MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 01, 2015, 08:24:43 PM
-
This probably should be a super bar topic but couldn't resist. Suck it Bucky.
https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/hardest-to-get-in/s/wisconsin/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=RankingList&utm_term=ListPage&utm_source=facebook (https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/hardest-to-get-in/s/wisconsin/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=RankingList&utm_term=ListPage&utm_source=facebook)
-
This probably should be a super bar topic but couldn't resist. Suck it Bucky.
https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/hardest-to-get-in/s/wisconsin/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=RankingList&utm_term=ListPage&utm_source=facebook (https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/hardest-to-get-in/s/wisconsin/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=RankingList&utm_term=ListPage&utm_source=facebook)
Spectacular - I suppose between this and the graduation rates, they had to drop academic standards to get to back-to-back Final Fours. Still impressive tho.
-
Thanks, Common Application.
Sincerely,
Yale of the Midwest
-
I'm surprised Beloit is so far up and MSOE so far down.
-
Remarkably similar statistics
Bucky MU
Total Applications 23,324 23,432
Accepted 15,841 13,462
Acceptance Rate 68% 57%
Yield (% accepted that enroll) 40% 15%
Top 10 of HS Class 59% 33%
Comp ACT Range (25% to 75%) 26-30 25-29 (36 total)
-
UW-Platteville at the bottom...hey Brenna Ryan!
-
This is silly. Just have your child apply to both ::)
MU is a great school.
-
Why are you people so obsessed with UW?
I don't get the point of it all.
-
This is silly. Just have your child apply to both ::)
MU is a great school.
I found a site you may be interested in...
http://wisconsin.scout.com/forums
-
Why are you people so obsessed with UW?
I don't get the point of it all.
I don't think we are... I read Harvard of the Midwest then looked for the school at the top of the list. That's MU.
The lady doth protest too much
-
Why are you people so obsessed with UW?
I don't get the point of it all.
It's more of an issue for people from Wisconsin. I like Madison. Great times visiting there and my friends that went there are all very cool people. I'm rooting for UW in the tourney and have zero issues with it.
-
It's more of an issue for people from Wisconsin. I like Madison. Great times visiting there and my friends that went there are all very cool people. I'm rooting for UW in the tourney and have zero issues with it.
I am rooting for UW. Can't stand Kentucky.
The amount of posts related to UW is pathetic. I don't know of any other board so obsessed with another school as some MU fans are about UW.
-
I am rooting for UW. Can't stand Kentucky.
The amount of posts related to UW is pathetic. I don't know of any other board so obsessed with another school as some MU fans are about UW.
Go to a Wisconsin board, amazing the number of threads about MU vs their Big Ten brethren.
UCLA vs USC. Etc, etc. Happens all over the place.
-
Have to agree with chicos. It's even more pronounced right now because they are in the final four and Marquette was terrible this year. When we were in the elite eight and they lost in the first round the Wisconsin board had a bunch of threads about Marquette. It's the nature of a rivalry.
Full disclosure: I've never posted on a Wisconsin board and never will but I do check in about once a month to see who Bo is recruiting from Wisconsin because like it or not, he hits way more often than he misses.
-
Scoop is the worst when MU sucks and UW makes final fours.
This article legit made me happy lol. Fml
-
It's more of an issue for people from Wisconsin. I like Madison. Great times visiting there and my friends that went there are all very cool people. I'm rooting for UW in the tourney and have zero issues with it.
Correct, I'm from WI and it is a huge issue for me. That doesn't mean Madison isn't fun, it means that I want the team I dislike the most to lose.
-
I would probably judge Wash U in St. Louis to be the Harvard of the Midwest. It has roughly twice the number of students and double the acceptance rate of Harvard, but it has a certain private east coast school aesthetic. It has a great med school attached and even lower quality sports than Harvard. Northwestern and Notre Dame either too large (NW) or have too high of an acceptance rate (ND) and both have far too prominent athletic programs.
Wait, is this not the theme of the thread?
-
Why are you people so obsessed with UW?
I don't get the point of it all.
This.
-
I would probably judge Wash U in St. Louis to be the Harvard of the Midwest. It has roughly twice the number of students and double the acceptance rate of Harvard, but it has a certain private east coast school aesthetic. It has a great med school attached and even lower quality sports than Harvard. Northwestern and Notre Dame either too large (NW) or have too high of an acceptance rate (ND) and both have far too prominent athletic programs.
Wait, is this not the theme of the thread?
I agree with Wash U, but I think Northwestern is probably still closer. But those are probably the top 2.
Notre Dame is a good school, but it is not that level.
-
I agree with Wash U, but I think Northwestern is probably still closer. But those are probably the top 2.
Notre Dame is a good school, but it is not that level.
University of Chicago's got to be up there too.
-
I would probably judge Wash U in St. Louis to be the Harvard of the Midwest. It has roughly twice the number of students and double the acceptance rate of Harvard, but it has a certain private east coast school aesthetic. It has a great med school attached and even lower quality sports than Harvard. Northwestern and Notre Dame either too large (NW) or have too high of an acceptance rate (ND) and both have far too prominent athletic programs.
Wait, is this not the theme of the thread?
University of Chicago clearly. Most Nobel Laureates of any university in the world.... difficult to get into.... #1 business school in the world.... those are just the factoids I've got off the top of my head. I'm not sure where their law/medicine/etc ranks but I'm sure those are also up there.
Notre Dame is the Douchey Friend of colleges
-
University of Chicago clearly. Most Nobel Laureates of any university in the world.... difficult to get into.... #1 business school in the world.... those are just the factoids I've got off the top of my head. I'm not sure where their law/medicine/etc ranks but I'm sure those are also up there.
Notre Dame is the Douchey Friend of colleges
Clearly. And that's before they get BO's library.
-
Why are you people so obsessed with UW?
I don't get the point of it all.
This.
-
Clearly. And that's before they get BO's library.
It's not even close.
-
This.
Why are people continually surprised by this? It has been explained ad nauseam why some of us feel this way; I'm not expecting everyone to agree with that viewpoint.
If we choose to watch college basketball from a different perspective than you (i.e. hating UW) why do you care? Rooting against a rival is hardly anything new, and for those of us who live in WI, the endless Badger love gets tiresome.
-
I need some help on this. What is the MU vs UW rivalry, esp. on degree "cache" and where does it come from...I dont get it, and outside of the state it seems silly and parochial. I know this may upset both sides, but why do adults engage in it...it seems baseless.
I attended MU at time when we thought ND was an arch rival and UW was mired in really bad football and its BB was no big deal. The sports rivalry with UW, back then, wasnt very strong, at all.
I chose MU over UW ( I was a Natl Merit Scholar, with many options), because I liked that full professors would teach me at MU, and I wouldn't face mere TA's in accredited classes . Like many, Milwaukee was home back then, and MU would let me take advantage of a very good paying local job through my school years. UW was fine, but I had lived in Madison during elementary years, and UW wasnt for me.
I dont kid myself, ...neither MU or UW is a Harvard. I laugh at the sometime superior attitude of those with a UW undergrad degree, though. That tune only plays in Wisconsin, and it is a scratched and defective record. Anyone who relies on a degree for "status" earned years ago, which likely only had limited cache for their first job interview, tells me they stopped learning in life much beyond their BA degree...how sad. Think back on how little any of us really knew when we got our degree compared to today, and the false nostalgia is obvious.
In Texas, we have the heated rivalry of UT vs TAMU, but few would argue that a Baylor, SMU, Rice, etc undergrad degree is on equal to better footing. Chicos sees the UCLA vs USC issue, but few would argue a Cal degree from Berkley, or Cal Tech aren't really special schools, too.
Few here in Texas, see UW or even MU as particularly special or unique. UW is simply Big Ten big school, and MU is that Jesuit BB school.
What am I missing? Undergrad degree competition, after one is more than 2 or 3 years out of school is, to me is like worrying how the homecoming king fared after his HS popularity faded. Is it simply that in WI, the UW, and MU are significantly the only two "major" universities...do UWers pretend a superiority, and such grates on MUers...Do MUers fear inferiority (they shouldnt), so they validate and take the bait? What keeps this fire stoked, when logical perspective should've killed off the debate?
The whole thing seems kind of baseless, and silly.
Now I look forward to you setting me straight and explaining this stuff. Feel free to tell me where to get off, as I really am just trying to understand this.
-
Houwarrior
It is silly...that's what makes it fun. ;D
-
I need some help on this. What is the MU vs UW rivalry, esp. on degree "cache" and where does it come from...I dont get it, and outside of the state it seems silly and parochial. I know this may upset both sides, but why do adults engage in it...it seems baseless.
