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

(06-29-2022 08:45 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-29-2022 08:40 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 05:48 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 03:27 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 09:41 AM)geef Wrote:  I remember hearing about that when I lived there, Jerry. Yeah, the IOC sucks. There's a beloved restaurant here in Portland now called Olympia Provisions. It was Olympic Provisions until five or six years ago, but the IOC threatened to sue. The restaurant changed their name because they couldn't afford the fight, and the change alone cost a ton of money (marketing, branding, etc).

Somewhat related - I worked at the University of Denver when Metro was changing their name. The consensus was that they wanted to change it to Denver State University, which made good sense on a number of levels. DU lobbied hard to stop that, worried about the two universities being confused. It was lame, and now we have the word jumble Metropolitan State University of Denver.

As to the Metro State thing... Yeah... The "Denver State" thing was a mess on so many levels. The first was the proposal to fold the UC-Denver school into a single entity named "Denver State" but independent of the CU board. Not gonna happen. Then the CU board was really against having another, "major" school to challenge them. There is a kind of parallel here with tOSU; the CU (University of Colorado) Board of Trustees have long fought Colorado State and other Universities to remain preeminent in Colorado... Metro was purposefully chartered as an alternative to CU, and so has never been beholden to the CU board of Regents, so they have long tried to keep Metro in a tight box. (As originally founded, Metro State was supposed to be a purely undergraduate school, and can never sponsor football...though they have flirted with D1 BB from time-to-time, which was never envisioned when it was founded.) But yeah, the University of Denver really went crazy over the name...DU is a private school, and the "State" thing would have set the schools apart, IMO... But...

Yeah.

See, I don't have a problem with CU keeping Metro from empire building and adding on a bunch of Ph.D and research programs that are destined to go nowhere. That's the problem in Ohio. Bowling Green and OU and Kent should never have been allowed to start piling on redundant graduate/research programs in the hopes that they could take on the throne.

Now, before anyone attacks me, UC was never under the thumb of the Eagleson Bill restrictions and had built up multiple graduate, research and professional programs before it entered the state system. We entered in the perfect position to be the VaTech to OSU's UVA, and in a sane and structured system that's what we'd be recognized as. Instead, Ohio has this dysfunctional, competitive mess where every state school thinks it can become some AAU powerhouse if it adds on enough Ph.D programs ranked below 100. UC is held back far more by the Bowling Greens, Kents and Ohios below us than it is by OSU.

And I've left Miami out of this because for a long time they weren't really looking to add on a ton of grad/research programs and were content to fulfill their role as a finishing school for preppy business majors. That, however, is starting to change as Miami realizes that being a complete non-entity in STEM fields is seriously hampering its ability to attract high quality undergrads. They've started to make rumbles that they want to add on a bunch of engineering and hard science programs, and it will be a complete abomination if state money is sent to those rather than similar and long standing programs at UC that actually are or have a chance to become nationally relevant programs.

Great assessment of the state of public higher education in Ohio.

Someone in UC's administration pointed out to me years ago how ridiculous that there were multiple PhD programs, for example, in history and philosophy in the state system. Maybe UC and OSU should offer those and the rest get shut down. Of course there are tenured faculty at those schools where programs would be terminated but this could be a slow conversion where faculty are given the option to continue teaching undergraduate and masters' course or are offered buyouts over several years.

Change has to start somewhere; Ohio isn't a high growth state and future enrollments state-wide don't bode well for sustaining these fiefdoms that were built over the course of the 20th century. Worse still, sustaining them at the expense of creating excellence at both UC and OSU is shortsighted.

I've been reading where UC's goal is to have 60,000 students by 2030. Depending on what source you use, we are at ~46K students now. Where is UC going to pick up another 14K students in a state where the numbers indicate fewer college eligible students are available to enroll? It would seem to me there is no way they add that many students over the next years unless it counts on-line offerings or they build/acquire another regional campus.

Maybe there's an assumption that some of Ohio's other state schools will close their doors. If they do, then UC probably wouldn't have to worry where it might get an additional 14,000 students. But why would UC want such a large enrollment? Is there a belief that quantity trumps quality?
Quantity vs. quality?

