Wall Street Journal college rankings came out today. 500 schools listed. Harvard #1, OSU #100, Miami #229. We are in the group that ranks 400 to 500. WVU in the same https://www.wsj.com/articles/best-colleges-2021-explore-t...

These rankings are all bullshit.

You have take all these with a grain of salt. Look at the criteria they use (I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so I couldn't open the article). US News has us in an 11-way tie for 176th out of 389 "national universities" (i.e, colleges and universities that offer a full range of undergrad degrees plus master's and PHDs and are committed to groundbreaking research). We're there with L'ville, Houston, UMass-Lowell, St Joe (CT), Washington St, Thomas Jefferson U in Philly, St John Fisher College in Rochester, NY, Montclair State, Missouri University of Science and Tech, and CUNY-City College in NYC. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-un...

They use the Carnegie system to rank schools, which they say is the accepted standard in US higher ed. The ranking factors can be found here: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/h...

Forbes says its list is "our annual review of the undergraduate institutions that deliver the top academics, best experiences, career success and lowest debt. Whether a school is in the Top 10 or near the bottom of the list, these 650 count as the best in the country. We include just 15% of the 4,300 degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the U.S., so appearing here at all is an indication that a school meets a high standard." Ohio made the list last year, at #438. https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/#192635d21987 I haven't seen a Forbes list for this year yet.

A lot depends on what you call a college or university.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/education/number-us-college...

Whining about, and nit-picking the rankings is a bit pitiful. It's been obvious to this skeptical observer for decades that Ohio's academic reputation has been dropping like a rock since its high in the 1990s.

To me McDavis was a near-travesty, who appeared to have support on this board largely because he promoted athletics, and perhaps from a handful who think Ohio's primary mission should be as an Appalachian community college.

Buffalo at 121.

But #1 in our hearts.

Only had one instance in my career where my academic choice was called out (or not). In a work session at the management consulting firm I worked for (for about 11 years) - 5 of us attending - stumped on how to move forward on an issue - Chairman comments on how can we be stumped when we have 2 Yale graduates, an MIT and a Georgetown grad involved - told him that it was okay - Ohio had him covered. He shot me a look.

Ranking doesn't matter - matters how it fits for you.

I fall in the middle. They matter, but they're not the be-all and end-all in defining a university. And once you're past the five year mark out of school, your alma mater matters infinitely less than what you've shown in the workplace.

Where they do matter is in a couple ways. First, the reputation of a school will directly drive the quality of companies and government agencies that will recruit there. It's no secret that a Silicon Valley VC firm will crawl over a thousand business majors from MAC schools to hire a Philosophy major from Chicago or Yale. If you go to Bowling Green, you probably have a decent chance of getting a job with some agency of the state of Ohio. With the US State Department or CIA? Probably not so much. Second--and this primarily relates to USNWR--is that they drive the general impression and prestige of the school, and prospective parents, students and guidance counselors will use them as a rough measuring stick of how attractive a school is. What your fist choice schools should be. What your safeties should be. What you shouldn't bother with.

To run with your point a here the 1990's had schools like Virginia Tech that came out of nowhere to become a national contender in football and gain rep for their university. Boeh/Glidden knew Ohio's stature in athletics was one of the shortfalls at that time. The long term goal I believe was to have the type of success Ohio had since 2010 in football and basketball appearing on national TV ect.

It was Ohio State, the old blueblood program in the horseshoe with a monster run over the past 20 years and recast itself as a university on the move. They were the ones that received an uptick in admissions for having a "sweet football team" as someone once said on this board. The media never pounced on the academic effect for Ohio State because the Ohio St-Michigan game was the biggest blue blood rivalry so many concluded they always had a Top 5 program. Quietly they capitalized on that huge football run.

Ohio's athletic improvements as opinioned by several on this die hard bobcat fan site were rationalized away as modernizations by many people rather than upgrades. It didn't have the broader impact on admissions that each 2 million dollar of marketing value TV appearances were to have.

Other fears were wrapped up into it such as a sense of urgency to grow the program or risk being left without a spot if the MAC fell apart which was a very real threat up until 6 or 7 years ago when the latest arrangements with ESPN were signed with the expanded post season money. A lot of conference movement in the 2010-2014 period. Conference USA was a raid threat. MAC's low attendance was viewed in a critical light.

There was a possibility to have a Marshall style run with Solich with multiple Top 25 finishes. If OSU football created at the same time and UC never developed perhaps Ohio could have represented the state. This combo of events is only a hypothetical I'm suggesting. The cone of uncertainty if Ohio athletics didn't invest in football was higher in 2005 and much higher than that in 1995. ROI of the TV marketing value became a way to rationalize it to the non-believers.

I had a rather sobering discussion with a colleague who knows tons of college administrators across the state and has a soft spot for our Alma mater. He seems to not only know all of the data, but a lot of the backstory as well. According to him, a lot of our problems; budgetary issues, not getting the type of students we did 20 years ago etc stems from the new administration not inspiring anyone, addressing critical issues, or having a plan people can understand.

My colleague points to Cincinnati's turnaround which he believes is the most dramatic in the state. Targeted advertising, recruiting and most especially the apprenticeship that most are involved with is a real game changer. According to him, students get jobs, feel good about their experience, and let others know. This is especially true for their parents. Yet, their campus experience, beauty etc can't hold a candle to ours and here we are wondering where our momentum went?

He also pointed out that Miami's shtick works and we better come up with one of our own and fast. He pointed out the many positive things going on with our beloved Alma mater, like the medical school and so many others that just aren't generating the type of positive vibes that UC is getting. Like I said it was rather sobering. Not being in Athens and only making down for games, I can't get a real feel for the nuts and bolts and the internals of what is going right and what is going wrong. Just thought I would throw that out there for your consumption.

The strategy has been growth to stay important in state funding considerations and to keep the new construction dollars flowing.

Admissions are supply and demand driven. Foreign students out of the equation is going to reduce demand at all the public schools, opening more spots in-state. Miami has relied on big demand in foreign students and out-of-state applicants which should dry up.

OSU tried to grow its traditional freshman class size this past decade. With more in-state slots they might have to chase less competitive students and snowball back down the rankings.

The pandemic could force them into equilibrium with Ohio's admissions.

OSU grew their freshman classes by about a thousand in recent years to almost 8000, and they did it without dropping in quality. Avereage SAT/ACT just grew more slowly than it had been previously, but it's still in the top 10 for public universities. As I've argued here before, OSU is literally stockpiling high quality Ohio kids while the rest of the system (except perhaps UC and Fiami) are facing severe enrollment shortages. People need to stop clinging to the fantasy that OSU is ever going to be in equilibrium in admissions or rankings or endowment or research or anything else with Ohio or Miami or Cincinnati or any other Ohio public. Instead, make some kind of deal with them to cap their freshman classes at a certain number and free up a thousand or more good quality kids for the rest of the schools which desperately need them.