I attended MU at time when we thought ND was an arch rival and UW was mired in really bad football and its BB was no big deal. The sports rivalry with UW, back then, wasnt very strong, at all.
I chose MU over UW ( I was a Natl Merit Scholar, with many options), because I liked that full professors would teach me at MU, and I wouldn't face mere TA's in accredited classes . Like many, Milwaukee was home back then, and MU would let me take advantage of a very good paying local job through my school years. UW was fine, but I had lived in Madison during elementary years, and UW wasnt for me.
I dont kid myself, ...neither MU or UW is a Harvard. I laugh at the sometime superior attitude of those with a UW undergrad degree, though. That tune only plays in Wisconsin, and it is a scratched and defective record. Anyone who relies on a degree for "status" earned years ago, which likely only had limited cache for their first job interview, tells me they stopped learning in life much beyond their BA degree...how sad. Think back on how little any of us really knew when we got our degree compared to today, and the false nostalgia is obvious.
In Texas, we have heated rivalry of UT vs TAMU, but few would argue that a Baylor, SMU, Rice, etc undergrad degree is on equal to better footing. Chicos sees the UCLA vs USC issue, but few would argue a Cal degree from Berkley, or Cal Tech aren't really special schools too.
Few here in Texas, see UW or even MU as particularly special or unique. UW is simply Big Ten big school, and MU is that Jesuit BB school.
What am I missing? Undergrad degree competition, after one is more than 2 or 3 years out of school is, to me is like worrying how the homecoming king fared after his HS popularity faded. Is it simply that in WI, the UW, and MU are significantly the only two "major" universities...do UWers pretend a superiority, and such grates on MUers...Do MUers fear inferiority (they shouldnt), so they validate and take the bait? What keeps this fire stoked, when logical perspective should've killed off the debate?
The whole thing seems kind of baseless, and silly.
Now I look forward to you setting me straight and explaining this stuff. Feel free to tell me where to get off, as I really am just trying to understand this.
I just browsed this, but from my experience, UW fans consistently explain away any missed recruit or bolting head coach by saying they are soooooo demanding academically (something MU wouldn't understand), that those individuals couldn't cut it.
This, of course, is complete bvllshlt, but it's fun to have some hard evidence to back up what everyone else knows. UW is a good school, just like most other D1 schools.
-
I don't think anyone is saying UW isn't a great school. I think this whole thread is really based on the fact that at any opportunity UW fans (many whom didn't attend the school) will tout the academic excellence/superiority of Madison. See last weekend's Diamond Stone conversation as an example.
I personally don't question the school itself, I just can't stand those that didn't attend acting as though they somehow have a reason for the arrogance.
I certainly don't believe MU is a better school than UW. Both of them have their pros and cons. I just can't stand the UW-Madison arrogance projected from UW-Oshkosh grads.
-
Why are people continually surprised by this? It has been explained ad nauseam why some of us feel this way; I'm not expecting everyone to agree with that viewpoint.
If we choose to watch college basketball from a different perspective than you (i.e. hating UW) why do you care? Rooting against a rival is hardly anything new, and for those of us who live in WI, the endless Badger love gets tiresome.
I am not surprised. If I lived in or grew up in Wisconsin, I would probably feel the same way. I just find it sort of sad how much the Badgers are talked about on here. It makes MU fans look like the ugly stepchild that is super jealous of their big step-brother. which may be the case for some, but it certainly isn't for all.
-
I am not surprised. If I lived in or grew up in Wisconsin, I would probably feel the same way. I just find it sort of sad how much the Badgers are talked about on here. It makes MU fans look like the ugly stepchild that is super jealous of their big step-brother. which may be the case for some, but it certainly isn't for all.
That is fair, and i have to admit that I certainly have a bit of that little bother syndrome. I just can't help not getting annoyed and defensive when my cousin who went to Fox Valley Tech tries to talk to me about "his" school and how "diamond couldn't get in."
-
That is fair, and i have to admit that I certainly have a bit of that little bother syndrome. I just can't help not getting annoyed and defensive when my cousin who went to Fox Valley Tech tries to talk to me about "his" school and how "diamond couldn't get in."
I'm from Michigan and certainly am familiar with the UofM arrogance among fans. I never even thought about UW until moving to Wisconsin seeing their fans. Wisconsin arrogance BLOWS AWAY Michigan arrogance, and it is hilarious to me. Without that I honestly wouldn't cheer against UW save for one game per year.
-
I am not surprised. If I lived in or grew up in Wisconsin, I would probably feel the same way. I just find it sort of sad how much the Badgers are talked about on here. It makes MU fans look like the ugly stepchild that is super jealous of their big step-brother. which may be the case for some, but it certainly isn't for all.
And if you go to a Wisconsin board and they constantly talk about Marquette, does that make them an ugly stepchild, super jealous, etc, etc? You can go there any time of the year and there are more threads about MU then any school in their own conference.
-
This rivalry is most relevant to Wisconsin residents.
Compares to IU / Purdue, Iowa / Iowa State, ND / Purdue, etc. It really only matters for bragging rights for the year.
As far as academics, UW undergrad is nothing special. Their rankings come from the graduate programs. The cache of acceptance to UW is strictly financial. UW needs out of state tuition $$ because the taxpayers of WI subsidize the university so heavily.
The only response you need to a UW hornblower bragging about academics is RON DAYNE.
-
And if you go to a Wisconsin board and they constantly talk about Marquette, does that make them an ugly stepchild, super jealous, etc, etc? You can go there any time of the year and there are more threads about MU then any school in their own conference.
I have less than zero interest in visiting a UW board to see how a bunch of Sconnies feel about MU. Why on God's green earth would I give a damn?
-
I have less than zero interest in visiting a UW board to see how a bunch of Sconnies feel about MU. Why on God's green earth would I give a damn?
This part we agree on.
-
University of Chicago clearly. Most Nobel Laureates of any university in the world.... difficult to get into.... #1 business school in the world.... those are just the factoids I've got off the top of my head. I'm not sure where their law/medicine/etc ranks but I'm sure those are also up there.
Notre Dame is the Douchey Friend of colleges
You're right. I completely forgot about them. But you're right.
-
You're right. I completely forgot about them. But you're right.
So that might make them the Cornell, amiright? [rimshot]
-
I agree with Wash U, but I think Northwestern is probably still closer. But those are probably the top 2.
Notre Dame is a good school, but it is not that level.
Duke is the Northwestern of the Southeast.
-
Errr, not to be a party poop, but don't the little "show details" buttons show that test scores for UW of Madison are actually higher? Tell me I'm reading those wrong
-
I have less than zero interest in visiting a UW board to see how a bunch of Sconnies feel about MU. Why on God's green earth would I give a damn?
Well, you brought up how MU fans act on this board.....I'm giving you a clear path of showing what the other side of the rivalry does....the same exact thing.
It's called a rivalry. Ignore if you wish, but that is what is happening.
-
Errr, not to be a party poop, but don't the little "show details" buttons show that test scores for UW of Madison are actually higher? Tell me I'm reading those wrong
Test scores slightly higher, acceptance rate higher. There is a methodology link that explains it.
-
Acceptance rate is not a perfect measure of selectivity. There comes a point when a school's brand becomes so strong that people know not to even bother applying because they will be rejected. IMO, a school like Harvard has definitely reached that status (and likely did so a long time ago). This brand/reputation actually works to increase the school's acceptance rate.
As for the Harvard of the Midwest, I think the University of Chicago takes the cake and it's not even close. I would put Michigan at second and Northwestern at third. This coming from absolutely nothing but my own subjective thoughts.
As for Wisconsin, it is a great school but it is hardly Harvard (though who is really?)
-
University of Chicago's got to be up there too.
University of Chicago already has a catchy moniker
"University of Chicago - Where Fun Goes to Die"
I think that's official, but I didn't look it up.
-
University of Chicago already has a catchy moniker
"University of Chicago - Where Fun Goes to Die"
I think that's official, but I didn't look it up.
"University of Chicago - I used to be a virgin, I still am, but I used to be, too" - Mitch Hedberg voice
-
Acceptance rate is not a perfect measure of selectivity. There comes a point when a school's brand becomes so strong that people know not to even bother applying because they will be rejected. IMO, a school like Harvard has definitely reached that status (and likely did so a long time ago). This brand/reputation actually works to increase the school's acceptance rate.
The data doesn't back up your claim. Harvard is the most selective school in the world for undergrad. If you added back any self-selecting candidates, it would be even more selective.
-
"University of Chicago - I used to be a virgin, I still am, but I used to be, too" - Mitch Hedberg voice
The University of Chicago is actually somewhat of a cross between Marquette and Harvard: academics of Harvard, size of Marquette, atheism of Harvard, fancy chapel of Marquette, drinking ability of Harvard, surrounding neighborhood of Marquette.
