UA rebranding

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Fantastic graphic Keener...now we know what is funding the OU endowment.

Zipomatic is spot on with the pyramid. It is just reality that OSU as a land grant school centered in the capital is going to be nearly impossible to displace as the flagship. Whatever. But logically there should be a "near flagships" aligned with the population/economic sectors in the north and south. UC has done that in the south. The illogical presence of 4 disconnected, uncoordinated, rancorously related public universities in the north has prevented the formation of a "near flagship" in NEO. I think this is exactly what Fingerhut was thinking a few years back and, at least the way it played out in the media, he was pushing to fold UA into CSU as a starting point but then backed off when he realized UA was much more than what he had thought or what its reputation was. That coverage is what really got me going on the UA-Can't merger because I figured it was the best chance to have this eventual consolidation happen with UA as beneficiary-- be proactive and bold, propose something big and game changing, create momentum to dictate the future rather than have it dictated to us.

I really appreciate what you have added to the discussion Zipomatic and am thoroughly entertained by the your OU vitriol.

BTW, the one quibble I would have on your description of the UC system is that almost all the UC schools are very high quality. Berkley and UCLA are, depending on the source, the best public universities in the country, but UCSD, USCB, UCI, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz are all top school 50ish schools as well.

For what it's worth, the California system includes 2 well-regarded polytechnics-- Cal Poly.

[zip-O-matic]

Not to belabor the point. OK, to belabor it and drive it into the ground, let's put, once and for all, this myth to bed that OU is operating on a different level than the majority of Ohio public universities. We've addressed undergraduate student bodies, now let's see how they stack up in areas such as Doctoral degrees, fundraising, research funding and faculty quality.

Here is some complete data for 2012 on a variety of quality indicators pulled from the statistical tables of the Center For Measuring University Performance.

Research Funding (x $1000)

OSU 794,023 (18th overall/9th among publics)

UC 419,456 (46/28)

UA 56,248 (188/139)

Can't State 24,388 (255/188)

CSU 55,044 (191/142)

BG 8,834 (324/234)

UT 70,164 (171/123)

Miami 14,795 (285/209)

OU 43,399 (206th/156th)

National Academy Members on Faculty

OSU 30 (36/18)

UC 9 (73/37)

UA 2 (136/81)

Can't State 1 (163/99)

CSU 0

BG 0

UT 0

Miami 0

OU 0

Annual Giving 2012 (Millions of Dollars)

OSU 334.509 (13/3)

UC 105.168 (58/36)

UA 52.820 (120/77)

Can't State 18.127 (228/121)

CSU 5.265 (556/230)

BG 11.630 (329/161)

UT 15.257 (271/138

Miami 33.585 (154/92)

OU 53.859 (117/75) *and this seems to something of a aberration since in the vast majority of years their take as been in the high teens or low twenties.

Doctorate Degrees Awarded

OSU 756 (7/6)

UC 242 (79/56)

UA 97 (159/109)

Can't State 142 (126/90)

CSU 35 (272/172)

BG 86 (170/114)

UT 103 (153/105)

Miami 52 (229/149)

OU 94 (161/111)

Again, somebody show me how OU differentiates itself from Akron, Can't State, Toledo or Bowling Green.

[zip-O-matic]

Fantastic graphic Keener...now we know what is funding the OU endowment.

Zipomatic is spot on with the pyramid. It is just reality that OSU as a land grant school centered in the capital is going to be nearly impossible to displace as the flagship. Whatever. But logically there should be a "near flagships" aligned with the population/economic sectors in the north and south. UC has done that in the south. The illogical presence of 4 disconnected, uncoordinated, rancorously related public universities in the north has prevented the formation of a "near flagship" in NEO. I think this is exactly what Fingerhut was thinking a few years back and, at least the way it played out in the media, he was pushing to fold UA into CSU as a starting point but then backed off when he realized UA was much more than what he had thought or what its reputation was. That coverage is what really got me going on the UA-Can't merger because I figured it was the best chance to have this eventual consolidation happen with UA as beneficiary-- be proactive and bold, propose something big and game changing, create momentum to dictate the future rather than have it dictated to us.

I really appreciate what you have added to the discussion Zipomatic and am thoroughly entertained by the your OU vitriol.

BTW, the one quibble I would have on your description of the UC system is that almost all the UC schools are very high quality. Berkley and UCLA are, depending on the source, the best public universities in the country, but UCSD, USCB, UCI, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz are all top school 50ish schools as well.

For what it's worth, the California system includes 2 well-regarded polytechnics-- Cal Poly.

