Not really - Buzz the only "A" for the high majors
When grading, I obviously took into account the job that was being filled relative to the coach who wound up being hired and his résumé, whether as a proven head coach or as an assistant. For example, Virginia Tech pulling someone like Buzz Williams is even more significant because of the Hokies' lack of NCAA tournament success in the past. Many of these athletic directors weren't going to be able to get high-level, proven coaches -- so that has to be taken into account. Many grades also include the staff the head coach has already hired -- as that is an important and vastly underrated aspect of a program's success.
We start with the high-majors that earned top marks by hitting home runs with their hires and conclude with the mid-major programs that made additions that left something to be desired.
Virginia Tech
Hire: Buzz Williams -- This was the most shocking hire of the offseason, but it was clear that Williams wanted out of Marquette. He is a tremendous hire in Blacksburg, a place that has gone to the NCAA tourney only twice since 1986. Williams went to an Elite Eight and a pair of Sweet 16s and took Marquette to the NCAA tourney twice more in his six seasons at the helm. This was a fantastic get by new athletic director Whit Babcock -- the best pickup of the 2014 coaching carousel.
Grade: A
Auburn
Hire: Bruce Pearl -- I'm not handing the former Tennessee coach a strong grade because I worked with him for a couple of years on SiriusXM and at ESPN. It's because of what he did in Knoxville for six seasons -- taking the Vols to the NCAA tournament every single spring. For a school like SEC bottom-feeder Auburn to get a basketball coach like Pearl is a grand slam -- and the only way it happened is because Pearl was itching to get back on the sideline after being hit with a three-year show-cause penalty by the NCAA. He'll have Auburn hoops relevant in time. My only concern with Pearl is his staff, which doesn't feature a top-notch recruiter like he had in Knoxville with Steve Forbes.
Grade: A-
Houston
Hire: Kelvin Sampson -- He was run out of college hoops with a five-year show-cause penalty for making impermissible phone calls. (FYI: Coaches are now allowed to call kids as often as they want.) Now he's back, and don't be surprised to see him make this once-proud program relevant again. Remember, this is a guy who took Oklahoma to the Final Four and also had the Sooners in the NCAA tourney in 11 of his 12 seasons in Norman. Sampson can recruit, can coach and now will have years of NBA experience from Gregg Popovich, Scott Skiles and Kevin McHale to implement into his system and style.
Grade: B+
USF
Hire: Orlando Antigua -- The initial pick was Steve Masiello, but that fell through because of a résumé issue and the Bulls went with Kentucky assistant Antigua, who is also a former Pittsburgh player and assistant. We all know it's easy to be a John Calipari assistant these days, but Antigua has strong contacts in a variety of places and should be able to bring talent to the Tampa area.
Grade: B+
Rice
Hire: Mike Rhoades -- He has been on Shaka Smart's staff for the past few years and was a successful head coach at Division III Randolph-Macon, where he went to four NCAA tourneys. He's regarded as a terrific X's and O's guy, is a worker, and hired a quality staff with Scott Pera and Carlin Hartman. My guess is the Owls will end their 44-year NCAA tournament drought -- soon.
Grade: B+
Tennessee
Hire: Donnie Tyndall -- AD Dave Hart wasn't getting a big-name coach, and he even swung and missed with Louisiana Tech's Mike White. Instead, he wound up with a guy in Tyndall who is a true grinder, someone who has won at Morehead State and Southern Miss, and someone who is already familiar with the region. Is it a home run? Maybe not, but it's a solid double.
Grade: B
Marquette
Hire: Steve Wojciechowski -- The 37-year-old has learned from arguably the best college basketball coach in our lifetime (well, some of our lifetimes). Wojo was a grinder as a player at Duke and has spent more than a decade on Mike Krzyzewski's staff. He was a solid hire who should keep stability within the program.
Grade: B
Wake Forest
Hire: Danny Manning -- Athletic director Ron Wellman needed to win the news conference and hire a good coach. He did both by bringing the former Kansas star on board. Manning led Tulsa to an NCAA tournament berth in just his second season at the helm, and he's a good fit at Wake Forest.
Grade: B
California
Hire: Cuonzo Martin -- Count me as a fan of Martin's. He's high-character; he holds his kids accountable; and he took the Vols to the Sweet 16 this past season. I'd love this hire for Sandy Barbour (athletic director) and Glenn Sugiyama (search firm) even more if it were in the Midwest at a place such as Missouri, but I think Martin was a good choice considering the circumstances. The question becomes how long it'll take for Martin to establish inroads on the West Coast, where he doesn't yet have strong connections.
Grade: B
Boston College
Hire: Jim Christian -- If I were BC athletic director Brad Bates, I would have put a four-year contract with a $10 million buyout on the table to Syracuse coach-in-waiting Mike Hopkins. However, Bates -- with the help of Eddie Fogler (search firm) -- tabbed Christian, which was a major shocker. Christian is a good coach and has hired a couple of high-profile assistants, and he will look to upgrade the talent in Chestnut Hill.
Grade: B-
Missouri
Hire: Kim Anderson -- I love the fact that he's a high-character guy, a good X's and O's guy, and one of Mizzou's own -- and I'm fine for hiring him at 48 years of age, but not 58. The only aspect that could change this grade is if Anderson grabs another big-time recruiter to go along with holdover Tim Fuller because he hasn't been an assistant in the Division I ranks for 15 years and it's going to take time for him to get up to speed. By then, he might just be collecting Social Security.
Grade: C-
Tulsa
Hire: Frank Haith -- The Missouri coach made a smart move by getting out of Dodge, or, in this case, Columbia before he was run out of town. Haith took the Tigers to the NCAA tournament in his first two seasons at Mizzou, but went to the NIT this past season and would have been fortunate to get to the NIT next season. Personally, if I were hiring at Tulsa, I would have gone with an up-and-comer in a job like this one.
Grade: C-
Washington State
Hire: Ernie Kent -- I know Kent went to the Elite Eight twice in his 13-year stint at Oregon, but he also had a .500-or-below record on five occasions. I'm just not sold he's the right guy for WSU, especially at 59. And bringing on a pair of assistants in Greg Graham and Silvey Dominguez who are both in their 60s doesn't mitigate that concern. I'm just not feeling this hire at all, but the connection here is that current Washington State AD Bill Moos was at Oregon with Kent.
