VoyForums

VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: It's a shame you're not as articulate


Author:
Go Green
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 14:19:18 09/12/18 Wed
In reply to: Diogenes 's message, "‘Nuff Said McGreevey nailed it." on 14:07:39 09/12/18 Wed


These are your words:

"Teevens is an example, and emblematic of, Dartmouth’s various institutional failures beginning in the mid-1980’s and continuing to the present. Not only in athletics, but across the spectrum of the academic and administrative life of the College. . . . Teevens embodies the grinding mediocrity and narcissistic publicity which has seemingly overtaken our school. Lots of political correctness, lots of breast-beating and bleating, incessant calls for more money, all part of the same devolutionary spiral."

I'm sorry you're so bummed that Dartmouth is #12 rather than #7 in USN&WR. But to attribute the drop to "political correctness" and "breast-beating and bleating" rather than a realization that we've lost some important recruiting advantages to our urban competitors over the past 25 years strikes me as--to put it charitably--simplistic.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> Subject: The Draw of City Living for Young People


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:22:25 09/12/18 Wed

I agree completely with Go Green that, by far, the most important exogenous factor in the changing relative attractiveness of various universities over the past three decades is the plummeting crime rate in almost all major American cities, with the sole exception of Chicago.

As a result, school environments like West Philadelphia and Upper Manhattan have gone from being major liabilities for Penn or Columbia, respectively, to being (in the case of Penn) a minor positive or (in the case of Columbia) the greatest draw of all, surpassing any aspect or element of Columbia University itself.

Literally, Columbia University has ceased to become its own draw; it's simply the Ivy League school which happens to be in Manhattan. Think about all that implies. I am sure that is why, although Columbia is more popular than ever, its alumni donation rate remains stubbornly low. Nobody is choosing to go to Columbia for Columbia; it's New York they want. That's why school spirit on campus is modest.

On the other side of the coin, the growing draw of urban living and city attractions has turned into a huge problem for places like Dartmouth and Cornell.

I completely accept Go Green's rationale for what's changed, but I also agree with Dio and 'Nuff Said that the administration and alumni at Dartmouth seem oddly accepting of the new state of affairs.

I'm old enough to remember when Dartmouth was generally accepted, if not universally accepted, as the most prestigious and desirable Ivy outside of HYP. That's a huge intangible asset to fritter away.

One could probably write a long business plan on what Dartmouth and Cornell should do to address the threat to their institutions. After all, it's not just a few winning sports teams we're talking about, it's the long-term future of the university at stake.

I think that Princeton represents an interesting counter-example. Suburban New Jersey was never a liability during the crack epidemic of the '80s and the urban crime wave which bookended that period, but neither is bucolic Nassau Street now a draw for students. Perhaps it is at the margin for women and, indeed, the Tigers are uniquely successful in women's sports. But I suspect that there's more going on in Central New Jersey to account for both sports and academic success; I just don't know what it is.

Money helps and the Tigers have more of it than anybody. But money is still just an asset to be deployed. Just as good coaches can win with smaller budgets, so can colleges. It's harder, but examples abound of successful creative salmon successfully swimming upstream.

My point is that the administrators at Dartmouth and Cornell need to think long and hard about the preference that young people have for urban living and what it means for their long-term institutional futures. If you can't get the best high school students in America to choose you, you won't last at the top of the food chain.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Yeah, I can get on board with that


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:46:13 09/12/18 Wed


While I think #12 is nothing to apologize for, I can agree with a study on long-term strategic planning on how Dartmouth can compete for the next generation of students against our urban counterparts (namely, Columbia and Penn--I think going up against H & Y is too tall an order).

I do not anticipate cities regressing as nice places to live anytime soon. I happen to live in a major city, and there is major development as far as the eye can see...


What type of recommendations that study would produce... I'm not sure. But I think that anyone suggesting that Dartmouth ease up on the "political correctness" and "breast-beating" should be dismissed as a simpleton.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: The Draw of City Living for Young People


Author:
Percy Haughton (Columbia)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 23:21:59 09/12/18 Wed

Well, Observer, you certain seem to have it all down pat.