-
Errr, not to be a party poop, but don't the little "show details" buttons show that test scores for UW of Madison are actually higher? Tell me I'm reading those wrong
This would tell me that Madison puts more weight on quantitative measures of a candidate than Marquette. Marquette appears still more selective but maybe putting more thought into the type of student they want to admit. That's the right path to take as your applications increase.
-
I grew up in Rockford, IL, a mere 75 miles straight south of Madison. I knew nothing about U of Wisconsin except for watching Badger hockey on the local PBS station at 10:30 PM on a Friday night and that Danny Jones, who was 2 grades ahead of me at my high school, went there to play basketball. I remember thinking, "shoot, he couldn't get a scholarship to Illinois, but hey, at least he gets to play AGAINST good teams." Academically, I wouldn't have been able to tell you if it was a good school or one step above ITT Tech.
Now, 25 years later, living in the Hartland, WI area, my dislike for the Badgers is at close to an unhealthy level, which is odd, because nearly every Badger fan I interact with personally is not a jerk about it.
-
The data doesn't back up your claim. Harvard is the most selective school in the world for undergrad. If you added back any self-selecting candidates, it would be even more selective.
No, the data exactly backs up his claim. As you said, if you added back additional candidates that would have been rejected, they would be more selective. So currently, without those additional candidates, their acceptance rate is increased.
Acceptance rate is not a perfect measure of selectivity. There comes a point when a school's brand becomes so strong that people know not to even bother applying because they will be rejected. IMO, a school like Harvard has definitely reached that status (and likely did so a long time ago). This brand/reputation actually works to increase the school's acceptance rate.
-
Funny... U.S. News has UW's acceptance rate at 51.1% and Marquette's at 57.5%.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-wisconsin-3895
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/marquette-university-3863
As a side note, I thinks it's pretty dumb to compare general undergraduate rankings. Pretty meaningless in my opinion. I think you can get a quality education wherever you choose to go. It's all about what you put into it.
-
Acceptance rate is not a perfect measure of selectivity. There comes a point when a school's brand becomes so strong that people know not to even bother applying because they will be rejected. IMO, a school like Harvard has definitely reached that status (and likely did so a long time ago). This brand/reputation actually works to increase the school's acceptance rate.
As for the Harvard of the Midwest, I think the University of Chicago takes the cake and it's not even close. I would put Michigan at second and Northwestern at third. This coming from absolutely nothing but my own subjective thoughts.
As for Wisconsin, it is a great school but it is hardly Harvard (though who is really?)
I know your kiddin' with Michigan, hey? Actually, an outstandin' public university, but can't touch NU or WashU.
-
Im not a die-hard Wolverine so I'll let others talk about who really is the top dog in the Midwest. All I'm saying is that the ego of UW fans on their school far exceeds that of Michigan fans. Personally I would expect the other way around based on academics as well as athletics. That's all.
-
University of Chicago's got to be up there too.
There actually is an answer to the question ... it is the University of Chicago. They are tied for fourth on the US news ranking (with Stanford) trailing only Princeton, Harvard and Yale.
When John D Rockefeller founded the school in 1890, it was precisely to make it into a Harvard of the Midwest. (BTW, Rockefeller called U of C "the best investment he ever made")
Why do you think U of C nickname is Maroons? Harvard is the Crimson.
Why you think it says Vertias on the U of C flag? Because is says the same on Harvard's flag.
So U of C was modeled after Harvard and it's tremendous academic reputation says it is a clear success at being the Harvard of the Mdwest.
-
Top 12 Midwest Schools in order (US News - National Universities)
1 University of Chicago (4)
2 Northwestern (13)
3 Washington University of St. Louis (14)
4 Notre Dame (16)
5 Michigan (29)
6 Case Western Reserve (38)
7 Illinois (42)
8 Wisconsin (47)
9 Ohio State (54)
10 Purdue (62)
11 Minnesota (71)
12 Marquette (76)
-
Top 5 Midwest Schools in order (US News)
University of Chicago
Northwestern
Washington University of St. Louis
Notre Dame
Michigan
agree with that order for undergrad, but considering all research and grad schools I bet you see ND drop out of the top 5... Maybe WUSL as well
-
agree with that order for undergrad, but considering all research and grad schools I bet you see ND drop out of the top 5... Maybe WUSL as well
I would put illinois above michigan and notre dame.
-
I would put illinois above michigan and notre dame.
Id love to see a single supporting ranking of that. Is there even a single program of Illinois' that's ahead of Michigan?
-
agree with that order for undergrad, but considering all research and grad schools I bet you see ND drop out of the top 5... Maybe WUSL as well
Research is about the size of your endowment, both are well over $1 billion. They Will Hold Up Well Under This restriction.
and given the importance of endowment, MU does really well in the rankings given its small endowment.
President Walker will fix this when he shovels billions to MU :)
-
Top 12 Midwest Schools in order (US News - National Universities)
1 University of Chicago (4)
2 Northwestern (13)
3 Washington University of St. Louis (14)
4 Notre Dame (16)
5 Michigan (29)
6 Case Western Reserve (38)
7 Illinois (42)
8 Wisconsin (47)
9 Ohio State (54)
10 Purdue (62)
11 Minnesota (71)
12 Marquette (76)
This list surprised me. Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota strike me as incredibly overrated here, at least in my subjective conception of prestige. I feel like MU could leapfrog a couple of these pretty easily. 42 seems way too high for Illinois.
-
I would put illinois above michigan and notre dame.
Good one.
-
agree with that order for undergrad, but considering all research and grad schools I bet you see ND drop out of the top 5... Maybe WUSL as well
+1 and you would see Michigan beat Nwestern and smoke WUSTL
-
This list surprised me. Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota strike me as incredibly overrated here, at least in my subjective conception of prestige. I feel like MU could leapfrog a couple of these pretty easily. 42 seems way too high for Illinois.
The amount of $ in public universities covers up a lot of warts in these types of rankings.
-
+1 and you would see Michigan beat Nwestern and smoke WUSTL
Northwestern has an 8 billion dollar endowment (top 10 in the world and larger than Michigan) it has campuses in foreign countries, it is a leading research institution.
It will not move from this position should you apply this criteria.
-
University of Chicago already has a catchy moniker
"University of Chicago - Where Fun Goes to Die"
I think that's official, but I didn't look it up.
My pops works for the U of C, I guess the students put it on t shirts as kind of an unofficial slogan. Another good one they put on t-shirts - "University of Chicago: Where the only thing that goes down on you is your GPA!"
-
it has campuses in foreign countries,
Lots of schools have campuses in foreign countries. That doesn't really mean much. Most of them are just a building or two with a few faculty members, and are designed for semesters abroad.
Loyola Chicago has a Rome campus.
-
My pops works for the U of C, I guess the students put it on t shirts as kind of an unofficial slogan. Another good one they put on t-shirts - "University of Chicago: Where the only thing that goes down on you is your GPA!"
my favorite is, "if I wanted a 4.0 I'd have gone to Harvard"
-
Lots of schools have campuses in foreign countries. That doesn't really mean much. Most of them are just a building or two with a few faculty members, and are designed for semesters abroad.
Loyola Chicago has a Rome campus.
Northwestern has an entire campus in Qatar, complete with four year degrees from that campus. They have other campuses as well that are more than study abroad semesters.
Warren Buffet and his sister last month gave Northwestern $100 million to expand their international campuses.
-
University of Chicago clearly. Most Nobel Laureates of any university in the world.... difficult to get into.... #1 business school in the world.... those are just the factoids I've got off the top of my head. I'm not sure where their law/medicine/etc ranks but I'm sure those are also up there.
Notre Dame is the Douchey Friend of colleges
#1 business school in the world? Didn't I hear something about Northwestern's business school passing them up several years ago? And there's always Stanford and Harvard (the Harvard of the East)
-
#1 business school in the world? Didn't I hear something about Northwestern's business school passing them up several years ago? And there's always Stanford and Harvard (the Harvard of the East)
The top graduate business schools (aka MBA) in the world (all these schools have taken turns at #1).
Here is the latest rankings
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/mba-rankings?int=9dc208
Stanford
Harvard
Penn (Wharton)
U of Chicago
MIT
Northwestern (Kellogg)
--------------------------
And now, to make everyone puke. What is the best unergraduate business program?