Grade: C-
Marshall
Hire: Dan D'Antoni -- He's been on his brother's staff for years in the NBA, has no college experience in more than four decades -- and doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation among NBA folks. Athletic director Mike Hamrick might have made the Thundering Herd relevant for a couple of hours, but I don't see the program being relevant for anything on the court anytime soon. The staff of Chris Duhon, Mark Cline and Scott Rigot is hardly imposing.
Grade: D+
Mid-majors
Ohio
Hire: Saul Phillips -- He's a high-energy former Tim Miles assistant who took North Dakota State to a pair of NCAA tournament appearances in 2007 and 2014. Phillips was 118-71 in his tenure, and he was a tremendous get for the Bobcats, who had to replace Jim Christian.
Grade: A
Loyola Marymount
Hire: Mike Dunlap -- LMU just hired a guy who was a head coach in the NBA two years ago. It's tough to argue with that. Dunlap is considered a terrific X's and O's guy, and he filled in for Steve Lavin at St. John's while he was away from the team and battling cancer. Dunlap's résumé includes NBA assistant stops and success at the Division II level as the head coach at Metro State.
Grade: A-
UNC Wilmington
Hire: Kevin Keatts -- Keatts has been on Rick Pitino's staff the past few seasons while Louisville went through its run that included a national title and a Final Four appearance. Keatts was Pitino's top assistant and has been a head coach before, at the prep school level at powerhouse Hargrave Military Academy. He's familiar with the area and should be able to turn it around at UNC Wilmington. He's already beaten a bunch of high-majors for Jacksonville transfer Jarvis Haywood.
Grade: B+
North Dakota State
Hire: David Richman -- It worked well when Saul Phillips got the job after Tim Miles left for Colorado State, and there's no reason to think it won't work by doing the same with Richman, who grew up in the state and graduated from the school in 2002. He's been a coach on the staff for more than a decade, is only 35 and has been a key reason for the program's recent success.
Grade: B+
Bowling Green
Hire: Chris Jans -- He has been Gregg Marshall's right-hand man in Wichita throughout the Shockers' recent run. He is a relentless recruiter who has also been a successful head coach at a couple of junior college stops.
Grade: B+
Maine
Hire: Bob Walsh -- He's a former Providence assistant who has led Rhode Island College to eight straight NCAA tournament appearances, six consecutive conference titles and a pair of Sweet 16 appearances. Walsh is a quality coach who should also be able to recruit, but this is a tough, tough job.
Grade: B+
Tennessee-Martin
Hire: Heath Schroyer -- He's been on Dave Rice's staff in Las Vegas the past few years and helped bring in some high-level talent. Schroyer is 42 and has already been a Division I head coach, at Portland State and Wyoming. He's a grinder and is a terrific get for this program.
Grade: B+
Central Arkansas
Hire: Russ Pennell -- I'm still confused why he was fired after a four-year run at Grand Canyon University that included a pair of Division II NCAA tournament berths in his final two seasons. Pennell was also the interim head coach at Arizona and helped lead the Wildcats to the Sweet 16 in 2008-09. Pennell is a fit at Central Arkansas because he was the point guard for the school in the early 1980s.
Grade: B+
Montana State
Hire: Brian Fish -- He comes from Oregon and Creighton, where he was a key piece on Dana Altman's staff over the years. Fish takes over for Brad Huse, who had been at the helm for the past eight seasons and finished above the .500 mark only once in his tenure.
Grade: B+
Appalachian State
Hire: Jim Fox -- He replaces Jason Capel, who was 53-70 in four seasons with the Mountaineers. Fox has been a key reason for Davidson's success over the years. He's been on Bob McKillop's staff for the past 13 seasons, and the program went 288-131 in that span.
Grade: B+
Tennessee State
Hire: Dana Ford -- He's just 29, but his résumé is impressive. He was on Gregg Marshall's staff at Wichita State and helped land Fred VanVleet, plus he spent the past two seasons as an associate head coach to Dan Muller at Illinois State. Ford was an assistant at Tennessee State under John Cooper from 2009 to 2011 and was the lead recruiter for former star forward Robert Covington. He has added former head coach Randy Peele and Pierre Jordan, who is well-connected in Atlanta, to his staff.
Grade: B+
Southern Miss
Hire: Doc Sadler -- He might not have been the first choice, but Sadler can coach, and this is a better spot for him than his last stop at Nebraska. He was 101-89 in Lincoln with three NIT appearances but never quite got it going. Sadler took UTEP to the NCAA tournament in his first season and should be able to sustain the recent Southern Miss success.
Grade: B
South Dakota
Hire: Craig Smith -- He's been on Tim Miles' staff at North Dakota State, Colorado State and Nebraska and originally hails from Fargo, North Dakota. Smith was also a head coach at the NAIA level, where he was 72-29 in three seasons at Mayville State. The guy can coach and is familiar with the area.
Grade: B
Southeastern Louisiana
Hire: Jay Ladner -- I won't lie. I didn't know much about him other than the fact that he was a longtime successful high school coach at Stanislaus High in Mississippi, but he also won the national junior college championship. From all accounts, Ladner is a good X's and O's guy who will be able to recruit the area. He already has done a nice job adding a few quality transfers, including former Murray State guard Zay Jackson.
Grade: B
Jacksonville
Hire: Tony Jasick -- IPFW is not an easy job, but Jasick won 25 games this past season and took the program to the CIT. The program went from 11 wins to 16 to 25 in his three seasons at the helm. He has familiarity with the South, and he hired a quality staff with Azeez Ali, Kurt Kanaskie and Scott Wagers.
Grade: B
Maryland-Eastern Shore
Hire: Bobby Collins -- The 48-year-old returns to the MEAC after spending the past eight seasons as the head coach of Winston-Salem State, where he led the program to the NCAA Division II tournament in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Collins was the head coach at Hampton from 2002 to 2006 and went to the NCAA tournament in his final season.
Grade: B
Delaware State
Hire: Keith Walker -- He became the interim coach during last season when the team was 4-15 and 0-6 in the MEAC. After he took over, the Hornets were 5-6 overall and 5-5 in league play. Walker has been on the staff since 2000, which includes a three-year run from 2004 to 2007 in which the program won regular-season titles.
