What happened to Miami of Ohio?

[Anonymous]

The dumbest student in my big 3 class went to Miami of Ohio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demand seems to be for big warm climate schools.

+1. Presumably rich preppy kids don't want to live in the isolated, cold, grey, and declining Rust Belt? It's not like you can keep it a secret how awesome the warm weather South and coasts are from sheltered Midwest kids anymore. They have snapchat, tiktok, youtube, and instagram.

For goodness sake, the South was never any kind of "secret." I grew up in suburban Chicago and did not know one kid who hadn't been to Florida at least once on vacation (most had gone many times). Granted, I didn't know anyone who had gone on vacation to Alabama or Mississippi, but then again, why the heck would they have? We knew how backwards they were.

Visiting grandma's retirement condo in Fort Myers is not the same as access to millions of first-person vlogs from attractive kids at SEC, ACC, and California schools. Kids are wiser than ever. Southern college kids are not seen as "backwards," they're attractive and soaking up the sun and distinct fun culture of their location and university. Backwards is willingly spending four years of the prime of your life in the depressing Rust Belt where you have to wear a $800 parka until April. If you're not going to live in Ohio (or Michigan or Indiana) after college, why in the hell would you go to college there?

Never understood why the south boosters need to push their case so hard. Are you trying to convince yourself that the south is actually good?

Uh the south is great. It’s growing rapidly.

agreed (except for auburn because the auburn booster on this board is a annoying)

LOL. Classic DCUM. There have been a few positive things posted about Auburn this year because it has had a sudden surge in popularity and (to various applicants’ shock) has become more selective, so it must all just be due to a single Auburn “booster.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demand seems to be for big warm climate schools.

+1. Presumably rich preppy kids don't want to live in the isolated, cold, grey, and declining Rust Belt? It's not like you can keep it a secret how awesome the warm weather South and coasts are from sheltered Midwest kids anymore. They have snapchat, tiktok, youtube, and instagram.

For goodness sake, the South was never any kind of "secret." I grew up in suburban Chicago and did not know one kid who hadn't been to Florida at least once on vacation (most had gone many times). Granted, I didn't know anyone who had gone on vacation to Alabama or Mississippi, but then again, why the heck would they have? We knew how backwards they were.

Visiting grandma's retirement condo in Fort Myers is not the same as access to millions of first-person vlogs from attractive kids at SEC, ACC, and California schools. Kids are wiser than ever. Southern college kids are not seen as "backwards," they're attractive and soaking up the sun and distinct fun culture of their location and university. Backwards is willingly spending four years of the prime of your life in the depressing Rust Belt where you have to wear a $800 parka until April. If you're not going to live in Ohio (or Michigan or Indiana) after college, why in the hell would you go to college there?

Never understood why the south boosters need to push their case so hard. Are you trying to convince yourself that the south is actually good?

Uh the south is great. It’s growing rapidly.

agreed (except for auburn because the auburn booster on this board is a annoying)

It had a 150% increase in applications

So did every other school.

150%? Cite please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most people understand that the USNWR rankings are the “least bad” rankings. They have flaws, but there’s a reason why they continue to be the one ranking that most US colleges focus on.

They aren't the "least bad", but they are the most influential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dumbest student in my big 3 class went to Miami of Ohio.

Big 3 meaning what, management consulting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Declining state funding.

In such a government environment, the only public universities that can survive and maintain a high reputation are large research universities.

Federal research funding brings them plenty of money (the schools take a cut out of research grants won by professors) and the large student population keeps the state government happy (they are educating more people on a lower budget due to fixed costs).

Federal research grants DO NOT cover all costs. Far from it. The university often has to cover a significant percentage with institutional (its own) funds in order to get the grants. The source of these funds can and does include undergraduate tuition. So large research universities often do a lot of cross-subsidizing from undergraduate programs (partucularly the humanities) to fund STEM research. This benefits the professors that do the research and graduate students, but certainly NOT undergraduates from a quality of education perspective. If you look at a school like Virginia Tech, which does $556M in total research a year, but notably has more of it coming from Institutional Sources ($231M) than from any other source including the Federal government ($211M), you can see that this can be a huge percentage that the university is funding in that case.

USNWR doesn't care about actual quality of education, though. They primarily measure inputs, and research increases the overall university budget, so if the university can somehow attribute some of it to USNWR resource categories, it benefits them in rankings.

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&tin=U3525001&id=h2

Does USNWR factor research expenditures into their rankings? I was under the impression they don’t.

It factors in several places, but this is straight from the USNWR methodology on Financial Resources:

"U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services and related educational expenditures in the 2019 and 2020 fiscal years. Expenditures were compared with fall 2018 and fall 2019 full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate enrollment, respectively."