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/reports/business-schools/best-undergraduate-business-schools-2014
#1 for the fiifth year in a row ... Notre Dame Mendoza school of business
1 1 Notre Dame (Mendoza) IN Private 1 4 13 2 100.000
2 2 Univ. of Virginia (McIntire) VA Public 2 23 8 5 91.780
3 3 Cornell (Dyson) NY Private 3 26 2 12 91.454
4 6 Boston College (Carroll) MA Private 10 7 10 9 88.769
5 4 Washington Univ. (Olin) MO Private 4 41 1 12 87.654
6 9 Univ. of Texas at Austin (McCombs) TX Public 9 2 17 34 86.566
7 5 Univ. of Pennsylvania (Wharton) PA Private 12 30 12 2 84.562
8 13 Indiana Univ. (Kelley) IN Public 15 1 44 12 83.913
9 7 Emory (Goizueta) GA Private 5 43 9 5 80.991
10 10 Univ. of North Carolina (Kenan-Flagler) NC Public 6 33 11 12 80.039
11 18 Wake Forest NC Private 20 27 15 1 78.599
12 8 Univ. of Michigan (Ross) MI Public 24 20 6 12 78.315
13 12 Brigham Young (Marriott) UT Private 17 3 21 41 77.513
14 14 New York Univ. (Stern) NY Private 43 22 7 12 74.899
15 11 Univ. of California, Berkeley (Haas) CA Public 51 29 3 12 74.719
16 17 Univ. of Richmond (Robins) VA Private 7 94 40 2 74.444
17 24 Carnegie Mellon (Tepper) PA Private 72 46 4 5 74.097
18 16 Georgetown Univ. (McDonough) DC Private 31 38 5 34 72.943
19 25 Northeastern (D'Amore-McKim) MA Private 41 13 87 12 72.708
20 20 Bentley MA Private 34 10 64 12 72.414
21 30 Southern Methodist Univ. (Cox) TX Private 11 63 23 9 71.951
22 27 William and Mary (Mason) VA Public 19 75 19 9 71.166
23 22 Miami Univ. (Farmer) OH Public 14 35 27 24 70.571
24 15 Villanova PA Private 13 55 28 12 70.392
25 23 Boston Univ. MA Private 26 16 24 39 69.302
26 36 Babson MA Private 35 17 36 24 68.650
27 28 Texas Christian Univ. (Neeley) TX Private 8 86 33 34 68.419
28 31 Univ. of Southern California (Marshall) CA Private 50 8 22 51 68.070
29 33 Texas A & M (Mays) TX Public 22 5 45 102 66.398
30 26 Penn State (Smeal) PA Public 21 6 54 102 66.219
31 35 Lehigh PA Private 32 81 43 12 65.169
32 34 Ohio State (Fisher) OH Public 33 15 78 41 65.098
33 32 Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison WI Public 38 32 18 39 64.418
34 21 Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign IL Public 61 9 29 61 64.270
35 NR Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Lally) NY Private 54 80 67 5 63.803
36 45 Univ. of Massachusetts-Amherst (Isenberg) MA Public 48 11 100 61 63.570
37 41 Georgia Tech GA Public 23 36 25 41 63.278
38 40 Fordham (Gabelli) NY Private 40 85 90 24 62.025
39 NR Univ. of Maryland (Smith) MD Public 62 37 34 34 61.653
40 29 James Madison Univ. VA Public 18 65 75 51 61.584
41 46 Univ. of San Diego CA Private 25 124 111 24 61.110
42 43 Michigan State Univ. (Eli Broad) MI Public 47 14 41 83 60.989
43 38 Santa Clara CA Private 45 103 31 24 60.878
44 37 Univ. of Florida (Warrington) FL Public 86 12 72 41 60.020
45 42 Elon NC Private 27 40 89 41 59.955
46 39 Univ. of Minnesota (Carlson) MN Public 30 52 35 51 58.736
47 53 Loyola Univ. Maryland MD Private 56 91 63 24 57.872
48 44 Univ. of Georgia (Terry) GA Public 16 19 50 115 57.157
49 63 Bryant RI Private 74 18 85 51 57.085
50 69 Case Western Reserve (Weatherhead) OH Private 87
tate School Type Student Survey Rank Employer Survey Rank MBA Feeder School Rank Academic Quality Rank Ranking Index Score
51 47 Butler IN Private 66 123 30 24 56.487
52 48 Univ. of Washington (Foster) WA Public 89 21 48 41 56.142
53 70 Univ. of Miami FL Private 39 111 52 41 55.892
54 57 Binghamton Univ. NY Public 97 39 39 41 55.692
55 72 Syracuse Univ. (Whitman) NY Private 75 34 58 61 54.157
56 75 Univ. of Texas at Dallas (Jindal) TX Public 29 60 82 71 53.999
57 58 Purdue (Krannert) IN Public 65 31 65 71 53.949
58 83 Fairfield (Dolan) CT Private 44 110 76 61 53.615
59 71 George Washington Univ. DC Private 109 100 26 24 53.444
60 NR Chapman CA Private 57 61 79 41 53.159
61 67 Seattle Univ. WA Private 49 83 116 51 53.144
62 56 American (Kogod) DC Private 46 126 66 61 53.110
63 59 The College of New Jersey NJ Public 69 114 47 51 52.584
64 60 DePaul IL Private 52 70 119 71 52.228
65 54 Univ. of Connecticut CT Public 82 44 126 51 51.572
66 61 Quinnipiac CT Private 71 47 118 61 51.110
67 68 Univ. of Denver (Daniels) CO Private 90 88 120 12 50.957
68 66 Baylor TX Private 58 89 49 71 50.783
69 52 Virginia Tech (Pamplin) VA Public 59 28 61 102 50.693
70 64 California Polytechnic CA Public 63 67 62 83 50.529
71 50 Univ. of Arizona (Eller) AZ Public 64 42 53 83 50.448
72 62 Ohio Northern Univ. OH Private 88 95 51 34 50.371
73 89 Colorado State Univ. CO Public 68 50 73 71 50.183
74 49 Tulane LA Private 103 119 20 51 49.864
75 109 Providence College RI Private 111 25 88 71 49.298
76 73 Univ. of Alabama (Culverhouse) AL Public 53 74 125 102 49.164
77 79 John Carroll (Boler) OH Private 113 76 56 24 48.918
78 85 Seton Hall (Stillman) NJ Private 110 117 32 41 48.705
79 86 Ohio Univ. OH Public 67 78 127 71 48.156
80 74 Marquette WI Private 98 96 70 51 47.825
81 55 Univ. of Tulsa (Collins) OK Private 78 105 86 71 47.689
82 65 Loyola Marymount Univ. CA Private 76 101 77 51 47.617
83 NR Texas Tech Univ. (Rawls) TX Public 28 71 16 126 46.603
84 82 Univ. of Pittsburgh PA Public 101 58 80 61 46.395
85 NR Florida State FL Public 36 48 115 120 45.708
86 95 North Carolina State Univ. (Poole) NC Public 37 49 114 115 45.366
87 NR Sacred Heart Univ. CT Private 112 131 38 71 45.211
88 78 Univ. of Missouri (Trulaske) MO Public 55 77 94 102 45.207
89 92 St. Joseph's Univ. NY Private 91 112 108 61 45.152
90 90 Bowling Green State Univ. OH Public 99 93 69 71 44.749
91 93 Rochester Institute of Technology NY Private 93 59 105 61 44.241
92 77 Arizona State (W.P. Carey) AZ Public 80 54 96 102 43.942
93 97 Belmont TN Private 79 108 122 51 43.781
94 100 Univ. of Iowa (Tippie) IA Public 100 57 71 71 43.568
95 99 Illinois State Univ. IL Public 70 45 130 111 43.520
96 76 Univ. of Delaware (Lerner) DE Public 95 62 81 83 43.344
97 101 Univ. of Colorado at Boulder (Leeds) CO Public 114 69 68 83 42.930
98 91 St. Louis Univ. MO Private 92 104 74 71 42.769
99 103 Univ. of Houston (Bauer) TX Public 104 92 123 93 42.426
100 84 Univ. of Cincinnati (Lindner) OH Public 60 87 109 115 42.292
-
Northwestern has an 8 billion dollar endowment (top 10 in the world and larger than Michigan)
Not true, but whatever
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/07/30/22-richest-schools-in-america/
1) Harvard University, $32,334,293,000
2) Yale University, $20,780,000,000
3) University of Texas System, $20,448,313,000
4) Stanford University, $18,688,868,000
5) Princeton University, $18,200,433,000
6) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, $11,005,932,000
7) Texas A&M University System and Foundations, $8,732,010,000
8) University of Michigan, $8,382,311,000
9) Columbia University, $8,197,880,000
10) Northwestern University, $7,883,323,000
-
The top graduate business schools (aka MBA) in the world (all these schools have taken turns at #1).