Grade: B
Western Illinois
Hire: Billy Wright -- He's a former Indianapolis high school coach who spent 2008 to 2013 on staff with former head coach Jim Molinari before leaving to go to Ball State last season. The Leathernecks won 40 games in Wright's final two seasons on staff. Grade: B
IUPUI
Hire: Jason Gardner -- He was a high school star coming out of Indianapolis when he opted to attend Arizona. Gardner then played overseas for a while before getting into the coaching ranks. He spent a couple of years at Loyola-Chicago, then last season with Josh Pastner at Memphis. I'm a bit worried about his staff, as he brought on a pair of graduate assistants from Memphis as full-time assistants.
Grade: B-
UC Riverside
Hire: Dennis Cutts -- He was the interim last season, taking over for Jim Wooldridge (who became the AD) and going 10-21 overall and 5-11 in the Big West. Cutts has been on the staff since Wooldridge was hired in 2007, and the program is 80-133 while he has been on staff.
Grade: C+
Coppin State
Hire: Michael Grant -- He comes from a six-year stint as the head coach at Division II Stillman College, where he was 100-73. He was also the head coach at Southern University in the SWAC from 2003 to 2005 and had a 25-31 mark. However, he has no Baltimore ties -- and that will be tough to overcome.
Grade: C
Florida Atlantic
Hire: Michael Curry -- Sure, he's a former NBA coach. So was Isiah Thomas -- and Thomas had a huge name. Few even know that Michael Curry used to coach the Detroit Pistons. I'm not a fan of the hire. Grade: C-
Lamar
Hire: Tic Price -- He was a good hire for New Orleans back in 1994, but it's now 2014 and Price is 58. Price wasn't even coaching last season; he was an athletics coordinator. His last head-coaching stint was at McNeese State, where he was 53-58 in his final four seasons.
Grade: C-
Kennesaw State
Hire: Jimmy Lallathin -- He took over on an interim basis for Lewis Preston when Preston stepped away in the middle of last season. Lallathin had the interim tag removed after the season. It's difficult to be able to hand out a decent grade when the program was 15-80 in his three seasons as an assistant/interim coach. Lallathin came over from Miami (Ohio), where he was on the road for just one season as an assistant.
I really can't complain about many of those grades. Hiring Buzz was certainly an A for Virginia Tech.
Difficult to disagree.
I think he got Frank and Buzz confused:
"The Marquette coach made a smart move by getting out of Dodge, or, in this case, Milwaukee before he was run out of town. Williams took the Golden Eagles to the NCAA tournament in his first six seasons at MU, but didn't even make it to the NIT this past season and would have been fortunate to get to the NIT next season. Personally, if I were hiring at VT, I would have gone with an up-and-comer in a job like this one."
I wonder what Buzz's hire grade was when MU hired him.
78%+ of the grades start with an A or B?
Wuss.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 19, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
I really can't complain about many of those grades. Hiring Buzz was certainly an A for Virginia Tech.
And definitely an A+ in the Slurper's assessment.
Quote from: willie warrior on May 19, 2014, 05:55:06 PM
And definitely an A+ in the Slurper's assessment.
willie, to be honest I'm starting to get creeped out over your obsession with me.
Quote from: Marqevans on May 19, 2014, 05:14:39 PM
I wonder what Buzz's hire grade was when MU hired him.
Good point. Buzz was a virtual unknown, probably a C- according to the intelligentsia at the time who turned out to be an A. It would have been easier to pick a Lowery, a Stallings or a Keno Davis. Props to Steve Cottingham.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 19, 2014, 03:03:31 PM
I think he got Frank and Buzz confused:
" Williams took the Golden Eagles to the NCAA tournament in his first six seasons at MU, but didn't even make it to the NIT this past season and would have been fortunate to get to the NIT next season. "
The way he was coaching, it's a surprise we qualified for Big East regular season play.
All the rumors and whispers aside, I am curious what made Buzz decide to bolt for a program like VT. Had he been a little more patient, he could have ended up at a better program.
Quote from: 79Warrior on May 19, 2014, 07:46:19 PM
All the rumors and whispers aside, I am curious what made Buzz decide to bolt for a program like VT. Had he been a little more patient, he could have ended up at a better program.
Went south here for Buzz in year 3 when Fr Wild left and Steve C was canned. All the success of the next 2.5 years made it too hard to leave, but a lousy year made it easy. Mick Cronin (Buzz's best friend in college coaching) vouched for the new V Tech AD (from Cincinnati, I think) and that was good enough for a very unhappy camper who wanted out ASAP.
I just can't wait until we hear the REAL reason Buzz left Marquette and all of the background information as to who said what and how Buzz's departure really went down. Maybe we'll never know. But then again, do we care? Yea, probably.
Quote from: GurneeHitchkr on May 19, 2014, 08:47:10 PM
I just can't wait until we hear the REAL reason Buzz left Marquette and all of the background information as to who said what and how Buzz's departure really went down. Maybe we'll never know. But then again, do we care? Yea, probably.
What do you think the real reason possibly could be? You make it sound so ominous...
Pearl is a better hire than Buzz. Way better. Auburn is the only one that I think is safe to say homered with their selection. The guy has won big at every stop and at programs with less than stellar basketball traditions.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 19, 2014, 08:38:05 PM
Went south here for Buzz in year 3 when Fr Wild left and Steve C was canned. All the success of the next 2.5 years made it too hard to leave, but a lousy year made it easy. Mick Cronin (Buzz's best friend in college coaching) vouched for the new V Tech AD (from Cincinnati, I think) and that was good enough for a very unhappy camper who wanted out ASAP.
When the guys who hired you and your friends in high places start to disappear, it gets lonely.
Buzz got lonely. Despite all his work to create his niche and make MU's program, Buzz's, he felt it was easier to leave the university that had loved him so and cash in on the coaching capital he built up while using MU's resources.
These grades are pathetic- all of these coaching hires and I'm pretty sure I saw a grand total of one D. So one below average hire and no failures?!?! Look at this list in 5 years and probably half the list will pan out as below average or failure. Way to be bold Goodman, at least try to be realistic.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 19, 2014, 08:38:05 PM
Went south here for Buzz in year 3 when Fr Wild left and Steve C was canned. All the success of the next 2.5 years made it too hard to leave, but a lousy year made it easy. Mick Cronin (Buzz's best friend in college coaching) vouched for the new V Tech AD (from Cincinnati, I think) and that was good enough for a very unhappy camper who wanted out ASAP.
