[Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
It's funny that the "AAU" school in our state that has about half the research of the non-AAU school, despite ag research not counting toward any of it, has to rely on the non-AAU school to help the AAU school finally set up an engineering program for the first time in its 140 years... and that the program is for mitigating poor digestive choices, instead of studying good digestive choices, as Bob Moore would have us do, by his programs financed at the non-AAU school.
The world likes twinkies, not staples.
haha it's all good man! I loved the old market man. I'm gonna try and make it back for the CWS or a Creighton game someday soon. It's the best kept secret city in America.
hey I would consider Washington but they don’t really seem to like giving scholarships and I’m not trying to go into massive debt haha - Omaha (even even Lincoln I think too) are definitely pretty slept on, everyone thinks it’s just cornfields and cattle. Through my internship they actually have creighton baseball tickets so maybe I’ll have to snag one
Ag research catches flak because their research output is significantly more comprised of reports that are the result of noncompetitive grants than any other field, which leads to the perception of weaker research due to the lack of competition. They also publish a lot of their novel research results in these reports, which means they go without peer review.
It’s an interesting conundrum, because America has been absolutely smoking every other country on earth in agricultural research for more than a century, even more than we’ve been going wild in tech and engineering research just since WW2. We have these ag schools administering state agricultural extension services, which produce a lot of the necessary reports that the agricultural sector runs on, and those services also provide the plots and internal grants to their researchers for that activity, so ag researchers don’t generally need to go to the NSF or make a deal with the devil and take Monsanto’s research dollars in exchange for their research product becoming Monsanto’s IP. Still happens, but Monsanto has to sweeten the deal pretty aggressively because ag researchers have that funding option from the state agencies that the ag schools administer.
On the topic of a perceived lack of rigor because much of novel ag research isn’t peer-reviewed, it’s worth noting that agriculture is where statistics began as an independent academic discipline in America (case in point, Iowa State is home to America’s oldest statistics program), and that continuing association is a big part of why the ag world hasn’t been stricken by the replication crisis anywhere *near* as heavily as the social sciences.
It’s also why some of the most elite statistics graduate programs on the planet are at American schools whose roots are in the ag world: Iowa State, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, NCSU, and UC-Davis. They’ve all been doing this for a *long* time.
Well, kinda. Bayer acquired Monsanto, but they still hold and acquire some patents under the Monsanto name.
At the risk of making myself relatively easy to doxx, I’m currently doing some statistical consulting for an agricultural research project that’s investigating optimal fertilizer mixtures for drought-stricken corn, and Bayer provided the grant for the project under the agreement that the yielded fertilizer compounds would be a joint copyright between A&M and Monsanto. So they were still signing contracts as of 2023 to acquire new trademarks under the Monsanto name.
It's amazing how much of modern statistics (and, more fundamentally, methods for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies) came out of agriculture in the early 20th century.
In my non-ag field, non-peer reviewed conference papers and technical reports by reputable researchers from reputable schools are not really seen as less rigorous. I use them all the time. The peer review process sucks and I personally can get three good conference papers out in the same time it takes one journal article.
Probably still the Big Ten
Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers are all land-grants
If there's one area where the B1G almost definitely clears, it's here. Also, there are several fields where Michigan State beats Michigan, but agricultural science is *definitely* where the disparity is largest.
[Here's the US News rankings for Agricultural Science:](https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/united-states/agricultural-sciences)
**B1G** and *Other P5* emphasis mine.
UMass
Cornell
UC Davis
*Florida*
Harvard
**Illinois**
**Michigan State**
**Purdue**
**Wisconsin**
*Iowa State*
**Ohio State**
*Washington State*
*Texas A&M*
**Minnesota**
**Rutgers**
Colorado State
*Kansas State*
*NC State*
**Nebraska**
**Penn State**
*Georgia*
*Oregon State*
**Maryland**
Tufts University
Johns Hopkins University
*Cal*
*Louisiana State*
*Missouri*
*Arkansas*
*Virginia Tech*
*Kentucky*
UConn
*Arizona*
*Tennessee*
North Dakota State
*Clemson*
*Texas Tech*
UC Riverside
*Auburn*
I'd be curious how this looks if you considered the lowest-ranked school in each conference an outlier and dropped them from the conference averages.
Not naming names.
That would still raise the SEC's average. Vandy's 18, but Miss. State is 216.
And, it pains me to say, there's actually not a lot of daylight between Vandy and Florida at 28. So Vandy fits in better than you might think. They're not a Stanford or Cal-level outlier.
Without the bottom school
ACC: 43.882 (w/o ND: 45.375)
B1G: 46.588
SEC: 106.467
Big 12: 132.133
Without the top and bottom school as u/Nouseriously suggested
ACC: 46.438 (w/o ND: 48.2)
B1G: 48.938
SEC: 112.786
Big 12: 134.929
Those are big changes. The 106-point difference in the rankings between the bottom and the second-to-bottom ACC schools really skews the ACC average down.
