PG Tremont Waters (UConn Offer)

[mauconnfan]

Next

 

[JimHurley]

Next

Unfortunately, I agree. Waters will be a big time college players. Really wanted him.

 

[Hoophound]

We are likely one of his other two. Can't make the kid wait around forever....if that is what we are doing. It is getting to the point where kids will be getting annoyed if they are being told to wait because we need to see what other kids do first.

 

[uchusky32]

Seems like this kid wanted his local school to recruit him, give him attention but never thought he needed to reciprocate. Not saying he had to commit to us. But it seemed obvious by some of the commentating that we were not in his first tier of teams and only when Duke/Stanford weren't options that he wondered why we fell off.

 

[beakumhawks]

JimOllie, is there a reason you say that, or are you just talking out your ? Ku recently opened a hundred million dollar engineering building which is second to none, and they just completed a brand new School of Business which is kick-butt.
The overall gpa of the hoops team has always been good, and that is without majors of Sociology like at Dook.

 

[JimHurley]

JimOllie, is there a reason you say that, or are you just talking out your ? Ku recently opened a hundred million dollar engineering building which is second to none, and they just completed a brand new School of Business which is kick-butt.
The overall gpa of the hoops team has always been good, and that is without majors of Sociology like at Dook.

Super easy to get into. And low graduation rate (barely 60%).

 

[beakumhawks]

^^^ UConn grad rate at 20 percent, does improve

 

[beakumhawks]

And

Kansas Scores Well in Latest NCAA GSR Data

I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but when someone says something incredibly stupid I feel the need to call them out on it.

 

[pj]

Super easy to get into. And low graduation rate (barely 60%).

That's because the Kansas legislature requires KU to accept high school students with good grades but poor SAT scores who have high odds of not graduating. But guess what, the Connecticut legislature just required UConn to raise its minority percentage from 14% to 37% by accepting (minority) high school students with good grades but poor SAT scores who have high odds of not graduating. UConn =KU on virtually every category you can grade a university, the only difference was in quality of undergraduate body, and UConn now equals KU on that point too. Look for UConn's US News and World Report ranking to drift down toward KU's over the next ten years.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but when someone says something incredibly stupid I feel the need to call them out on it.

Consider the source. It's not exactly the Boneyard brain trust that you're responding to.

 

[JimHurley]

^^^ UConn grad rate at 20 percent, does improve

That's only for men's basketball. I'm talking about the school as a whole.

 

[beakumhawks]

I've got to hand it to you. Most people at this point would crawl away to lick their wounds, but not you.

 

[Danzz]

Thought it was just New Haven my bad. I certainly remember the Soup, Super John, Jiggy, Sly etc etc etc days, New Haven was a factory. Now I see the Bullocks and ND-WH makes sense. Thx

I don't know if New Haven was a factory. I wonder how many of those players would get major PT at UConn today. RI is no longer our rival and UConn is playing at a different level these days. Super John for sure Jiggy probably not, Soup and Sly maybe.

 

[HooperScooper]

And

Kansas Scores Well in Latest NCAA GSR Data

I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but when someone says something incredibly stupid I feel the need to call them out on it.

With all due respect, Kansas is not as well respected as UConn. I don't think it's even close.

These rankings that are always quoted obviously have some flaws but in general they're decent in showing the general reputation of colleges. So let's take a look at what they say.

U.S. News and World Report University Rankings (just universities) - UConn is 57th and Kansas is 115th.

Forbes Top Colleges (all universities and colleges) - UConn is 147th and Kansas is 253rd.

My son just finished looking at colleges so I happen to have some of the college profile books sitting right here.

Barron's Profile of American Colleges - Rates colleges in general categories - Most Competitive, Highly Competitive, Very Competitive, Competitive, Less Competitive and Noncompetitive. They have UConn at Highly Competitive and Kansas at Competitive+.

The Fiske Guide to Colleges rates academics of each college from 1 to 5. Both UConn and Kansas are rated a 4. Kind of surprised at that one.

Statistics and articles showing the academic success of their athletes has nothing to do with the overall reputation of the school. Didn't Kentucky just have a higher APR score than Harvard? Enough said.

 

[huskymedic]

I don't know if New Haven was a factory. I wonder how many of those players would get major PT at UConn today. RI is no longer our rival and UConn is playing at a different level these days. Super John for sure Jiggy probably not, Soup and Sly maybe.

Earl Kelly?

 

[Fishy]

I wouldn't say Kansas is a joke - different schools have different mandates. Kansas' mandate is to educate the residents of a small state in the grain belt and to turn them into marginal posters on internet message boards.