What are your thoughts on Tom Cruise really being "in love" with Katie Holmes. I mean, the guy jumped on Oprah's couch on syndicated daytime TV. That has to be real, right?
Quote from: Jay Bee on May 19, 2014, 05:30:05 PM
78%+ of the grades start with an A or B?
Wuss.
+1
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 19, 2014, 08:38:05 PM
Went south here for Buzz in year 3 when Fr Wild left and Steve C was canned. All the success of the next 2.5 years made it too hard to leave, but a lousy year made it easy. Mick Cronin (Buzz's best friend in college coaching) vouched for the new V Tech AD (from Cincinnati, I think) and that was good enough for a very unhappy camper who wanted out ASAP.
Doubt it.
Quote from: Benny B on May 19, 2014, 09:23:21 PM
What are your thoughts on Tom Cruise really being "in love" with Katie Holmes. I mean, the guy jumped on Oprah's couch on syndicated daytime TV. That has to be real, right?
My thoughts concerning Tom Cruise's passion for Katie Holmes are a) he's an actor and b) he's by most reports gay. My information on Williams comes from an athletic department coworker of Buzz's who said at the end of year 2 that he thought Buzz would be an MU lifer and halfway through year 3 thought he might leave at the end of that season due to his unhappiness. I referenced all of this years ago on Scoop after it was told to me. I guess it's possible that the guy who told me this made it all up, but I believe him and he at least eventually appears to be proven right. Believe whatever you choose.
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on May 19, 2014, 09:22:51 PM
These grades are pathetic- all of these coaching hires and I'm pretty sure I saw a grand total of one D. So one below average hire and no failures?!?! Look at this list in 5 years and probably half the list will pan out as below average or failure. Way to be bold Goodman, at least try to be realistic.
Its hard to give bad grades to guys that you need to use as sources or want interviews from.
"I saw you gave me a D when I got hired Goodman, why should I grant you an interview?"
Goodman does it for the same reasons that the media licks the boots of most politicians. Its a horse trade rather than journalism.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2014, 06:41:48 AM
Its hard to give bad grades to guys that you need to use as sources or want interviews from.
"I saw you gave me a D when I got hired Goodman, why should I grant you an interview?"
Goodman does it for the same reasons that the media licks the boots of most politicians. Its a horse trade rather than journalism.
I agree completely. Goodman is a suck up. Guys like him just need to get out of reporting if they're that much of a wussy. My attitude would be if a coach is going to be that sensitive toward one guy's opinion, he's got way bigger issues than what grade I gave his hire, in other words not worth my time if the coach can't be a man about it.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 19, 2014, 10:45:40 PM
My thoughts concerning Tom Cruise's passion for Katie Holmes are a) he's an actor and b) he's by most reports gay. My information on Williams comes from an athletic department coworker of Buzz's who said at the end of year 2 that he thought Buzz would be an MU lifer and halfway through year 3 thought he might leave at the end of that season due to his unhappiness. I referenced all of this years ago on Scoop after it was told to me. I guess it's possible that the guy who told me this made it all up, but I believe him and he at least eventually appears to be proven right. Believe whatever you choose.
It's an interesting situation.
I don't know if it says more about MU, or more about Buzz that he went from "possible lifer" to "might leave at the end of the year" in less than 12 months.
Everybody make your own conclusions on that scenario.
Quote from: 79Warrior on May 19, 2014, 10:15:52 PM
Doubt it.
Really? What is your theory then? Lenny's description matched everything that I have heard from multiple people. Why do people think it has to be more than that?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 20, 2014, 08:02:50 AM
I don't know if it says more about MU, or more about Buzz that he went from "possible lifer" to "might leave at the end of the year" in less than 12 months.
That is a real good point. On the one hand, Buzz has a history of jumping. On the other, Marquette has a history of being a little uncomfortable with basketball coaches with strong personalities.
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on May 20, 2014, 07:47:59 AM
I agree completely. Goodman is a suck up. Guys like him just need to get out of reporting if they're that much of a wussy. My attitude would be if a coach is going to be that sensitive toward one guy's opinion, he's got way bigger issues than what grade I gave his hire, in other words not worth my time if the coach can't be a man about it.
Well good thing you are not making your livelihood as a journalist who relies on inside information then. Because your information would not be very good, and your career would be very short.
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on May 19, 2014, 09:14:02 PM
Pearl is a better hire than Buzz. Way better. Auburn is the only one that I think is safe to say homered with their selection. The guy has won big at every stop and at programs with less than stellar basketball traditions.
If you want to simply overlook the issues he had with recruiting violations sure. And Pearl's success wasn't *that* much greater than Buzz's anyway.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 20, 2014, 08:08:29 AM
That is a real good point. On the one hand, Buzz has a history of jumping. On the other, Marquette has a history of being a little uncomfortable with basketball coaches with strong personalities.
Yep. You can slice it either way.
I like Buzz, but the dude is wound pretty tight. It's not hard to imagine even small changes or challenges from the admin. causing Buzz to lose his love for MU and start looking around.
With this said, MU doesn't have a spotless track record either. A lot of big egos making decisions, or at least offering opinions. At private schools, the guys with the most $ often have the most pull... and that's not necessarily a good thing. Add to that the general difficulties of balancing academics & athletics, and I'm sure MU isn't the most consistent organization to work for.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 20, 2014, 10:27:47 AM
With this said, MU doesn't have a spotless track record either. A lot of big egos making decisions, or at least offering opinions. At private schools, the guys with the most $ often have the most pull... and that's not necessarily a good thing. Add to that the general difficulties of balancing academics & athletics, and I'm sure MU isn't the most consistent organization to work for.
Eh, the administration makes plenty of decisions that have pissed off the big donors. Marquette does a better job than most of making sound decisions, often before other universities think to.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 20, 2014, 10:33:25 AM
Eh, the administration makes plenty of decisions that have pissed off the big donors. Marquette does a better job than most of making sound decisions, often before other universities think to.
I'm not sure I agree with that. In fact I think over the past 30-40 years, the University has had periods where it has been run rather poorly in many respects.
Raynor and his crew were around way too long and had the University stuck in a past that was rapidly fading. DiUlio, with the nickname and WI Avenue, was way too controversial. The Wild era was by and large pretty good, but he made some poor decisions near the end of his tenure too. Then there was the whole SP fiasco.
