UConn is academically superior to most of the B10

[EricLA]

Yup. What is being conflated is AAU and "strong academics". The two are not the same, although I'm sure the B1G likes to position it that way. All AAU means is that the institutions are heavy research based institutions living off the public grant teet. In fact if you read their own description it emphasizes the "partnership" (i.e., money flow) from the US government to the institutions. Think of it like their own Power Conference for grant money.

UConn fits very well into the B1G and is a stellar public university with a very competitive academic standing. It just doesn't have as good grant writers and a well oiled research money machine in place.

Many if these issues are red-herrings and excuses. There is a steady dialogue emerging that the B1G made a big mistake not taking UConn and they better move quickly before the ACC grabs us.

Really? Where is this coming from? Not doubting you - I'd be almost as excited about getting an invite to the B1G as I was over our dual NC's. Almost. That would be a fantastical situation for UCONN. Do they wait on our FB program and AAU affiliation?

 

[Palatine]

Pretty snarky response to an unquestionable truth right now. Look at the numbers from this tourney and tell us what we offer the B1G? It's about television sets. We aren't lightning them up right now.

No, it's not a fact in the laeast. It just a negative opinion. You think our ratings suck. They don't.

Here's a fact. Most of Duke and Kentucky ratings come from pre-game hype. Hype UConn the same way and you get the same results. UConn has many, many highly rated games.

 

[August_West]

No, it's not a fact in the laeast. It just a negative opinion. You think our ratings suck. They don't. Here's a fact. Most of Duke and Kentucky ratings come from pre-game hype. Hype UConn the same way and you get the same results. UConn has many, many highly rated games.

They suck in comparison to the B1G schools. Did you look at the ratings?

 

[Sportsman5]

No, it's not a fact in the laeast. It just a negative opinion. You think our ratings suck. They don't.

Here's a fact. Most of Duke and Kentucky ratings come from pre-game hype. Hype UConn the same way and you get the same results. UConn has many, many highly rated games.

the hype for the Syracuse-Duke games this year were absolutely unreal. There's no way you could have watched any type of sport and not seen multiple ads for those games. I'm not saying there wouldn't have been a lot of people watching it anyway, but no question the hype from the network created a major increase in viewership.

 

[Sportsman5]

They suck in comparison to the B1G schools. Did you look at the ratings?

Do you think that it is the fans of a particular team that are causing the number of views to be high or the collective size of the fans of the big 10 put together? In other words, there are a lot of big 10 fans in general that will tune in to watch any big 10 team play whether it be to root for or against that team. The ratings make it seem like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State and Indiana etc. all draw more independent fans than Kentucky. However, my assumption (which could be wrong) is that the collective big 10 fans all tune in to watch any big 10 team play, while less AAC or SEC fans tune into watch the SEC or AAC teams. So if UConn moves to the BIG 10 they will likely draw more views on TV than Kentucky and likely more than a team like Wisconsin unless Wisconsin is very hot at the time. If you take out the big 10 fans, than I think UConn would get more national fans and fans of UConn to watch them than Wisconsin would get national fans and fans of Wisconsin basketball. However, as long as Wisconsin is in the BIG 10 and UConn is in the AAC, than Wisconsin basketball will get more TV views.

 

[kyleslamb]

Don't pay any attention to academics, or at least, the perception fueled by subjective ratings. The league doesn't care about that (too much).

If you want to boil it down to academics, then look at research dollars. That's what the Big Ten cares about because with the CIC's resource-sharing, they care about schools that take research seriously. All the talk about ACT/SAT scores, admissions selectivity and where schools rate in a pointless USWNR algorithm is window dressing.

Can you make money for the league? Can your research prowess help in cooperation with the CIC? Will you make a good athletic partner and sensible rival to increase branding and visibility? Those are the questions the Big Ten is interested in more than what the 25 percentile SAT/math score is. Make no mistake, the Big Ten is not interested in commuter schools or liberal arts colleges... it wants large, land-grant, flagship institutions. But I think people are focusing on the wrong aspects.

 

[SonsOfNutmeg]

Not that it matters (at all) now, but I'd be curious to see how Rutgers and Maryland stack up against UConn and their new B1G brethern?

 

[Palatine]

Not that it matters (at all) now, but I'd be curious to see how Rutgers and Maryland stack up against UConn and their new B1G brethern?

