(06-07-2013 01:26 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 11:17 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Seeing all these schools in this layout is great for the casual fan who does not know the academic profile of San Diego State and Boise State and wonders why they will not get even a passing glance from the PAC. They are both schools that appear to be serving their function very well. Boise State is a regional school, but the state of Idaho already has two national universities. Does a state that size really need a third research institution? The state of California already has approximately 587 state research schools. Do they really need SDSU to fill that role? That is why I would love to see the MWC stick together and succeed. I'm pulling for New Mexico and Hawaii to the PAC someday if they can keep improving. Colorado State to the Big 12, especially if they lose WVU after their existing GoR expires, makes a lot of sense, too. A drop of WVU and the add of CSU builds a bridge to BYU, as well.

The ACC GoR that slowed things down may prove to be a blessing for the MWC and AAC cream of the crop schools. It gives them 10-15 years to build their profiles.

Idaho should think about merging another school with Boise in my opinion. They could take advantage of the enormous PR that surrounds Boise and boost an existing school like Idaho/Idaho State's programs by moving them to Boise. Idaho would be hard to do because of their Land Grant research but I think they could figure out something like making U of Idaho based out of Boise with the Moscow campus offering Ag or something.

ROFL. talk about the tail wagging the dog

(06-09-2013 08:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But which universities do the best job of actually educating undergraduates? Research is extremely important but if a parent is going to put up the big bucks they want to know that their child is going to get the education they are paying for. Is there a ranking for that?

Depends on the subject. Hard sciences tend to do well with universities that do high levels of research, liberal arts are a different story.

Rice sure seems way out of place academically with C-USA......not sure how much that matters strategically to non power 5 conferences anyway.

(06-09-2013 08:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But which universities do the best job of actually educating undergraduates? Research is extremely important but if a parent is going to put up the big bucks they want to know that their child is going to get the education they are paying for. Is there a ranking for that?

If an institution is a/the leader in research in a specific field, they have been and are going to continue to attract the best talent both at the highest, most visible levels and at the lower levels where most class instructors will be. Auburn University, which doesn't have a medical school, can't just decide one day that they are going to be a global leader in cancer research.

It is valid to question the level of education a student will get in, say, Elementary Education at UAB (although most institutions that reach the highest levels of funding in any field of research are large enough to not be slouches in any field of study they offer), but if it's Genetics or Biomechanics at UAB (just as an example) they will be learning from the best of the best. A leading research institution that is not educating its own is not going to maintain its status for very long...if it can even get there at all.

(06-10-2013 01:33 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But which universities do the best job of actually educating undergraduates? Research is extremely important but if a parent is going to put up the big bucks they want to know that their child is going to get the education they are paying for. Is there a ranking for that?

If an institution is a/the leader in research in a specific field, they have been and are going to continue to attract the best talent both at the highest, most visible levels and at the lower levels where most class instructors will be. Auburn University, which doesn't have a medical school, can't just decide one day that they are going to be a global leader in cancer research.

It is valid to question the level of education a student will get in, say, Elementary Education at UAB (although most institutions that reach the highest levels of funding in any field of research are large enough to not be slouches in any field of study they offer), but if it's Genetics or Biomechanics at UAB (just as an example) they will be learning from the best of the best. A leading research institution that is not educating its own is not going to maintain its status for very long...if it can even get there at all.

This is a good point. The higher education industry is crowded so colleges and universities have carved out markets for themselves by focusing on specific fields.

(06-10-2013 01:33 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But which universities do the best job of actually educating undergraduates? Research is extremely important but if a parent is going to put up the big bucks they want to know that their child is going to get the education they are paying for. Is there a ranking for that?

If an institution is a/the leader in research in a specific field, they have been and are going to continue to attract the best talent both at the highest, most visible levels and at the lower levels where most class instructors will be. Auburn University, which doesn't have a medical school, can't just decide one day that they are going to be a global leader in cancer research.

It is valid to question the level of education a student will get in, say, Elementary Education at UAB (although most institutions that reach the highest levels of funding in any field of research are large enough to not be slouches in any field of study they offer), but if it's Genetics or Biomechanics at UAB (just as an example) they will be learning from the best of the best. A leading research institution that is not educating its own is not going to maintain its status for very long...if it can even get there at all.