I think the overall track record has been rather mediocre to be honest. If Marquette hadn't have hired KO when they did, and basketball continued to slide, I hate to think what Marquette would be like today.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 20, 2014, 10:41:51 AM
I'm not sure I agree with that. In fact I think over the past 30-40 years, the University has had periods where it has been run rather poorly in many respects.
Raynor and his crew were around way too long and had the University stuck in a past that was rapidly fading. DiUlio, with the nickname and WI Avenue, was way too controversial. The Wild era was by and large pretty good, but he made some poor decisions near the end of his tenure too. Then there was the whole SP fiasco.
I think the overall track record has been rather mediocre to be honest. If Marquette hadn't have hired KO when they did, and basketball continued to slide, I hate to think what Marquette would be like today.
Agreed. I do think Raynor did a good job overall. DiUlio was a complete bust and set the University back. Wild had quite a bit of ground to make up and by and large suceeded. Pilarz, well nothing good there.
We may have not liked the decisions made, but you don't become a top 75 institution by accident. Especially if you are a small, private, liberal arts University.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 19, 2014, 07:06:43 PM
willie, to be honest I'm starting to get creeped out over your obsession with me.
Yup, leave it to a guy that slurps to be creeped out by anonymous posts on an MU board. But it has been so easy since your analysis and then denial of Otule. Having now responded to your concern, you can now be uncreeped, because I will never again accuse you of being the Buzz Slurper that you deny you are. But my guess is that you will not allow this post to go by without a retort, which will then continue to contribute to the fear of being creeped out.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 20, 2014, 11:05:05 AM
We may have not liked the decisions made, but you don't become a top 75 institution by accident. Especially if you are a small, private, liberal arts University.
No doubt. And I never said the leadership was piss-poor, just mediocre. I think Marquette has benefited from a number of things:
**Strong alumni/donor support
**Very good programs in subjects like business and engineering, which graduate people who make $$ and are somewhat recession proof.
**A basketball program that markets the university very well.
But there have been a lot of dumb decisions...decisions that didn't need to even be made. Its good that Marquette has succeeded despite some of these.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 20, 2014, 10:33:25 AM
Eh, the administration makes plenty of decisions that have pissed off the big donors. Marquette does a better job than most of making sound decisions, often before other universities think to.
I'm not saying that MU is a total whore, but they also aren't going to bite the hand(s) that feed the most.
The biggest donors are going to be consulted on big issues... which can muddy the water at times.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 20, 2014, 11:30:49 AM
No doubt. And I never said the leadership was piss-poor, just mediocre. I think Marquette has benefited from a number of things:
**Strong alumni/donor support
**Very good programs in subjects like business and engineering, which graduate people who make $$ and are somewhat recession proof.
**A basketball program that markets the university very well.
But there have been a lot of dumb decisions...decisions that didn't need to even be made. Its good that Marquette has succeeded despite some of these.
It's a chicken and the egg thing. Do we do well because of all these things, or do we have these things because our administration has done well?
There have been mistakes for sure. In my lifetime I have been pretty satisfied. I'm assuming the "decisions that didn't need to even be made" is referring to the Warriors nickname?
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 20, 2014, 11:30:49 AM
No doubt. And I never said the leadership was piss-poor, just mediocre. I think Marquette has benefited from a number of things:
**Strong alumni/donor support
**Very good programs in subjects like business and engineering, which graduate people who make $$ and are somewhat recession proof.
**A basketball program that markets the university very well.
But there have been a lot of dumb decisions...decisions that didn't need to even be made. Its good that Marquette has succeeded despite some of these.
To be fair to MU, I wonder how other Universities have done over this same time period. I generally agree with what you are saying, but still, MU has experienced nice growth and success over the past 20 years. I wonder if every school is simply experiencing the same rising tide?
Similar article from SI we fare well...
http://college-basketball.si.com/2014/05/20/bruce-pearl-steve-wojciechowski-best-coaching-hires/
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 20, 2014, 11:55:32 AM
To be fair to MU, I wonder how other Universities have done over this same time period. I generally agree with what you are saying, but still, MU has experienced nice growth and success over the past 20 years. I wonder if every school is simply experiencing the same rising tide?
This was my point. We may not agree with every decision, but compared to the majority of the 4,494 universities out there, we have done fantastic. The reality is that the collective wisdom of scoop has no idea how or why many of the decisions at the top level is made.
The next ten years will be the true test. Higher education reform is inevitable. We will likely see hundreds of universities/colleges/community colleges closing. This could be terrible for some universities but will be a time of great opportunity for others. If we play our cards right, we will find ourselves as a top 50 university in the next decade. I think Lovell is the right man to do it.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 20, 2014, 01:14:16 PM
This was my point. We may not agree with every decision, but compared to the majority of the 4,494 universities out there, we have done fantastic. The reality is that the collective wisdom of scoop has no idea how or why many of the decisions at the top level is made.
The next ten years will be the true test. Higher education reform is inevitable. We will likely see hundreds of universities/colleges/community colleges closing. This could be terrible for some universities but will be a time of great opportunity for others. If we play our cards right, we will find ourselves as a top 50 university in the next decade. I think Lovell is the right man to do it.
Well, my next concern for MU is the rising cost(s), and the endowment (or lack there of).
MU isn't cost prohibitive, yet... but they need to figure out how to slow down the rate of rising tuition.
There is a breaking point where MU just won't be "worth it" for a lot of prospective students. It's best it MU has a good grasp of what that # is, before the free market slaps them upside the head and enrollment drops.
MU is not unique in this situation, but due to it's size, it needs to be more proactive than other schools.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 20, 2014, 01:42:01 PM
Well, my next concern for MU is the rising cost(s), and the endowment (or lack there of).
MU isn't cost prohibitive, yet... but they need to figure out how to slow down the rate of rising tuition.
There is a breaking point where MU just won't be "worth it" for a lot of prospective students. It's best it MU has a good grasp of what that # is, before the free market slaps them upside the head and enrollment drops.
MU is not unique in this situation, but due to it's size, it needs to be more proactive than other schools.
