(08-11-2017 04:24 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  my best guess is NC lead charge to set up ACC
4 from NC, 2 from SC, VA & MD
NC controled the voting block, which they did until conf hit 12

No. My memory says that Maryland and Duke lead the formation of the ACC.

The original members were Maryland, Wake Forest, Duke, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Clemson, and South Carolina.

Virginia joined in 1954.

(08-12-2017 11:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 08:39 PM)chess Wrote:  Virginia was left out, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Coast_Conference

Assuming you meant Virginia Tech? Pretty sure Virginia is a founder of the ACC.

WV also was left out, when it clearly was a geographically similar school to Maryland and Virginia.

No. I meant Virginia. That is why I included the link.

From my memory, the ACC was formed to exclude West Virginia. While I cannot remember the reason for sure, I think it had something to do with higher academics standards for member schools.

(08-12-2017 02:11 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  High end students (HS performance and family wealth) are the most likely to travel for school.

Cyniclone is making no distinction for the caliber of the students or the wealth of the families. Urban areas produce large veins of these and schools recruit from these veins because they are "where the money was." One recruiter can go to Philly or Boston and bring in potential recruits from dozens of private high schools (that is how it works, you rent a room in an accessible location for the region, close to the wealthy private high schools, and top performing public schools). The inner city and low performing rural schools are thinner on recruits and yield less.

Big Ten schools like Indiana, Michigan, and Northwestern also recruit these areas to fill seats. And this is what you are missing. It's not Elon alone, but many dozens of the higher end schools who recruit these same veins of students. My son went to Archbishop Mitty because he was a top basketball player (not elite level, but high end for HS Basketball), as we are not Catholic. But it turns out almost half the school was not Catholic. But being private it attracted many top achieving students of all backgrounds. But in common was higher incomes and highly educated parents. All the top brand names recruit the school. Every Ivy, MIT, BU, most B1G schools, many Jesuit schools, and various tech school, a few ACC (Wake, UVa, Georgia Tech), and other (at least half the UAA schools) have booths. They tour the private schools and the top public schools in the vicninity. We have about 25 such high performing schools worth mining in a 15 mile radius, probably 75 in the Bay area as a whole. I imagine it's double or triple that in the LA burbs, and at least triple in the NYC area, while similar number in the Boston area -- DMV is probably closer to LA than SF in recruiting zone.

So these schools all mine there, Elon is just one of many dozens. All are competing for that top 5% student. These top 5% tend to dominate the work world, and thus the wealth -> donations. You don't get very many of those kids from small towns in the South or Midwest. That is what the game is about for these schools.

College of Charleston has completely changed their student profile since we went to the CAA. 15 years ago, CofC was a school which was a "consolation prize" for those who couldn't get in to USC, Clemson, Wofford or Furman, mostly comproised of in-state and regional (NC, GA) students. It was basically just another of many mid-level southern schools.

The CAA move along with Charleston's growth as a market (Southwest Airlines going into the market) changed things. Last freshman class (class of '20), CofC had 50 students or more from 10 different states (every state on the East Coast except RI, DE, ME and FL).

Whenever CofC has a basketball game in the northeast, they host an alumni/future students event at the game. When they played at Northeastern (Boston), they had over 150 fans at the game. A lot of these were future students.

I've noticed that the student profile has changed (the school is still 2/3 female). In my classes, we used to have a lot of overachievers from NC, GA, and other states. Now, it seems like close to half of CofC's new freshman are top 5%. Senior class presidents. Multi-sport athletes. 17 valedictorians were in the class of '20.

They pick CofC over more highly regarded schools. Generally CofC is one of the highest average income schools in the nation. The average income is $140K a year. Elon is $208K a year, 15th in the nation. This was from an interesting NYTimes study about this.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017...om-60.html

(08-12-2017 06:01 PM)chess Wrote:  No. I meant Virginia. That is why I included the link.