I had a friend transfer from UCLA to Kentucky, because UK was better in her field. Noone would suggest that UK is better academically overall. Incidentally, she was at UCLA in 1975, Kentucky in 1978 and Houston working on an MBA during the Phi Slamma Jamma era. We joked that every college in the country would be recruiting her to go to their school for a Phd.

(06-10-2013 02:00 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 01:33 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But which universities do the best job of actually educating undergraduates? Research is extremely important but if a parent is going to put up the big bucks they want to know that their child is going to get the education they are paying for. Is there a ranking for that?

If an institution is a/the leader in research in a specific field, they have been and are going to continue to attract the best talent both at the highest, most visible levels and at the lower levels where most class instructors will be. Auburn University, which doesn't have a medical school, can't just decide one day that they are going to be a global leader in cancer research.

It is valid to question the level of education a student will get in, say, Elementary Education at UAB (although most institutions that reach the highest levels of funding in any field of research are large enough to not be slouches in any field of study they offer), but if it's Genetics or Biomechanics at UAB (just as an example) they will be learning from the best of the best. A leading research institution that is not educating its own is not going to maintain its status for very long...if it can even get there at all.

This is a good point. The higher education industry is crowded so colleges and universities have carved out markets for themselves by focusing on specific fields.

I get frustrated when people look at the USNR and Carnegie ranking and automatically assume bigger is better. The criteria to jump from Master Level to DRU is the awarding of 20+ research doctorates per year.

Locally, Texas A&M-Kingsville is a regional university with a 93% acceptance rate. They added a single Educational Leadership ed.D. and ballooned their numbers above the 20 degree mark in order to get DRU status. Texas A&M Commerce is a similar institution in the Dallas area. They reached the 20 mark by offering an online education Ed.D.

All of a sudden, both Carnegie and USNR views them as a better institution than Texas State (Masters Large) even though we have tighter admission standards, a larger endowment, a wider range of degrees.

Why does it matter how many doctoral degrees are given out? That's like recruiting rankings based on how many recruits a school has.

(06-10-2013 02:49 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:00 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 01:33 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But which universities do the best job of actually educating undergraduates? Research is extremely important but if a parent is going to put up the big bucks they want to know that their child is going to get the education they are paying for. Is there a ranking for that?

If an institution is a/the leader in research in a specific field, they have been and are going to continue to attract the best talent both at the highest, most visible levels and at the lower levels where most class instructors will be. Auburn University, which doesn't have a medical school, can't just decide one day that they are going to be a global leader in cancer research.

It is valid to question the level of education a student will get in, say, Elementary Education at UAB (although most institutions that reach the highest levels of funding in any field of research are large enough to not be slouches in any field of study they offer), but if it's Genetics or Biomechanics at UAB (just as an example) they will be learning from the best of the best. A leading research institution that is not educating its own is not going to maintain its status for very long...if it can even get there at all.

This is a good point. The higher education industry is crowded so colleges and universities have carved out markets for themselves by focusing on specific fields.

I am always troubled by the Carnegie rating. The criteria to jump from Master Level to DRU is the awarding of 20+ doctoral degrees per year.

Locally, Texas A&M-Kingsville is a regional university with a 93% acceptance rate. They added a single Educational Leadership ed.D. and ballooned their numbers above the 20 degree mark in order to get DRU status.

All of a sudden, Carnegie views them as a better institution than Texas State (Masters Large) even though we have tighter admission standards, a larger endowment, and wider range of degrees.

Carnegie doesn't View A&M-K as a better institution than TxSt, they simply view them in a different classification because of the amount of non professional doctoral degrees they award.

Just a quick look at their offerings shows 6 doctoral programs including a couple of education based ones, wildlife management, horticulture, env. engineering, and Hispanic studies.

And actually, the education ones might be considered professional degrees, which would exclude them from the classification system

(06-10-2013 02:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Why does it matter how many doctoral degrees are given out? That's like recruiting rankings based on how many recruits a school has.

Number of doctoral degrees awarded
Federal grant money received
Non-federal grant money received
Endowment
Number of professors in national societies
Undergrad admission rate
Undergrad entrance scores
Graduate placement rate
prestige
etc, etc, etc,

There are many different metrics for measuring academic strength and these are combined in a multitude of different scoring and grading systems. All the systems have strengths and limitations and each is geared to a specific audience. USNWR is a good reference for education consumers starting to look at college options. It is not a very good reference for department chairs looking to compare their academic productivity relative to peer institutions.