You might as well argue that Harvard’s popularity is due to its name and not the school’s merits. Its giving rate is also relatively modest. Columbia’s giving rate is higher in recent classes, after the reemphasis on undergraduate education

Since this year’s ranking does not include admissions stats and certainly cannot measure the appeal of New York, I would say you are likely wrong

The is nothing eternal about HYP. Columbia and Chicago should be given credit for their rise.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: The Draw of City Living for Young People


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:59:41 09/13/18 Thu

AO is a Yale fan. You're thinking of Observer, a different person, neither one to be confused with observer or observer15 (and anyone else I missed).

Unless they also habituate lesbian bars.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: The Draw of City Living for Young People


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:37:45 09/13/18 Thu

Percy, when you say that I am "likely wrong," to which of my thesis arguments are you speaking?

Do you think that I am wrong with my broad thesis that plummeting crime rates in American cities over the past three decades have made urban living and urban universities much more popular than they were in the 1980s?

Or do you think that I am wrong with my narrow thesis that Columbia University has grown tremendously in popularity over the past three decades, as reflected in (relative to its peers) more applications, a lower admissions rate and a higher U.S. News ranking *AND* that this state of affairs was driven primarily, if not exclusively, by the increase in young people desiring to live in Manhattan?

There was a whole generation of high school students in the 1990s and 2000s who thought that they would be hanging out with Ross and Joey, maybe hooking up with Rachel or Monica, even though in reality they rarely left the campus in Morningside Heights.

By the way, we could have a very substantive discussion about how much of Harvard's popularity is due to its merits, which are considerable, relative to its name, which is also considerable, if not more so.

There is at least one dimension along which I agree with you: "There is nothing eternal about HYP."

I think that if you polled a group of experts on higher education and asked them to name the most important or most influential American university, a plurality would name Stanford. That is an amazing change which would have been hard to foresee in the 1970s.

In less than half a century, Stanford has gone from one of the several universities in the rung below HYP to surpassing all three. In even less time going forward, the opinion of laymen will catch up to that opinion of experts.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: The Draw of City Living for Young People


Author:
Boston Lion
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:11:53 09/13/18 Thu

An Observer: I'm really not intending to stir things up, but I have to ask you something. A person who has studied/worked at a university has real knowledge about that place, whereas a person who hasn't can only engage in speculation from afar. The first and fourth sentences of your third paragraph are, IMHO, off-base, so I'm curious about whether you have actual knowledge of Columbia or are just speculating.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: The Draw of City Living for Young People


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:10:12 09/13/18 Thu

Hi there, Boston Lion. No, I do not work at Columbia, nor am I an alumnus.

I am only speculating from afar.

But in my defense, while I am not personally affiliated with Columbia, I think that my speculation is informed by some facts.

For example, in the past three decades, Columbia has leapt upwards in popularity among high school students. But its popularity among alumni, as reflected in the donation rate, is modest at 31%. That's not terrible by any means, but it's not remarkable and has not tracked the increased popularity of Columbia relative to its peers.

When I hypothesize that Columbia has ceased to be its own draw, I think mostly of NYU down in Washington Square. As you no doubt know, the surge of interest and popularity in NYU over the past three decades has surpassed even that of Columbia. So if we think of NYU as the control group or independent variable reflecting the popularity of Manhattan among 17-year-old high school students, Columbia has actually *UNDER*performed since the depths of the 1980s.

Finally, if there were any elite university which could claim to offer a different product than its primary competitors, it would be Columbia with its Core Curriculum. Columbia is offering one of the more unique products in higher education. But how many Columbia students will tell you that they came because of the Core Curriculum? I'll bet that this number is minuscule compared to the number who say that wanted to live in New York City.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: The Draw of City Living for Young People


Author:
Boston Lion
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:24:56 09/13/18 Thu

Appreciate your reply. Fair enough. But, three points in response for your consideration:

1. A data set that is informed by some facts, versus having been drawn from full-immersion experience at a school over an extended period, is necessarily much less information-rich, nuanced, and deep.