+1
Agree with everything. Tuition is way too high and that will kill us in the future. Why pay ~35,000 a year in tuition to be an engineering student at Marquette when you can get a better engineering education at the University of Minnesota for ~$7,000 a year in tuition.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 20, 2014, 11:05:05 AM
We may have not liked the decisions made, but you don't become a top 75 institution by accident. Especially if you are a small, private, liberal arts University.
One minor nit to pick: we aren't a liberal arts university. Every national ranking authority puts us firmly in the "national research university" category.
Quote from: willie warrior on May 20, 2014, 11:16:31 AM
Yup, leave it to a guy that slurps to be creeped out by anonymous posts on an MU board. But it has been so easy since your analysis and then denial of Otule. Having now responded to your concern, you can now be uncreeped, because I will never again accuse you of being the Buzz Slurper that you deny you are. But my guess is that you will not allow this post to go by without a retort, which will then continue to contribute to the fear of being creeped out.
He's right willie, you are obsessed.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 20, 2014, 11:05:05 AM
We may have not liked the decisions made, but you don't become a top 75 institution by accident.
Top 75 is good?
Quote from: source? on May 20, 2014, 02:31:29 PM
One minor nit to pick: we aren't a liberal arts university. Every national ranking authority puts us firmly in the "national research university" category.
Yes, that is true. But our curriculum is liberal arts based. And when we started we were a liberal arts university. We rose to the level of national research university.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 20, 2014, 04:28:43 PM
Out of 4,495? Yes. Very.
You can't make that comparison because Marquette doesn't compete with 4,495 tertiary enterprises. I knew a guy my first week at MU who left to go to BC when BC offered some aid. THAT is the competitive landscape.
Quote from: keefe on May 22, 2014, 02:17:41 AM
You can't make that comparison because Marquette doesn't compete with 4,495 tertiary enterprises. I knew a guy my first week at MU who left to go to BC when BC offered some aid. THAT is the competitive landscape.
I would argue that we do. Even if most of our students are looking at institutions that are similar to Marquette, they still have the option to attend any of the 4,495. I'd be willing to bet that over the years Marquette has lost a perspective student to almost every institution of higher learning. My brother is a hs junior and his final list consists of Marquette, Colorado State, Utah, Western Washington, Texas A&M, Full Sail University, Georgia College, and Appalachian State. None of those are common competitors but they are still competitors.
We also were not always a top 75 national research university. We started as some small time college no one had ever heard of, just like every other university. It takes quality leadership to guide a new college to being a top 75 university.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 22, 2014, 07:30:51 AM
I would argue that we do. Even if most of our students are looking at institutions that are similar to Marquette, they still have the option to attend any of the 4,495. I'd be willing to bet that over the years Marquette has lost a perspective student to almost every institution of higher learning. My brother is a hs junior and his final list consists of Marquette, Colorado State, Utah, Western Washington, Texas A&M, Full Sail University, Georgia College, and Appalachian State. None of those are common competitors but they are still competitors.
We also were not always a top 75 national research university. We started as some small time college no one had ever heard of, just like every other university. It takes quality leadership to guide a new college to being a top 75 university.
And if Marquette is being classified as a "national research university", then being that high of a ranking is impressive as they are always going to be at a resource disadvantage from large universities in the B10, Pac-12 and some of the ACC/SEC/Big 12 as well as more historic private schools with huge endowments like the Ivies, Rice, MIT, Georgetown, etc... All that being considered, top 75 is good. And thats not even factoring in the skewing of those rankings for graduate research activity and study which doesn't touch or affect the college experience of 80% of the students who rely on these rankings for "guidance"
BTW, if we are looking at USN&WR rankings to determine that MU is the 75th best "national university" in the country, it is a completely flawed exercise.
Those rankings have so many holes in them that they are pretty much meaningless. They rely on factors that are way too focused on perception and on the quality of student *entering* the institution...not enough on the quality of person *exiting* the institution.
USN's rankin's are abolutely huge to high school seniors, but it is an even bigger deal to universities. Plastered all over their websites and marketing materials along with the number of National Merit finalists attending.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 22, 2014, 10:10:00 AM
USN's rankin's are abolutely huge to high school seniors, but it is an even bigger deal to universities. Plastered all over their websites and marketing materials along with the number of National Merit finalists attending.
Just because a flawed metric is used to market a school, doesn't make the metric less flawed.
Managing to manipulate the ranking has turned into an art form for many institutions.
What would be a better, unflawed metric?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 22, 2014, 01:00:38 PM
What would be a better, unflawed metric?
Well right now I would completely eliminate the "reputation" part of their measurement. I would also consider eliminating, or severely curtailing, the measurements of incoming students (standardized test scores, exclusivity, etc.) Those don't tell you anything about how good the college actually does at its job of educating students.
I would focus on performance and outcome based metrics:
First to second year retention (USN uses this now)
Graduation rate (ditto)
Percentage of students engaged in high impact practices
Acceptance rate to graduate or professional school
Job placement rate - normalized for profession
Starting salary - normalized for profession
I would also use some of the institutional statistics that USN uses:
Percentage of instructional faculty with terminal degrees (USN doesn't use instruction)
Financial resources per student
To put it another way, is a school that takes a kid with high ACT scores, graduates them and places them in a decent job really much better than a school that takes a kid with mediocre ACT scores, graduates them, and places them in a job a notch below the other kid? Which school is actually *performing* better.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 22, 2014, 01:16:49 PM
Well right now I would completely eliminate the "reputation" part of their measurement. I would also consider eliminating, or severely curtailing, the measurements of incoming students (standardized test scores, exclusivity, etc.) Those don't tell you anything about how good the college actually does at its job of educating students.
I would focus on performance and outcome based metrics:
First to second year retention (USN uses this now)
Graduation rate (ditto)
Percentage of students engaged in high impact practices
Acceptance rate to graduate or professional school
Job placement rate - normalized for profession
Starting salary - normalized for profession
I would also use some of the institutional statistics that USN uses:
Percentage of instructional faculty with terminal degrees (USN doesn't use instruction)
Financial resources per student
To put it another way, is a school that takes a kid with high ACT scores, graduates them and places them in a decent job really much better than a school that takes a kid with mediocre ACT scores, graduates them, and places them in a job a notch below the other kid? Which school is actually *performing* better.
These are good ideas, but I'm not sure the USN report is supposed to measure the quality of the education so much as to celebrate the exclusivity and reputation of the school.