Since this is conference realignment board, and we're looking through that prism, the question that I think is interesting, is whether or not there is room for an academic branded conference among the Go5. AAU membership has been a great branding hallmark for the B1G even though AAU membership has some weird historical biases and can be, for marginal schools, as arbitrary as many of the other ranking systems. If you were going to pick an academic criteria for Go5 academic all star member schools, Carnegie designation would be an OK criteria, while top 150 USNWR ranking would be silly.

(06-10-2013 04:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Why does it matter how many doctoral degrees are given out? That's like recruiting rankings based on how many recruits a school has.

Number of doctoral degrees awarded
Federal grant money received
Non-federal grant money received
Endowment
Number of professors in national societies
Undergrad admission rate
Undergrad entrance scores
Graduate placement rate
prestige
etc, etc, etc,

There are many different metrics for measuring academic strength and these are combined in a multitude of different scoring and grading systems. All the systems have strengths and limitations and each is geared to a specific audience. USNWR is a good reference for education consumers starting to look at college options. It is not a very good reference for department chairs looking to compare their academic productivity relative to peer institutions.

Since this is conference realignment board, and we're looking through that prism, the question that I think is interesting, is whether or not there is room for an academic branded conference among the Go5. AAU membership has been a great branding hallmark for the B1G even though AAU membership has some weird historical biases and can be, for marginal schools, as arbitrary as many of the other ranking systems. If you were going to pick an academic criteria for Go5 academic all star member schools, Carnegie designation would be an OK criteria, while top 150 USNWR ranking would be silly.

Agreed. When college presidents talk about academic prestige in realignment, USNWR is not what they consider. They might consider ARWU.

(06-09-2013 08:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But which universities do the best job of actually educating undergraduates? Research is extremely important but if a parent is going to put up the big bucks they want to know that their child is going to get the education they are paying for. Is there a ranking for that?

Not to toot my own horn, but...

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...e-teaching

(06-09-2013 12:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 11:27 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 02:08 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 12:30 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 08:30 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  1) UConn would be ranked #2 in the Big 12, and tied for #3 in the SEC.
2) SMU would be ranked #2 in the Big 12, and #3 in the SEC.

(2) They would both fit in very well in the ACC, Big 10, or PAC 12.

Not bad for two little ol' G5 schools ......

Louisville sticks out like a sore thumb in the ACC.

You mean the fact that we have a "very high" research ranking and three ACC members are just "high"? Look at it from the other side: We fit right in because most of the other schools are also "very high."

It's always easy to pick on a school that's on the rise, simply because we started from a lower rung on the ladder. It would be interesting to see where schools like Clemson, FSU & NC State were a generation or two ago.

(1) Since some rankings (especially the USNews rankings) are based on peer impressions and not hard facts, it will also be interesting to see if peer impressions change more quickly than the facts in Louisville's case.

(1) Wouldn't it make more sense for peer assessment to trail "hard facts"? The opinion of those "ranking" these institutions have been formed over years and decades. It'll take more then a few years to truly change that perception in any meaningful way.

(2) SMU would not fit in well with the ACC. UConn is a solid (not great) fit.

I just meant that SMU would fit academically, based solely on their ranking (#58) which is pretty much in line with the ACC.

Actually, SMU would fit best in a conference of Southern private schools:

Duke
Wake
Miami
Tulane
Vanderbilt
Tulsa
SMU
TCU
Baylor
Rice

Of course, that will never happen.

That almost did happen, but Duke didn't want to give up their UNC rivalry and Rice/SMU didn't want to give up their Cotton Bowl revenue. I imagine that those schools you listed would be the conference now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_Co...Conference