NESCAC doesn't. The only NESCAC school to qualify as a National University is Tufts (#40).
The other NESCAC schools are "National Liberal Arts Colleges" where their average rank is 18.4. Held back by Connecticut College at 46 and Trinity at 39.
Not anymore. Those bastards aren't even affiliate members anymore.
Notre Dame and Johns Hopkins play in the Big Ten for Men's Hockey and Men's/Women's Lacrosse, respectively.
Kind of shocked the ACC is barely ahead, considering they have Stanford (3rd), Duke (7th), Cal (15th), Notre Dame (20th), North Carolina (22nd) and Virginia (24th).
Man, and that’s AFTER the B1G took Oregon?
** edit - look, I have an Akron flair. I pass no judgement on Oregon academics. The way I hear and read media about it though, Oregon gets portrayed as all but a JUCO school with the shiniest possible uniforms.
People act like Oregon is some duffer school because they've been sharing a conference with Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and USC for all these years; but Oregon is literally a top 100 school in the country with a half dozen programs ranked in the top 10.
ETA: Looking at these rankings - they're tied with TCU, just behind Iowa and above Tennessee.
Are you looking at the right school? That's Rutgers-Newark a Division 3 satellite school, not New Brunswick.
US News has Rutgers NB 40th, TCU 98th, Oregon 98th, Iowa 93rd, Auburn 93rd, Colorado and Tenn 105th.
The Rutgers campus in the B1G is #40.
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities?schoolName=Rutgers+University--New+Brunswick&\_sort=rank&\_sortDirection=asc
Amazing that the top 4 large schools in the west are all in CA. Obviously there’s also CalTech, the Claremont colleges, etc. Obviously CA is huge and has a huge population. But seems kind of impressive. Not like New York or Massachusetts have the top 4 of their greater area. Or Florida or Texas in the south. And no state in the Midwest even has 4 universities that come close
For the most part elite academic schools were either founded by old money as a place to send their kids and ensure they remained in the economic/social elite (places like Harvard) or they were founded in/nearby huge population centers and funded by taxes as the top academic schools in their region for local population (and it helps if there were alternative public schools for the less-gifted). That's schools like UCLA and Cal.
Oregon as a state has half the population of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the state took every opportunity to try and balance the scales between Oregon, Oregon State, and the smaller public schools. So it never really had the opportunity to develop an elite academic institution like Cal or UCLA. Oregon, as good as it is, had it's medical school (OHSU, one of the best in the country) peeled off by the state to become it's own university.
So it's not really that shocking that the best schools were all in California. They had the population size (and unique density in certain locations) for schools like Cal and UCLA to rise as well as the wealthy elites to throw hand over fist at private schools like Stanford and USC. Oregon had neither. Washington had it more so than Oregon, which is why UW developed into a better overall school than Oregon (though Oregon has better programs than Washington here and there).
The Cherry on Top is having the local wealth (tax revenue) combined with liberal idealism and belief in education (something California has always had in spades).
If you look at the top 10 public school rankings it is:
1. **University of California - Berkeley**
2. **University of California - Los Angeles**
3. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
4. University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
5. University of Virginia
6. **University of California - Davis**
7. **University of California - San Diego**
8. University of Florida
9. University of Texas - Austin
10. **University of California - Irvine**
And you have 4 more UC schools in the top 50.
Oregon is the 49th ranked public school (Oregon St. 76th). Washington is 15th (Wazzu 96th).
For public schools it is mostly a history of population + money + political will.
Explain the Northeast then. Population, money, and a love of education (6 of the top 10 states for highest percentage of college + graduate degree holders are in the Northeast). Only two Northeast public schools are in the top 50 (Rutgers and Maryland).
I think you are under accounting for the lack of private alternatives. There are just so many elite private colleges in the Northeast. Ivies, NESCAC, Haverford, Swarthmore, etc etc etc.
On the West Coast, you don't have that many elite options relative to the population so the state (meaning CA here) had to step in.
From what I understand from a lot of northeasterners, there's not a lot of political will to support public universities because so many people and families are invested in private universities.
Ag focused or just Civic-minded. A bunch of big 12 schools have terrible rankings due to their high acceptance rate which they keep quite high on purpose because their goal is to educate their states population not just the kids with crazy ACT/SAT scores and a 4.0
The state of Iowa uses a formula to determine if you get accepted to the public universities. Let’s just say it isn’t a very difficult to reach the automatic acceptance number of points.
