experience.

Rankings this year are lol-tastic. VT at #47, ahead of W&M at #53? GMU at #105? FSU tied with W&M?

Happy to see we moved up, but man, USNEWS ranking continue to mean less and less. Schools have learned how to game the system.

(09-17-2023 11:09 PM)DooX Wrote:  Up to #124 Nationally (was #151) and #64 Public (was #72) for 2024.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/jam...rsity-3721

Wow. A massive increase year to year which makes you wonder if last year's ranking was truly accurate. I think the recent move up in classification probably impacted the ranking because they didn't get a full year of evaluation.

Once they were able to do that, they realized JMU was ranked too low and corrected it.

124 is still a little low IMO but it's better than the abysmal 151 last year. JMU is ahead of Elon?! we were always consistently behind them in the south regional rankings. We're well ahead of VCU but still trail Mason. Mason at 105 seems ridiculous. Have they really increased in quality that much in 20 years? That was a safety school in the mid 2000s.

(09-18-2023 09:10 AM)Potomac Wrote:  

(09-17-2023 11:09 PM)DooX Wrote:  Up to #124 Nationally (was #151) and #64 Public (was #72) for 2024.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/jam...rsity-3721

Wow. A massive increase year to year which makes you wonder if last year's ranking was truly accurate. I think the recent move up in classification probably impacted the ranking because they didn't get a full year of evaluation.

Once they were able to do that, they realized JMU was ranked too low and corrected it.

124 is still a little low IMO but it's better than the abysmal 151 last year. JMU is ahead of Elon?! we were always consistently behind them in the south regional rankings. We're well ahead of VCU but still trail Mason. Mason at 105 seems ridiculous. Have they really increased in quality that much in 20 years? That was a safety school in the mid 2000s.

Might have happened in recent years, but certainly wasn't true when I attended JMU. We were top or very close to the top of South Regional for a good number of years.

Mason has expanded a lot in terms of law school and graduate offerings I believe, though JMU still offers a better undergraduate experience.

(09-18-2023 08:57 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Rankings this year are lol-tastic. VT at #47, ahead of W&M at #53? GMU at #105? FSU tied with W&M?

Happy to see we moved up, but man, USNEWS ranking continue to mean less and less. Schools have learned how to game the system.

no one of any ability is going to VT over W&M or GMU over JMU.

the criteria and rankings have their agenda baked in.

Sounds like there was a change to the methodology. US News removed the alumni giving metric (helps JMU) and added a diversity metric (hurts JMU). It's hard to say how much of our increase came from those changes vs. improvements in other metrics. Either way it's a positive development.

(09-18-2023 10:14 AM)PGJMU Wrote:  

(09-18-2023 08:57 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Rankings this year are lol-tastic. VT at #47, ahead of W&M at #53? GMU at #105? FSU tied with W&M?

Happy to see we moved up, but man, USNEWS ranking continue to mean less and less. Schools have learned how to game the system.

no one of any ability is going to VT over W&M or GMU over JMU.

the criteria and rankings have their agenda baked in.

VT over Waste Management in terms of research and graduate programs? All week long and half a day on Sunday. Undergraduate selectivity? Waste all the way.

Same with Mason. A lot of grad programs, big enrollment, more recognition due to being in DC's backyard. Undergrad experience? By virtue of not living in our parents' basement at the bare minimum, JMU over GMU, no contest. And VCU, which didn't even show my son a dorm on his tour there this summer.

It's apples and oranges.

(09-18-2023 11:02 AM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  Sounds like there was a change to the methodology. US News removed the alumni giving metric (helps JMU) and added a diversity metric (hurts JMU). It's hard to say how much of our increase came from those changes vs. improvements in other metrics. Either way it's a positive development.

Yeah I was looking at that a little bit ago. Several factors were changed from last year to this year. The most significant one that I saw was 'Class Size', which was removed. It had been 8% of the score. I can imagine that smaller schools would generally have more favorable ratings with that included. For the factors that were removed US News cited that they were not universally reported and that some had 'growing logistical issues'.

Ahh so a changing of their rating criteria can be mainly blamed for the wild year over year rating swings. Lets wait a few more years to see it "normalize". The VT ahead of WM might be a one year blip, but that won't stop the Chokie faithful for harping at the nerds about it for the next 366 days (dang had to happen during leap year).

Tied for #10 in the G5.

17 Rice
58 UConn
67 UMass
73 Tulane
76 Buffalo
89 SMU, Temple, USF
105 SDSU
124 FIU, JMU

(09-18-2023 06:54 AM)CarRamrod Wrote:  

(09-18-2023 01:56 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(09-17-2023 11:09 PM)DooX Wrote:  Up to #124 Nationally (was #151) and #64 Public (was #72) for 2024.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/jam...rsity-3721

Improving. IMO lack of professional and graduate programs are holding JMU back. JMU’s immediate target should be to make the list of top 100 national universities, and top 40 publics.

Yes, but impressive to see JMU tied with schools like the University of Missouri and one spot behind AAU newcomer the University of Utah. It is a credit to our faculty and staff and the quality of undergraduate education. Any growth in the areas you mention should put those goals within reach.

I know I'm biased as an alum but as someone in academia, I tell anyone who will listen that JMU offers a top 10 undergraduate experience.

Not sure I’d place JMU in the top 10 as an undergrad experience (too subjective I suppose), however, I’m not aware of any institution that offers a better undergraduate experience than JMU. I based my statement on nearly 40 years in higher ed and literally dozens of accreditation visits and service on accreditation commissions. JMU is top tier as an undergraduate institution.

(09-18-2023 01:42 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(09-18-2023 06:54 AM)CarRamrod Wrote:  

(09-18-2023 01:56 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(09-17-2023 11:09 PM)DooX Wrote:  Up to #124 Nationally (was #151) and #64 Public (was #72) for 2024.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/jam...rsity-3721

Improving. IMO lack of professional and graduate programs are holding JMU back. JMU’s immediate target should be to make the list of top 100 national universities, and top 40 publics.

Yes, but impressive to see JMU tied with schools like the University of Missouri and one spot behind AAU newcomer the University of Utah. It is a credit to our faculty and staff and the quality of undergraduate education. Any growth in the areas you mention should put those goals within reach.

I know I'm biased as an alum but as someone in academia, I tell anyone who will listen that JMU offers a top 10 undergraduate experience.

Not sure I’d place JMU in the top 10 as an undergrad experience (too subjective I suppose), however, I’m not aware of any institution that offers a better undergraduate experience than JMU. I based my statement on nearly 40 years in higher ed and literally dozens of accreditation visits and service on accreditation commissions. JMU is top tier as an undergraduate institution.

Aren't these rankings in regards to undergraduate education? Not sure why their graduate schools should even be much of a factor as USNWR ranks the graduate schools separately any way. Any notice how far down Wake Forest was? There is no way some of those schools above them are even close as far as undergrad education goes.