According to USNWR is we're 57. Rutgers 69 and Maryland 62

 

[SonsOfNutmeg]

According to USNWR is we're 57. Rutgers 69 and Maryland 62

Gotta love that... The B1G Conference doesn't care about the "Student ATHLETE"

 

[buggsy]

According to USNWR is we're 57. Rutgers 69 and Maryland 62

According to Forbes Top Academic Colleges
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/

Maryland - #73
Rutgers - #125
UCONN - #140

 

[Sportsman5]

According to Forbes Top Academic Colleges
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/

Maryland - #73
Rutgers - #125
UCONN - #140

please look at the other thread where I responded. Also, please explain to me Forbes' ranking system. It doesn't seem to make much sense. For example, Harvard is #8. It seems to me this list is specifically put together to create controversy and get as many page views as possible. No serious publication that is actually trying to accurately rank colleges would have Harvard out of the top 3 or 4. period. Explain University of Illinois at 53 and University of Pittsburgh at 193. Find the metrics that are important to any college student that would make those two schools that far apart. At best this list is made to have a lot of random disparities in order to draw page views and at worst it is complete trash.

 

[Waquoit]

Don't let the Rutrolls take your eyes off the prize. These are sports conferences and sports are about winning. UConn won more NCAA titles in the last week than Rutgers have in their entire history.

 

[kyleslamb]

please look at the other thread where I responded. Also, please explain to me Forbes' ranking system. It doesn't seem to make much sense. For example, Harvard is #8. It seems to me this list is specifically put together to create controversy and get as many page views as possible. No serious publication that is actually trying to accurately rank colleges would have Harvard out of the top 3 or 4. period. Explain University of Illinois at 53 and University of Pittsburgh at 193. Find the metrics that are important to any college student that would make those two schools that far apart. At best this list is made to have a lot of random disparities in order to draw page views and at worst it is complete trash.

Most rankings are already trash because they're based on a selection bias, namely they're heavily fueled not by the quality of education you receive, but rather the selectivity of admissions. USWNR is absolutely no exception, and in fact, are a huge culprit when it comes to this methodology. For a student looking at rankings of universities, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the institution is deemed better because a qualified student is good enough to get in when in reality, it tell us nothing about what education they'll receive.

It you truly wanted to judge an institution, it should be by its academic curriculum, not the company it keeps. SAT/ACT scores; admission percentage and number of bachelor's degrees awarded doesn't seem like a very good measure of an institution's education, yet that's the data most rankings heavily rely upon to come up with a score.

 

[buggsy]

please look at the other thread where I responded. Also, please explain to me Forbes' ranking system. It doesn't seem to make much sense. For example, Harvard is #8. It seems to me this list is specifically put together to create controversy and get as many page views as possible. No serious publication that is actually trying to accurately rank colleges would have Harvard out of the top 3 or 4. period. Explain University of Illinois at 53 and University of Pittsburgh at 193. Find the metrics that are important to any college student that would make those two schools that far apart. At best this list is made to have a lot of random disparities in order to draw page views and at worst it is complete trash.

All rankings of colleges based on academics are worthless. But in 3 out of 4 of them, Rutgers is ranked higher.

Funny, how you don't have a problem with the one that has UCONN slightly ahead.

 

[Sportsman5]

Most rankings are already trash because they're based on a selection bias, namely they're heavily fueled not by the quality of education you receive, but rather the selectivity of admissions. USWNR is absolutely no exception, and in fact, are a huge culprit when it comes to this methodology. For a student looking at rankings of universities, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the institution is deemed better because a qualified student is good enough to get in when in reality, it tell us nothing about what education they'll receive.

It you truly wanted to judge an institution, it should be by its academic curriculum, not the company it keeps. SAT/ACT scores; admission percentage and number of bachelor's degrees awarded doesn't seem like a very good measure of an institution's education, yet that's the data most rankings heavily rely upon to come up with a score.

well if students (and in many cases the parents) do extensive research into many different schools (many students consider 10 or more these days) and decide to apply to attend one university at a much higher rate than another, than that at least says something about different schools.

Have you looked at the break down of U.S. news and world report ranking system? If you had you would know that standardized tests scores and admission rates only account for 9.375% of the total score. So they are looking way beyond those types of stats. Bachelor degrees awarded have 0% weight.