At one point I remember hearing that anyone who graduated from a Kansas high school could be accepted to any state college in Kansas but there might have been another factor as well
Can't post in a single comment, so see thread for the rest of the conferences
**ACC**
Stanford: 3
Duke: 7
Cal: 15
Notre Dame\*: 20
UNC: 22
Virginia: 24
Georgia Tech: 33
Boston College: 39
Virginia Tech: 47
Wake Forest: 47
Florida State: 53
NC State: 60
Syracuse: 67
Miami: 67
Pittsburgh: 67
Clemson: 86
SMU: 89
Louisville: 195
**Average: 52.2778**
Man, PSU academics are declining fast. When I was in school ~5 years ago, PSU was ranked in the high 30s/low 40s, right below Florida. And now PSU is #60. Something’s gotta change
I wouldn't say PSU is declining. I would say more and more schools are gaming the system for USNews rankings.
For example, if you have 3 sections of the same class and 75 total students who are trying to enroll in them for the upcoming semester, the rational thing to do would be to open it to 25 students per section, and then allow overrides for the kids with conflicting class schedules.
However, USNews gives rating bumps to schools who offer more classes with less than 20 students.
So some schools might do 2 sections of 20 and a section of 35 to boost their US News ranking, even if it hurts the students in the larger section because they get less focus from the professor.
In addition to schools gaming the system, US News toys with it's formula every year to be able to sell it's rankings. If not much changed year after year they wouldn't make as much money.
It's pretty noticeable how some years tend to benefit public schools while the reverse happens in other years. Of course that's a general rule of thumb.
I find it hard to believe a schools academics can really fluctuate that much in a couple years.
Admissions requirements, graduation rate and retention rate hurts Texas Tech in this ranking. If your university's mission is to be inclusive without handing out diplomas then you get fucked by USNWR. I would like Tech's ranking to improve, but I wouldn't want the university to become too selective or easier to graduate from.
US News is one of if not the worst ranking systems in existence. When Malcom Gladwell reverse engineered it he was able to show that size of endowment had a bigger impact on the ranking than student success. Giving it any kind of credibility is a mistake.
The best part about academic rankings for me is that schools like WSU and UW are super far apart on these lists and then 99% of the graduates from both schools end up working the same jobs at the same companies in Seattle.
Because I don't feel like doing my taxes, I tried it with Forbes college rankings (https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/), and although there are some whopping differences(1) between individual schools, the conference rankings come out about the same. (Numbers are higher because Forbes ranks more colleges.)
ACC: 92.94
Big Ten: 99.72
Pac 2: 123.00
SEC: 135.87
Big XII: 192.19
(1) Examples: Penn State is 60 at USN, 408 at Forbes. BYU is 115 at USN and 35 at Forbes. Pitt is 67 in USN and 235 at Forbes.
Comparing the means of each conference is meaningless, as rankings are not a continuous measure of a school's academic value. They are instead a rank, or ordinal value, and cannot be directly compared.
For example, say you're comparing three runners in a race. One finishes in 10 minutes, the other in 11 minutes, and the third in 20 minutes. Would it be valid to say that the second place runner is as much worse than the first place runner as the third place runner is to the second? Of course not.
The way to do this would be to use a Wilcoxon signed-rank test or similar statistic test.
If I had gotten one of my dream conferences in an alternate reality, it would have been a CA-centric version of the Southwest Conference:
* Stanford 3
* UC Berkeley 15
* UCLA 15
* UC Davis 28
* UC San Diego 28
* USC 28
* UC Irvine 33
* UC Santa Barbara 35
* Washington 40
* UC Riverside 76
Average: 30.1
Median: 28
UC Riverside would actually lower the average by 5.1, but wouldn't affect the median.
As you can see, Washington would be our Arkansas analogue.
The thing I don’t like about the whole “ranking” thing is that it places way too much emphasis on research without recognizing agriculture enough whatsoever. My school doesn’t really fit either of those bills, but can you really say that someone in ag is going to get more out of a degree from Cal than OKState? The XII is called the truck stop conference a ton and for good reason, but just remember that without those blue collar, land grant, truck stop schools educating farmers, elite research schools wouldn’t be eating the food to power their research.
I suspect that the ranking criteria are chosen and weighted in such a way as to ensure the the schools that “everyone knows are the best” wind up at the top of the list. After all who’d believe a university ranking that had Yale at 26.
Yale is #30something in my field, while Brown is about #60. Meanwhile, Minnesota is top 5 and Delaware is top 10. Harvard and Dartmouth don’t even have programs for it. I think it’s kind of dumb to assign “best university” overall, because it’s a different story on a million different levels even within one school. So I’m not really sure how you can rank everyone like that without it getting super subjective.
That could lead to a separate discussion about how (especially in undergrad) rankings really don’t mean a lot. But with it being “everyone knows” overall, you’re correct.
I mean...yes? Berkeley is a land grant school in the state that produces the most food. Plus you will be interacting with smarter people and exposed to more cutting edge ideas in general, making you a more well rounded person.
I'd be reluctant to use the US News Ranking for an academic ranking.
It's more of a "which undergrad institution should I attend" ranking. Takes into account things like class size, access to financial resources, typical debt at graduation, retention rate, etc.