Speaking of ARWU top 500 universities worldwide (BCS schools only ~77):
2 Stanford University
4 University of California, Berkeley
12 University of California, Los Angeles
16 University of Washington
19 University of Wisconsin - Madison
22 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
29 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
30 Northwestern University
33 University of Colorado at Boulder
35 The University of Texas at Austin
36 Duke University
38 University of Maryland, College Park
41 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
49 Pennsylvania State University - University Park
50 Vanderbilt University
56 Purdue University - West Lafayette
58 University of Pittsburgh
61 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick
65 The Ohio State University - Columbus
72 University of Florida
77 University of Arizona
79 Arizona State University - Tempe
82 University of Utah
84 Indiana University Bloomington
91 Rice University
93 Texas A&M University - College Station
96 Michigan State University
101-150 Georgia Institute of Technology
101-150 The University of Georgia
101-150 University of Hawaii at Manoa
101-150 University of Iowa
101-150 University of Massachusetts Amherst
101-150 University of Virginia
151-200 Colorado State University
151-200 North Carolina State University - Raleigh
151-200 Oregon State
151-200 University of Miami
151-200 University of Nebraska - Lincoln
151-200 University of Tennessee - Knoxville
151-200 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
201-300 Florida State University
201-300 Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge
201-300 State University of New York at Buffalo
201-300 The University of Alabama at Birmingham
201-300 The University of Connecticut - Storrs
201-300 The University of New Mexico
201-300 University of Central Florida
201-300 University of Cincinnati
201-300 University of Houston
201-300 University of Kansas - Lawrence
201-300 University of Kentucky
201-300 University of Missouri - Columbia
201-300 University of Notre Dame
201-300 University of Oregon
201-300 University of South Carolina - Columbia
201-300 University of South Florida
201-300 Washington State University - Pullman
301-400 Brigham Young University
301-400 Clemson University
301-400 Kansas State University
301-400 San Diego State University
301-400 Syracuse University
301-400 Temple University
301-400 Tulane University
301-400 University of Oklahoma - Norman
301-400 Wake Forest University
401-500 Auburn University
401-500 Boston College
401-500 Kent State University
401-500 Southern Methodist University
401-500 Texas Tech University
401-500 The University of Texas at San Antonio
401-500 University of Arkansas at Fayetteville
401-500 University of Louisville
401-500 University of Wyoming
401-500 Utah State University

Once again, we get the same cluster of schools that would be the core of a G05 "all academic" conference.

101-150 University of Hawaii at Manoa
101-150 University of Massachusetts Amherst
151-200 Colorado State University
201-300 State University of New York at Buffalo
201-300 The University of Alabama at Birmingham
201-300 The University of Connecticut - Storrs
201-300 The University of New Mexico
201-300 University of Central Florida
201-300 University of Cincinnati
201-300 University of Houston
201-300 University of South Florida

(06-10-2013 04:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 04:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Why does it matter how many doctoral degrees are given out? That's like recruiting rankings based on how many recruits a school has.

Number of doctoral degrees awarded
Federal grant money received
Non-federal grant money received
Endowment
Number of professors in national societies
Undergrad admission rate
Undergrad entrance scores
Graduate placement rate
prestige
etc, etc, etc,

There are many different metrics for measuring academic strength and these are combined in a multitude of different scoring and grading systems. All the systems have strengths and limitations and each is geared to a specific audience. USNWR is a good reference for education consumers starting to look at college options. It is not a very good reference for department chairs looking to compare their academic productivity relative to peer institutions.

Since this is conference realignment board, and we're looking through that prism, the question that I think is interesting, is whether or not there is room for an academic branded conference among the Go5. AAU membership has been a great branding hallmark for the B1G even though AAU membership has some weird historical biases and can be, for marginal schools, as arbitrary as many of the other ranking systems. If you were going to pick an academic criteria for Go5 academic all star member schools, Carnegie designation would be an OK criteria, while top 150 USNWR ranking would be silly.

Agreed. When college presidents talk about academic prestige in realignment, USNWR is not what they consider. They might consider ARWU.

ARWU has Hawai'i substantially above Notre Dame, Syracuse, WF, Tulane, and Boston College. It also has PSU as being substantially better than all of those schools plus Rice and UVA. Although I know a couple of people who would go to Hawai'i over ND, I don't know anyone who would do it for academic reasons (assuming they were undecided).

Schools like to be in conferences with other schools that are filled with smart students. Paying $0.0000002 less for pencils (the benefit of being in a conference with a bunch of research institutions) is good, but convincing UVA's undergraduate population/the prospective students at UVA that you are a good school is priceless.

For all their criticisms, USNWR are pretty good at picking which schools have good students. Sure they might not be 100% accurate, but they are usually ball park. And sure they might make their own luck (i.e. schools are good because they say that they're good, so good students apply there), but they're still fairly accurate. Unless you think that the U of Hawai'i has academic that blow ND's out of the water, ARWU rankings are not. Also, Carnegie doesn't rank schools. They classify schools. There is a HUGE difference.

(06-11-2013 05:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  For all their criticisms, USNWR are pretty good at picking which schools have good students. Sure they might not be 100% accurate, but they are usually ball park. And sure they might make their own luck (i.e. schools are good because they say that they're good, so good students apply there), but they're still fairly accurate.

