Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2010 10:20:47 GMT -8
twolips is gonna be disappointed
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawfan on Aug 17, 2010 10:26:26 GMT -8
twolips is gonna be disappointed ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecaggie on Aug 17, 2010 10:36:41 GMT -8
I did not see the previous year's scores so I assumed SDSU moved up. That is good. However, an academic Score of 23 seems, well...not all that great. That's 23 out of a possible 100. I am sure all the UC schools are higher than that. I am not sure it is time to dance in the end zone yet. 'Just sayin. If this is truly a large upward move, someone should let the UC snobs down the road & up State Highway 5 know!  |
|
|
|
Post by sdoc on Aug 17, 2010 10:42:14 GMT -8
twolips is gonna be disappointed Yea that troll twolips was hating on SDSU earlier this year saying we are tier 3 and blah blah blah. Now he has to eat this. A lot of people put great value into the tier ranking. |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Aug 17, 2010 11:18:44 GMT -8
Not so sure I understand all of this. We are 183 out of 191 University's. We are directly behind Montana State, for example and behind Utah State. There are a lot of schools ranked ahead of us that quite frankly surprises me. I thought we would be ahead of them. Sort of good news--we're not a regional ranked University any longer--bad news--we're low ranked National University. Not sure about my conclusion. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Aug 17, 2010 11:41:19 GMT -8
UCSD = 35th in the Nation. Not that any of you care, but not as high as I think it deserves. Props to State for moving up but it still has a long way to go to get to the UCSD level. However, at least you have D1 sports which is why I'm an Aztec fan. I am curious how a UCSD move to D1 would affect the local college sports landscape?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2010 11:53:29 GMT -8
UCSD = 35th in the Nation. Not that any of you care, but not as high as I think it deserves. Props to State for moving up but it still has a long way to go to get to the UCSD level. However, at least you have D1 sports which is why I'm an Aztec fan. I am curious how a UCSD move to D1 would affect the local college sports landscape? I agree. Every UCSD alum I've ever met is damn smart and that's something I certainly cannot say about UCSmellA. We'll find out fairly soon about the landscape since UCSD is moving toward D1-A pretty quickly - except they'll never have football. =Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2010 12:08:37 GMT -8
Not so sure I understand all of this. We are 183 out of 191 University's. We are directly behind Montana State, for example and behind Utah State. There are a lot of schools ranked ahead of us that quite frankly surprises me. I thought we would be ahead of them. Sort of good news--we're not a regional ranked University any longer--bad news--we're low ranked National University. Not sure about my conclusion. The 183 number places us at the same rank as a couple other schools. As to others: UC's: SDSU will never catch most of them. Not possible. They all get like twice the money from the state that CSU schools receive. University of Nevada: As indicated by USNWR, it is it's state's "flagship university," which SDSU isn't close to being in California. UNR is also a quarter century older than SDSU and has twice the endowment. Nevertheless, SDSU has now passed UNR in the opinion of USNWR. Others: If setting ourselves up for possible admission to the Pac-12 is what matters if/when the Pac decides to go to 16, what's important is how SDSU rates in comparison to other possible candidates. Passing UNR therefore matters, as does being clearly ahead of UNM and UNLV and gaining on the likes of Texas Tech. It's not a sprint but a marathon and what will count most is where SDSU is academically and football wise when the time comes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2010 12:22:54 GMT -8
UCSD = 35th in the Nation. Not that any of you care, but not as high as I think it deserves. Props to State for moving up but it still has a long way to go to get to the UCSD level. However, at least you have D1 sports which is why I'm an Aztec fan. I am curious how a UCSD move to D1 would affect the local college sports landscape? Aren't you the joker who wrote something to the effect...." The absolute best State student is your average B student at UCSD." With all due respect, no one here gives a rats a$$ about UCSD. And trust me, I know plenty of people who went to SDSU that would be straight A students at UCSD. UCSD is a fine school but get over it, at least when you post on this site. |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Aug 17, 2010 12:25:56 GMT -8