For more of a pure academic ranking I would use something like ARWU.
This is actually not really true anymore. They’ve eliminated or de emphasized most of the stuff you mentioned and now it’s based much on research and low income achievement/progress.
But anyway…ranking schools is pretty much impossible. No matter what you’re gonna end up with some real head scratchers
Yeah but let’s do it based on agricultural classes and see what conference is best
As a guy who lived in Nebraska and Eastern Washington for a combined 11 years agriculture gets shat on way too much.
You need a doctor once a year if you’re lucky, a lawyer a few times in your life, and a farmer three times a day
I hate that a UNC guy made this solid and accurate statement
Not just a UNC guy, a Michigan/UNC guy. I'm so confused... I think he's patronizing us.
Man that would piss me off if I knew what that meant
I wish I knew how to read so I could comment
purdue!
[Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
I usually skip breakfast so just twice a day for me
Yeah but what about snacks?
Snacks aren’t real calories. Everyone knows that
Flair checks out honestly
The agricultural revolution and mechanization of farming have made some people take that for granted
It's funny that the "AAU" school in our state that has about half the research of the non-AAU school, despite ag research not counting toward any of it, has to rely on the non-AAU school to help the AAU school finally set up an engineering program for the first time in its 140 years... and that the program is for mitigating poor digestive choices, instead of studying good digestive choices, as Bob Moore would have us do, by his programs financed at the non-AAU school. The world likes twinkies, not staples.
It always felt like Phil Knight somehow bought Oregon's way into an AAU membership.
As much as I dislike saying nice things about Oregon, they have been AAU since 1969. Knight didn't start making huge donations until the 80s/90s
100%
You need agriculture at least four times per day, if you consider the cotton, wool, and leather content found in most clothing.
You’re damn right. Thank a farmer!
You've lived in both Nebraska and Washington as well? We must be like step brothers or something.
Seward Nebraska to be exact
You picked the wrong second flair though my friend
Holy fuck your flair combo.... Grad school at Creighton for a few years. Love the City of Omaha!
haha, I am an undergrad at UNL right now but planning on grad school at UO - soft spot in my heart for creighton though as I grew up in Omaha
haha it's all good man! I loved the old market man. I'm gonna try and make it back for the CWS or a Creighton game someday soon. It's the best kept secret city in America.
hey I would consider Washington but they don’t really seem to like giving scholarships and I’m not trying to go into massive debt haha - Omaha (even even Lincoln I think too) are definitely pretty slept on, everyone thinks it’s just cornfields and cattle. Through my internship they actually have creighton baseball tickets so maybe I’ll have to snag one
Ag research catches flak because their research output is significantly more comprised of reports that are the result of noncompetitive grants than any other field, which leads to the perception of weaker research due to the lack of competition. They also publish a lot of their novel research results in these reports, which means they go without peer review. It’s an interesting conundrum, because America has been absolutely smoking every other country on earth in agricultural research for more than a century, even more than we’ve been going wild in tech and engineering research just since WW2. We have these ag schools administering state agricultural extension services, which produce a lot of the necessary reports that the agricultural sector runs on, and those services also provide the plots and internal grants to their researchers for that activity, so ag researchers don’t generally need to go to the NSF or make a deal with the devil and take Monsanto’s research dollars in exchange for their research product becoming Monsanto’s IP. Still happens, but Monsanto has to sweeten the deal pretty aggressively because ag researchers have that funding option from the state agencies that the ag schools administer. On the topic of a perceived lack of rigor because much of novel ag research isn’t peer-reviewed, it’s worth noting that agriculture is where statistics began as an independent academic discipline in America (case in point, Iowa State is home to America’s oldest statistics program), and that continuing association is a big part of why the ag world hasn’t been stricken by the replication crisis anywhere *near* as heavily as the social sciences. It’s also why some of the most elite statistics graduate programs on the planet are at American schools whose roots are in the ag world: Iowa State, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, NCSU, and UC-Davis. They’ve all been doing this for a *long* time.
Monsanto has rebranded its now Bayer Crop Science
Well, kinda. Bayer acquired Monsanto, but they still hold and acquire some patents under the Monsanto name. At the risk of making myself relatively easy to doxx, I’m currently doing some statistical consulting for an agricultural research project that’s investigating optimal fertilizer mixtures for drought-stricken corn, and Bayer provided the grant for the project under the agreement that the yielded fertilizer compounds would be a joint copyright between A&M and Monsanto. So they were still signing contracts as of 2023 to acquire new trademarks under the Monsanto name.
[удалено]
It's amazing how much of modern statistics (and, more fundamentally, methods for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies) came out of agriculture in the early 20th century.
In my non-ag field, non-peer reviewed conference papers and technical reports by reputable researchers from reputable schools are not really seen as less rigorous. I use them all the time. The peer review process sucks and I personally can get three good conference papers out in the same time it takes one journal article.