I found this link on line with a company that is partnering with the university:

After eight straight years of record enrollment, UC hopes to grow from its current 46,000 students to 58,000 students by 2030. A large part of achieving this goal will focus on reducing conventional friction points to increase the enrollment of admitted students. The newly established design solutions will form the foundation for building a culture that holistically communicates with students in one voice, creating a journey that is:

Student-centric
Meeting students where they are will provide a supportive environment.


Seamless
An effortless, clear process will allow students to enjoy the moments that matter to them, helping to motivate them to show up on the first day of classes.


Intuitive
A streamlined digital experience will match current digital behaviors and expectations.


Comforting
UC will build a connection and sense of affirmation with students and their families.

https://www.accenture.com/us-en/case-stu...hat-matter

https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-...innati.pdf

That sounds like a load of corporate poo and consultant buzzwords.

(06-30-2022 09:04 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  That sounds like a load of corporate poo and consultant buzzwords.

Agree, I merely posted to show UC’s goal was beyond the rumor stage.

I don’t know what UC’s online enrollment is currently. I know Arizona State has very robust online offerings and enroll over 30,000 students. Colorado State and UCF have 12,000 online students. I don’t know if these figures are counted into their total enrollment that is often cited. Growing the online courses could be beneficial, as UC could grab students from other parts of the country who otherwise would not be interested in movie to our fine city.

If UC truly planned to grow by 12,000 students over the next 8 years, they wouldn't have built a business building that was too small for the current COB program on Day 1. They would have found the money to build the extra 2 floors on top that were cut because of the budget, and probably an additional 1-3 floors on top of that as well.

A goal without a plan is a wish.

(06-29-2022 08:45 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-29-2022 08:40 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 05:48 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 03:27 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 09:41 AM)geef Wrote:  I remember hearing about that when I lived there, Jerry. Yeah, the IOC sucks. There's a beloved restaurant here in Portland now called Olympia Provisions. It was Olympic Provisions until five or six years ago, but the IOC threatened to sue. The restaurant changed their name because they couldn't afford the fight, and the change alone cost a ton of money (marketing, branding, etc).

Somewhat related - I worked at the University of Denver when Metro was changing their name. The consensus was that they wanted to change it to Denver State University, which made good sense on a number of levels. DU lobbied hard to stop that, worried about the two universities being confused. It was lame, and now we have the word jumble Metropolitan State University of Denver.

As to the Metro State thing... Yeah... The "Denver State" thing was a mess on so many levels. The first was the proposal to fold the UC-Denver school into a single entity named "Denver State" but independent of the CU board. Not gonna happen. Then the CU board was really against having another, "major" school to challenge them. There is a kind of parallel here with tOSU; the CU (University of Colorado) Board of Trustees have long fought Colorado State and other Universities to remain preeminent in Colorado... Metro was purposefully chartered as an alternative to CU, and so has never been beholden to the CU board of Regents, so they have long tried to keep Metro in a tight box. (As originally founded, Metro State was supposed to be a purely undergraduate school, and can never sponsor football...though they have flirted with D1 BB from time-to-time, which was never envisioned when it was founded.) But yeah, the University of Denver really went crazy over the name...DU is a private school, and the "State" thing would have set the schools apart, IMO... But...

Yeah.

See, I don't have a problem with CU keeping Metro from empire building and adding on a bunch of Ph.D and research programs that are destined to go nowhere. That's the problem in Ohio. Bowling Green and OU and Kent should never have been allowed to start piling on redundant graduate/research programs in the hopes that they could take on the throne.

Now, before anyone attacks me, UC was never under the thumb of the Eagleson Bill restrictions and had built up multiple graduate, research and professional programs before it entered the state system. We entered in the perfect position to be the VaTech to OSU's UVA, and in a sane and structured system that's what we'd be recognized as. Instead, Ohio has this dysfunctional, competitive mess where every state school thinks it can become some AAU powerhouse if it adds on enough Ph.D programs ranked below 100. UC is held back far more by the Bowling Greens, Kents and Ohios below us than it is by OSU.

And I've left Miami out of this because for a long time they weren't really looking to add on a ton of grad/research programs and were content to fulfill their role as a finishing school for preppy business majors. That, however, is starting to change as Miami realizes that being a complete non-entity in STEM fields is seriously hampering its ability to attract high quality undergrads. They've started to make rumbles that they want to add on a bunch of engineering and hard science programs, and it will be a complete abomination if state money is sent to those rather than similar and long standing programs at UC that actually are or have a chance to become nationally relevant programs.