2. NYU is a fundamentally different creature than Columbia--NYU has a much lower admissions bar and significantly less financial aid per student--so I would not go too far out on the diving board when drawing conclusions about Columbia using NYU as a control group.

3. Maybe I should know this, but I'm just not aware of the dimension of the surge in interest in NYU that you cite. However, given that Columbia's acceptance rate is 5.5% versus 28% at NYU, meaning that it's 5X easier to get into NYU, some considerable number of kids, whose parents' incomes enable them not to need financial aid, will lob in an application there expecting to get in but hoping to go elsewhere, and using it as a backup school.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: New York University


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:17:22 09/13/18 Thu

Boston Lion, I appreciate *YOUR* reply and I think that your points are fair as well. (Your posts are always very well considered.) Please allow me to address your most recent items out of order.

With regards to your points 2 and 3, I think there is plenty of data which would back up my general observation that the popularity of Columbia, while having grown substantially -- indeed dramatically -- over the past three decades, has tracked a less steep trajectory than the popularity of NYU. If they were stocks, Columbia would be Microsoft, but NYU would be Amazon. In the words of Ralph Cramden, NYU's popularity has gone "to the moon, Alice!"

When you compare the two admissions rates, that muddles the fact that the two universities are of different sizes and that Columbia's figures are distorted because they do not include the School of General Studies, or Barnard for that matter, which although formally separate from Columbia, is as much a part of the undergraduate experience at Columbia as Radcliffe is at Harvard.

This year, NYU received over 75,000 applications. That's more than twice the number received by any Ivy League school. I'm going to guess -- and this is a guess -- that it's a ten-fold increase from the late 1970s, when both the city of New York and NYU itself struggled to avoid bankruptcy. The admit rate at NYU this year was 20.9%, down from 35.4% as recently as 2014.

I think there is plenty of data which would substantiate the outsized increase in NYU's popularity but, to me, the most glaring bit of data is the following. Every year, the Princeton Review asks its surveyed high school students to name their "dream school" and, every year, the top four answers in some order are Stanford, Harvard, NYU and Princeton.

The order of the top four answers changes from year to year, but it's always the same four. Now, which of those four seems different than the other three? I'll note that the Princeton Review also asks parents to name their "dream school" for their child and the answer is always some combination of HYP, Stanford and MIT. NYU never makes even the top 10 of the parents' list. Kids want to attend NYU because it's in New York, but their parents don't care.

But to address your point 1, you're absolutely correct that I'm just stringing together some facts as an outside observer. I have not been "fully immersed" at Columbia "for an extended period of time," though as I mentioned in another thread, I spent a considerable amount of time when I was single chasing lesbians. One of those lesbians was a student at Columbia, so I actually have spent a lot of time in a Columbia dorm in the fairly recent past. I think it's fair to say that she and her friends did not represent a scientific sample (of any population of Columbia students whatsoever), but in terms of my not meeting more co-eds from Columbia, it was not for lack of trying.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: New York University


Author:
Boston Lion
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:56:44 09/13/18 Thu

Thanks in return. Your posts are also well-conceived and articulated.

Maybe it's my twisted perspective, but I find the kids' "dream school" business a bit silly, so I wouldn't attach much weight to that kind of exercise. I'd be with the parents on that one.

I still maintain that NYU's high admit rate, low yield rate, and lack of financial aid attracts a different cohort.

As for NYU itself, I've never really gotten the attraction of a no-campus school consisting of unremitting masonry on densely packed city blocks with no coherent or centralizing sense of place (Washington Square is a city park and not campus land). I've always felt the same way about a place like GW. From my perspective, both lack a campus identity.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: New York University thread merging with the lesbian thread


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 23:19:54 09/13/18 Thu

Greetings, BL, on the eve of kick-off weekend, when all teams are undefeated and championship hopefuls. Good luck to everybody in terms of staying injury-free all season.

Don't interpret my comments about NYU to be broader or stronger than they were intended to be. I am not endorsing NYU as a college, Washington Square as a place to spend four years, or the Princeton Review as a college handbook.