Once again, when you frame it in terms of quality undergraduate education and especially entrance scores of undergrad students, the USNWR stands out because that is a major factor in their ranking system. When you look at multiple different rankings and classification systems, you see that a core of the Go5 schools cluster regardless of the system. Schools like UCONN, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, UNM, Hawaii, CSU, Buffalo, UAB, and Houston have more in common with one another academically than with many of their current conference mates. Stop making these rankings and classification systems into contests and think of them as peer identification tools in the same way a conference commissioner or university president might.

I look at usnwr for undergrad, but ARWU for grad. Professional schools have their own systems.

(06-11-2013 06:13 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 05:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  For all their criticisms, USNWR are pretty good at picking which schools have good students. Sure they might not be 100% accurate, but they are usually ball park. And sure they might make their own luck (i.e. schools are good because they say that they're good, so good students apply there), but they're still fairly accurate.

Once again, when you frame it in terms of quality undergraduate education and especially entrance scores of undergrad students, the USNWR stands out because that is a major factor in their ranking system. When you look at multiple different rankings and classification systems, you see that a core of the Go5 schools cluster regardless of the system. Schools like UCONN, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, UNM, Hawaii, CSU, Buffalo, UAB, and Houston have more in common with one another academically than with many of their current conference mates. Stop making these rankings and classification systems into contests and think of them as peer identification tools in the same way a conference commissioner or university president might.

So, travel, athletic history, and location aside, you think that USF would rather be aligned with U of Hawai'i than Georgetown, Tulane, and Notre Dame? If so, then state your case.

Athletic departments are just marketing departments, and my money is on a university president wanting to market his/her university to the best available students, but if you can put together a coherent argument to the contrary, then I'll listen.

(06-11-2013 05:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 04:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 04:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 02:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Why does it matter how many doctoral degrees are given out? That's like recruiting rankings based on how many recruits a school has.

Number of doctoral degrees awarded
Federal grant money received
Non-federal grant money received
Endowment
Number of professors in national societies
Undergrad admission rate
Undergrad entrance scores
Graduate placement rate
prestige
etc, etc, etc,

There are many different metrics for measuring academic strength and these are combined in a multitude of different scoring and grading systems. All the systems have strengths and limitations and each is geared to a specific audience. USNWR is a good reference for education consumers starting to look at college options. It is not a very good reference for department chairs looking to compare their academic productivity relative to peer institutions.

Since this is conference realignment board, and we're looking through that prism, the question that I think is interesting, is whether or not there is room for an academic branded conference among the Go5. AAU membership has been a great branding hallmark for the B1G even though AAU membership has some weird historical biases and can be, for marginal schools, as arbitrary as many of the other ranking systems. If you were going to pick an academic criteria for Go5 academic all star member schools, Carnegie designation would be an OK criteria, while top 150 USNWR ranking would be silly.

Agreed. When college presidents talk about academic prestige in realignment, USNWR is not what they consider. They might consider ARWU.

ARWU has Hawai'i substantially above Notre Dame, Syracuse, WF, Tulane, and Boston College. It also has PSU as being substantially better than all of those schools plus Rice and UVA. Although I know a couple of people who would go to Hawai'i over ND, I don't know anyone who would do it for academic reasons (assuming they were undecided).

Schools like to be in conferences with other schools that are filled with smart students. Paying $0.0000002 less for pencils (the benefit of being in a conference with a bunch of research institutions) is good, but convincing UVA's undergraduate population/the prospective students at UVA that you are a good school is priceless.

For all their criticisms, USNWR are pretty good at picking which schools have good students. Sure they might not be 100% accurate, but they are usually ball park. And sure they might make their own luck (i.e. schools are good because they say that they're good, so good students apply there), but they're still fairly accurate. Unless you think that the U of Hawai'i has academic that blow ND's out of the water, ARWU rankings are not. Also, Carnegie doesn't rank schools. They classify schools. There is a HUGE difference.

USNWR has Alabama and Auburn ahead of Colorado if you believe that. CU is #97 in USNWR but #33 in ARWU. Alabama isn't even ranked in ARWU. USNWR also heavily favors private schools with things like % of students contributing. And schools cheat a lot on it. Emory & Clemson to name a couple of fairly recent examples. USNWR main advantage is that its easy to find and has a lot of data handy. But its not a good measure.