What happened to Miami of Ohio?

[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).

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.

So average spending per student on "student services" a.k.a. additional pork and graft for administrators who don't do anything is actually used as a metric for moving up the ranks?

Absolutely ridiculous. Basically pushing for bloated administrations and punishing efficiency. No wonder college tuition is astronomical these days, universities get rewarded for bloat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose if we fill it up with non-Southerners, it might get better.

[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).

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.

So average spending per student on "student services" a.k.a. additional pork and graft for administrators who don't do anything is actually used as a metric for moving up the ranks?

Absolutely ridiculous. Basically pushing for bloated administrations and punishing efficiency. No wonder college tuition is astronomical these days, universities get rewarded for bloat.

I remember the times I utilized “student services” including the financial aid office at my university and couldn’t believe how basic their jobs were. The employees could only be reached from 8am-4pm, M-F. Their jobs looked so simple I would have been bored to tears actually working at one full-time. These were folks with at least bachelors degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose if we fill it up with non-Southerners, it might get better.

The map shows why you have to differentiate in talking about "the South." Some southern states are booming (e.g. the Carolinas), while others (Mississippi and Louisiana) are not. My DC is interested in schools in the former (Wake Forest, Clemson) but won't consider schools in the latter. Even within a southern state, there can be major differences. In Alabama, the Huntsville metro area is experiencing strong growth. Birmingham, not so much, and Mobile, uh, no.

[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).

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.

So average spending per student on "student services" a.k.a. additional pork and graft for administrators who don't do anything is actually used as a metric for moving up the ranks?

Absolutely ridiculous. Basically pushing for bloated administrations and punishing efficiency. No wonder college tuition is astronomical these days, universities get rewarded for bloat.

Yale has more administrators than undergraduate students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose if we fill it up with non-Southerners, it might get better.

you gotta love northerners who move somewhere and then immediately try to change it into the shitty place that they chose to leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

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.

So average spending per student on "student services" a.k.a. additional pork and graft for administrators who don't do anything is actually used as a metric for moving up the ranks?

Absolutely ridiculous. Basically pushing for bloated administrations and punishing efficiency. No wonder college tuition is astronomical these days, universities get rewarded for bloat.

Yale has more administrators than undergraduate students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose if we fill it up with non-Southerners, it might get better.

The map shows why you have to differentiate in talking about "the South." Some southern states are booming (e.g. the Carolinas), while others (Mississippi and Louisiana) are not. My DC is interested in schools in the former (Wake Forest, Clemson) but won't consider schools in the latter. Even within a southern state, there can be major differences. In Alabama, the Huntsville metro area is experiencing strong growth. Birmingham, not so much, and Mobile, uh, no.

Same with my DD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

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.

So average spending per student on "student services" a.k.a. additional pork and graft for administrators who don't do anything is actually used as a metric for moving up the ranks?

Absolutely ridiculous. Basically pushing for bloated administrations and punishing efficiency. No wonder college tuition is astronomical these days, universities get rewarded for bloat.

I remember the times I utilized “student services” including the financial aid office at my university and couldn’t believe how basic their jobs were. The employees could only be reached from 8am-4pm, M-F. Their jobs looked so simple I would have been bored to tears actually working at one full-time. These were folks with at least bachelors degrees.

Yes, those jobs are the definition of cushy, with 0% probability of ever getting fired. Basically a federal government job with much higher salaries.

At least with academic research spending, students are getting taught by these professors and can work with these professors for recommendations and research extracurricular.

Top academic research is a key component for signifying top universities with top faculties. Bloated administration isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I suppose if we fill it up with non-Southerners, it might get better.

you gotta love northerners who move somewhere and then immediately try to change it into the shitty place that they chose to leave

Please. Most are moving for weather and lower COL (not true in all of the places noted but in several; and certainly less then where their coming from in many cases.) They're not moving there to pine away for the dream of the "south will rise again." Jesus, you're dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Richmond had Confederate monuments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I mean, I don’t like his politics but are you really saying a former Speaker of the House and major party nominee for Vice President is not prestigious?

We can play this game all day. You know who else graduated?

— Poet Laureat Rita Dove
— US President Benjamin Harrison
— Senator Maria Cantwel
— Satirist PJ O’Rourke

[Anonymous]

bump

[Anonymous]

Ohio and the Midwest have been dying since the late 70s, early 80s. Nobody with money wants to spend 4 years of their prime in a backwater region in a cold flyover state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ohio and the Midwest have been dying since the late 70s, early 80s. Nobody with money wants to spend 4 years of their prime in a backwater region in a cold flyover state.

Give it a rest. Miami of Ohio has excellent job outcomes for its grads.