I'm merely saying that there is a ton of evidence that NYU went from near-death and near-bankruptcy in the late 1970s to being one of the very hottest colleges in America today. That speaks to how much 17-year-old high school students want to spend four years in Manhattan.

This is to put into context Columbia's own meteoric rise in popularity, almost all of which I also ascribe to the draw of Manhattan, as opposed to anything specific to Columbia.

This is in spite of my admiration for Columbia's "product," the Core Curriculum, one of the few unique offerings in American higher education and different from what is available at the other seven Ivies.

All of which is to agree with Go Green's original point that Penn and Columbia went from Ivies substantially less popular than Dartmouth to Ivies more popular than Dartmouth almost entirely because of what was happening in West Philadelphia and especially New York City over the past three-plus decades.

I do think that the draw of Manhattan means Columbia attracts, at the margin, a somewhat different mindset of student than you find at (definitely) the non-urban Ivies and (probably) all of them.

Columbia students, especially the women, think of themselves as New Yorkers in a way that I don't think, say, Cornell students think of themselves as Ithaca residents. I further believe that affects how much school spirit there is at Columbia.

They're too busy to get off campus that often but, when they do, they like to act like they're not students. My Columbian lesbian paramour is an example. Again, she's only a sample size of one, but she represents the phenomenon I'm describing.

I went to a private party downtown. My date was the young woman who eventually became my wife. The new gal was a beautiful woman with the lithe body of the ballet dancer she had been her whole life. She wore more make-up than students usually do -- you know, getting back to my 85/15 hypothesis.

After some light flirting, she declared, "I haven't had any sex since my last break-up six months ago." Because I am a compassionate human being, I innocently asked, "Why did you break up with your boyfriend?" She batted her mascara-ed eyelashes and cooed, "What makes you think it was a boyfriend?"

I gotta tell you, that kind of thing just puts me into overdrive. With all due apologies to my wife, my new friend immediately became my highest priority.

Anyway, that's how I ended up spending a lot of time in a Columbia dorm. I don't think Dartmouth women are meeting middle-aged men in downtown Hanover and bringing them back to their dorms. Because they think of themselves first and foremost as Dartmouth College students, in a way Columbia women don't. And thank goodness for that.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Roger that


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:49:47 09/14/18 Fri


While I do remember my Dartmouth women classmates dating grad students and maybe local guys in their mid 20s, I can't recall anyone spending a lot of time with middle aged dudes...

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: They can dress us up, but may not want to take us out


Author:
IvySportsJunkie
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:43:57 09/14/18 Fri

GG, undergraduate women dating middle age jocks sounds about right to me. My wife complains it took her a few decades to properly house train me after college.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: All power to the middle-aged jocks who can pull it off!


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:47:01 09/14/18 Fri


I personally didn't see it happen at Dartmouth, though.

:)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: New York University thread merging with lesbians, Dartmouth and Princeton 85%


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:18:32 09/18/18 Tue

Congratulations to Callie Brownson. The only Division I college football coach is now undefeated. Unscored upon, actually. Maybe she should retire now, on top of her game, like Rocky Marciano, Jerome Bettis or Peyton Manning.

Here is an article about Ms. Brownson which I think reflects very well upon Dartmouth football players:

https://www.fredericksburg.com/sports/virginia-native-becomes-first-female-division-i-college-football-coach/article_667b6e52-b775-11e8-8cc2-efbc8fc37159.html

The idea to hire Ms. Brownson was actually brought to Teevens by Dartmouth's wide receivers. Good for them. That says good things about them as men who are comfortable working with women, especially in an environment where everybody is measured unambiguously by whether they win or lose.

In other news about the 85%, I noticed and posted a few years ago about the best looking uniforms in college sports: Princeton field hockey. As I observed back then, the players wore these tight little orange skirts made out of some kind of diaphanous, almost sheer, material. Unlike some sports such as softball or Go Green's favorite, rugby, in field hockey all the players have great figures. Having these lithe athletes in those uniforms, especially in a sport where players spend most of the time bent over, made game photos a pleasure to see.

Well, I just noticed that Princeton field hockey players now wear black loose ill-fitting skirts made out of some kind of very heavy material. Honestly, it looks like burlap. The designer could have been Larry Johnson's grandmama. What the heck?

