Started By
Message
re: Ranking the SEC schools by academics--US News list
Posted on 6/2/12 at 7:17 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
Posted on 6/2/12 at 7:17 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
but overall this rule honestly hurts the academic profile of both schools
Yep.. This is what got my niece when she applied. She made straight A for 90% of her life but was top 11% in a very large DFW school. If she had been out in the sticks at a small school she could have been in the top 10 students more than likely.
The arbitrary top 10% rule only hurts us, but to be honest, if you can't hack it when you get to school, you will fail out anyway, and there are 50 other applicants waiting to take your place. I remember hearing we had over 50k freshman applications this year.
0
Posted on 6/2/12 at 7:21 am to KCM0Tiger
You know what this means guys? That every person who attended Ole Miss is inherently stupider than everybody else in the SEC except for State. These (mostly arbitrary) rankings say so!
[PS - As far as academic offerings and opportunities for students, Ole Miss and State are fine schools. The problem is that they're, not through any fault of their own, far too easy to get into, meaning that a significant portion of each school's student body really shouldn't be in a four year university to begin with. It's complicated.]
[PS - As far as academic offerings and opportunities for students, Ole Miss and State are fine schools. The problem is that they're, not through any fault of their own, far too easy to get into, meaning that a significant portion of each school's student body really shouldn't be in a four year university to begin with. It's complicated.]
Posted on 6/2/12 at 7:24 am to BreakawayZou83
quote:
It's a great research school, but only a mediocre undergraduate institution, although that varies widely depending upon what you study.
This describes really most state schools in America. In the SEC, this maybe doesn't apply to TAMU, Georgia, and Florida.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 7:26 am to cornhat
quote:
I've seen Ole Miss connections everywhere in DC
We're the most "it's not what you know, but who you know" institution in America.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 10:37 am to KCM0Tiger
aggy is so stupid...blah blah blah...bunch of dumb rednecks..blah blah blah 
Posted on 6/2/12 at 11:25 am to RandyVandy
quote:
Missouri is like everything bad about the south and the rust belt combined, without the positives of either.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 8:51 pm to KCM0Tiger
Wow - aTm above UGA and UF...not a flame, but didn't expect that.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 9:14 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
I thing Vandy, Florida, Missouri, and A&M should all band together and sponsor (at a minimum) Georgia, Auburn, and Alabama for AAU membership.
Georgia, yes. Auburn and Alabama? That's laughable. They aren't research universities. Carnegie Foundation classifies Auburn and Alabama as "high research activity." That's comparable to these schools. (Just for comparison, LSU has "very high research activity" and is classified with schools like these.)
I don't think LSU in on the AAU level. But that means Auburn and Alabama definitely are not. These research expenditure rankings put LSU in the top 50. Auburn is outside of the top 100. Alabama main campus isn't listed because most of the research is done in Birmingham or Huntsville.
This post was edited on 6/2/12 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 6/2/12 at 9:26 pm to johnfredlsu
quote:
Georgia, yes. Auburn and Alabama? That's laughable. They aren't research universities. Carnegie Foundation classifies Auburn and Alabama as "high research activity." That's comparable to these schools. (Just for comparison, LSU has "very high research activity" and is classified with schools like these.)
Not that its terrible important but clicking on either of those links I didn't see SC but this is on our school page.
quote:
USC is one of only 40 public universities in the nation and the only one in South Carolina to receive the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and to be named among the nation’s leaders in providing programs that benefit and engage communities.
Is there another classification of rankings or am I missing something?
eta: Nevermind, putting all the "University ofs" as a part of the alphabetical order threw me off.
This post was edited on 6/2/12 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 6/2/12 at 9:29 pm to bottagetta80
quote:
Wow - aTm above UGA and UF...not a flame, but didn't expect that.
Underestimating Aggies is a classic mistake that will lead to your downfall.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 9:48 pm to johnfredlsu
quote:
Georgia, yes. Auburn and Alabama? That's laughable. They aren't research universities. Carnegie Foundation classifies Auburn and Alabama as "high research activity." That's comparable to these schools. (Just for comparison, LSU has "very high research activity" and is classified with schools like these.)
Mississippi State is in the Carnegie Foundation Very High Research Activity group.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 9:59 pm to johnfredlsu
quote:
Georgia, yes. Auburn and Alabama? That's laughable. They aren't research universities. Carnegie Foundation classifies Auburn and Alabama as "high research activity." That's comparable to these schools. (Just for comparison, LSU has "very high research activity" and is classified with schools like these.)