Great assessment of the state of public higher education in Ohio.

Someone in UC's administration pointed out to me years ago how ridiculous that there were multiple PhD programs, for example, in history and philosophy in the state system. Maybe UC and OSU should offer those and the rest get shut down. Of course there are tenured faculty at those schools where programs would be terminated but this could be a slow conversion where faculty are given the option to continue teaching undergraduate and masters' course or are offered buyouts over several years.

Change has to start somewhere; Ohio isn't a high growth state and future enrollments state-wide don't bode well for sustaining these fiefdoms that were built over the course of the 20th century. Worse still, sustaining them at the expense of creating excellence at both UC and OSU is shortsighted.

I've been reading where UC's goal is to have 60,000 students by 2030. Depending on what source you use, we are at ~46K students now. Where is UC going to pick up another 14K students in a state where the numbers indicate fewer college eligible students are available to enroll? It would seem to me there is no way they add that many students over the next years unless it counts on-line offerings or they build/acquire another regional campus.

That is surprising.
That Clearly would mean we’re not gonna be more selective in the admission process. We would be less selective. And fall further in the rankings. I know the rankings aren’t everything I’m just making that point.

(06-30-2022 01:51 PM)ZCat Wrote:  

(06-29-2022 08:45 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-29-2022 08:40 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 05:48 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 03:27 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  As to the Metro State thing... Yeah... The "Denver State" thing was a mess on so many levels. The first was the proposal to fold the UC-Denver school into a single entity named "Denver State" but independent of the CU board. Not gonna happen. Then the CU board was really against having another, "major" school to challenge them. There is a kind of parallel here with tOSU; the CU (University of Colorado) Board of Trustees have long fought Colorado State and other Universities to remain preeminent in Colorado... Metro was purposefully chartered as an alternative to CU, and so has never been beholden to the CU board of Regents, so they have long tried to keep Metro in a tight box. (As originally founded, Metro State was supposed to be a purely undergraduate school, and can never sponsor football...though they have flirted with D1 BB from time-to-time, which was never envisioned when it was founded.) But yeah, the University of Denver really went crazy over the name...DU is a private school, and the "State" thing would have set the schools apart, IMO... But...

Yeah.

See, I don't have a problem with CU keeping Metro from empire building and adding on a bunch of Ph.D and research programs that are destined to go nowhere. That's the problem in Ohio. Bowling Green and OU and Kent should never have been allowed to start piling on redundant graduate/research programs in the hopes that they could take on the throne.

Now, before anyone attacks me, UC was never under the thumb of the Eagleson Bill restrictions and had built up multiple graduate, research and professional programs before it entered the state system. We entered in the perfect position to be the VaTech to OSU's UVA, and in a sane and structured system that's what we'd be recognized as. Instead, Ohio has this dysfunctional, competitive mess where every state school thinks it can become some AAU powerhouse if it adds on enough Ph.D programs ranked below 100. UC is held back far more by the Bowling Greens, Kents and Ohios below us than it is by OSU.

And I've left Miami out of this because for a long time they weren't really looking to add on a ton of grad/research programs and were content to fulfill their role as a finishing school for preppy business majors. That, however, is starting to change as Miami realizes that being a complete non-entity in STEM fields is seriously hampering its ability to attract high quality undergrads. They've started to make rumbles that they want to add on a bunch of engineering and hard science programs, and it will be a complete abomination if state money is sent to those rather than similar and long standing programs at UC that actually are or have a chance to become nationally relevant programs.

Great assessment of the state of public higher education in Ohio.

Someone in UC's administration pointed out to me years ago how ridiculous that there were multiple PhD programs, for example, in history and philosophy in the state system. Maybe UC and OSU should offer those and the rest get shut down. Of course there are tenured faculty at those schools where programs would be terminated but this could be a slow conversion where faculty are given the option to continue teaching undergraduate and masters' course or are offered buyouts over several years.

Change has to start somewhere; Ohio isn't a high growth state and future enrollments state-wide don't bode well for sustaining these fiefdoms that were built over the course of the 20th century. Worse still, sustaining them at the expense of creating excellence at both UC and OSU is shortsighted.