 

[BUConn10]

And

Kansas Scores Well in Latest NCAA GSR Data

I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but when someone says something incredibly stupid I feel the need to call them out on it.

First of all, GSR pertains to academic performance of a university's athletes much like our beloved APR, so overall completely irrelevant to a school's academic profile. Second of all, take a second and open any single college ranking book; literally any one of your choice and I bet good money that UConn will be ahead of Kansas in those rankings. Now what does that prove? Probably nothing, but for someone who considers themselves an academics-first athlete, Waters has chosen some significantly non-academic programs to use as his first major OV's.

 

[upstater]

With all due respect, Kansas is not as well respected as UConn. I don't think it's even close.

These rankings that are always quoted obviously have some flaws but in general they're decent in showing the general reputation of colleges. So let's take a look at what they say.

U.S. News and World Report University Rankings (just universities) - UConn is 57th and Kansas is 115th.

Forbes Top Colleges (all universities and colleges) - UConn is 147th and Kansas is 253rd.

My son just finished looking at colleges so I happen to have some of the college profile books sitting right here.

Barron's Profile of American Colleges - Rates colleges in general categories - Most Competitive, Highly Competitive, Very Competitive, Competitive, Less Competitive and Noncompetitive. They have UConn at Highly Competitive and Kansas at Competitive+.

The Fiske Guide to Colleges rates academics of each college from 1 to 5. Both UConn and Kansas are rated a 4. Kind of surprised at that one.

Statistics and articles showing the academic success of their athletes has nothing to do with the overall reputation of the school. Didn't Kentucky just have a higher APR score than Harvard? Enough said.

This is where these guidebooks fail you.

I mean, the same books have Clemson for instance well ahead of schools like Kansas and Buffalo.

You're just being fooled if you believe this stuff. The perception may be there from reading these books, but the reality is very very different.

These books have about as much legitimacy as the GSR from the NCAA (which beakum cited).

 

[mauconnfan]

I don't know if New Haven was a factory. I wonder how many of those players would get major PT at UConn today. RI is no longer our rival and UConn is playing at a different level these days. Super John for sure Jiggy probably not, Soup and Sly maybe.

Earl K would as would SuperJohn and Sly they are no doubters. Soup more than likely and a couple we didn't mention, Micky Heard and John Thomas also were big time but "focus" may have been an issue there. Jiggy was good but probably off the bench. There were more during those years but names escape me.

 

[HooperScooper]

This is where these guidebooks fail you.

I mean, the same books have Clemson for instance well ahead of schools like Kansas and Buffalo.

You're just being fooled if you believe this stuff. The perception may be there from reading these books, but the reality is very very different.

These books have about as much legitimacy as the GSR from the NCAA (which beakum cited).

I can't speak for the education some of these places provide but I have a pretty good idea of the admissions selectivity of all these schools. Clemson is much harder to get into than Kansas or Buffalo. Obviously though admissions selectivity and the education you receive at these institutions might not go hand in hand.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

I wouldn't say Kansas is a joke - different schools have different mandates. Kansas' mandate is to educate the residents of a small state in the grain belt and to turn them into marginal posters on internet message boards.

 

[upstater]

I can't speak for the education some of these places provide but I have a pretty good idea of the admissions selectivity of all these schools. Clemson is much harder to get into than Kansas or Buffalo. Obviously though admissions selectivity and the education you receive at these institutions might not go hand in hand.

Much harder based on acceptance rate? Clemson University

Clemson has a 63% admission rate and Buffalo has a 57%.

Clemson just doesn't have the resources to compete with Kansas and Buffalo. There really is a large difference between these schools, and you see it in the Carnegie ratings and also National Foundations. Because faculty at places like Clemson receive little support for research, they tend not to produce very much, which usually translates into a curriculum which is not advanced. The schools do have similarly rated students (1230 average SAT to 1250 average SAT) but the overall program is not up to snuff at Clemson. But that could largely also be a factor of enrollment, as Clemson has 19.4k undergrads while UB has 24.5k, while UB also has an additional 10k grads. Tuition at UB is 9k with fees, Clemson is 13k with fees.

 

[Chief00]

How are we going to get into the Big 12 with our academic arrogance?
My guess is that Texas perhaps is the only school more highly rated due to funding from oil that funds higher education in Texas.

 

[Paesano]

But guess what, the Connecticut legislature just required UConn to raise its minority percentage from 14% to 37% by accepting (minority) high school students with good grades but poor SAT scores who have high odds of not graduating.......Look for UConn's US News and World Report ranking to drift down toward KU's over the next ten years.