I did a little background research and it all comes back to my previous observations about the 85%. It seems that Princeton field hockey has had a coaching change in the last couple of years. The new coach must be good because the team is ranked #5 in the country.

But as I described earlier, women who are members of the 85% like to make a political statement by dressing as unattractively as possible. It's their way of saying, "I'm not going to comport to your oppressive hetero-normative fashion styles."

It's a shame, at least as far as it pertains to field hockey uniforms. By the way, when I went to read that article about Callie Brownson, I had to answer some survey questions before getting access to the website. One of the questions was, "What is your gender?" There were three choices: "(a) Male; (b) Female; and (c) Other, Please Specify."

It's a new world out there.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: New York University thread merging with lesbians, Dartmouth and Princeton 85%


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 20:27:47 09/18/18 Tue

I dunno, here's the PU roster, not seeing anything quite like the DC coach, not that that means anything (or that there's anything wrong with that anyway):

https://goprincetontigers.com/roster.aspx?path=fhockey

BTW, when asked for "sex", your best answer is "as much as possible."

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: New York University thread merging with lesbians, Dartmouth and Princeton 85%


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:54:41 09/25/18 Tue

Sparman, I was not referring to the players. I assume that the team uniform is chosen by the coach.

I don't mean to be jumping to unfounded conclusions but, based upon my experience among the 85% and 15%, I am guessing that the new Princeton coach is a member of the 85%, not that there is anything wrong with that.

By the way, the Princeton field hockey roster you provided seems to be devoid of underrepresented minorities. I am referring of course to women who are not blondes.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: All I can say


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:52:07 09/25/18 Tue

I wish field hockey was a sport when I was there.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You're Welcome


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:31:50 09/30/18 Sun

Google "Dutch field hockey team." You'll be very glad that you did.

I think that's how I first subliminally became convinced that there was something special about short, super tight, orange field hockey skirts.

Make sure that you click on the Sports Illustrated photo feature.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: My daughter


Author:
holtsledge
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:10:51 09/13/18 Thu

went to NYU grad school and got an MPH. Having visited her on numerous occasions I think I would rather hang out in Morningside Heights rather than Wash Sq. Park. This has nothing to do with your excellent analyses though. I just got back from a wedding in Seattle where homeless camp off the exit ramps on the way to the Zoo and their trash is littered all over the place everywhere. I did visit a pot shop while I was there. Although I didn't purchase anything I got a great 10 min lesson in the various different effects of their varied product line from an eager smiling young woman. The chain (5 stores) just unionized and when I asked her about what union it was she smiled and pointed to a button on her lapel but had no clue as to what union it was

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: The Draw of City Living for Young People


Author:
Touchdown Brown
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:02:14 09/19/18 Wed

Respectfully, this post is the essence of splitting hairs. All 8 Ivy’s are close to impossible to get into. There are only so many savants/geniuses to go around (not many). Then you get to the tens of thousands of students with perfect or close to perfect SAT’s, straight A’s in all honor courses, activities out the wazoo, etc. How do the Ivy’s even differentiate between these students. They are all full of these students. Side note: I heard the Ivy’s may do away with the SAT/ACT requirement altogether for the reasons stated herein.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: In The New World of Admissions, Athletes Are The Canary in The Coal Mine


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:56:28 09/19/18 Wed

Touchdown Brown makes a great point. The admission rates at all eight Ivies have gotten so low that it changes the calculus of high school students and how they apply to colleges.

Back in the day, a highly qualified applicant could reasonably expect to apply to several elite universities and get into many of them, if not most of them. Now the ultra-low nominal acceptance rates have changed that expectation.

The Harvard Crimson does a survey of incoming freshman every fall. 16% of respondents said that they are attending Harvard only because they did not gain admission to their first choice college. That's eye-opening, in my opinion.

(Furthermore, 16% is the self-reported number, after accounting for sample bias in the survey and faulty memories. It's like how, a decade later, 90% of respondents say that they voted for JFK even though, in reality, Kennedy only defeated Nixon by the slimmest of margins, potentially helped by some extra votes in Chicago. If 16% of Harvard students say that it was not their first choice school, the reality is probably that 20%+ actually wanted to go elsewhere.)