Here is the latest rankings
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/mba-rankings?int=9dc208
Stanford
Harvard
Penn (Wharton)
U of Chicago
MIT
Northwestern (Kellogg)
Grain of salt here is that there are several rankings of business schools with different methodologies. Economist, Financial Times & US News are the three most generally accepted.
Stanford, Harvard and Chicago (Economist) are, I believe, the only three able to claim "#1" in any of the three
-
#1 business school in the world? Didn't I hear something about Northwestern's business school passing them up several years ago? And there's always Stanford and Harvard (the Harvard of the East)
Right now Kellogg is hovering around #10 for MBA
-
Right now Kellogg is hovering around #10 for MBA
Kellogg has been #1 in the past.
-
Not true, but whatever
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/07/30/22-richest-schools-in-america/
1) Harvard University, $32,334,293,000
2) Yale University, $20,780,000,000
3) University of Texas System, $20,448,313,000
4) Stanford University, $18,688,868,000
5) Princeton University, $18,200,433,000
6) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, $11,005,932,000
7) Texas A&M University System and Foundations, $8,732,010,000
8) University of Michigan, $8,382,311,000
9) Columbia University, $8,197,880,000
10) Northwestern University, $7,883,323,000
State schools have most of their endowment in land granted to them by the state government when they were founded. This is especially the case with University of Texas and Texas A&M, which collectively are the largest land owners in the state of Texas.
This real estate is a highly illiquid asset. It cannot be sold, only borrowed against (within limits). Their values are somewhat made up. Also Northwestern is 1/5 the enrollment of Michigan so the endowment-per-student ratio is much higher (500%) at Northwestern offering much more opportunity for a Northwestern Student in research than a Michigan student.
Conversely, private schools have much more diverse and liquid endowments that also offer greater flexibility.
(side note, watch how the Texas and Texas A&M endowments tumbles down the list in the next few years with the oil bust now underway.)
-
Northwestern has an 8 billion dollar endowment (top 10 in the world and larger than Michigan) it has campuses in foreign countries, it is a leading research institution.
It will not move from this position should you apply this criteria.
My general sense is the the Bschools and Law schools are of similar rank. But regarding research-based grad programs, I would bet that Michigan beats Nwestern in every department. I know for certain that Michigan beats Nwestern in philosophy (handily) and also economics (not handily, but a notably stronger department and grad program nevertheless). I also get the sense that Michigan also beats them in other humanities and social sciences as well.
I don't know anything about medicine, natural science, or engineering, but
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13305/
shows that Michigan is #2 in the country in research and development spending, compared to Nwestern's spot at 29. (Though Johns Hopkins is number 1 so my hunch is that medical schools strongly influence these numbers).
Don't read me as saying that because Michigan is a better research institution, Northwestern therefore sucks. Nwestern is an absolutely phenomenal school. A world-leader in research, as you note. But Michigan is simply that good.
-
Their is this animal called the "Academic Rankings of World Universities"
These rankings are largely driven by research and the top 500 are ranked.
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html
Here is the top 30
1 Harvard University 1 100 100
2 Stanford University 2 72.1 41.8
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 3 70.5 68.4
4 University of California-Berkeley 4 70.1 66.8
5 University of Cambridge 1 69.2 79.1
6 Princeton University 5 60.7 52.1
7 California Institute of Technology 6 60.5 48.5
8 Columbia University 7 59.6 65.1
9 University of Chicago 8 57.4 61.4
9 University of Oxford 2 57.4 51
11 Yale University 9 55.2 48.8
12 University of California, Los Angeles 10 51.9 30.2
13 Cornell University 11 50.6 37.6
14 University of California, San Diego 12 49.3 19.7
15 University of Washington 13 48.1 21.7
16 University of Pennsylvania 14 47.1 32.4
17 The Johns Hopkins University 15 47 38.7
18 University of California, San Francisco 16 45.2 0
19 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich 1 43.9 30.2
20 University College London 3 43.3 28.8
21 The University of Tokyo 1 43.2 31.6
22 The Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine 4 42.3 14.9
22 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 17 42.3 35.3
24 University of Toronto 1 41.8 20.4
24 University of Wisconsin - Madison 18 41.8 31.6
26 Kyoto University 2 39.9 30.2
27 New York University 19 39.6 28.8
28 Northwestern University 20 39.4 15.8
28 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 20 39.4 30.7
30 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 22 39.3 30.2
31 Duke University 23 38.4 15.8
32 Washington University in St. Louis 24 37.8 19
Couple of thoughts ...
Michigan does out rank Northwestern.
The first number after the name is the country rank. So Michigan is 17 and Northwestern is 20.
The second number is an index of research spending. Harvard is 100 (because it is no. 1, thanks to a $32 billion endowment). Stanford is number to at 2 with a rating of 72.1. So Stanford spend 3/4 of Harvard. Michigan is 42.3 and Northwestern is 39.4. Harvard spends well more than twice what they do in research. Note how fast these numbers drop off after Harvard.
Marquette does not make this list. Since it it based on research spending, that is not a shock.
Most research is done at the graduate school level. Except in the sciences and medicine, this has no affect on the undergraduate experience.
-
Quick defense of MU
Lots of majors do not require tons of money for research. Business, liberal arts, journalism, nursing, theater are not expensive like sciences, engineering and medicine.
A very valid and honorable mission for a university is to emphasize teaching over research. Prepare students with skills required for critical thinking. This is even more important at the undergraduate level. Teach them to think, question and understand. Leave the intense research for the next level.
A big research university, like a Harvard, has labs sequencing DNA and the humans genome. The scientists and computer power involved in this could run tens of millions or more a year. A school like Marquette can turn out hundreds of smart critical thinking graduates every year that can spend decades being valuable member of society for the same price. In the long run, both might have the same value for the country.
So why we all "like toys" and the research budgets of large universities are necessary and important. Let's not devalue the mission of a teaching university like Marquette and what they are doing within their mission.
Lastly, the Jesuit universities are all way behind in their endowments. Until the 1960s/1970s these Catholic istutuitons viewed helping the poor as a primary mission. So they kept their expenses down and gave away an excess money to the poor. So their intention and design was to have zero endowments. Only in the 50 years has this thinking changed, which is why they have such small endowments
-
Quick defense of MU
Lots of majors do not require tons of money for research. Business, liberal arts, journalism, nursing, theater are not expensive like sciences, engineering and medicine.
A very valid and honorable mission for a university is to emphasize teaching over research. Prepare students with skills required for critical thinking. This is even more important at the undergraduate level. Teach them to think, question and understand. Leave the intense research for the next level.
A big research university, like a Harvard, has labs sequencing DNA and the humans genome. The scientists and computer power involved in this could run tens of millions or more a year. A school like Marquette can turn out hundreds of smart critical thinking graduates every year that can spend decades being valuable member of society for the same price. In the long run, both might have the same value for the country.
So why we all "like toys" and the research budgets of large universities are necessary and important. Let's not devalue the mission of a teaching university like Marquette and what they are doing within their mission.
Lastly, the Jesuit universities are all way behind in their endowments. Until the 1960s/1970s these Catholic istutuitons viewed helping the poor as a primary mission. So they kept their expenses down and gave away an excess money to the poor. So their intention and design was to have zero endowments. Only in the 50 years has this thinking changed, which is why they have such small endowments
A few things. The way you prepare students in critical thinking, questioning and understanding is to do research. Although, you do not have to invest as heavily as Harvard, you have to invest at a far higher level than MU.
As for DNA sequencing and the human genome. A top of the line high-throughput sequencing machine can be had for under $1M. Computing power to analyze genomes for under $50k. That isn't where the costs at Harvard are going (and the money isn't coming from an endowment). The costs are going to provide funds for researchers to take risks and make world-changing discoveries.
I support a teaching mission, but teaching at the University level requires a significant investment in research.
-
A few things. The way you prepare students in critical thinking, questioning and understanding is to do research. Although, you do not have to invest as heavily as Harvard, you have to invest at a far higher level than MU.
As for DNA sequencing and the human genome. A top of the line high-throughput sequencing machine can be had for under $1M. Computing power to analyze genomes for under $50k. That isn't where the costs at Harvard are going (and the money isn't coming from an endowment). The costs are going to provide funds for researchers to take risks and make world-changing discoveries.
I support a teaching mission, but teaching at the University level requires a significant investment in research.
Marquette made a significant enough investment to turn out a fine, upstanding, young man such as myself.
And it's all about me!
-
A few things. The way you prepare students in critical thinking, questioning and understanding is to do research. Although, you do not have to invest as heavily as Harvard, you have to invest at a far higher level than MU.