Quote from: warrior07 on May 22, 2014, 01:50:44 PM
These are good ideas, but I'm not sure the USN report is supposed to measure the quality of the education so much as to celebrate the exclusivity and reputation of the school.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/10/princeton-williams-top-us-news-best-colleges-rankings
"The 2014 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, released today, are designed to help students and parents make an informed decision."
Whatever that means.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 22, 2014, 01:16:49 PM
Well right now I would completely eliminate the "reputation" part of their measurement. I would also consider eliminating, or severely curtailing, the measurements of incoming students (standardized test scores, exclusivity, etc.) Those don't tell you anything about how good the college actually does at its job of educating students.
I would focus on performance and outcome based metrics:
First to second year retention (USN uses this now)
Graduation rate (ditto)
Percentage of students engaged in high impact practices
Acceptance rate to graduate or professional school
Job placement rate - normalized for profession
Starting salary - normalized for profession
I would also use some of the institutional statistics that USN uses:
Percentage of instructional faculty with terminal degrees (USN doesn't use instruction)
Financial resources per student
To put it another way, is a school that takes a kid with high ACT scores, graduates them and places them in a decent job really much better than a school that takes a kid with mediocre ACT scores, graduates them, and places them in a job a notch below the other kid? Which school is actually *performing* better.
This seems too logical to actually gain traction. Besides, if reputation and name were minimized, how would the highly select schools justify their exorbitant fees?
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 22, 2014, 01:16:49 PM
Well right now I would completely eliminate the "reputation" part of their measurement. I would also consider eliminating, or severely curtailing, the measurements of incoming students (standardized test scores, exclusivity, etc.) Those don't tell you anything about how good the college actually does at its job of educating students.
I would focus on performance and outcome based metrics:
First to second year retention (USN uses this now)
Graduation rate (ditto)
Percentage of students engaged in high impact practices
Acceptance rate to graduate or professional school
Job placement rate - normalized for profession
Starting salary - normalized for profession
I would also use some of the institutional statistics that USN uses:
Percentage of instructional faculty with terminal degrees (USN doesn't use instruction)
Financial resources per student
To put it another way, is a school that takes a kid with high ACT scores, graduates them and places them in a decent job really much better than a school that takes a kid with mediocre ACT scores, graduates them, and places them in a job a notch below the other kid? Which school is actually *performing* better.
All of this is a fantastic suggestion. Many have attempted to come up with this metric. No one has been very successful...other than USNWR.
USNWR is the RPI of universities. It is an extremely flawed metric, but it is what people use. Universities seek to jump in these rating so they can attract more students.
And don't be quick to cut the reputation factor. It may be illogical but reputation plays a huge role in how graduates are perceived and how marketable they are. I have a bachelor's from Marquette and a Master's from Grand Valley State. Even though my GVSU degree is higher, people are more impressed by the Marquette degree.
Sultan,
It would be nice if an organization could use those metrics to come up with a legitimate index.
I think the biggest value would come if someone could use those types of metrics in combination with cost to come up with the best value for a certain dollar level (basically public versus private versus super elite private).
For example, if I'm choosing among the 12 non-Madison state schools, which one gives me the best chance of getting into graduate school, or whatever.
It might introduce a little bit of actual competition into the system, I don't know.
Quote from: warrior07 on May 22, 2014, 03:27:52 PM
It would be nice if an organization could use those metrics to come up with a legitimate index.
The problem is that its too hard. Incoming stats are easy. Any institutional researcher can find them with a few keystrokes. A lot of the data I am talking about isn't always collected and it is hard to normalize. But that would require work.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 22, 2014, 02:34:31 PM
USNWR is the RPI of universities. It is an extremely flawed metric, but it is what people use. Universities seek to jump in these rating so they can attract more students.
And don't be quick to cut the reputation factor. It may be illogical but reputation plays a huge role in how graduates are perceived and how marketable they are. I have a bachelor's from Marquette and a Master's from Grand Valley State. Even though my GVSU degree is higher, people are more impressed by the Marquette degree.
It is worse than RPI because RPI at least measures outcome. USN would be like using recruiting rankings to seed the NCAA tournament. And yeah, they use that rating to attract students because the public doesn't have much of a clue what it is they are measuring.
And reputation means nothing after your first job. The knowledge you get from your education means *much* more to your career than the reputation of the school you attended. I mean its nice that people are impressed with your Marquette degree, but unless you can perform it doesn't matter. I could probably name the schools that everyone who works for me attended if I sat down and thought about it. It means very little to me whatsoever.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 22, 2014, 04:31:03 PM
And reputation means nothing after your first job. The knowledge you get from your education means *much* more to your career than the reputation of the school you attended. I mean its nice that people are impressed with your Marquette degree, but unless you can perform it doesn't matter. I could probably name the schools that everyone who works for me attended if I sat down and thought about it. It means very little to me whatsoever.
I disagree completely. Reputation is everything and it stays with you for the entirety of your working and social life. Marquette is NOT an institution that carries such life time prestige. Neither is UW-Madison, despite what our neighbors to the west may think.
A medical doctor from Johns Hopkins, for instance, commands immediate respect. Someone with a degree from a Caribbean medical school gets little acknowledgement. The Hopkins degree will influence an alum's career in ways there is no price tag or metric but can be subjectively noticed over time.
The reputation of a university is paramount and is worth every penny paid for the premium attached to the brand. There is a reason primary, secondary, and tertiary schools get to charge outrageous tuition fees because they have invested in their brands and deserve to get a return on that investment.
A bad doctor from Hopkins is a bad doctor. A good doctor from MCW is a good doctor. The one from Hopkins might "command respect immediately," but eventually the relative talents make where they went to school irrelevant.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 22, 2014, 04:31:03 PM
And reputation means nothing after your first job. The knowledge you get from your education means *much* more to your career than the reputation of the school you attended. I mean its nice that people are impressed with your Marquette degree, but unless you can perform it doesn't matter. I could probably name the schools that everyone who works for me attended if I sat down and thought about it. It means very little to me whatsoever.
I agree that reputation plays the largest role in the first job. But could a metric measuring university quality really take in data from anything besides a first job? If you take into second, third, and fourth jobs, you are introducing a a crap ton of variables. Are they becoming good professionals because of their education? Or is it because they have a great supervisor who is mentoring them?