 

[Sportsman5]

All rankings of colleges based on academics are worthless. But in 3 out of 4 of them, Rutgers is ranked higher.

Funny, how you don't have a problem with the one that has UCONN slightly ahead.

I explained how some are better than others in the other thread and specifically asked you to read it. Please do so. U.S. news and world report is used by many as the gold standard and is among the top few that serious college students use as a source. It is very thorough and considers many different factors. Forbes is just a random list created to maximize views of it. Please explain to me the methodology behind these other 3 publications which supposedly rank UConn below just about every school in the country.

 

[kyleslamb]

well if students (and in many cases the parents) do extensive research into many different schools (many students consider 10 or more these days) and decide to apply to attend one university at a much higher rate than another, than that at least says something about different schools.

Have you looked at the break down of U.S. news and world report ranking system? If you had you would know that standardized tests scores and admission rates only account for 9.375% of the total score. So they are looking way beyond those types of stats. Bachelor degrees awarded have 0% weight.

That's not entirely accurate. Selectivity comprises 13 percent of the score. However, what you're ignoring is that almost a quarter is "reputation" which is a subjective polling of people, which inherently are going to be suffering from same selectivity bias due to selectivity. Second, another quarter of the score is retention. That's another bias in the system because better students are more likely to stick around for a second year, especially if they're paying larger tuition (at a more prestigious school). Fact of the matter is that well over half the ranking is directly or indirectly influenced by selectivity.

Either way, the whole ranking thing is just a big potpourri of subjective goo. There's no rhyme or reason to it. The USWNR rankings are worthless, as are most college ranking systems.

 

[Palatine]

I believe the Forbes list is very concerned with value, the cost to a student for the quality of education he receives. USNWR just evaluates the quality of the education.

 

[Nostical]

I believe the Forbes list is very concerned with the value... of education.

My UConn education was priceless.

 

[Sportsman5]

That's not entirely accurate. Selectivity comprises 13 percent of the score. However, what you're ignoring is that almost a quarter is "reputation" which is a subjective polling of people, which inherently are going to be suffering from same selectivity bias due to selectivity. Second, another quarter of the score is retention. That's another bias in the system because better students are more likely to stick around for a second year, especially if they're paying larger tuition (at a more prestigious school). Fact of the matter is that well over half the ranking is directly or indirectly influenced by selectivity.

Either way, the whole ranking thing is just a big potpourri of subjective goo. There's no rhyme or reason to it. The USWNR rankings are worthless, as are most college ranking systems.

So you think the assessment of a university by guidance counselors should have no weight? their job is to assess schools and find good fits for students. You don't think that graduation rate should have a large weight??? being surrounded by academically focused students and having the resources to accomplish getting a degree is massively important. And yes freshman year retention rates shows a lot about whether or not students 1) enjoy their time at school 2) are dedicated to getting an education 3) feel like they are getting value from that university.

You can ignore rankings if you 1) do not care what the perceived value of your education is to employers or grad schools 2) do not care about being surrounded by academically inclined peers. It's not a rhetorical question because some people do not plan to go into competitive fields/ grad programs or don't want to try to get the most prestigious jobs in their field. that is perfectly fine. However, if you plan to go into a very competitive field like finance, science, or technology and want to get into the best grad programs and apply to the most competitive companies, than going to the highest ranking and most prestigious college possible will help you. In some cases it will help you a little bit and in other cases it can mean the difference between success and failure.

Are the rankings going to be perfectly accurate for what every high school student values most in a university? no, but it is a very good guideline that highlights the most important points. It gives a comprehensive assessment and besides a school here or there seems to give a fair and accurate ranking. Maybe Stanford should be ahead of Princeton. Or Florida should be ahead of Wisconsin, but they are very close in ranking. That is why a student will pick a group of schools that have similar ranking and research the strength of each potential field of study, weigh the location of the school, size of the school etc. in making a decision.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

please look at the other thread where I responded. Also, please explain to me Forbes' ranking system. It doesn't seem to make much sense. For example, Harvard is #8. It seems to me this list is specifically put together to create controversy and get as many page views as possible. No serious publication that is actually trying to accurately rank colleges would have Harvard out of the top 3 or 4. period. Explain University of Illinois at 53 and University of Pittsburgh at 193. Find the metrics that are important to any college student that would make those two schools that far apart. At best this list is made to have a lot of random disparities in order to draw page views and at worst it is complete trash.