OK. So you were just being silly when you said that Virginia was "left out" of the ACC, even though they were invited to join the conference less than a year after it was created.

(08-12-2017 12:36 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Another strong selling point of the better private schools is first rate student services. Just as private High Schools work hard to get 90-99% (depending on the school) of their graduates placed straight into 4 year colleges, the top private colleges work hard to place their graduates, either in the best companies or in the best grad schools. Unlike public schools, they have no State transfers to work with, so they need to maximize the value for their students.

Absolute truth.

I worked at a pretty good public 4-year school. The front-end services: faculty, student events, etc...they could rival a private school. Once you got onto the back-end of operations, including the services provided to students...yeah, forget it. And this was a small school. I'd say even 2-year schools have better services than four-years, probably because of the diversity in the student profile.

My Penn State experience was one where I just thought PSU's operations were bad. While they were/are, no...it's very much a public school thing. And, that's what makes PSU so troubling...it's not a fully public school. Can't touch the faculty or student services, though...but, again, at good public schools, this is where the schools invest and focus.

Having gone and worked in private schools, I'm just floored. The back-ends of these places...they get it done. It's not even that they pay better. It's better processes and operations. Things aren't weighed down with excess or bureaucracy. Things are intuitive.

As for Elon...never heard of them until they started pummeling our high school (Philly burbs). It seemed like they centered on the Lutherans. They got someone from my class, who transfered out after one semester. It seems to jive with Elon's mission; a cultural and spiritual melting pot in the South. They push for the northeast because it's so heavily populated, but, it's also one of the most diverse parts of the country, too, from that aspect of racial, cultural, and spiritual diversity.

Obviously a lot easier to treat everyone special and spend lots of time and effort finding them a job when you have much fewer students. Public schools don't have that luxury. Job placement isn't, and shouldn't be their mission. Especially the larger schools. Their mission is providing an affordable higher education, and research. End of story

If you have the means, and desire higher education at a private institution ... that's just fine. That's your decision.

(08-14-2017 09:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Job placement isn't, and shouldn't be their mission.

I don't ideologically disagree, but, this is self-inflicted by ALL schools, though, they'll scapegoat government funding sources and accrediting bodies. Schools are mostly to blame for this...they use employment placement as a recruiting means. Virtually ALL do this (yes, even our "better than you" Ivy League brethren).

This is becoming a real pickle for two-year schools. You have funding sources for occupational-track programs, but, these begin to blur with other programs' transfer arrangements and articulation agreements. And evolving hiring requirements (some professions used to be two-year, now go up to four-year). Completion rates become an assessment indicator, which are mired in all sorts of flaws (like, if you get a job before graduation, and stop attending, your source will cite your program's inability to produce completers, but your survey work could indicate you lost people because they entered/returned to the workforce).

I don't think it's using employment placement to say something like "90% of Harvard Business School graduates find employment in the highly competitive financial trading industry", or whatever.

Saying that graduating from our school is probably good for your odds, is not actively placing someone.

(08-14-2017 12:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't think it's using employment placement to say something like "90% of Harvard Business School graduates find employment in the highly competitive financial trading industry", or whatever.

Saying that graduating from our school is probably good for your odds, is not actively placing someone.

At some schools and programs, you don't know where the school ends and the private sector begins. So, if something as generic as what you said was used, it means something entirely different than just a surface metric.

Some schools have grown wise to the methods and look to incorporate them into the experience. Take internships, for instance. These used to be frosting, and seldom utilized. A lot of good schools incorporated them as requirements (or hard to waive), and the schools benefit, because, if the intern works out, chances are they're hired. And this way of placement is definitely promoted by the schools. Are internships that valuable? Well, it's one way to get some critics of higher education to shut up. You make people pay to take a course where you're working for someone for peanuts, then get hired...school gets money, the optics that it helped to start a prosperous, productive life (opening the door for giving opportunities), gets a great statistic, and the student gets a job.