Also, we can't discount incoming data. If we truly want to measure the quality of university, you have to benchmark what their students started as. Growth from incoming to outgoing is what should be important in evaluating a university.
Point being, creating this index would be extremely difficult. But if someone did it, they would revolutionize how we look at higher education....hmmmm....I will get my PHD eventually....
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 22, 2014, 05:00:43 PM
A bad doctor from Hopkins is a bad doctor. A good doctor from MCW is a good doctor. The one from Hopkins might "command respect immediately," but eventually the relative talents make where they went to school irrelevant.
You miss the point. Let's begin with the fact that grads from certain schools are statistically more likely to perform better than those from others. You cannot be unaware of the various Protection Societies that exist. People with a particular lineage look for others who share their training, experience, and vetting. Credentials exist for a reason and it is a fact that some schools sell much better than others.
I went to a very highly regarded prep school but it can't hold a candle to Trinity, Horace Mann, Exeter or Andover. And those schools have one aim - to get their graduates into these schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, MIT, Penn, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale. I didn't make up that list. It is written into the objectives of each academy.
If you don't think that getting into the best possible prep school, college, graduate/professional program has life long advantages you are naive. Credentials vary in quality, stature, freshness, and impact.
Quote from: keefe on May 22, 2014, 07:24:40 PM
You miss the point. Let's begin with the fact that grads from certain schools are statistically more likely to perform better than those from others. You cannot be unaware of the various Protection Societies that exist. People with a particular lineage look for others who share their training, experience, and vetting. Credentials exist for a reason and it is a fact that some schools sell much better than others.
I went to a very highly regarded prep school but it can't hold a candle to Trinity, Horace Mann, Exeter or Andover. And those schools have one aim - to get their graduates into these schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, MIT, Penn, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale. I didn't make up that list. It is written into the objectives of each academy.
If you don't think that getting into the best possible prep school, college, graduate/professional program has life long advantages you are naive. Credentials vary in quality, stature, freshness, and impact.
But you are missing the entire point of the conversation. The USN "Best Colleges" are "best" because of the quality of the students that are incoming. The students from those prep schools go to the Ivies like you suggest, but that doesn't *necessarily* make those Ivies the "best schools." They just take the "best people."
IOW the output is going to be good if the inputs are excellent.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 22, 2014, 06:58:09 PM
I agree that reputation plays the largest role in the first job. But could a metric measuring university quality really take in data from anything besides a first job? If you take into second, third, and fourth jobs, you are introducing a a crap ton of variables. Are they becoming good professionals because of their education? Or is it because they have a great supervisor who is mentoring them?
Also, we can't discount incoming data. If we truly want to measure the quality of university, you have to benchmark what their students started as. Growth from incoming to outgoing is what should be important in evaluating a university.
Point being, creating this index would be extremely difficult. But if someone did it, they would revolutionize how we look at higher education....hmmmm....I will get my PHD eventually....
Aggie
I am not referencing professional performance. All I am saying is that reputation plays a huge role in advancing one's opportunities. Kids who are accepted to the right primary school have an edge on getting into the right prep school which enhances the possibility of getting into the best college. This is not limited to the US but is prevalent throughout Europe and Asia, too.
After matriculation, the right schools provide significant opportunities that might not be otherwise available. There are some who place an extremely high value on a degree from Notre Dame and the reality is that those alums have superior connections and opportunities over a Marquette or Xavier grad. And that value doesn't diminish over time either.
Marquette is an outstanding institution that delivers an exceptional product. It has a brand name that triggers recognition. Here on the west coast, people have heard of it but for some reason are surprised it isn't on the east coast rather than WI. But that confusion illustrates solid if not stellar brand equity.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 22, 2014, 08:01:03 PM
But you are missing the entire point of the conversation. The USN "Best Colleges" are "best" because of the quality of the students that are incoming. The students from those prep schools go to the Ivies like you suggest, but that doesn't *necessarily* make those Ivies the "best schools." They just take the "best people."
IOW the output is going to be good if the inputs are excellent.
We are actually in agreement. Here is a passage which underscores the relevance of reputation from a risk management standpoint:
Quote"Prep schools are organized to ensure elite college placement–that's the whole idea," says Mitchell L. Stevens, associate professor of education at Stanford University and author of Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Stevens worked for a year and a half at the admissions office at an elite liberal arts college, traveling to high schools mainly in the Western U.S. and the East Coast to recruit applicants. "A [big] name high school provides assurance to college admissions. It's about the reliability of applicants."
Tiny classes, individualized attention–and in the case of boarding schools, 24 hours access to faculty–certainly help students earn their way into the best colleges. But Stevens stresses it's not just academics that count. "There's a much lower likelihood that a student from a boarding school is going to freak out" when they get to an extremely competitive university, he says.
Quote from: keefe on May 22, 2014, 10:55:38 PM
Aggie
I am not referencing professional performance. All I am saying is that reputation plays a huge role in advancing one's opportunities. Kids who are accepted to the right primary school have an edge on getting into the right prep school which enhances the possibility of getting into the best college. This is not limited to the US but is prevalent throughout Europe and Asia, too.
After matriculation, the right schools provide significant opportunities that might not be otherwise available. There are some who place an extremely high value on a degree from Notre Dame and the reality is that those alums have superior connections and opportunities over a Marquette or Xavier grad. And that value doesn't diminish over time either.
Marquette is an outstanding institution that delivers an exceptional product. It has a brand name that triggers recognition. Here on the west coast, people have heard of it but for some reason are surprised it isn't on the east coast rather than WI. But that confusion illustrates solid if not stellar brand equity.
I was responding to Sultan. I actually agree with most of your thoughts on this topic. Though I do think it varies from field to field.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 22, 2014, 01:56:16 PM
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/10/princeton-williams-top-us-news-best-colleges-rankings
"The 2014 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, released today, are designed to help students and parents make an informed decision."
Whatever that means.
"Something we throw together to sell our (US News) brand."
Quote from: Jay Bee on May 26, 2014, 06:18:50 AM
"Something we throw together to sell our (US News) brand one big issue per year."
FIFY
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on May 26, 2014, 07:07:02 PM
FIFY
Think about how remarkable it is that a magazine (?) that NO ONE on Earth pays attention to 51 weeks a year is somehow the arbiter of collegiate quality for one shining moment every year. It's really a breathtaking absurdity.