Looking at the Forbes list briefly, I see Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, West Point, Amherst, etc. included. The are great colleges, no question; but, they are small, elite liberal arts college and not major research universities like Harvard, Stanford, etc. I think West Point is in its own category with Annapolis and the other service academies. This, this list is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Gfunk]

Using the ranking of US News and World Report, UConn would be 7th of the 14 B10 teams. For non math majors that's the top half.

The teams ahead of us. NW #12, Michigan #28, PSU #37, Illinois #41 (tie), Wiscy #41 (tie), OSU #52, UConn checks in at #57.

So next time you're on a board and some moron tells you that UConn is a bad academic fit for the B10, they are objectively wrong.

Foremost, I'm a BIG fan who wants UConn, so I don't give much to the AAU argument & certainly take US News Rankings with a grain of salt.

But let me be clear here, UConn may outperform my alma mater on the undergraduate front (Minnesota), but try looking a the other US News Rankings, in fact I'd argue the more important one: Graduate School Rankings.

UConn has at least 3 ranked top 25 Graduate programs. Granted a payment and membership to these rankings will reveal a few more for UConn:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...ersity-of-connecticut-129020/overall-rankings

Now look at Minnesota, 51, yes 51 top 25 programs & again a paid membership will only reveal more:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...minnesota-twin-cities-174066/overall-rankings

When the "bread and butter" importance of graduate schools becomes part of a universities overall standing, Minnesota suddenly becomes an alpha dog and surpasses most of its fellow BIG members & the rest of the research institutions landscape.

I think the BIG's academic angle has been straightforward for decades on putting greater emphasis on research and real-world applicability. The ACC, for example - as some have factually pointed out on here, outperforms the BIG in undergraduate rankings (US News), but the BIG not only closes the gap via Graduate Schools strength, it nearly laps the ACC.

Regardless, all for UConn to the BIG, and I've been making your case on here, other boards, and through official documentation to the BIG offices for the past year.

 

[Gfunk]

I do not remember the exact numbers; but, I believe the ACC is very top heavy in the US News ranking; but; the B1G overall average is better.

See my post on the value of the other US News Rankings - GRADUATE SCHOOLS.

 

[SAMCRO]

UConn won more NCAA titles in the last week than Rutgers have in their entire history.

Indisputable fact.

 

[Sportsman5]

Foremost, I'm a BIG fan who wants UConn, so I don't give much to the AAU argument & certainly take US News Rankings with a grain of salt.

But let me be clear here, UConn may outperform my alma mater on the undergraduate front (Minnesota), but try looking a the other US News Rankings, in fact I'd argue the more important one: Graduate School Rankings.

UConn has at least 3 ranked top 25 Graduate programs. Granted a payment and membership to these rankings will reveal a few more for UConn:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...ersity-of-connecticut-129020/overall-rankings

Now look at Minnesota, 51, yes 51 top 25 programs & again a paid membership will only reveal more:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...minnesota-twin-cities-174066/overall-rankings

When the "bread and butter" importance of graduate schools becomes part of a universities overall standing, Minnesota suddenly becomes an alpha dog and surpasses most of its fellow BIG members & the rest of the research institutions landscape.

I think the BIG's academic angle has been straightforward for decades on putting greater emphasis on research and real-world applicability. The ACC, for example - as some have factually pointed out on here, outperforms the BIG in undergraduate rankings (US News), but the BIG not only closes the gap via Graduate Schools strength, it nearly laps the ACC.

Regardless, all for UConn to the BIG, and I've been making your case on here, other boards, and through official documentation to the BIG offices for the past year.

This makes a lot of sense. Research heavy institutions will have a lot of top grad school programs because opportunities for grant money attracts top professors and top professors + a lot of research opportunity attracts top grad students. UConn has done a tremendous job of positioning itself to significantly improve on a lot of their stem grad programs over the next 10 years. I'm sure you are aware of the $1.5 billion planned investment into STEM over the next 10-15 years in addition to the other investments and commitments already made to things like the UConn health center. The rise in research and many grad school programs should be pretty incredible.