Jesus Christmas!!!!! Is this really true? Do you have a link to a story on this? Can someone confirm it?

I hope this isn't accurate. Over the last 30ish years the CPI has increased about 2X. College costs over the same period have increased about 4X. Reduced federal support is partially to blame but accounts for nowhere near the 2X difference. I read a great article recently that outlined how much administrative costs have increased over that time period. The claim was that these costs are the majority cause of the 2X difference between inflation and college cost increases. Many of these costs stem from initiatives that really have very little to do with academics. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[upstater]

Jesus Christmas!!!!! Is this really true? Do you have a link to a story on this? Can someone confirm it?

I hope this isn't accurate. Over the last 30ish years the CPI has increased about 2X. College costs over the same period have increased about 4X. Reduced federal support is partially to blame but accounts for nowhere near the 2X difference. I read a great article recently that outlined how much administrative costs have increased over that time period. The claim was that these costs are the majority cause of the 2X difference between inflation and college cost increases. Many of these costs stem from initiatives that really have very little to do with academics. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It's not true. I debunked it on another thread.

MY LONG ANSWER:

Reduced state support has caused the rise. You can take the amount reduced per student and add it to the tuition, and the expenditures would be equal (i.e. if state spending per student was $15k in 1995 and $8k in 2015, all you need to do to understand how tuition jumped from $2500 to $9500 is to add the $7k reduction to $2500. Track expenditures over the time period rather than "cost."

When a cost is subsidized, the removal of subsidy creates an exponential increase.

For instance, if the expenditure per student is $20k a year, and the tuition is $1k a year, then a rise in tuition to $10k looks like a 1,000% increase. People's eyes bulge out. But from the point of view of expenditures, the school might have only risen from $20k a year per student to $25k over 20 years. Much more in keeping with CPI (the latest figures I've seen show that expenditures are tracking below CPI, and just last week we saw an article about a prospective B12 school -- Cincy -- that has had a huge reduction in expenditures since 2008).

Your other question is more interesting and probably differs state by state. Administrative costs are up 300% in a decade. But the average budget for administration has now gone from 1% of the total budget to 3%. The extra 2% is not enough to explain the jump in tuition. Administrators argue that they are in a new regulatory environment and technological era which requires more professional administration than ever before (think of UConn, required to keep in line with the NCAA, a whole slew of tech people on campus to install and run systems, laboratory regulations, offices of diversity, Title IX, health care, benefits, equal opportunity, student affairs, etc.).

It gets even more interesting when you realize where the savings come from. Tenured or tenure-track faculty (i.e. full-timers) have gone from over 77% nationally in 2005 to under 30% now. This is how expenditures have been held down, as well as clawbacks in salary for full-timers. When a university does this, however, it is not simply a matter of hiring cheaper adjuncts or clinical faculty, but then you need more administrators to actually oversee things like a General Education program in which most of the adjunct and clinical faculty teach. In other words, the hiring of cheaper instructors requires more administrators. It used to be that full-time faculty did most of that work for free (i.e. academic hiring, curriculum, governance, policy), but now that this part of universities has become huge behemoth, administrators have taken over.

 

[Paesano]

It's not true. I debunked it on another thread.

MY LONG ANSWER:

Reduced state support has caused the rise. You can take the amount reduced per student and add it to the tuition, and the expenditures would be equal (i.e. if state spending per student was $15k in 1995 and $8k in 2015, all you need to do to understand how tuition jumped from $2500 to $9500 is to add the $7k reduction to $2500. Track expenditures over the time period rather than "cost."

When a cost is subsidized, the removal of subsidy creates an exponential increase.

For instance, if the expenditure per student is $20k a year, and the tuition is $1k a year, then a rise in tuition to $10k looks like a 1,000% increase. People's eyes bulge out. But from the point of view of expenditures, the school might have only risen from $20k a year per student to $25k over 20 years. Much more in keeping with CPI (the latest figures I've seen show that expenditures are tracking below CPI, and just last week we saw an article about a prospective B12 school -- Cincy -- that has had a huge reduction in expenditures since 2008).

Your other question is more interesting and probably differs state by state. Administrative costs are up 300% in a decade. But the average budget for administration has now gone from 1% of the total budget to 3%. The extra 2% is not enough to explain the jump in tuition. Administrators argue that they are in a new regulatory environment and technological era which requires more professional administration than ever before (think of UConn, required to keep in line with the NCAA, a whole slew of tech people on campus to install and run systems, laboratory regulations, offices of diversity, Title IX, health care, benefits, equal opportunity, student affairs, etc.).