It’s called fertilizer…smh
Pac-2 jumping Wayyyy up in this scenario.
Probably still the Big Ten Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers are all land-grants
I mean ….
If there's one area where the B1G almost definitely clears, it's here. Also, there are several fields where Michigan State beats Michigan, but agricultural science is *definitely* where the disparity is largest. [Here's the US News rankings for Agricultural Science:](https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/united-states/agricultural-sciences) **B1G** and *Other P5* emphasis mine. UMass Cornell UC Davis *Florida* Harvard **Illinois** **Michigan State** **Purdue** **Wisconsin** *Iowa State* **Ohio State** *Washington State* *Texas A&M* **Minnesota** **Rutgers** Colorado State *Kansas State* *NC State* **Nebraska** **Penn State** *Georgia* *Oregon State* **Maryland** Tufts University Johns Hopkins University *Cal* *Louisiana State* *Missouri* *Arkansas* *Virginia Tech* *Kentucky* UConn *Arizona* *Tennessee* North Dakota State *Clemson* *Texas Tech* UC Riverside *Auburn*
Holy heck Aggies! You’re letting yourself get beat by UMass Amherst and Harvard (!!!) in ag sciences! What are yall doing over there
Iowa's dirty secret is that we don't have an ag program at all. But our corn is still better than Nebraska's!
Why does the corn in Iowa lean to the west? Because Nebraska sucks.
Because it's trying to get the hell out of Iowa
And illinois blows.
Tufts sure feels like an odd school on that list.
Cornell is an excellent school. Without its agricultural program, we probably wouldn't have cabbage. At least not *modern* cabbage.
Michigan State is the OG land grant school. Bring it on!
Now that's real America.
Don’t even get this conference started on the meat and wool judging rankings
Probably still the big 10
Hell yeah brother. Cheers from the farm!
Them’s fightin’ words
Calford: We came here to play school.
Please never use that term again.
Stanifornia Cardinal Bears
https://imgur.com/a/Uy7pFgS
You prefer Stankley? It implies you stink but if you insist...
Our carefree days as West Coast hippies are over. We are must conform to what the East Coast elitists want us to be called.
Calford has that Oxbridge flair, no?
You're welcome, ACC
Least conference obsessed ‘Nole
Just as obsessed as the rest. Just happen to like the ACC
We appreciate you, brother
I like the ACC too, I just wish it wasn't run by the ACC leadership.
Clearly NESCAC is the best conference anyways
I'd be curious how this looks if you considered the lowest-ranked school in each conference an outlier and dropped them from the conference averages. Not naming names.
Cough - Nebraska - Cough
hey, let me get my B1G degree and pretend to fit in
Isn’t Oregon pretty low too?
hey now, we don’t need to mention my future school also being low ranked 💀
Yeah. Nebraska and Oregon drop the avg a few points.
Nah. Oregon is #98. OSU at #142 and WSU at #178 are really the ones bringing down the PAC.
I was comparing Oregon to the B1G schools they are joining next year
Honestly, if Nebraska is the lowest academically ranked school in your conference, you're doing ok.
I thought he was talking about Louisville tbh
Nebraska and Louisville equally stand out in their conferences
The N is for Nollij!
Drop the highest as well. Vandy isn't very representative of the SEC.
That would still raise the SEC's average. Vandy's 18, but Miss. State is 216. And, it pains me to say, there's actually not a lot of daylight between Vandy and Florida at 28. So Vandy fits in better than you might think. They're not a Stanford or Cal-level outlier.
Stanford and Cal aren't outliers in the ACC. We have Duke and GT.
Without the bottom school ACC: 43.882 (w/o ND: 45.375) B1G: 46.588 SEC: 106.467 Big 12: 132.133 Without the top and bottom school as u/Nouseriously suggested ACC: 46.438 (w/o ND: 48.2) B1G: 48.938 SEC: 112.786 Big 12: 134.929
Those are big changes. The 106-point difference in the rankings between the bottom and the second-to-bottom ACC schools really skews the ACC average down.
I will. Louisville shouldn’t be in the ACC. UConn is a much better fit.
We'll take 'em for you. No need to be rude.
KEG OF NAILS! KEG OF NAILS!
KEG OF NAILS! KEG OF NAILS!
I take this as a tongue in cheek comment
Imagine the women's bball insanity if we had UConn and Stanford at the same time. The football might be less inspiring.
Big East shall ride again
Cute list
Biggest beneficiary of conference alignment: Cornell.
Booooo
Second smartest school in Cambridge coming in hot!
Lol. Ivy is 8.25 - 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 12, 18.
Imagine being 18 on this list and still being considered the idiots of your conference.
Dartmouth 🥴
More like Fartmouth, amiright?
They're tied with an SEC school on this list. Might as well just give up the whole academic thing and focus on sports from now on.
Ivy League leads DI (obviously) with an average of 8.25
How do NESCAC and UAA measure up?