I agree with you about the UC campuses. It's just that Ohio doesn't need that many nor that many Cal State equivalents either. California has 3.5 times the population, so if Ohio had 4 UC campuses and 8 Cal State campuses, that breaks down to roughly the same both in terms of overall four year campuses per capita and roughly the same split that California has between UC schools (9) and Cal State schools (23).

The Cal Poly schools are very good as is SDSU, but in the context of the California Master Plan, they are still merely the tallest midgets.

I'll add one more bit about the history of Ohio State and how it relates to the ASU model. Not a lot of people are aware of this but Jim Rhodes and the Regents Chair (former Miami President named Millett) actually tried to push OSU into being a 100K campus. They were going to force it to build several more of the tower dorms along the river to house them all. OSU fought it tooth and nail and managed to defeat it along with later rallying the political and business support to undo the policies that they were able to force onto OSU. They took the university in a completely different direction than the ASU model that was trying to be forced upon them by the Governor and their own trustees, and I think the results speak for themselves today. I don't think OSU would be half the university it is--nor provide the same benefits to the taxpayers of Ohios--had it been forced to become a 100K university in the 70s.

[ZippyRulz]

Looking up our open admissions policy….this is all I can find

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/03/university_of_akron_to_steer_s.html

http://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/ohio/open-admissions/

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=akron+remedial+community+college

[jupitertoo]

Fulbright Scholars, current year:

Ohio State: 14

Ohio University: 10

UC: 3

Miami: 2

Akron: 0

Latest US News rankings have UC and OU deadlocked at 129 among national universities. OSU is 54, Miami 76, BG 173, Can't 194, Akron and Toledo not ranked.

[jupitertoo]

Quote: OU 53.859 (117/75) *and this seems to something of a aberration since in the vast majority of years their take as been in the high teens or low twenties.

Actually, giving to the university was 130.5 million in 2011, 53.4M in 2010, 46.7M in 2009 and 88.6M in 2008. So not quite the aberration you claim.

And endowment is now more than $520M, or 3X UA's.

How about annual university licensing revenue from research? OU is #1 in state, followed by Case, OSU, Toledo, Can't and Akron, in order.

[zip-O-matic]

So, you find one area where Ohio is closer to Ohio State than the rest of the schools (Fulbright Scholars), and that's supposed to wipe away everything else.

As for your USNWR ranking, you are tied with UC. Just one nagging little thing. OU under McDavis has been on a steady downward trend. You're at 129 down from 106 a half dozen years ago. UC has been trending upwards, up to 129 from around 150 over the same period of time. Any guesses as to if the schools are tied next time around given recent momentum?

Licensing Revenue? Really. I'm sure that OSU is just quaking in their boots and wondering how that $3.5B endowment plus another $1B in unrestricted cash reserves can possibly compete against OU's licensing revenue. And BTW, isn't that the result of pretty much one very lucrative invention in avionics whose licensing agreement is about to expire? Somehow, I don't think the restoration of OU is quite at hand.

And here's what the Center has for OU's fundraising over the last several years. Here's the link. Click on Annual Giving in Current Dollars. Knowing what I know about the OU administration's ability to blow smoke up its alumni's ass, I'll rely on the figures of an independent research organization.

(x1000)

2012 53,859

2011 14,404

2010 22,390

2009 105,320

2008 23,591

2007 19,214

2006 13,751

2005 17,228

2004 17,786

Now, I've never said that there aren't any areas where OU looks better than UA, Can't or a hypothetical merged school. but they're minor little points of pride other than the endowment. And even the endowment only looks good relative to schools that you consider beneath you. It's quite pathetic when compared to schools that you mistakenly believe are your peers. For every little point of pride that OU has, Akron or Toledo or Can't have one where they look better than OU. When you look at the overall picture including the most foundational benchmarks such as research funding, student quality, faculty quality and so on, OU is far, far more a peer institution to Akron or Toledo than it is (or frankly ever will be) to Ohio State and you'll never be what Cincy has accomplished on the graduate/research side or what Miami has on the undergrad side. OU should change its smug little slogan to "Ohio's First and Finest Safety School." The fact that OU so stubbornly refuses to accept that is why you are mired in mediocrity. It's why UC has passed you by, and it's why UA and Can't State with a little visionary leadership could very well do likewise a decade from now.

Akron has some serious problems that it needs to address. It's why I don't think any merger would necessarily be Akron "absorbing" Can't State and getting to call the shots. At best, it would be a merger of equals. That being said, it would still be two institutions recognizing their shortcomings and addressing them while looking forward to the future. It would also be two institutions attempting to do what's best for the state and its citizens rather than childishly attempting to overturn a century and a half of public policy out of selfish, egotistical needs. What's OU have other than jumping up and down and crying, "we were first! we were first! It's all so unfair!" Well, take that up with the ghost of Rutherford B. Hayes because OU's fate was settled long before your grandfather was born.