I've been reading where UC's goal is to have 60,000 students by 2030. Depending on what source you use, we are at ~46K students now. Where is UC going to pick up another 14K students in a state where the numbers indicate fewer college eligible students are available to enroll? It would seem to me there is no way they add that many students over the next years unless it counts on-line offerings or they build/acquire another regional campus.

That is surprising.
That Clearly would mean we’re not gonna be more selective in the admission process. We would be less selective. And fall further in the rankings. I know the rankings aren’t everything I’m just making that point.

Yeah, unless they have some magical plan to move our out of state recruitment to a fundamentally different level, it can't be done without sacrificing the quality of the freshman classes. Not in a state with Ohio's demographics, a state with too many four year universities and a state where the flagship sucks up a huge number of the best high school graduates with its 7000+ person freshman classes while stockpiling another thousand decently qualified kids at its branch campuses.

I get that higher education is now just a glorified business hiding behind non-profit status but I've never quite understood the excitement about having record enrollments. That is a feature but not exactly an end-user benefit, IMO.

I originally attended another school, not because I loved the school, but the idea of 100 level survey classes with 300 of my closest friends sounded as attractive as a root canal.

(06-30-2022 02:21 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(06-30-2022 01:51 PM)ZCat Wrote:  

(06-29-2022 08:45 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-29-2022 08:40 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 05:48 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  See, I don't have a problem with CU keeping Metro from empire building and adding on a bunch of Ph.D and research programs that are destined to go nowhere. That's the problem in Ohio. Bowling Green and OU and Kent should never have been allowed to start piling on redundant graduate/research programs in the hopes that they could take on the throne.

Now, before anyone attacks me, UC was never under the thumb of the Eagleson Bill restrictions and had built up multiple graduate, research and professional programs before it entered the state system. We entered in the perfect position to be the VaTech to OSU's UVA, and in a sane and structured system that's what we'd be recognized as. Instead, Ohio has this dysfunctional, competitive mess where every state school thinks it can become some AAU powerhouse if it adds on enough Ph.D programs ranked below 100. UC is held back far more by the Bowling Greens, Kents and Ohios below us than it is by OSU.

And I've left Miami out of this because for a long time they weren't really looking to add on a ton of grad/research programs and were content to fulfill their role as a finishing school for preppy business majors. That, however, is starting to change as Miami realizes that being a complete non-entity in STEM fields is seriously hampering its ability to attract high quality undergrads. They've started to make rumbles that they want to add on a bunch of engineering and hard science programs, and it will be a complete abomination if state money is sent to those rather than similar and long standing programs at UC that actually are or have a chance to become nationally relevant programs.

Great assessment of the state of public higher education in Ohio.

Someone in UC's administration pointed out to me years ago how ridiculous that there were multiple PhD programs, for example, in history and philosophy in the state system. Maybe UC and OSU should offer those and the rest get shut down. Of course there are tenured faculty at those schools where programs would be terminated but this could be a slow conversion where faculty are given the option to continue teaching undergraduate and masters' course or are offered buyouts over several years.

Change has to start somewhere; Ohio isn't a high growth state and future enrollments state-wide don't bode well for sustaining these fiefdoms that were built over the course of the 20th century. Worse still, sustaining them at the expense of creating excellence at both UC and OSU is shortsighted.

I've been reading where UC's goal is to have 60,000 students by 2030. Depending on what source you use, we are at ~46K students now. Where is UC going to pick up another 14K students in a state where the numbers indicate fewer college eligible students are available to enroll? It would seem to me there is no way they add that many students over the next years unless it counts on-line offerings or they build/acquire another regional campus.

That is surprising.
That Clearly would mean we’re not gonna be more selective in the admission process. We would be less selective. And fall further in the rankings. I know the rankings aren’t everything I’m just making that point.

Yeah, unless they have some magical plan to move our out of state recruitment to a fundamentally different level, it can't be done without sacrificing the quality of the freshman classes. Not in a state with Ohio's demographics, a state with too many four year universities and a state where the flagship sucks up a huge number of the best high school graduates with its 7000+ person freshman classes while stockpiling another thousand decently qualified kids at its branch campuses.

If the school could get rid of out-of-state admission costs for CLF's 300 mile radiance, they could achieve their goals easily.