As for DNA sequencing and the human genome. A top of the line high-throughput sequencing machine can be had for under $1M. Computing power to analyze genomes for under $50k. That isn't where the costs at Harvard are going (and the money isn't coming from an endowment). The costs are going to provide funds for researchers to take risks and make world-changing discoveries.
I support a teaching mission, but teaching at the University level requires a significant investment in research.
To get to the $1M sequencing machine ad $50k computing power, didn't the Harvards of the world spent a kings ransom in research?
And yes, research is key to critical thinking. But not all research requires a huge investment in dollars. Liberals art educations can require thousands of hours of research but you don't need state of the art labs for a philosophy degree.
-
To get to the $1M sequencing machine ad $50k computing power, didn't the Harvards of the world spent a kings ransom in research?
And yes, research is key to critical thinking. But not all research requires a huge investment in dollars. Liberals art educations can require thousands of hours of research but you don't need state of the art labs for a philosophy degree.
A lot of that technology was constructed by guys like George Church. He has millions of dollars in grants each year, Harvard makes a gigantic profit off him and his research. He's spawned 9 companies that Harvard gets some of the money from in addition to his grant dollars.
They made a kings ransom on the research, they didn't spend one.
Also, no offense to liberal arts majors, but they do not provide the same training/education in critical thinking as research does.
-
A lot of that technology was constructed by guys like George Church. He has millions of dollars in grants each year, Harvard makes a gigantic profit off him and his research. He's spawned 9 companies that Harvard gets some of the money from in addition to his grant dollars.
They made a kings ransom on the research, they didn't spend one.
Also, no offense to liberal arts majors, but they do not provide the same training/education in critical thinking as research does.
How are you defining 'research'? Lab work?
-
Heisenberg:
[
(side note, watch how the Texas and Texas A&M endowments tumbles down the list in the next few years with the oil bust now underway.)
[/quote]
The United States did not want to take on liability for the war debts of the Republic of Texas when it joined as a new state; accordingly, unique among our 50 states, Texas retained sovereign right over its lands (its why secession talk exists here). The state's sovereign ownership of massive West Texas fields funded and vested the huge Permanent University Fund Endowment, for UT and TAMU.
Your claim of the PUF tumbling down, however, is not accurate...With the new drilling/recovery methods, this area has actually increased production in older played fields of the Permian basin... unexpectedly adding to the fund, in recent years. I have clients drilling there and its one of the best field "plays" in North America. The PUF is quite pleased with its position.
Once this increased revenue is collected and vested, the PUF invests its money, the same as the other endowments ....with 90 percent placed on Wall Street. So...lower oil prices...and slowed production programs will merely slow the rate of principal increase of the PUF....but any decline to the PUF will be attributable to a Wall Street returns decline, not to oil prices.
I understand the Schadenfreude toward Texas by many, but your PUF decreasing assumption is not right, here.
-
Heisenberg:
[
(side note, watch how the Texas and Texas A&M endowments tumbles down the list in the next few years with the oil bust now underway.)
The United States did not want to take on liability for the war debts of the Republic of Texas when it joined as a new state; accordingly, unique among our 50 states, Texas retained sovereign right over its lands (its why secession talk exists here). The state's sovereign ownership of massive West Texas fields funded and vested the huge Permanent University Fund Endowment, for UT and TAMU.
Your claim of the PUF tumbling down, however, is not accurate...With the new drilling/recovery methods, this area has actually increased production in older played fields of the Permian basin... unexpectedly adding to the fund, in recent years. I have clients drilling there and its one of the best field "plays" in North America. The PUF is quite pleased with its position.
Once this increased revenue is collected and vested, the PUF invests its money, the same as the other endowments ....with 90 percent placed on Wall Street. So...lower oil prices...and slowed production programs will merely slow the rate of principal increase of the PUF....but any decline to the PUF will be attributable to a Wall Street returns decline, not to oil prices.
I understand the Schadenfreude toward Texas by many, but your PUF decreasing assumption is not right, here.
Keep drinking the kook-aid about the oil industry. It's a busted bubble and we are waiting for the Harold Hamms and Aubrey McClendons to do what they do best, first become billionaires and then lose it all.
The US produces too much oil given the demand it is serving. That is why inventories are spiking. Oil companies borrowed too much and will not stop producing at breakneck pace. The price of WTI was $107 last July, $48 now. The price will keep falling until they stop producing. Your argument about technologies only means it might have to go to scary low prices to break production.
And it is not Schadenfreude because it is a net negative for the U.S. economy. Oil is an economic indicator. It stays high and moves up because the economy is humming and demand is high. It is a good thing when oil is high (not counting spikes because of middle east problems or supply disruptions). We produce too much now because the economy is slowing and demand is off. The catalyst for all this is a "remarkable fall" in demand for oil starting in Q2 of last year as chronicled by the EIA (Energy Information Agency). Oil down means the economy is in trouble.
So yes, UT and TAMUs endowments are going to take it right in the shorts.
-
A lot of that technology was constructed by guys like George Church. He has millions of dollars in grants each year, Harvard makes a gigantic profit off him and his research. He's spawned 9 companies that Harvard gets some of the money from in addition to his grant dollars.
They made a kings ransom on the research, they didn't spend one.
Also, no offense to liberal arts majors, but they do not provide the same training/education in critical thinking as research does.
I don't have a liberal arts degree (business major) so I'm not defending anything when I say ... You're right a liberal arts and/or a humanities degree does not provide the same training or education in critical thinking as research. It provides a far more intense and difficult course of study. Why don't more do it! Because when done properly, it is hard (yet many "blowoff courses" are in these areas making some incorrectly think it is easy) and they provide limited economic opportunity.
Some of the most uncritical and least creative people I have ever met work in research in sciences, engineering and medicine. Conservely some of the most creative work in this area too. The big expensive lab, with all its shiny fun toys to play with have a strange effect on the human psyche, it drives them to a consensus non-risk taking approach precisely because they want to stay in the lab playing with their toys. Tell them the approach is all wrong and everything has to be changed and watch the push back you will get.
-
Keep drinking the kook-aid about the oil industry. It's a busted bubble and we are waiting for the Harold Hamms and Aubrey McClendons to do what they do best, first become billionaires and then lose it all.
The US produces too much oil given the demand it is serving. That is why inventories are spiking. Oil companies borrowed too much and will not stop producing at breakneck pace. The price of WTI was $107 last July, $48 now. The price will keep falling until they stop producing. Your argument about technologies only means it might have to go to scary low prices to break production.
And it is not Schadenfreude because it is a net negative for the U.S. economy. Oil is an economic indicator. It stays high and moves up because the economy is humming and demand is high. It is a good thing when oil is high (not counting spikes because of middle east problems or supply disruptions). We produce too much now because the economy is slowing and demand is off. The catalyst for all this is a "remarkable fall" in demand for oil starting in last year as chronicled by the EIA (Energy Information Agency). Oil down means the economy is in trouble.
So yes, UT and TAMUs endowments are going to take it right in the shorts.
Wow, this was laden with ignorance and insult...an ungentlemanly response. I had merely challenged a flawed understanding of the PUF endowment investment.
I do not chose to challenge your flawed views/presumptions of world oil pricing, production, exploration modeling, and on high energy costs being good for an economy. You appear to not be very open to any detailed review...you didnt even grasp my endowment explanation, so lets not you and I jump into an even deeper pool of this broader subject.
I guess you are a type just waiting to hear....gosh you are so right, so well informed, and your opinions are the best...so ...you da' man and I am the fool. lmao
-
Wow, this was laden with ignorance and insult...an ungentlemanly response. I had merely challenged a flawed understanding of the PUF endowment investment.
I do not chose to challenge your flawed views/presumptions of world oil pricing, production, exploration modeling, and on high energy costs being good for an economy. You appear to not be very open to any detailed review...you didnt even grasp my endowment explanation, so lets not you and I jump into an even deeper pool of this broader subject.
I guess you are a type just waiting to hear....gosh you are so right, so well informed, and your opinions are the best...so ...you da' man and I am the fool. lmao
The PUF has a giant exposure to oil that will hurt its value when every "gets it" about the bust taking place in the energy patch. Energy is the single worst investment one can make right now. It will be number 1 in a few years but not before immense pain is given out to current investors, like the PUF. You cannot ride it out, it needs to be avoided.
And it is the single worst investment because everyone thinks it is a great investment. 100% of Wall Street analysts (39 of 39) surveyed by Bloomberg last month are predicting the price of oil will be higher at the end of the year. Money started pouring into energy investments after the initial break last fall. This is precisely the problem. It encourages the very thing that is driving down the price, over-production for slowing demand. Now we have an 80-year high in oil inventories and they keep soaring, too much oil that is being pumped is going into storage tanks in Cushing. That is a big warning sign.
