The Trend In Attendance (2012/2013 edition)

[Goose]

Guns

College tuition at MU probably adds to my laziness. Throw in a few $8 beers and $20 parking and figure my kid can use that dough more than me.

[Tugg Speedman]

Even though I hate their methodology, I will simply name the non-Ivy private schools from the USN&WR top 50 national rankings that have not had athletics success:

#6 - MIT
#10 - Cal Tech
#13 - Johns Hopkins (exception for lacrosse)
#14 - Washington University, St. Louis
#20 - Emory University
#23 - Carnegie Mellon
#28 - Tufts University
#32 - New York University
#33 - Brandeis University
#33 - University of Rochester
#37 - Case Western
#38 - Lehigh
#41 - RPI
#46 - Yeshiva

So that is 14 without success....12 with...  Even if you swap out Johns Hopkins that only makes it even.  So honestly I think your point is wrong.

The argument is athletics is important to a University because it attracts attention, money, applications and, by extension, academic reputation.  The exception I gave was the Ivy League.  You are adding to this exception list with the schools above.  Your list has RPI ... to be honest I'm not sure what school that is (I will Google it after this post and I'm sure that I will know what it is).  

Restated, you are arguing that if MU dropped all athletics the reputation of the school would be unchanged as a top 100 National University because this list "proves" athletic success to a school's reputation is not that important?  That is what you mean with So honestly I think your point is wrong.  So MU dumps basketball and they can become the Catholic version of Yeshiva and that is better than their current reputation with basketball?

[GGGG]

Restated, you are arguing that if MU dropped all athletics the reputation of the school would be unchanged as a top 100 National University because this list "proves" athletic success to a school's reputation is not that important? 

You must be mixing me up with someone else because I have never made that argument.  I am simply providing an answer to your query:  "(O)ther than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics."

I just named 14 of them.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The argument is athletics is important to a University because it attracts attention, money, applications and, by extension, academic reputation.  The exception I gave was the Ivy League.  You are adding to this exception list with the schools above.  Your list has RPI ... to be honest I'm not sure what school that is (I will Google it after this post and I'm sure that I will know what it is).  

Restated, you are arguing that if MU dropped all athletics the reputation of the school would be unchanged as a top 100 National University because this list "proves" athletic success to a school's reputation is not that important?  That is what you mean with So honestly I think your point is wrong.  So MU dumps basketball and they can become the Catholic version of Yeshiva and that is better than their current reputation with basketball?

Without basketball, MU wouldn't be where it's at.

BUT, the idea that athletics are the ONLY WAY to be nationally recognized is wrong. There are other ways.

College athletics is VERY IMPORTANT. But, it cannot be a fundamental driver of a academic institution because you then get into a lot of "gray areas" where people make questionable decisions because they don't want to hurt the athletic program.

[Pakuni]

 Your list has RPI ... to be honest I'm not sure what school that is (I will Google it after this post and I'm sure that I will know what it is).  

RPI = Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which is one of the nation's top science and engineering schools.
Also, they have been a hockey power, with two national championships and five appearances in the Frozen Four.

[GGGG]

RPI = Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which is one of the nation's top science and engineering schools.
Also, they have been a hockey power, with two national championships and five appearances in the Frozen Four.

Ah, I should have known that.  But I am not sure if athletic success in a fringe NCAA sport like hockey or lacrosse is what Another had in mind.

[Pakuni]

Ah, I should have known that.  But I am not sure if athletic success in a fringe NCAA sport like hockey or lacrosse is what Another had in mind.

Fringe????
Why, you, I oughta .....

[Tugg Speedman]

You must be mixing me up with someone else because I have never made that argument.  I am simply providing an answer to your query:  "(O)ther than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics."

I just named 14 of them.

Fair enough on you never making the athletic argument...

The last school on your list is Yeshiva at #46.  It is tied at #46 with Penn State, Illinois, Texas and Washington.  

So, if I created a questionnaire that had the following question:

From this list, which school has the best academic reputation?

  a) Penn State
  b) University of Illinois
  c) University of Texas
  d) University of Washington
  e) any of the 14 schools above

How many of the 14 schools in the post above will beat one of the first four on this questionnaire?   I would argue exactly two ... MIT and Hopkins.  The rest would fall behind at least one of the first four on the list above?  Why?  Because the first four on this questionnaire have had athletic success and that translates into a perception of academic success.