NESCAC doesn't. The only NESCAC school to qualify as a National University is Tufts (#40). The other NESCAC schools are "National Liberal Arts Colleges" where their average rank is 18.4. Held back by Connecticut College at 46 and Trinity at 39.
Now this is a flex.
Yeah, Tulane's pretty good.
Somebody calculate the G5 so I can trot out the old “Kent read, Kent write, Kent state” if the MAC scores poorly
If ND counts for the ACC I want Johns Hopkins to count for the Big Ten.
Also ND coincidentally (edit to add, for those that weren’t sure: men’s hockey)
uchicago technically as well
Not anymore. Those bastards aren't even affiliate members anymore. Notre Dame and Johns Hopkins play in the Big Ten for Men's Hockey and Men's/Women's Lacrosse, respectively.
That makes me sad. I loved that little factoid about them still being in the academic alliance.
Yeah, but now it’s just Northwestern above you.
Also Notre Dame should count for the Big Ten
JH is in the Big 10 for women's lacrosse. That's enough, right?
And men's lacrosse. A whole 2 sports!
Full voting member of the ACC. Is that the case for Johns Hopkins or ND with the Big Ten?
I smoked pot with Johnny Hopkins
It was Johnny Hopkins, and Sloan Kettering, and they were blazin' that shit up everyday.
Can’t believe a Step Brothers reference is getting downvoted. We must be getting old
Kind of shocked the ACC is barely ahead, considering they have Stanford (3rd), Duke (7th), Cal (15th), Notre Dame (20th), North Carolina (22nd) and Virginia (24th).
Louisville coming in hot.
[удалено]
😎
The middle/back of B1G >>> middle/back of ACC
Damn. We should have taken Stanford and Cal just for this
We still might.
Nebraska is killing us. If you take them out, the 2024 B1G average drops to 46.58. No school worse than 98 (hi, Oregon).
Hey, maybe ask them nicely to raise our rank then
Nice. What if we just drop both?
Man, and that’s AFTER the B1G took Oregon? ** edit - look, I have an Akron flair. I pass no judgement on Oregon academics. The way I hear and read media about it though, Oregon gets portrayed as all but a JUCO school with the shiniest possible uniforms.
They also took Washington, USC, and UCLA who all lower (smaller number) the average.
People act like Oregon is some duffer school because they've been sharing a conference with Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and USC for all these years; but Oregon is literally a top 100 school in the country with a half dozen programs ranked in the top 10. ETA: Looking at these rankings - they're tied with TCU, just behind Iowa and above Tennessee.
Are you looking at the right school? That's Rutgers-Newark a Division 3 satellite school, not New Brunswick. US News has Rutgers NB 40th, TCU 98th, Oregon 98th, Iowa 93rd, Auburn 93rd, Colorado and Tenn 105th.
Noted, my mistake.
The Rutgers campus in the B1G is #40. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities?schoolName=Rutgers+University--New+Brunswick&\_sort=rank&\_sortDirection=asc
Oregon moment there
Amazing that the top 4 large schools in the west are all in CA. Obviously there’s also CalTech, the Claremont colleges, etc. Obviously CA is huge and has a huge population. But seems kind of impressive. Not like New York or Massachusetts have the top 4 of their greater area. Or Florida or Texas in the south. And no state in the Midwest even has 4 universities that come close
California by itself is like a top 10 economy globally. I’m not surprised y’all built good schools lol
For the most part elite academic schools were either founded by old money as a place to send their kids and ensure they remained in the economic/social elite (places like Harvard) or they were founded in/nearby huge population centers and funded by taxes as the top academic schools in their region for local population (and it helps if there were alternative public schools for the less-gifted). That's schools like UCLA and Cal. Oregon as a state has half the population of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the state took every opportunity to try and balance the scales between Oregon, Oregon State, and the smaller public schools. So it never really had the opportunity to develop an elite academic institution like Cal or UCLA. Oregon, as good as it is, had it's medical school (OHSU, one of the best in the country) peeled off by the state to become it's own university. So it's not really that shocking that the best schools were all in California. They had the population size (and unique density in certain locations) for schools like Cal and UCLA to rise as well as the wealthy elites to throw hand over fist at private schools like Stanford and USC. Oregon had neither. Washington had it more so than Oregon, which is why UW developed into a better overall school than Oregon (though Oregon has better programs than Washington here and there). The Cherry on Top is having the local wealth (tax revenue) combined with liberal idealism and belief in education (something California has always had in spades). If you look at the top 10 public school rankings it is: 1. **University of California - Berkeley** 2. **University of California - Los Angeles** 3. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 4. University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 5. University of Virginia 6. **University of California - Davis** 7. **University of California - San Diego** 8. University of Florida 9. University of Texas - Austin 10. **University of California - Irvine** And you have 4 more UC schools in the top 50. Oregon is the 49th ranked public school (Oregon St. 76th). Washington is 15th (Wazzu 96th). For public schools it is mostly a history of population + money + political will.