It is housing in 2008 all over again, when housing was toast and Ara Hovanian and Bob Toll were smiling on TV telling everyone "the home is the single best investment you can make" Right after the words got out of their mouths home prices tumbled the most since 1890 (when Bob Shiller started keeping records) and have barely recovered (unless you own a home in the million dollar, or several million dollar, price range). Toll Brothers and Hovanian Homes were almost wiped out and needed a Government bailout of the entire industry to stay in business.
Today oil companies are not run by business people. They are run by risk-takers, and a lot of them are reckless, like Aubrey Mclendon (image below) and Harold Hamm.
(http://images.forbes.com/special-report/2012/assets/img/Forbes_cover_2011-1024.jpg)
Supply is half the equation. What is never considered is demand. That is the thing that caught all the risk-takers by surprise is the fall in demand because of economies of the US and the world are slowing and we need less of it. The price is what will make production slow. It needs to fall enough to force it to slow. And when it does an the Permian base and Eagle-Ford plays leveraged to the hilt (because they all are) are toast.
-
The PUF has a giant exposure to oil that will hurt its value when every "gets it" about the bust taking place in the energy patch. Energy is the single worst investment one can make right now. It will be number 1 in a few years but not before immense pain is given out to current investors, like the PUF. You cannot ride it out, it needs to be avoided.
And it is the single worst investment because everyone thinks it is a great investment. 100% of Wall Street analysts (39 of 39) surveyed by Bloomberg last month are predicting the price of oil will be higher at the end of the year. Money started pouring into energy investments after the initial break last fall. This is precisely the problem. It encourages the very thing that is driving down the price, over-production for slowing demand. Now we have an 80-year high in oil inventories and they keep soaring, too much oil that is being pumped is going into storage tanks in Cushing. That is a big warning sign.
It is housing in 2008 all over again, when housing was toast and Ara Hovanian and Bob Toll were smiling on TV telling everyone "the home is the single best investment you can make" Right after the words got out of their mouths home prices tumbled the most since 1890 (when Bob Shiller started keeping records) and have barely recovered (unless you own a home in the million dollar, or several million dollar, price range). Toll Brothers and Hovanian Homes were almost wiped out and needed a Government bailout of the entire industry to stay in business.
Today oil companies are not run by business people. They are run by risk-takers, and a lot of them are reckless, like Aubrey Mclendon (image below) and Harold Hamm.
(http://images.forbes.com/special-report/2012/assets/img/Forbes_cover_2011-1024.jpg)
Supply is half the equation. What is never considered is demand. That is the thing that caught all the risk-takers by surprise is the fall in demand because of economies of the US and the world are slowing and we need less of it. The price is what will make production slow. It needs to fall enough to force it to slow. And when it does an the Permian base and Eagle-Ford plays leveraged to the hilt (because they all are) are toast.
I'm not quite sure you are really getting what houwarrior was saying.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he is basically saying that the health of the UT endowment is not directly tied to the oil industry, rather that it increases based on revenue from the oil industry, that is then invested elsewhere. So for example, if their endowment is currently $20b, most of it is invested in the stock market, not in oil, and if oil takes a large hit, their endowment only suffers the reciprocal effects that that decline takes on the stock market.
The UT investment in the oil industry can only add to the endowment. I may be wrong on this, and I really don't know anything about this personally, but I think this is what houwarrior was getting at.
You're really jumping into the deep end with the oil industry here.
-
Some of the most uncritical and least creative people I have ever met work in research in sciences, engineering and medicine. Conservely some of the most creative work in this area too. The big expensive lab, with all its shiny fun toys to play with have a strange effect on the human psyche, it drives them to a consensus non-risk taking approach precisely because they want to stay in the lab playing with their toys. Tell them the approach is all wrong and everything has to be changed and watch the push back you will get.
This made me laugh because I hear it from my wife every day about her work. She works in a hospital lab, mostly analysis with only a few people doing real research, but it's almost like a commandment, "Thou shalt not question how we have been doing things for 40 years." She came over from another lab and initially was told to bring her suggestions to management. Well, co-workers and managers stamped on every effort she made to streamline processes and finding better, easier ways to do things, saying she was trying to disrupt "their way".
After a year, she transferred to a smaller department working with one other employee that was also new to the department. During training, the two of them saw the same kind of flawed processes, but because their department has little oversight and no other co-workers, they were able to change virtually every process. With the two employees that used to work there, the department was mired in overtime, problems with specimens, and work backlogs. Now, my wife is usually done with everything by noon and spends the rest of the day bored staring at her iPhone.
Weighing in on the oil stuff and endowments is way over my head, but in the case of people in the sciences, both she and I have been amazed at the lack of critical thinking and resistance to change that exists in those fields. I realize fully this is a small microcosm of a much larger field, and I have no doubt that there exist plenty of places ready and willing to evolve, but in the places where they resist change, walking through the door for a young employee must be like stepping 30 years back in time.
-
The PUF has a giant exposure to oil that will hurt its value when every "gets it" about the bust taking place in the energy patch. Energy is the single worst investment one can make right now. It will be number 1 in a few years but not before immense pain is given out to current investors, like the PUF. You cannot ride it out, it needs to be avoided.
And it is the single worst investment because everyone thinks it is a great investment. 100% of Wall Street analysts (39 of 39) surveyed by Bloomberg last month are predicting the price of oil will be higher at the end of the year. Money started pouring into energy investments after the initial break last fall. This is precisely the problem. It encourages the very thing that is driving down the price, over-production for slowing demand. Now we have an 80-year high in oil inventories and they keep soaring, too much oil that is being pumped is going into storage tanks in Cushing. That is a big warning sign.
It is housing in 2008 all over again, when housing was toast and Ara Hovanian and Bob Toll were smiling on TV telling everyone "the home is the single best investment you can make" Right after the words got out of their mouths home prices tumbled the most since 1890 (when Bob Shiller started keeping records) and have barely recovered (unless you own a home in the million dollar, or several million dollar, price range). Toll Brothers and Hovanian Homes were almost wiped out and needed a Government bailout of the entire industry to stay in business.
Today oil companies are not run by business people. They are run by risk-takers, and a lot of them are reckless, like Aubrey Mclendon (image below) and Harold Hamm.
(http://images.forbes.com/special-report/2012/assets/img/Forbes_cover_2011-1024.jpg)
Supply is half the equation. What is never considered is demand. That is the thing that caught all the risk-takers by surprise is the fall in demand because of economies of the US and the world are slowing and we need less of it. The price is what will make production slow. It needs to fall enough to force it to slow. And when it does an the Permian base and Eagle-Ford plays leveraged to the hilt (because they all are) are toast.
Against my better judgment lets review one last time your claim of a falling PUF, as due to oil prices.
The amount of the PUF is solely measured by its accumulated cash income...ie the market/ or income value of the West Texas fields plays no part in its in current endowment amount.
Think of this like a rent house; the field is the rent house, and the endowment is the accumulated rent income from the house; The PUF takes this cash (like other endowments) to Wall Street and depends on it, NOT OIL Prices to invest and increase the PUF.
Whether or not the House (field) value or its rent income decreases will not affect the fund's current size. The PUF will simply grow at slower rate if the rent income reduces. You'd be right to say the rate of growth of the principal amount of the PUF may slow due to less oil income....but the principal sums will only drop ...move downward ...if Wall Street returns fail (not oil Prices).
Your hammering of the claim the PUF size will shrink due to oil pricing variations leads me to realize you simply didnt know that neither the market, or income value of the fields accounts for a penny of the PUF endowment amount... the PUF amount is simply the accumulated cash income to date...not the house.
-
Against my better judgment lets review one last time your claim of a falling PUF, as due to oil prices.
The amount of the PUF is solely measured by its accumulated cash income...ie the market/ or income value of the West Texas fields plays no part in its in current endowment amount.
Think of this like a rent house; the field is the rent house, and the endowment is the accumulated rent income from the house; The PUF takes this cash (like other endowments) to Wall Street and depends on it, NOT OIL Prices to invest and increase the PUF.
Whether or not the House (field) value or its rent income decreases will not affect the fund's current size. The PUF will simply grow at slower rate if the rent income reduces. You'd be right to say the rate of growth of the principal amount of the PUF may slow due to less oil income....but the principal sums will only drop ...move downward ...if Wall Street returns fail (not oil Prices).
Your hammering of the claim the PUF size will shrink due to oil pricing variations leads me to realize you simply didnt know that neither the market, or income value of the fields accounts for a penny of the PUF endowment amount... the PUF amount is simply the accumulated cash income to date...not the house.
Ok you're right and I'm wrong, the oil industry is a perpetual motion machine that will never lose money and can only go up.
