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

UC has slipped again and is now tied with Ole Miss. Is that what "Next is Here" means? Embarrassing.

(09-12-2022 12:12 AM)colohank Wrote:  UC has slipped again and is now tied with Ole Miss. Is that what "Next is Here" means? Embarrassing.

I seem to remember Pinto Bean's opening letter promising equity, inclusion and diversity. Was there any mention of improved academics?

In 2018 UC was ranked #133. In the 2010s UC climbed the rankings from as low as #156 and hovered around the #130-135 mark. As everyone notes selectivity has gradually decreased, to the point now UC is accepting 85% of the applicants (at one point only 67% were being selected).

The other factor in the metrics used by USNWR is with all this student growth, UC has not kept up with faculty resources such as class size and faculty to student ratios.

For many years we would lament UC was punished for having a large co-op as the rankings measured a four year graduation rate. That has been changed to six year but it still does not help us.

On the positive note, all of the Ohio colleges and universities continue to fall in the rankings so we have not slid to the point where we are being surpassed by the MAC schools (Miami was always ahead of us but they have fallen to #105 which is a low for them as well).

Copied from another forum, the rankings of the P5+BE (including UC, UH, UCF and BYU)

quote='schmolik' pid='18438089' dateline='1662982956']
ACC:

Duke (10)
Notre Dame (18)
Virginia (25/3)
North Carolina (29/5)
Wake Forest (29)
Boston College (36)
Georgia Tech (44/15)
Florida State (55/19)
Miami (55)
Syracuse (62)
Pittsburgh (62/23)
Virginia Tech (62/23)
NC State (72/29)
Clemson (77/31)
Louisville (182/91)

SEC:
Vanderbilt (13)
Florida (29/5)
Texas (38/10)
Georgia (49/16)
Texas A&M (67/26)
Auburn (97/26)
South Carolina (115/53)
Tennessee (115/53)
Missouri (121/56)
Oklahoma (127/61)
Alabama (137/64)
Kentucky (137/64)
Mississippi (151/72)
LSU (176/87)
Arkansas (176/87)
Mississippi State (194/100)

Pac "10"
Stanford (3)
California Berkeley (20/1)
Washington (55/19)
Colorado (97/26)
Arizona (105/48)
Oregon (105/48)
Utah (105/48)
Arizona State (121/56)
Oregon State (151/72)
Washington State (212/107)

Big 12:
Baylor (77)
Brigham Young (89)
Texas Christian (89)
Kansas (121/56)
Iowa State (127/61)
Central Florida (137/64)
Cincinnati (151/72)
Kansas State (166/83)
Oklahoma State (182/91)
Houston (182/91)
Texas Tech (219/112)
West Virginia (234/118)

Big East:
Georgetown (22)
Villanova (51)
Connecticut (67/26)
Marquette (83)
Creighton (115)
DePaul (137)
Seton Hall (137)
St. John's (166)
Xavier (166)
Butler (Midwest #1)
Providence (North #1)
[/quote]

(09-12-2022 04:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The other factor in the metrics used by USNWR is with all this student growth, UC has not kept up with faculty resources such as class size and faculty to student ratios.

Faculty resources isn't the problem. Getting faculty to teach more than 8-10 hours a week is. College professor is the most overpaid and underworked profession in existence.

Louisville must really feel like the red headed step child of the ACC.

(09-12-2022 07:19 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 04:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The other factor in the metrics used by USNWR is with all this student growth, UC has not kept up with faculty resources such as class size and faculty to student ratios.

Faculty resources isn't the problem. Getting faculty to teach more than 8-10 hours a week is. College professor is the most overpaid and underworked profession in existence.

I don't disagree with that sentiment as a faculty member who teaches 18 hours (with two additional labs and the 36 required office hours on top of that) and still manages to lap a lot of my colleagues in research expenditures (I did work in industry however, so I actually understand how to...work...), but Clifton's response is correct. Student/Faculty ratio and # of Faculty in general are two metrics USNWR uses, both of which are two of the many reasons why USNWR shouldn't be used as a viable ranking of actual academic stature.

(09-12-2022 03:14 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:12 AM)colohank Wrote:  UC has slipped again and is now tied with Ole Miss. Is that what "Next is Here" means? Embarrassing.

I seem to remember Pinto Bean's opening letter promising equity, inclusion and diversity. Was there any mention of improved academics?

Disappointing for sure; D.E.I. is the new battle cry in higher education around the country. The "game" it seems, for this administration is all about increased undergraduate enrollment and the operating revenue that delivers.