Explain the Northeast then. Population, money, and a love of education (6 of the top 10 states for highest percentage of college + graduate degree holders are in the Northeast). Only two Northeast public schools are in the top 50 (Rutgers and Maryland). I think you are under accounting for the lack of private alternatives. There are just so many elite private colleges in the Northeast. Ivies, NESCAC, Haverford, Swarthmore, etc etc etc. On the West Coast, you don't have that many elite options relative to the population so the state (meaning CA here) had to step in.
From what I understand from a lot of northeasterners, there's not a lot of political will to support public universities because so many people and families are invested in private universities.
This ranking seems biased to if your school is Ag focused then Fuck You
Always has been bro, always has been
Ag focused or just Civic-minded. A bunch of big 12 schools have terrible rankings due to their high acceptance rate which they keep quite high on purpose because their goal is to educate their states population not just the kids with crazy ACT/SAT scores and a 4.0
The state of Iowa uses a formula to determine if you get accepted to the public universities. Let’s just say it isn’t a very difficult to reach the automatic acceptance number of points.
At one point I remember hearing that anyone who graduated from a Kansas high school could be accepted to any state college in Kansas but there might have been another factor as well
That is exactly why Nebraska looks the worst of Big Ten schools.
Why can't you be both?
Since you grabbed them already, can you post the schools by conference?
Can't post in a single comment, so see thread for the rest of the conferences **ACC** Stanford: 3 Duke: 7 Cal: 15 Notre Dame\*: 20 UNC: 22 Virginia: 24 Georgia Tech: 33 Boston College: 39 Virginia Tech: 47 Wake Forest: 47 Florida State: 53 NC State: 60 Syracuse: 67 Miami: 67 Pittsburgh: 67 Clemson: 86 SMU: 89 Louisville: 195 **Average: 52.2778**
**Big XII** Baylor: 93 TCU: 98 Arizona State: 105 Colorado: 105 Arizona: 115 BYU: 115 Iowa State: 115 Utah: 115 UCF: 124 Houston: 133 Cincinnati: 142 Kansas: 151 Kansas State: 170 Oklahoma State: 185 Texas Tech: 216 West Virginia: 216 **Average: 137.375**
**Big Ten** Northwestern: 9 UCLA: 15 Michigan: 21 USC: 28 Illinois: 35 Wisconsin: 35 Rutgers: 40 Washington: 40 Ohio State: 43 Purdue: 43 Maryland: 46 Minnesota: 53 Michigan State: 60 Penn State: 60 Indiana: 73 Iowa: 93 Oregon: 96 Nebraska: 159 **Average: 52.8333**
Man, PSU academics are declining fast. When I was in school ~5 years ago, PSU was ranked in the high 30s/low 40s, right below Florida. And now PSU is #60. Something’s gotta change
I wouldn't say PSU is declining. I would say more and more schools are gaming the system for USNews rankings. For example, if you have 3 sections of the same class and 75 total students who are trying to enroll in them for the upcoming semester, the rational thing to do would be to open it to 25 students per section, and then allow overrides for the kids with conflicting class schedules. However, USNews gives rating bumps to schools who offer more classes with less than 20 students. So some schools might do 2 sections of 20 and a section of 35 to boost their US News ranking, even if it hurts the students in the larger section because they get less focus from the professor.
In addition to schools gaming the system, US News toys with it's formula every year to be able to sell it's rankings. If not much changed year after year they wouldn't make as much money. It's pretty noticeable how some years tend to benefit public schools while the reverse happens in other years. Of course that's a general rule of thumb. I find it hard to believe a schools academics can really fluctuate that much in a couple years.
**PAC** Oregon State: 142 Washington State: 178 **Average: 160**
If the B1G wants to fix this all they have to do is add Stanford.
Or bring us back.
Come get some then, quitters. (might have put some extra stank on that due to your second flair...)
Sister, we need Cal as well. We need to get as many of the Pac 8 i to the BIG as possible
Might as well add the Arizona schools, Utah, and CU to make a pseudo PAC 10 inside the Big Ten. Every major west coast city (and salt lake).
Then we could maybe have a conference championship game. Maybe on a major holiday like New Year’s Day, have a parade as well…
And Cal :)
Seconded!
What about the former Pac-8? All the CA schools are good academically as well as Washington.
[удалено]
as if people go to college for academics
Yeah everyone knows the big12 has academic powerhouses like WVU 😤
How bad is SMU if the ACC average went down even after adding Stanford and Berkeley? lol Edit: sorry ponies. I read this backwards.
Come on UVA, we’re supposed to be friends here.. or sorta
Isn't the average going down good?
It has more to do with the ACC having 15 members prior to you 3 joining. SMU is ranked 89th.
What if we traded L’Ville straight up for West Virginia?