Seriously, the last time I got push back like this was from builders and mortgage traders in 2008 about housing prices.
Good luck with you energy investments. Bookmark this post and let's check back in a few years and let's see how insulated the PUF is to a collapse (yes collapse) in the oil market
I'm not quite sure you are really getting what houwarrior was saying.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he is basically saying that the health of the UT endowment is not directly tied to the oil industry, rather that it increases based on revenue from the oil industry, that is then invested elsewhere. So for example, if their endowment is currently $20b, most of it is invested in the stock market, not in oil, and if oil takes a large hit, their endowment only suffers the reciprocal effects that that decline takes on the stock market.
The UT investment in the oil industry can only add to the endowment. I may be wrong on this, and I really don't know anything about this personally, but I think this is what houwarrior was getting at.
You're really jumping into the deep end with the oil industry here.
.
PUF revenue, leases, rent and land values are all going to take a hit because of the collapse in the oil business. Did I say PUF was going to zero? No, I said they are going to tumble down the endowment list. That is the easiest call here.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/university-of-texas-endowment-tops-25-billion-surpassing-yale
The value of the Texas System’s fund grew 24 percent to $25.4 billion in the year ended June 30, the biggest after Harvard University’s $35.9 billion. Yale’s endowment, which had ranked second since at least 2002, increased 15 percent to $23.9 billion.
Royalty revenue from oil and natural gas reserves on land owned by the University of Texas helped drive the gains, said Bruce Zimmerman, chief executive officer of the University of Texas Investment Management Co.
“The price of oil and hydraulic fracking out in West Texas has been very, very good,” Zimmerman said in a phone interview. “One of the sources of growth in the overall assets has come from those contributions into the fund from the oil and gas royalty revenue.”
The value of the lands held by the University of Texas increased 70 percent to $8 billion during the fiscal year that ended Aug. 31 because of the rising value of oil and gas reserves, according to the system’s annual financial report. The prices of oil and natural gas have since fallen about 54 percent and 29 percent, respectively.
---------------
It is actually worse than I thought, all these gains are getting reversed and then some.
-
For what it's worth, this whole thread was made tongue in cheek, but like all off season threads on scoop it became serious and then a completely different topic all together. time to superbar it.
-
I don't have a liberal arts degree (business major) so I'm not defending anything when I say ... You're right a liberal arts and/or a humanities degree does not provide the same training or education in critical thinking as research. It provides a far more intense and difficult course of study. Why don't more do it! Because when done properly, it is hard (yet many "blowoff courses" are in these areas making some incorrectly think it is easy) and they provide limited economic opportunity.
Some of the most uncritical and least creative people I have ever met work in research in sciences, engineering and medicine. Conservely some of the most creative work in this area too. The big expensive lab, with all its shiny fun toys to play with have a strange effect on the human psyche, it drives them to a consensus non-risk taking approach precisely because they want to stay in the lab playing with their toys. Tell them the approach is all wrong and everything has to be changed and watch the push back you will get.
Your statements couldn't be more wrong or any less based in fact. There have been several recent studies (can't link as they are research articles behind pay walls), showing that scientists, because of their training are more creative or as creative as arts majors (art/music/drama/creative writing).
Even in business, major consulting firms like McKinsey/Bain/BCG love to recruit scientists with no business background because of their superior critical thinking and creativity.
As for the big expensive lab on psyche, again so far off base it is interesting. Go ask any major research scientist, they'll disagree. They may say that they avoid risk taking now, but the reason will not be what you say. The reason is because of a decrease in funding and too many non-scientists in funding decisions. They want immediate results and guaranteed success. So, if they take risks, they will have no immediate results and sometimes won't succeed, because of that they will not get any funding and need to shut down their lab.
Innovating researchers than flock to the Harvard/MIT/Cal Tech/UW (the real one out west), because they provide support/infrastructure to promote continued risk taking.
There is an ongoing problem with the current generation lacking creativity and critical thinking skills. That is because they are being trained to beat tests. They are being trained formulaic ways to do everything, from writing to math to art...why, because it is easier. But that has nothing to do with the sciences.
-
For what it's worth, this whole thread was made tongue in cheek, but like all off season threads on scoop it became serious and then a completely different topic all together. time to superbar it.
yep
-
A few things. The way you prepare students in critical thinking, questioning and understanding is to do research. Although, you do not have to invest as heavily as Harvard, you have to invest at a far higher level than MU.
I support a teaching mission, but teaching at the University level requires a significant investment in research.
I disagree. There are additional ways to learn critical thinking. I did undergraduate at MU and PhD at a large top level research university. I'd never trade my experience at MU (and not just the fun parts). The education for undergrads at many (most?) large research universities is pretty crummy. Classes are 4th or 5th on professors priority list and being a great educator is not a highly valued skill. Large research universities have the advantage of allowing undergraduates to work for free in some lab cleaning dishes for 3 years. This is okay if you would like to be a tenure track professor someday, but it does little to prepare students for a job in industry. At Marquette, I did a co-op at big engineering company and was paid well for an excellent learning experience.
-
I disagree. There are additional ways to learn critical thinking. I did undergraduate at MU and PhD at a large top level research university. I'd never trade my experience at MU (and not just the fun parts). The education for undergrads at many (most?) large research universities is pretty crummy. Classes are 4th or 5th on professors priority list and being a great educator is not a highly valued skill. Large research universities have the advantage of allowing undergraduates to work for free in some lab cleaning dishes for 3 years. This is okay if you would like to be a tenure track professor someday, but it does little to prepare students for a job in industry. At Marquette, I did a co-op at big engineering company and was paid well for an excellent learning experience.
I think you miss understood my statement. I'm not saying that the best undergraduate education is at large research Universities, I actually think it is better elsewhere. I'm saying that the best way to prepare students in critical thinking is through research.
The best undergraduate educational opportunities are at small colleges/Universities, that invest heavily in research with an emphasis of getting undergraduates involved. Marquette isn't there yet in investing properly. They had been working on it, but much more investment in research is needed.
What is interesting, is that your statement on undergraduates at large research universities progressing towards a tenure track professor position is actually wrong. Most tenure track faculty members in the sciences started at smaller Universities that placed a large emphasis on research. Industry also prefers people who started there as they get more hands on research experience in a laboratory setting.
Those lead to more independence, stronger critical thinking skills and enhanced creativity. But that means these Universities (often their own dollars instead of grant dollars) have to invest heavily in research.
-
This list surprised me. Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota strike me as incredibly overrated here, at least in my subjective conception of prestige. I feel like MU could leapfrog a couple of these pretty easily. 42 seems way too high for Illinois.
Given that my wife and I both went to MU, I would have agreed with you not too long ago. But daughter #1 is about to graduate from Minnesota, and from the time we went for her orientation to today, my conclusion is that it may actually be underrated. Its biology/pre-med programs are top-notch, as are its psychology, engineering and business programs. It pains me to say this, but if I was doing it again today and I had MN or MU to choose from, I'd likely pick MN.
And I will add that my daughter has had a much better academic experience than her friends at Madison.
-
Their is this animal called the "Academic Rankings of World Universities"
These rankings are largely driven by research and the top 500 are ranked.
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html
Here is the top 30
1 Harvard University 1 100 100
22 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 17 42.3 35.3 [/b]
28 Northwestern University 20 39.4 15.8
Michigan does out rank Northwestern.
You're Gawddam right it does!
Go Blue!
-
Quick comment. The shanghai rankings have nothing at all do do with research spending. It is based on:
Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Alumni 10%
Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Award 20%
Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories HiCi 20%
Papers published in Nature and Science* N&S 20%
Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index PUB 20%
Per capita academic performance of an institution PCP 10%
Total 100%
Nowhere is research spending included.
-
Quick comment. The shanghai rankings have nothing at all do do with research spending. It is based on:
Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Alumni 10%
Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Award 20%
Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories HiCi 20%
Papers published in Nature and Science* N&S 20%
Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index PUB 20%
Per capita academic performance of an institution PCP 10%
Total 100%
Nowhere is research spending included.
Doesn't research spending cause all of the above?
Otherwise if you want a pure list of research spending, just copy a list of endowment size.
-
Doesn't research spending cause all of the above?
Otherwise if you want a pure list of research spending, just copy a list of endowment size.
Research spending can cause all of the above. But it is not related to endowment size and it is not guaranteed to cause any of the above.
http://www.bestcolleges.com/features/colleges-with-highest-research-and-development-expenditures/ (http://www.bestcolleges.com/features/colleges-with-highest-research-and-development-expenditures/)
If you want a University that MU should aspire to, look at number 34 on the list.
-
If you want a University that MU should aspire to, look at number 34 on the list.
Not even remotely plausible, especially without the medical school.