Under previous administrations, UC was climbing the ladder in academic quality and enrollment. Maybe the end game is to hit some contrived enrollment number before focusing again on quality? I'm not sure how that's going to work.

If the 60,000 enrollment target that's been discussed on this board still holds, it seems the Uptown infrastructure will be seriously challenged to handle that growth in students, and necessary support from faculty and staff. Clifton Avenue and Straight Street has already become a bottleneck and the densely packed high rises planned for the Deaconess Hospital footprint will only create more challenges. Since President Steger's tenure, the greenspace that made the campus more attractive than ever has actually been reduced again by the new Linder COB and Clifton Court buildings. The IPF, which I fully support, will be an imposing structure walling off the southeastern side of campus too.

Whether President Pinto and the Board have a long term plan for meeting some of these challenges is unclear at this point.

(09-12-2022 07:19 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 04:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The other factor in the metrics used by USNWR is with all this student growth, UC has not kept up with faculty resources such as class size and faculty to student ratios.

Faculty resources isn't the problem. Getting faculty to teach more than 8-10 hours a week is. College professor is the most overpaid and underworked profession in existence.

For tenured professors, yes.

But if you saw starting salaries in the liberal arts, and the amount of work any assistant (i.e. tenure track, but untenured) you wouldn't say they're overpaid or underworked.

The tenure system creates a lot of disincentives to work after tenure.

(09-12-2022 07:29 AM)chatcat Wrote:  Louisville must really feel like the red headed step child of the ACC.

At the rate UC is declining, Louisville will pass us. USF's and UCF's ascendancies are impressive. For a time, I thought we were headed upward in the rankings, but the recent emphasis on enrollment quantity over quality is killing us. Something has to give, or someone has to go. UC's leadership, not tenured professors, is the problem.

(09-12-2022 08:34 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 03:14 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:12 AM)colohank Wrote:  UC has slipped again and is now tied with Ole Miss. Is that what "Next is Here" means? Embarrassing.

I seem to remember Pinto Bean's opening letter promising equity, inclusion and diversity. Was there any mention of improved academics?

Disappointing for sure; D.E.I. is the new battle cry in higher education around the country. The "game" it seems, for this administration is all about increased undergraduate enrollment and the operating revenue that delivers.

Under previous administrations, UC was climbing the ladder in academic quality and enrollment. Maybe the end game is to hit some contrived enrollment number before focusing again on quality? I'm not sure how that's going to work.

If the 60,000 enrollment target that's been discussed on this board still holds, it seems the Uptown infrastructure will be seriously challenged to handle that growth in students, and necessary support from faculty and staff. Clifton Avenue and Straight Street has already become a bottleneck and the densely packed high rises planned for the Deaconess Hospital footprint will only create more challenges. Since President Steger's tenure, the greenspace that made the campus more attractive than ever has actually been reduced again by the new Linder COB and Clifton Court buildings. The IPF, which I fully support, will be an imposing structure walling off the southeastern side of campus too.

Whether President Pinto and the Board have a long term plan for meeting some of these challenges is unclear at this point.

Which seems ass backwards to me. You increase quality and rankings first, and that will drive more high quality applications. Not the other way around.

Miami's been out of the top 100 for a few years now and haven't been close to OSU for probably 20. Yet they don't lose a bit of arrogance and self-regard do they?

(09-12-2022 09:45 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 07:29 AM)chatcat Wrote:  Louisville must really feel like the red headed step child of the ACC.

At the rate UC is declining, Louisville will pass us. USF's and UCF's ascendancies are impressive. For a time, I thought we were headed upward in the rankings, but the recent emphasis on enrollment quantity over quality is killing us. Something has to give, or someone has to go. UC's leadership, not tenured professors, is the problem.

I vote for Pinto Bean to go. I support equality of opportunity not equality of results.

Bigger is not always better.

I do not want the campus to be an urban blacktop jungle again.

(09-12-2022 08:34 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 03:14 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 12:12 AM)colohank Wrote:  UC has slipped again and is now tied with Ole Miss. Is that what "Next is Here" means? Embarrassing.

I seem to remember Pinto Bean's opening letter promising equity, inclusion and diversity. Was there any mention of improved academics?

Disappointing for sure; D.E.I. is the new battle cry in higher education around the country. The "game" it seems, for this administration is all about increased undergraduate enrollment and the operating revenue that delivers.

Under previous administrations, UC was climbing the ladder in academic quality and enrollment. Maybe the end game is to hit some contrived enrollment number before focusing again on quality? I'm not sure how that's going to work.