It gets even more interesting when you realize where the savings come from. Tenured or tenure-track faculty (i.e. full-timers) have gone from over 77% nationally in 2005 to under 30% now. This is how expenditures have been held down, as well as clawbacks in salary for full-timers. When a university does this, however, it is not simply a matter of hiring cheaper adjuncts or clinical faculty, but then you need more administrators to actually oversee things like a General Education program in which most of the adjunct and clinical faculty teach. In other words, the hiring of cheaper instructors requires more administrators. It used to be that full-time faculty did most of that work for free (i.e. academic hiring, curriculum, governance, policy), but now that this part of universities has become huge behemoth, administrators have taken over.

First, I asked if the legislature is really requiring UConn to increase its minority enrollment from 14% to 37%.

Second, it sounds like your discussion on costs is focusing on state universities. If so, how do you explain private university costs going up by 300%? Was CT subsidizing Yale and MA subsidizing Harvard?

Third, what are you including in "administrative costs"? If find it hard to believe administrative salaries are only 3% of the budget of major universities and it becomes even harder to believe if you include the cost of the buildings needed to house the new administrators as well as to provide the space needed for operating the various non-academic activities. And I haven't even begun to touch on new faculty and facilities required to teach new programs that didn't exist 30 years ago but people feel are now necessary due to social justice arguments.

 

[scotty0330]

To quote hooper in another thread...about that tremont waters

 

[upstater]

First, I asked if the legislature is really requiring UConn to increase its minority enrollment from 14% to 37%.

Second, it sounds like your discussion on costs is focusing on state universities. If so, how do you explain private university costs going up by 300%? Was CT subsidizing Yale and MA subsidizing Harvard?

Third, what are you including in "administrative costs"? If find it hard to believe administrative salaries are only 3% of the budget of major universities and it becomes even harder to believe if you include the cost of the buildings needed to house the new administrators as well as to provide the space needed for operating the various non-academic activities. And I haven't even begun to touch on new faculty and facilities required to teach new programs that didn't exist 30 years ago but people feel are now necessary due to social justice arguments.

After the Supreme Court banned Affirmative Action a decade ago, it is now illegal to have race-based considerations in admissions. Consequently, the %s of African-Americans has dropped at UConn. It is now less than 5% of a state population of 10%. Hispanics are 8% at UConn out of a state population of 16%. Asians are overrepresented at 10% with a population of 5%. Mixed race, Native-American, Islander added together are 5%. Add in 10% foreign students, and up have your current number of 37% up from 14%.

Private schools have their own thing and can do what they want because they are private. They only comprise 14% of total college students. The tuition at privates has not risen as fast as at publics because of the high tuition in the first place. 300% Can you show me what school went up that much. I attended Boston University in the mid 1980s when tuition was 22-24k, and it is now 49k. I think the privates are up 150% over 30 years. One of the reasons this is happening is because privates charge more tuition than the cost per student. In other words, people who pay full freight are paying money to a university that is not expending as much on the person paying. They are taking in more than their costs. Why? Because they are trying to maintain need-blind policies which redistribute 35-40% of tuition dollars in the form of scholarships. This is how they operate.

New programs? Social justice arguments? I have no idea what you're on about, and I am going to say I probably would disagree with whatever you are imagining anyway.

 

[Chief00]

Jesus Christmas!!!!! Is this really true? Do you have a link to a story on this? Can someone confirm it?

I hope this isn't accurate. Over the last 30ish years the CPI has increased about 2X. College costs over the same period have increased about 4X. Reduced federal support is partially to blame but accounts for nowhere near the 2X difference. I read a great article recently that outlined how much administrative costs have increased over that time period. The claim was that these costs are the majority cause of the 2X difference between inflation and college cost increases. Many of these costs stem from initiatives that really have very little to do with academics. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

We are at 33-34% minorities now for Freshman. No fair to white kids with better SATs but I understand the need to give minorities a chance - my own view is go ahead and try this but for CT residents increase enrollments - so qualified whites kids won't be disadvantage - This would reduce out of state students - who pay twice the tuition - so unlikely to happen.

 

[beakumhawks]

This thread went to poop pretty quickly. I blame Fishy. Then again, I blame Fishy for pretty much everything. ISIS - Fishy 9/11 - Fishy Ghostbusters remake - Definitely Fishy. Rumors of Tom being dead - you all know the answer to that one. Hell, it would probably be harder for me to find something Fishy is not to blame for.

Give me a second....


Nope. Got nothing.