The Government IPEDS database that is used by USNWR also allows "departmental research" to be counted in the "Instruction" category. Departmental Research includes things like faculty start up costs (for research faculty), and any research that is not organized (e.g. external sponsored research). The gist of it is faculty can be doing research, it is categorized as instruction, and USNWR is picking it up as instruction. This is a big category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an earlier thread on W& M. I don’t disagree that it is in a worse position than a generation ago. But I think it has unique attributes that could save it. First, I think the history and tradition can’t be replaced (oldest academic building in the US) and lots of kids are looking for that sweet spot size in a temperate climate. Plus, close to DC/still on the east coast corridor. And, you still need good stats to get in (much better than Miami of Ohio).

I think the Commonwealth should allow it to take more OOS kids and I think you could compete with midsize schools, either Notre Dame/Vandy/Northwestern/Tulane/BC or bigger SLACs such as Middlebury or Bowdoin. They should lean in to the teaching college/liberal arts curriculum and really focus on grad school outcomes etc.

The top 25 are really hard to be admitted to these days. Only follows that 25-50 should get the kids who get shut out of the top but are still impressive.

I agree W&M will remain in good shape. The in state student pool from DC area will continue to support them well. Even if it was just everyone's second in state choice that still works with how selective UVA is. Many from out of state will continue to be interested in a top 50 school - especially those not on a STEM track. Frankly the non STEM focus could be a nice differentiator. W&M also has a small enrollment so doesn't need that many top students to fill out each class.

The issue is that maintaining one's place in the rankings requires constant improvement, because every other university above and below are investing heavily in order to improve rapidly as well.

W&M was once considered the more serious school for top academic Virginia students compared to UVA. Then it became about equivalent to UVA. Now it's firmly cemented as second-choice for top Virginia in-state students.

If W&M just stays the course, as it has done for the past 30+ years, it will decline further. There are plenty of universities ranked between 40-70 that have risen greatly in popularity and will only rise further - Boston University, Case Western, Tulane, Northeastern, Pepperdine, RPI, Santa Clara, Miami, George Washington, WPI, Southern Methodist, etc. These schools embody the current favorable trends for colleges as well: all of them are in or near major cities, many have inherent advantages in STEM, and most of them are in sunbelt states. W&M conversely, has none of those three traits.

Rankings are a self-fulfilling prophecy - good schools have higher rankings, and high rankings attracts better students and faculties which make the school better. The opposite also holds true.

ah, yes, my favorite major cities of *checks notes* Worcester, MA, and Troy, NY.

Funny you pick those two, both engineering and tech-focused schools in a time when engineering/tech is taking over the globe, Stanford/MIT have easily overtaken Yale/Princeton and engineering departments at even massive land-grant universities are reaching single-digit acceptance rates.

Albany has a metro area the size of Richmond. Troy is within minutes to the heart of Albany. Williamsburg is an hour away from Richmond on the interstate.

Worcester is as far away from Boston as Williamsburg is to Richmond. Boston is an international cosmopolitan hub of academics and research with world-class universities, top companies, and top students and professionals from the entire world flocking there. Richmond has Confederate monuments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demand seems to be for big warm climate schools.

+1. Presumably rich preppy kids don't want to live in the isolated, cold, grey, and declining Rust Belt? It's not like you can keep it a secret how awesome the warm weather South and coasts are from sheltered Midwest kids anymore. They have snapchat, tiktok, youtube, and instagram.

For goodness sake, the South was never any kind of "secret." I grew up in suburban Chicago and did not know one kid who hadn't been to Florida at least once on vacation (most had gone many times). Granted, I didn't know anyone who had gone on vacation to Alabama or Mississippi, but then again, why the heck would they have? We knew how backwards they were.

Visiting grandma's retirement condo in Fort Myers is not the same as access to millions of first-person vlogs from attractive kids at SEC, ACC, and California schools. Kids are wiser than ever. Southern college kids are not seen as "backwards," they're attractive and soaking up the sun and distinct fun culture of their location and university. Backwards is willingly spending four years of the prime of your life in the depressing Rust Belt where you have to wear a $800 parka until April. If you're not going to live in Ohio (or Michigan or Indiana) after college, why in the hell would you go to college there?

Never understood why the south boosters need to push their case so hard. Are you trying to convince yourself that the south is actually good?

Uh the south is great. It’s growing rapidly.

agreed (except for auburn because the auburn booster on this board is a annoying)

Klan-tastic!

[Anonymous]

Oxford is pretty close to Cincinnati. Like 20 miles to the northern beltway. I'm not saying Cincinnati is a particularly good city, but if access to an urban center is a concern, Miami isn't that far away from one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Declining state funding.

In such a government environment, the only public universities that can survive and maintain a high reputation are large research universities.

Federal research funding brings them plenty of money (the schools take a cut out of research grants won by professors) and the large student population keeps the state government happy (they are educating more people on a lower budget due to fixed costs).