If the 60,000 enrollment target that's been discussed on this board still holds, it seems the Uptown infrastructure will be seriously challenged to handle that growth in students, and necessary support from faculty and staff. Clifton Avenue and Straight Street has already become a bottleneck and the densely packed high rises planned for the Deaconess Hospital footprint will only create more challenges. Since President Steger's tenure, the greenspace that made the campus more attractive than ever has actually been reduced again by the new Linder COB and Clifton Court buildings. The IPF, which I fully support, will be an imposing structure walling off the southeastern side of campus too.

Whether President Pinto and the Board have a long term plan for meeting some of these challenges is unclear at this point.

If the goal is 60K, I have to wonder if the plan is to bring Cincinnati State in house. That would address the available land concerns and increase enrollment by about 9K. Most of these students fill the criteria set forth in the Next Lives Here campaign for attracting more CPS graduates and 1st Generation Students.

With one predictable exception, a good discussion on here. One aspect to note. Each year, a few additional institutions enter the 'National Universities' rankings due to meeting the threshold of Doctoral programs offered (Xavier, for instance, just entered this year). That's been a trend over the last 15 years and it has impacted our rankings, but certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse. I also have to wonder how much predicted enrollment trends might be impacting decisions being made by the university. Enrollment is declining nationally, and in Ohio isn't growing like many of the Sun Belt states. Compared to our in-state peers, UC isn't slipping in the rankings nearly as quickly - Miami was 66 in 2009 (105 this year) and OU was 112 in 2009 (182 this year). OU has struggled with enrollment, and the likes of BG, Wright State and Akron will continue to struggle significantly in the future. UC's increase in enrollment might be a solid strategy to hedge against future declines that others will be facing. As other state institutions struggle, the perception of UC is going in the opposite direction - the city's core is rapidly improving, the Big 12 is coming, and the campus area has improved dramatically.

But, as others have accurately stated, we may be at a tipping point. I'd rather see us put the brakes on going for 60,000 students and instead focus on improving faculty, adding beds to the campus area, making wise land use decisions, and continuing to elevate research in key areas. The momentum is absolutely there and doesn't seem to be slowing (particularly in comparison to our in-state peers) - we can be more strategic, however, about how to leverage that momentum.

I don't support a 60K enrollment strategy in any way, but in Pinto's defense when comparing him to the last few administrations, UC had very favorable dynamics before him.

First, we made the initial jump to selective admissions under Zimpher. Gains in quality are always going to be most dramatic in the beginning and will plateau subsequently as UC needs to compete with a different level of university for students in their top quartile.

Second, those administrations had very favorable demographic trends in terms of the numbers of graduating high school students in Ohio--the "baby boom echo." That has dissipated.

https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2022/09/us-news.html

UC article about rankings which touts co-op program and recognition for innovation. Also mentions growth in enrollment.
Enrollment records

With so much to offer students — the co-op program, an innovative campus, research opportunities and more — it’s no surprise UC has attracted a record number of Bearcats.

The new academic year marks nearly a decade of growth on campus as UC welcomes its largest student body yet. Another enrollment first: The freshman class is the largest as well as the most academically prepared and diverse in university history.”

(09-12-2022 11:12 AM)geef Wrote:  With one predictable exception, a good discussion on here. One aspect to note. Each year, a few additional institutions enter the 'National Universities' rankings due to meeting the threshold of Doctoral programs offered (Xavier, for instance, just entered this year). That's been a trend over the last 15 years and it has impacted our rankings, but certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse. I also have to wonder how much predicted enrollment trends might be impacting decisions being made by the university. Enrollment is declining nationally, and in Ohio isn't growing like many of the Sun Belt states. Compared to our in-state peers, UC isn't slipping in the rankings nearly as quickly - Miami was 66 in 2009 (105 this year) and OU was 112 in 2009 (182 this year). OU has struggled with enrollment, and the likes of BG, Wright State and Akron will continue to struggle significantly in the future. UC's increase in enrollment might be a solid strategy to hedge against future declines that others will be facing. As other state institutions struggle, the perception of UC is going in the opposite direction - the city's core is rapidly improving, the Big 12 is coming, and the campus area has improved dramatically.

But, as others have accurately stated, we may be at a tipping point. I'd rather see us put the brakes on going for 60,000 students and instead focus on improving faculty, adding beds to the campus area, making wise land use decisions, and continuing to elevate research in key areas. The momentum is absolutely there and doesn't seem to be slowing (particularly in comparison to our in-state peers) - we can be more strategic, however, about how to leverage that momentum.