I don't think LSU in on the AAU level. But that means Auburn and Alabama definitely are not. These research expenditure rankings put LSU in the top 50. Auburn is outside of the top 100. Alabama main campus isn't listed because most of the research is done in Birmingham or Huntsville.
The problem is that many "research" institutions do a lousy job at "teaching". When the most knowledgeable professors only teach three or four classes, and generally upper level classes only - that means that adjunct instructors and grad students teach the MAJORITY of students enrolled at the university.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 10:17 pm to iglass
quote:
When the most knowledgeable professors only teach three or four classes, and generally upper level classes only - that means that adjunct instructors and grad students teach the MAJORITY of students enrolled at the university.
I can second this from personal experience. I had a physics prof for a sophomore class (undergrad) who excelled at teaching graduate level physics, but tried to fail everyone in our class. When I retook the class with an instructor that both spoke English and gave a damn about his students, I got a solid B.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 10:57 pm to iglass
quote:
The problem is that many "research" institutions do a lousy job at "teaching". When the most knowledgeable professors only teach three or four classes, and generally upper level classes only - that means that adjunct instructors and grad students teach the MAJORITY of students enrolled at the university.
Yeah and I've run into some that are there to research and as a part of that they are required to teach and it is obvious that most of these researches have no desire and have never had any intent to teach. It can be rough sometimes because they clearly have no idea how to teach but sometimes I run into the more slack kind who would rather get back to their research than to worry about whats going on in class, which I kind of enjoy when they decide to make finals optional.
Not all are bad, some professors realize they teach big general required for a lot of majors 101 type classes and that most of their students have no interest in the subject and are only taking it because they are required to and thus they're willing to show some mercy (though I hear about their upper level and honors classes and those sound rough as hell)
This post was edited on 6/2/12 at 11:00 pm
Posted on 6/2/12 at 11:01 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
Teaching is a thorn in the side of many research professors.
I gave or made several of my profs lectures in both undergrad and grad classes...and that's just downright scary lol.
The research profs make the money at big universities though, not the undergrad pukes...
I gave or made several of my profs lectures in both undergrad and grad classes...and that's just downright scary lol.
The research profs make the money at big universities though, not the undergrad pukes...
Posted on 6/2/12 at 11:19 pm to ULMaggie
The a-hole I'm referring to stated that, "If you can't get an A in my class...you shouldn't be Engineer".
1 person out of 200 got an A that semester.
1 person out of 200 got an A that semester.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 11:36 pm to johnfredlsu
No one is going to sponsor anyone for AAU admission based on being in the same conference. Nebraska just got kicked out of the AAU, something that would have required 2 (IIRC) Big 10 schools signing off on. And the Big 10 was the conference the prided itself on stuff like this.
This post was edited on 6/2/12 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 6/2/12 at 11:38 pm to RandyVandy
quote:
No one is going to sponsor anyone for AUU admission based on being in the same conference.
Unlike the B1G, we're more likely to LOBBY for someone like Georgia.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 11:45 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
Why? I just don't see the connection at all, especially in the SEC which is a strictly sports association.
Like everything else, the AAU is about money. If UGA doesn't add to the bottom line (IDK if they would or wouldn't), there is really no reason to add them, sentimentality or camaraderie aside. You think Vanderbilt professors care we play in the same league as Georgia? They would probably like to see us de-emphisize sports.
Like everything else, the AAU is about money. If UGA doesn't add to the bottom line (IDK if they would or wouldn't), there is really no reason to add them, sentimentality or camaraderie aside. You think Vanderbilt professors care we play in the same league as Georgia? They would probably like to see us de-emphisize sports.
Posted on 6/2/12 at 11:55 pm to iglass
quote:
The problem is that many "research" institutions do a lousy job at "teaching."
There are plenty of great teachers in community college, too. Awesome. So, you can finally understand algebra now. That doesn't mean Alabama deserves an AAU invite. Far from it.
I had plenty of top-notch professors at LSU who were great researchers and teachers. Indeed, that was the norm for me. (Maybe this was the Honors College?) The same has been the same at Penn. I won't deny there are some profs who don't enjoy teaching undergrads and prefer research. But I think there's a component that's overlooked: plenty of undergrads just aren't prepared for rigorous university learning. If I taught disengaged and unprepared undergrads, I'd be bitter about that too.
This post was edited on 6/2/12 at 11:58 pm
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News