Not so sure I understand all of this. We are 183 out of 191 University's. We are directly behind Montana State, for example and behind Utah State. There are a lot of schools ranked ahead of us that quite frankly surprises me. I thought we would be ahead of them. Sort of good news--we're not a regional ranked University any longer--bad news--we're low ranked National University. Not sure about my conclusion. The 183 number places us at the same rank as a couple other schools. As to others: UC's: SDSU will never catch most of them. Not possible. They all get like twice the money from the state that CSU schools receive. University of Nevada: As indicated by USNWR, it is it's state's "flagship university," which SDSU isn't close to being in California. UNR is also a quarter century older than SDSU and has twice the endowment. Nevertheless, SDSU has now passed UNR in the opinion of USNWR. Others: If setting ourselves up for possible admission to the Pac-12 is what matters if/when the Pac decides to go to 16, what's important is how SDSU rates in comparison to other possible candidates. Passing UNR therefore matters, as does being clearly ahead of UNM and UNLV and gaining on the likes of Texas Tech. It's not a sprint but a marathon and what will count most is where SDSU is academically and football wise when the time comes. Certainly have to agree that the UC system gets the $$ and will always rank ahead of the CSU shcools. Speaking of which, I was shocked by Cal dropping to #22! Don't know where they were last year, but Cal has always been in the top 10 along with Stanferd. I suspect we are starting to see the impact of reduction in state support for higher education here. Maybe not, but that's what I'm reading into it. I still do not see our ranking as anything to crow about particularly. I notice UNLV and New Mexico are "Tier 2" so that about fits. CSU is at 124. The difference is SDSU is in the group that offers doctorates while Tier 2 does not? So, that's sort of apples and oranges. Bottom line, nice to see we are recognized as offering doctorates, but on the other hand being at the bottom of the list doesn't tell me much one way or another. As for working our way up in preparation for the Pac Whatever, I will not hold my breath on that one. My thought is lets improve our academics for academics sake alone and let the Pac Whoever's do whatever they want. I would agree that academics allegedly has something to do with those guys to the North, but as far as I'm concerned they are off the radar screen. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 17, 2010 12:34:36 GMT -8
Not to rain on anyone's parade but when Northridge beats us by more than 100 spots, I'm not real excited. Huh? We are the HIGHEST RATED University within the CSU system. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2010 12:55:55 GMT -8
It looks like they changed Tier 1 to include the top 75% instead of the top 50%. Presumably, you're referring to this: www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/17/how-us-news-calculates-the-college-rankings.htmlI'll leave it to others to go through SDSU's ranking to discern whether they actually now like us better or whether, instead, they've merely changed their methodology. Edit: I should add this. One thing that IS clear is that is these ranking are for 2011 and USNWR ranks SDSU as being superior to UNM, UNLV and Boise State in our athletics conference for that year. So with AFA being a comparison of apples and oranges, we will essentially be fifth among eight academically. This is where all the nonsense in their ratings comes in: High school counselors are given a say. For the first time, the opinions of high school counselors—a font of firsthand information about the schools their graduates attend—are factored into the ranking calculations for National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges. In those two categories, the weight assigned to the peer ratings collected in a survey of college presidents, provosts, and deans goes down to 15 percent of the overall score from 25 percent; ratings by the high school counselors surveyed get a weight of 7.5 percent. In the National Universities and National Liberal Arts Categories, the combined weighting in the overall score of these two undergraduate academic reputation factors is 22.5 percent, down from 25 percent previously.High school counselors??? I checked, BTW and UCSD drops to #40 according to these jokers, although we jump to #146, tied with Okiehomie, Nebraska and, believe it or not, Utah, which tells me all I need to know about the counselors, who are described by USNWR as being a font of information about the schools their students attended. Yeah, tell me another one. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AzTeCViC on Aug 17, 2010 13:05:07 GMT -8
Wow, climbing up that ladder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2010 13:08:22 GMT -8
Not so sure I understand all of this. We are 183 out of 191 University's. We are directly behind Montana State, for example and behind Utah State. There are a lot of schools ranked ahead of us that quite frankly surprises me. I thought we would be ahead of them. Sort of good news--we're not a regional ranked University any longer--bad news--we're low ranked National University. Not sure about my conclusion. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation. We haven't been a regional university for years, we were just a national university in Tier 3. The rankings are crap. Carnegie Foundation offers a much better perspective. For instance, Montana St. is described as a Master's Institution while SDSU is classified as a Research Institution, High Activity and after we add the 5 new doctoral programs, we should jump to Research Institution, Very High Activity, which is where the big boys live. I don't even now how Montana St. can be in Tier 1, but then, USNWR doesn't bother with such things as amount of research grants, etc. But let's remember this is only an undergrad ranking and add nonsensical data points such as reputation and graduation rate and you get a very flawed analysis. =Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2010 13:20:16 GMT -8