This is also something that's playing out in Virginia with UVA and W&M.

Both are private-feeling colleges compared to the large research universities like Berkeley, Michigan, etc. Both focus heavily on the liberal arts over STEM for undergraduates.

UVA has been investing towards becoming a large research-focused university and improving particularly in STEM. It's something the former president Teresa Sullivan (who was previously provost at Michigan) tried to gear UVA towards. There was controversy regarding it but it's something that UVA with its resources and backing of the state as the flagship university could achieve.

W&M is in a much more precarious position. It's a smaller school with basically no research, with a larger share of its budget coming from the state than UVA (15% vs. 6%). It's very weak in STEM other than being a college for pre-meds, but that's a role plenty of public colleges in the state can fulfill. Its endowment is far smaller.

It really doesn't make sense for the state of Virginia to spend more funding the school than others like Christopher Newport or Mary Washington from a pure numbers perspective. Why spend more money attracting top professors to educate the same number of students? It's not like the professors are brining research grants, it's entirely focused on teaching undergraduates. And it shows; the salaries of professors at W&M compared to schools ranked near it is dismal.

I see it going the route of many smaller, liberal arts-focused public colleges across the US, like Miami. Well-liked in the state and closely surrounding regions, but failing to attract the type of top students that want national name recognition because they don't plan to be stuck in the same small region of the country for their whole career. This is also happening to a lot of private SLACs outside of the top of the crop.

And of course, decreased state funding leading to greater deterioration of school resources and faculties. But that is a given.

I think this is spot on. I was reading an article about the struggles of private LACs, and one mentioned Miami of Ohio as a public that was facing the same issues. I thought of William & Mary (to a lesser degree) as well.

W&M is tasked with providing an intimate private-school education akin to Rice, Tufts and Notre Dame in instruction quality and size at a public school price. The numbers simply don't add up. Something has to give, and it's either instruction quality or size (which will also affect instruction quality) or by the way things are trending, both.

Not sure I buy your premise. I just looked at undergraduate teaching rankings on USNWR and instruction ratings from surveys on Niche and Princeton Review. On USNWR undergraduate teaching, William and Mary is 9, three spots behind Rice at 6, but ahead of Notre Dame and Tufts. In Niche and Princeton Review (are professors accessible, prepared, understandable, passionate), William and Mary is ahead of all three of those schools. I don't think a school has to spend a fortune to be good at providing good instruction, they just need to put an emphasis on it, and William and Mary appears to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demand seems to be for big warm climate schools.

+1. Presumably rich preppy kids don't want to live in the isolated, cold, grey, and declining Rust Belt? It's not like you can keep it a secret how awesome the warm weather South and coasts are from sheltered Midwest kids anymore. They have snapchat, tiktok, youtube, and instagram.

For goodness sake, the South was never any kind of "secret." I grew up in suburban Chicago and did not know one kid who hadn't been to Florida at least once on vacation (most had gone many times). Granted, I didn't know anyone who had gone on vacation to Alabama or Mississippi, but then again, why the heck would they have? We knew how backwards they were.

Visiting grandma's retirement condo in Fort Myers is not the same as access to millions of first-person vlogs from attractive kids at SEC, ACC, and California schools. Kids are wiser than ever. Southern college kids are not seen as "backwards," they're attractive and soaking up the sun and distinct fun culture of their location and university. Backwards is willingly spending four years of the prime of your life in the depressing Rust Belt where you have to wear a $800 parka until April. If you're not going to live in Ohio (or Michigan or Indiana) after college, why in the hell would you go to college there?

Never understood why the south boosters need to push their case so hard. Are you trying to convince yourself that the south is actually good?

Uh the south is great. It’s growing rapidly.

agreed (except for auburn because the auburn booster on this board is a annoying)

Klan-tastic!

The south is going to be great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dumbest student in my big 3 class went to Miami of Ohio.

Paul Ryan went to Miami of Ohio. 'Nuff said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demand seems to be for big warm climate schools.

+1. Presumably rich preppy kids don't want to live in the isolated, cold, grey, and declining Rust Belt? It's not like you can keep it a secret how awesome the warm weather South and coasts are from sheltered Midwest kids anymore. They have snapchat, tiktok, youtube, and instagram.

For goodness sake, the South was never any kind of "secret." I grew up in suburban Chicago and did not know one kid who hadn't been to Florida at least once on vacation (most had gone many times). Granted, I didn't know anyone who had gone on vacation to Alabama or Mississippi, but then again, why the heck would they have? We knew how backwards they were.

Visiting grandma's retirement condo in Fort Myers is not the same as access to millions of first-person vlogs from attractive kids at SEC, ACC, and California schools. Kids are wiser than ever. Southern college kids are not seen as "backwards," they're attractive and soaking up the sun and distinct fun culture of their location and university. Backwards is willingly spending four years of the prime of your life in the depressing Rust Belt where you have to wear a $800 parka until April. If you're not going to live in Ohio (or Michigan or Indiana) after college, why in the hell would you go to college there?