Adding beds is key.

It should be a nonstarter to add 14,000 commuters to the existing population. That inevitably lowers quality.

It also requires going backwards on the walkability of the area. We'd have to add at least 5,000 more parking spots - probably more. For reference, all of UC currently has 11,000 parking spots.


On the other hand, adding 14,000 beds would be desirable... but it's a large challenge. This isn't Purdue, which expanded by 10,000 students over the past 12 years by buying nearby cornfields. UC is already one of the 5 densest universities in the country. UC could build taller buildings, but students tend to prefer to live in 2-6 story buildings. So taller buildings might make the campus less desirable.

UC would have to acquire land & expand campus somehow. If the plans for that aren't already well underway, then it's a pipe dream to add more than a couple thousand beds in the next 8 years.

(09-12-2022 01:53 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 11:12 AM)geef Wrote:  With one predictable exception, a good discussion on here. One aspect to note. Each year, a few additional institutions enter the 'National Universities' rankings due to meeting the threshold of Doctoral programs offered (Xavier, for instance, just entered this year). That's been a trend over the last 15 years and it has impacted our rankings, but certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse. I also have to wonder how much predicted enrollment trends might be impacting decisions being made by the university. Enrollment is declining nationally, and in Ohio isn't growing like many of the Sun Belt states. Compared to our in-state peers, UC isn't slipping in the rankings nearly as quickly - Miami was 66 in 2009 (105 this year) and OU was 112 in 2009 (182 this year). OU has struggled with enrollment, and the likes of BG, Wright State and Akron will continue to struggle significantly in the future. UC's increase in enrollment might be a solid strategy to hedge against future declines that others will be facing. As other state institutions struggle, the perception of UC is going in the opposite direction - the city's core is rapidly improving, the Big 12 is coming, and the campus area has improved dramatically.

But, as others have accurately stated, we may be at a tipping point. I'd rather see us put the brakes on going for 60,000 students and instead focus on improving faculty, adding beds to the campus area, making wise land use decisions, and continuing to elevate research in key areas. The momentum is absolutely there and doesn't seem to be slowing (particularly in comparison to our in-state peers) - we can be more strategic, however, about how to leverage that momentum.

Adding beds is key.

It should be a nonstarter to add 14,000 commuters to the existing population. That inevitably lowers quality.

It also requires going backwards on the walkability of the area. We'd have to add at least 5,000 more parking spots - probably more. For reference, all of UC currently has 11,000 parking spots.


On the other hand, adding 14,000 beds would be desirable... but it's a large challenge. This isn't Purdue, which expanded by 10,000 students over the past 12 years by buying nearby cornfields. UC is already one of the 5 densest universities in the country. UC could build taller buildings, but students tend to prefer to live in 2-6 story buildings. So taller buildings might make the campus less desirable.

UC would have to acquire land & expand campus somehow. If the plans for that aren't already well underway, then it's a pipe dream to add more than a couple thousand beds in the next 8 years.

I agree with your summary.

It's probably safe to assume the EPA and remaining hospitals aren't going away to make room for UC. I questioned the relocation of the power plant to Short Vine decades ago as that footprint could have been better utilized. The streets between the EPA and Burnet Woods would take a years long eminent domain battle to acquire, even if approved.

I don't know the current status, but the Hebrew Union College campus could provide a great footprint just northwest of UC on Clifton Avenue. Beautiful buildings and if that Cincinnati campus is indeed closing, as published reports last year suggested, it would be a very desirable addition.

UC's compact footprint remains a competitive advantage for our students--not having to take a bus ride to classes like at OSU. But at some point, you can't put 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound sack.

(09-12-2022 07:30 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 07:19 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 04:35 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The other factor in the metrics used by USNWR is with all this student growth, UC has not kept up with faculty resources such as class size and faculty to student ratios.

Faculty resources isn't the problem. Getting faculty to teach more than 8-10 hours a week is. College professor is the most overpaid and underworked profession in existence.

I don't disagree with that sentiment as a faculty member who teaches 18 hours (with two additional labs and the 36 required office hours on top of that) and still manages to lap a lot of my colleagues in research expenditures (I did work in industry however, so I actually understand how to...work...), but Clifton's response is correct. Student/Faculty ratio and # of Faculty in general are two metrics USNWR uses, both of which are two of the many reasons why USNWR shouldn't be used as a viable ranking of actual academic stature.

Thanks!!

Remind us What ranking or metrics should we read that is more reflective of learning and academic stature.