The argument is outside of the Ivies, it is rare that a school gains a national reputation without a successful sports program.  Your list does not persuade me to rethink that belief.

[GGGG]

Another, you are maddening.  You said "name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics."  Now you are claiming that schools like Tufts and Yeshiva truly aren't "nationally recognized" because less people have heard of them than they have Illinois, Texas or Washington?

Come on.  Give me a break.  You made a false assertion.  Stop shifting the goal posts.

[Pakuni]

Fair enough on you never making the athletic argument...

The last school on your list is Yeshiva at #46.  It is tied at #46 with Penn State, Illinois, Texas and Washington.  

So, if I created a questionnaire that had the following question:

From this list, which school has the best academic reputation?

  a) Penn State
  b) University of Illinois
  c) University of Texas
  d) University of Washington
  e) any of the 14 schools above

How many of the schools above will beat one of the first four on this list?   I would argue exactly two ... MIT and Hopkins.  The rest would fall behind at least one of the first four on the list above?  Why?  Because the first four have had athletic success and that translate into a perception of academic success.

The argument is outside of the Ivies, it is rare that a school gains a national reputation without a successful sports program.  Your list does not persuade me to rethink that belief.

One could make a case that Penn State or U of Washington have better academic reputations than Emory and Cal Tech and NYU, etc.
And that person would be insane.


Tell me, has Alabama's athletic success translated into a perception of academic success? Florida's? Kentucky's? I'd argue just the opposite. Florida, and to a lesser extent, Alabama are both pretty good schools, but their reputation as football powers in the SEC creates a negative perception about their academics.

[Tugg Speedman]

Another, you are maddening.  You said "name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics."  Now you are claiming that schools like Tufts and Yeshiva truly aren't "nationally recognized" because less people have heard of them than they have Illinois, Texas or Washington?

Come on.  Give me a break.  You made a false assertion.  Stop shifting the goal posts.

You said ... even though I hate their methodology, I will simply name the non-Ivy private schools from the USN&WR top 50 national rankings that have not had athletics success:

Since this methodology you hate makes your argument work, you're cementing the goal posts in that awkward position because it works for you.

The issue is reputation which is all about goal post shifting!

[Tugg Speedman]

Tell me, has Alabama's athletic success translated into a perception of academic success? Florida's? Kentucky's? I'd argue just the opposite. Florida, and to a lesser extent, Alabama are both pretty good schools, but their reputation as football powers in the SEC creates a negative perception about their academics.

Using the imperfect US News rankings (because it what we have)  Here is the SEC

SEC -- Average of 98.7
17. Vandy
54. Florida
63. Georgia
65. Texas A&M
77. Alabama
89. Auburn
97. Missouri
101. Tennessee
115. South Carolina
125. Kentucky
134. LSU
134. Arkansas
151. Ole Miss
160. Mississippi State

Seems like (meaning I have not done a statistical study) the better Football schools are near the top and the ones that struggle in football are near the bottom.  The one exception is the one private school in the SEC, Vandy (similar to Northwestern in the B1G).

[GGGG]

Since this methodology you hate makes your argument work, you're cementing the goal posts in that awkward position because it works for you.

The methodology that USN&WR uses is odd, but it doesn't yield inaccurate results in terms of national reputation.  Unless you are saying that these schools aren't recognized nationally, which is false, then it doesn't really matter.

[Tugg Speedman]

The methodology that USN&WR uses is odd, but it doesn't yield inaccurate results in terms of national reputation.  Unless you are saying that these schools aren't recognized nationally, which is false, then it doesn't really matter.

Villanova and Providence are not on US News list of national universities.  Instead they rank highly on their Northeast regional list.   Since US News says they are not "national universities,"  they are not nationally recognized.  Correct?

[GGGG]

Villanova and Providence are not on US News list of national universities.  Instead they rank highly on their Northeast regional list.   Since US News says they are not "national universities,"  they are not nationally recognized.  Correct?

No, I wouldn't make that assumption. 

[Pakuni]

Villanova and Providence are not on US News list of national universities.  Instead they rank highly on their Northeast regional list.   Since US News says they are not "national universities,"  they are not nationally recognized.  Correct?

US News deems universities national or regional based on the types of degrees and programs they offer, not the geographical extent of their reputation.

One can - and should - question the validity of US News rankings, but one thing that really ought not be questioned is their relation to reputations. The rankings to a large extent determine a school's reputation, but they're also largely based on a school's reputation among their peers (making them somewhat a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is one of the problems with them).