Never understood why the south boosters need to push their case so hard. Are you trying to convince yourself that the south is actually good?

Uh the south is great. It’s growing rapidly.

agreed (except for auburn because the auburn booster on this board is a annoying)

Klan-tastic!

The south is going to be great!

Will it rise again?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demand seems to be for big warm climate schools.

+1. Presumably rich preppy kids don't want to live in the isolated, cold, grey, and declining Rust Belt? It's not like you can keep it a secret how awesome the warm weather South and coasts are from sheltered Midwest kids anymore. They have snapchat, tiktok, youtube, and instagram.

For goodness sake, the South was never any kind of "secret." I grew up in suburban Chicago and did not know one kid who hadn't been to Florida at least once on vacation (most had gone many times). Granted, I didn't know anyone who had gone on vacation to Alabama or Mississippi, but then again, why the heck would they have? We knew how backwards they were.

Visiting grandma's retirement condo in Fort Myers is not the same as access to millions of first-person vlogs from attractive kids at SEC, ACC, and California schools. Kids are wiser than ever. Southern college kids are not seen as "backwards," they're attractive and soaking up the sun and distinct fun culture of their location and university. Backwards is willingly spending four years of the prime of your life in the depressing Rust Belt where you have to wear a $800 parka until April. If you're not going to live in Ohio (or Michigan or Indiana) after college, why in the hell would you go to college there?

Never understood why the south boosters need to push their case so hard. Are you trying to convince yourself that the south is actually good?

Uh the south is great. It’s growing rapidly.

agreed (except for auburn because the auburn booster on this board is a annoying)

Klan-tastic!

The south is going to be great!

Will it rise again?!?!

It already has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Declining state funding.

In such a government environment, the only public universities that can survive and maintain a high reputation are large research universities.

Federal research funding brings them plenty of money (the schools take a cut out of research grants won by professors) and the large student population keeps the state government happy (they are educating more people on a lower budget due to fixed costs).

This is also something that's playing out in Virginia with UVA and W&M.

Both are private-feeling colleges compared to the large research universities like Berkeley, Michigan, etc. Both focus heavily on the liberal arts over STEM for undergraduates.

UVA has been investing towards becoming a large research-focused university and improving particularly in STEM. It's something the former president Teresa Sullivan (who was previously provost at Michigan) tried to gear UVA towards. There was controversy regarding it but it's something that UVA with its resources and backing of the state as the flagship university could achieve.

W&M is in a much more precarious position. It's a smaller school with basically no research, with a larger share of its budget coming from the state than UVA (15% vs. 6%). It's very weak in STEM other than being a college for pre-meds, but that's a role plenty of public colleges in the state can fulfill. Its endowment is far smaller.

It really doesn't make sense for the state of Virginia to spend more funding the school than others like Christopher Newport or Mary Washington from a pure numbers perspective. Why spend more money attracting top professors to educate the same number of students? It's not like the professors are brining research grants, it's entirely focused on teaching undergraduates. And it shows; the salaries of professors at W&M compared to schools ranked near it is dismal.

I see it going the route of many smaller, liberal arts-focused public colleges across the US, like Miami. Well-liked in the state and closely surrounding regions, but failing to attract the type of top students that want national name recognition because they don't plan to be stuck in the same small region of the country for their whole career. This is also happening to a lot of private SLACs outside of the top of the crop.

And of course, decreased state funding leading to greater deterioration of school resources and faculties. But that is a given.

I think this is spot on. I was reading an article about the struggles of private LACs, and one mentioned Miami of Ohio as a public that was facing the same issues. I thought of William & Mary (to a lesser degree) as well.

W&M is tasked with providing an intimate private-school education akin to Rice, Tufts and Notre Dame in instruction quality and size at a public school price. The numbers simply don't add up. Something has to give, and it's either instruction quality or size (which will also affect instruction quality) or by the way things are trending, both.

Not sure I buy your premise. I just looked at undergraduate teaching rankings on USNWR and instruction ratings from surveys on Niche and Princeton Review. On USNWR undergraduate teaching, William and Mary is 9, three spots behind Rice at 6, but ahead of Notre Dame and Tufts. In Niche and Princeton Review (are professors accessible, prepared, understandable, passionate), William and Mary is ahead of all three of those schools. I don't think a school has to spend a fortune to be good at providing good instruction, they just need to put an emphasis on it, and William and Mary appears to do it.

Yes, and it was perenially 3rd behind Princeton and Dartmouth several years ago.

The amount is W&M is in a precarious position that could lead to its decline, not that it's already a mediocre school (despite having declined in various rankings in recent times).