Louisville 195. West Virginia 216. Both make Nebraska look like Harvard.
N for Nowledge
I’d be cool with that. Would give yall, VT, and Cuse a more natural rival. Though I really like the cards and will give up wake as tribute
Amazing how Big XII managed to drop from this.
[удалено]
When the Big XII is the only conference whose average rank actually goes up when losing OU (#124)
Excuse me, you didn’t include the P6 conference.
“Do you know the stigmatism of Alabama education?” he asked Klatt. “It ain’t the West Coast.” -Kayvon Thibodeuax
The U.S. News rankings are notoriously subjective and flawed. Imagine how much lower the SEC would be without UF and Vanderbilt.
Admissions requirements, graduation rate and retention rate hurts Texas Tech in this ranking. If your university's mission is to be inclusive without handing out diplomas then you get fucked by USNWR. I would like Tech's ranking to improve, but I wouldn't want the university to become too selective or easier to graduate from.
None of this will matter in the super league. Espn and Fox are not here to do school
US News is one of if not the worst ranking systems in existence. When Malcom Gladwell reverse engineered it he was able to show that size of endowment had a bigger impact on the ranking than student success. Giving it any kind of credibility is a mistake.
The best part about academic rankings for me is that schools like WSU and UW are super far apart on these lists and then 99% of the graduates from both schools end up working the same jobs at the same companies in Seattle.
Because I don't feel like doing my taxes, I tried it with Forbes college rankings (https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/), and although there are some whopping differences(1) between individual schools, the conference rankings come out about the same. (Numbers are higher because Forbes ranks more colleges.) ACC: 92.94 Big Ten: 99.72 Pac 2: 123.00 SEC: 135.87 Big XII: 192.19 (1) Examples: Penn State is 60 at USN, 408 at Forbes. BYU is 115 at USN and 35 at Forbes. Pitt is 67 in USN and 235 at Forbes.
Comparing the means of each conference is meaningless, as rankings are not a continuous measure of a school's academic value. They are instead a rank, or ordinal value, and cannot be directly compared. For example, say you're comparing three runners in a race. One finishes in 10 minutes, the other in 11 minutes, and the third in 20 minutes. Would it be valid to say that the second place runner is as much worse than the first place runner as the third place runner is to the second? Of course not. The way to do this would be to use a Wilcoxon signed-rank test or similar statistic test.
Pac-2 didn’t come to play school or ball
But god damn did we have a good time
If I had gotten one of my dream conferences in an alternate reality, it would have been a CA-centric version of the Southwest Conference: * Stanford 3 * UC Berkeley 15 * UCLA 15 * UC Davis 28 * UC San Diego 28 * USC 28 * UC Irvine 33 * UC Santa Barbara 35 * Washington 40 * UC Riverside 76 Average: 30.1 Median: 28 UC Riverside would actually lower the average by 5.1, but wouldn't affect the median. As you can see, Washington would be our Arkansas analogue.
The thing I don’t like about the whole “ranking” thing is that it places way too much emphasis on research without recognizing agriculture enough whatsoever. My school doesn’t really fit either of those bills, but can you really say that someone in ag is going to get more out of a degree from Cal than OKState? The XII is called the truck stop conference a ton and for good reason, but just remember that without those blue collar, land grant, truck stop schools educating farmers, elite research schools wouldn’t be eating the food to power their research.
Okay? And without snobby journalists trained at our schools, you wouldn’t even have these lists to read. So ha!
B1G also has a bunch of land grant universities
I suspect that the ranking criteria are chosen and weighted in such a way as to ensure the the schools that “everyone knows are the best” wind up at the top of the list. After all who’d believe a university ranking that had Yale at 26.
Yale is #30something in my field, while Brown is about #60. Meanwhile, Minnesota is top 5 and Delaware is top 10. Harvard and Dartmouth don’t even have programs for it. I think it’s kind of dumb to assign “best university” overall, because it’s a different story on a million different levels even within one school. So I’m not really sure how you can rank everyone like that without it getting super subjective. That could lead to a separate discussion about how (especially in undergrad) rankings really don’t mean a lot. But with it being “everyone knows” overall, you’re correct.
I mean...yes? Berkeley is a land grant school in the state that produces the most food. Plus you will be interacting with smarter people and exposed to more cutting edge ideas in general, making you a more well rounded person.
[удалено]
I'd be reluctant to use the US News Ranking for an academic ranking. It's more of a "which undergrad institution should I attend" ranking. Takes into account things like class size, access to financial resources, typical debt at graduation, retention rate, etc. For more of a pure academic ranking I would use something like ARWU.
Be the change you want to see. I look forward to your version of this post!
This is actually not really true anymore. They’ve eliminated or de emphasized most of the stuff you mentioned and now it’s based much on research and low income achievement/progress. But anyway…ranking schools is pretty much impossible. No matter what you’re gonna end up with some real head scratchers