I still do not see our ranking as anything to crow about particularly. I notice UNLV and New Mexico are "Tier 2" so that about fits. CSU is at 124. The difference is SDSU is in the group that offers doctorates while Tier 2 does not? So, that's sort of apples and oranges. As for working our way up in preparation for the Pac Whatever, I will not hold my breath on that one. My thought is lets improve our academics for academics sake alone and let the Pac Whoever's do whatever they want. I would agree that academics allegedly has something to do with it UNM DOES offer doctorates, plenty of them: www.unm.edu/grad/catalog/catalog00.html#Anchor-Th-11291One of the primary factors that Carnegie uses in its rating of colleges and universities is the amount of money in research grants obtained. I'm not sure if that's the problem for UNM and UNLV since UNM has both a medical school and a law school and UNLV has the latter whereas SDSU doesn't have either. However, SDSU is generally now considered to be a "Major Research University" because of all the grants money the faculty obtains. UC San Francisco and UC Merced are not for the same reason (though UCM is destined to be, it's just too new a school.) As to the Pac, when Tom Hansen was its commissioner, his mantra vis-a-vis SDSU was "good enough school but inferior academics to the members of the Pac-10." Well, just a couple months ago, the Pac was more than willing to take Texas Tech and Okie State, neither of which are now ahead of SDSU by much in the USNWR ratings. And ASU is pretty much where the other two are, with Oregon State and Wazzu barely ahead of ASU. As I've said before, if SDSU could show the California Legislature that its becoming a member of the Pac-10 would bring millions of dollars into state coffers annually without costing anybody a dime, you don't think the Legislature is going to put huge pressure on Cal and UCLA if not also USC and Stanford to help SDSU get in? I sure do. That's why they are never honest about the REAL reason they don't want to let us in, recruiting competition, and instead rely on academics. So if SDSU continues to improve its academic standing, that house of cards is going to fall. |
|
|
|
Post by sancarlosaztec on Aug 17, 2010 14:57:55 GMT -8
1. Good news from USNWR 2. Agree with SGFs "House of Cards" theory --keep the pressure on! 3. Food for thought... What would you get if you merged UCSD and SDSU into one large University? Would it make sense on any level? Hmmm... I still do not see our ranking as anything to crow about particularly. I notice UNLV and New Mexico are "Tier 2" so that about fits. CSU is at 124. The difference is SDSU is in the group that offers doctorates while Tier 2 does not? So, that's sort of apples and oranges. As for working our way up in preparation for the Pac Whatever, I will not hold my breath on that one. My thought is lets improve our academics for academics sake alone and let the Pac Whoever's do whatever they want. I would agree that academics allegedly has something to do with it UNM DOES offer doctorates, plenty of them: www.unm.edu/grad/catalog/catalog00.html#Anchor-Th-11291One of the primary factors that Carnegie uses in its rating of colleges and universities is the amount of money in research grants obtained. I'm not sure if that's the problem for UNM and UNLV since UNM has both a medical school and a law school and UNLV has the latter whereas SDSU doesn't have either. However, SDSU is generally now considered to be a "Major Research University" because of all the grants money the faculty obtains. UC San Francisco and UC Merced are not for the same reason (though UCM is destined to be, it's just too new a school.) As to the Pac, when Tom Hansen was its commissioner, his mantra vis-a-vis SDSU was "good enough school but inferior academics to the members of the Pac-10." Well, just a couple months ago, the Pac was more than willing to take Texas Tech and Okie State, neither of which are now ahead of SDSU by much in the USNWR ratings. And ASU is pretty much where the other two are, with Oregon State and Wazzu barely ahead of ASU. As I've said before, if SDSU could show the California Legislature that its becoming a member of the Pac-10 would bring millions of dollars into state coffers annually without costing anybody a dime, you don't think the Legislature is going to put huge pressure on Cal and UCLA if not also USC and Stanford to help SDSU get in? I sure do. That's why they are never honest about the REAL reason they don't want to let us in, recruiting competition, and instead rely on academics. So if SDSU continues to improve its academic standing, that house of cards is going to fall. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 17, 2010 15:08:26 GMT -8
USNWR ARE bogus, but they are one of the most often cited and looked at so the perception of being in the top group (even though I now see they just shuffled the deck) is a step in the right direction. Part of the problem with USNWR is it is so perception based with limited criteria and some of them silly like square footage of the library for professional schools. But, taking away some of the $#!+ like, you're tier 3 is a step in the right direction and the raw numbers of class profile, acceptance rate, yield will continue to go up and so will SDSU's ranking.
|
|
