Jump to content

RebelAlliance

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RebelAlliance

  • Rank
    Beginner

Profile Information

  • Team
    UNLV

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here's their own Common Data Set. Their own numbers. For ease and quickness, I used google's numbers. The most recent UCLA common data set says 1290-1510. FWIW, the median SAT score at Chicago is 1505. If you think it's harder to get into UCLA than Princeton or Chicago (5% acceptance rates), I don't know what to say. A case study of 1 doesn't prove shit. As for GPA, I'm not sure it tells much anymore. In an era of rampant grade inflation and parents showing up with lawyers to student-parent meetings doesn't mean a lot to me. Class rank matters though, and the Master Plan admission req
  2. While I definitely think there are some cultural issues at play, I don't think it's the selectivity of Cal and UCLA solely. Cal is really no more selective than Michigan (middle 50% SAT range Cal: 1330-1530/Michigan: 1340-1530). UCLA is slightly more selective than the next tier of B10 schools (UCLA: 1300-1530/Wiscsonsin 1300-1480/Minnesota 1260-1480/Ohio State 1250-1460/Illinois 1210-1470) For comparison's sake, at UNLV it's 1030-1250 and at UNR 1070-1290. If kids at UCLA and Berkeley don't care about athletics while kids at Michigan and the next four B1G schools do, I don't see SAT s
  3. Except those schools all collaborate a great deal with those "corn farmers" already though direct research partnerships, grant-sharing, AAU membership or being a member of one of the National Academies. The faculty and administration do not view Big 10 schools as rubes. Does Stanford view them all (OK, any of them) as equals? No, but their administrators don't suffer from binary thinking and can judge where along the academic quality spectrum, those schools lie. And even the most pretentious donors can be educated about the situation, not to mention how much help those corn farmers might b
  4. The latter two make sense, but can anyone see osu and um being the only two Northern schoolsin a southern conference. I wonder how many 18-2 votes they'd lose.
  5. B1G won't say no to USC. The only issue will be the format and number teams and whether it will be a merger or a raid.
  6. https://mup.umass.edu/ Because schools like Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana and Penn State are such "rube" schools. I think you're thinking about the schools to the South of the B10.
  7. They gone after this year. It'll be interesting to watch their conference away games--especially Texas who appears to be the Butthead to OU's Beavis--and see what happens in the stands. I don't think too many fans OU/UT alums will be making road trips this year.
  8. They're arrogant enough to try, but they'd fall flat on their face. USC has no national following the way ND does. They're a blueblood, so college football fans pay attention to them when they're relevant, which hasn't been often the last few decades, but nobody really gives a shit about them in the Northeast, Southeast or Great Lakes. Hell, I'd argue that Michigan (and maybe tOSU or Texas) would have a much better chance of succeeding as an indy than USC.
  9. I don't think you can separate UCLA from Berkeley, which is why the B1G Death Star will nuke from orbit. All four Cali schools plus Nike plus Dawg. Maybe Buffalo. Not a bad "Pacific Division." You lock down the California media markets along with Portland, Seattle and Denver. You add 7 AAU universities, which still matters to the stodgy old-club Big Ten crowd. That's a true coast-to-coast national conference while the SEC remains a regional Southern conference full of mostly mediocre universities.
  10. Laughing my ass off that Coug is all about Carnegie and doesn't say peep about AAU membership.
  11. What part of "the AAU goes much deeper" did you miss. I said that's a good snapshot of AAU strength/compatibility, not an exact measurement. If you feel that KU isn't a legacy bottom feeder in the modern AAU please tell me the metrics that prove me wrong. I'm waiting. I'll hang up and listen. So tell us, what is your relationship to KU? Alum? Faculty or staff? BTW, your last paragraph pretty much exactly encapsulates why the AAU flushed Nebraska down the toilet, so why will KU be spared?
  12. Agree with the second paragraph, but if you want to list the bottom five publics in the AAU, Kansas is absolutely in that group: Kansas, Oregon, Mizzou and two SUNY schools to be named. Name me other publics that are weaker than KU? Also, the Harvard-Chicago-Princeton thing was kind of a joke. To be more literal, when the true powers in the AAU--public and private--decide it's time to cull the herd, then KU had better sleep with one eye open.
  13. Don't disagree about Missouri and Oregon, but KU is in the same position. They're hanging on by a thread, and the morning that Harvard, Chicago and Princeton wake up with an urge to Cleveland Steamer some public university somewhere they'd better watch out.
  14. Start here. These reports are a pretty good synopsis of how research universities stand relative to AAU membership. It uses nine metrics that measure research funding, financial resources, faculty quality, depth and breadth of doctoral programs and undergraduate selectivity. They then group universities based on how many of those metrics they rank 1-25 and 26-50. The actual AAU goes much deeper using hard metrics such as federal research $ per tenured faculty member and soft metrics such as the strength of academic core (Arts & Sciences) programs. They have three separate rankings: al
×
×
  • Create New...