Given these exceptionally low admission rates in the single digits, now you've got to think harder about how high school students express their preferences.

First, I would look at early application figures because, in the new reality, kids tangibly show their preferences not after they have their admission letters in hand come March of their senior years, but rather in November when most of them are strategically applying early to one school, which may not even be their "first" choice but "first realistic choice where I should put my EA or ED chips strategically."

Second, I would look at underrepresented minorities and athletes. These are the only two groups who still have the luxury of CHOOSING between colleges vying for their matriculation. These are the only applicants who still hold really strong hands in the game.

Again, I find it troubling that, among the applicants who have the MOST CHOICE, traditionally it's been Princeton and Harvard who dominate and now Yale might be drifting up into third place behind P and H. I'm not talking about any individual sport in particular, but rather all sports together.

If the coaches at the other five Ivies report that it's getting harder to compete against HYP, that is meaningful. But I don't know that they feel that way. In which case, as Touchdown Brown suggests, maybe it's less of a big deal.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: I also wonder...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:34:40 09/25/18 Tue


I also wonder if the primary reason for Penn's rise in the USN&WR (i.e., Philly being a nicer place to live) is directly related to its stunning collapse in football attendance.

I get that football attendance is down across the board nationwide. But Penn clearly has had the biggest drops in the past few decades on that front. Are Penn students finding more things to do in Philly than the old days when campus and/or crowds was a safe haven?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I also wonder...


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:23:18 09/26/18 Wed

I'm guessing that these are simply two coincident trends.

Football attendance, both NFL and especially college, is falling all across the country. This is a relatively new phenomenon, say, less than a decade old. It has now reached worrisome levels.

Paul Finebaum just spoke minutes ago about he speaks to athletic directors all over the country who are very concerned because they've noticed that the canary has died. And of course he's talking to Power Five ADs. I gather that both the first and second derivatives are going in the wrong direction. Attendance is declining and the deterioration is accelerating.

Finebaum broadcasts from Tuscaloosa every Saturday on game day and he reports that, when he asks students on campus whether they are going to the game, the usual answer now is, "Why should I? I've got a 46-inch high definition television, a roomful of buddies and a fridge full of cold ones."

West Philadelphia, like most US urban areas, has been on a slow climb of improvement since bottoming out at the most severe point of the nation's crack cocaine crisis in the late 1980s.

While both trends are going right now, I don't think you can say anything specific connecting football attendance at Penn and its popularity as a college.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: How Penn and Columbia Game the US News College Rankings


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:11:41 09/27/18 Thu

Go Green, you mentioned Penn's impressive rise in the US News college rankings from the first years of the list in the 1980s through the late 1990s. Yes, that rise happened to coincide with the early improvement in urban crime rates. West Philadelphia (and most US cities) were starting to become more hospitable places to live.

But there was something else also going on at that time.

Penn was the first US college to effectively "game" the US News rankings and that change also took place at this time. Over this period, Penn increased the percentage of its incoming freshman class from about 20% up to 49%. Penn's admission rates plunged and its students statistics improved substantially. Penn's US News ranking improved from the mid- and high teens to the high single digits.

Early Decision was such an effective tool to avoid direct competition with more popular (and generally higher ranked) peer universities that, today, almost all the top colleges admit about 49% of their freshman through either binding or non-binding early admissions.

When early admission programs were first introduced across the country in the early 1970s, they were really small tools, almost only a courtesy to applicants. Now they are the foundation of how top colleges seeks to recruit and select their students. Penn quite literally revolutionized what early admissions was.

Columbia benefited more than any Ivy from the plunge in US urban crime rates. But Columbia also has a quirk in how its data is reported to US News.

When the US News rankings first began, Columbia University only submitted the admissions and student statistics from Columbia College, omitting data from the School of Engineering, the School of General Studies and Barnard College. Not surprisingly, the CC data was much "better" than that of the other undergraduate divisions.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]


VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:


Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2017 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.