[ZachTheZip]

OU's biggest mistake was conceding to OSU the right to use "Ohio" with "State" in certain circumstances such as the name of Ohio Stadium, when OU had the lawsuit won. It completely undermined their branding.

[jupitertoo]

Hilarious. I just looked at the website for this independent organization from which you've been collecting bogus information. What a freaking joke. Seriously, I assume you were either denied tenure in Athens or have some other axe to grind. Get a life. Crawl back under the rock. Now let's change the discussion to something constructive. How, for example, Akron can turn around its enrollment problems. Perhaps your most delusional comment is the prospect of Akron somehow absorbing Can't or even being merged with Can't as a marriage of equals. In case you haven't noticed, Can't is on a much different trajectory than UA and I doubt their administration would have any interest in inheriting the politically inspired mess that this board and Dr. Proenza have created over the past 15 years.

[Dave in Green]

According to Wikipedia, The Center for Measuring University Performance rankings are highly regarded within the academic community:

This ranking's influence within the academic community has been described as being "commonly regarded to be one of three indicators that reflect an institution’s rank as a Tier One institution", the other two being the classification of a university with "very high research activity" by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and membership within the Association of American Universities.

MUP's advisory board includes among others:

Lloyd Armstrong, University Professor and Provost Emeritus, University of Southern California
Arthur M. Cohen, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles

Gerardo M. Gonzalez, University Dean, School of Education, Indiana University

Roger Kaufman,Professor Emeritus, Educational Psychology and Learning,Florida State University

Richard H. Stanley, Senior VP and University Planner, Arizona State University

[zip-O-matic]

Hilarious. I just looked at the website for this independent organization from which you've been collecting bogus information. What a freaking joke. Seriously, I assume you were either denied tenure in Athens or have some other axe to grind. Get a life. Crawl back under the rock. Now let's change the discussion to something constructive. How, for example, Akron can turn around its enrollment problems. Perhaps your most delusional comment is the prospect of Akron somehow absorbing Can't or even being merged with Can't as a marriage of equals. In case you haven't noticed, Can't is on a much different trajectory than UA and I doubt their administration would have any interest in inheriting the politically inspired mess that this board and Dr. Proenza have created over the past 15 years.

I suggest you try and up your reading comprehension skills. I specifically said that Akron has a lot of problems and any merger would NOT be one of Akron as the dominant partner. I also said a marriage of equals would be a "best case scenario." I think I was very clear, but perhaps your vaunted "first and finest" education does not allow you to pick up on even the most direct of statements. As for MUP, they pretty much aggregate hard, objective and measurable statistics on America's research universities. As noted above, that's why they are seen as a very valid source for quality evaluations. But that's probably the real problem. They do lay out their case and their numbers in stark detail, and once again OU ends up on the wrong side of the napkin. I'm sure it's oh so much more soothing to just shoot the messenger and listen to the feel good talk of McDavis however divorced from reality it may be. Want to run down the National Research Council's department rankings for OU and see how things shake out? They put them out about once a decade, and they're generally considered the gold standard in evaluating Ph.D programs. I'm sure that when what you see doesn't jibe with McDavis' kool-aid, you will undoubtedly attempt to also dismiss the National Research Council and the affiliated National Academies of Science and Engineering as a joke.

I hate to say it but nobody outside of OU's most die-hard, kool-aid drinking proponents see it as anything more than an average, run of the mill, regional state university. That's all it is, all it ever will be and all it ever was. That institution loves to piss and moan and feel sorry for itself because of what was done to it in 1870, yet never bothers to ask why that was done. Why was Ohio the ONLY state in the region that created an entirely new university for the land-grant and flagship roles rather than giving it to an existing university? It's because OU was judged as a complete fuck up unfit to carry the burden. The Governor, legislature and business leadership of the state looked at OU and said, "Thanks but no thanks. We'd rather go to the trouble of starting an entirely new university than watch you screw it up." That is who and what you are: two centuries of being the state's afterthought because you never went out and gave it a reason to view you as anything but that. You bemoan the existence of Ohio State, yet the roots of its creation lie solely at the feet of your very own incompetence. That's got to be a heavy burden for an institution to deal with which is why I guess yours retreats into delusional fantasy about its place on the food chain rather than face its own sordid, mediocre history.

And for what it's worth, I have never had any affiliation with OU. Never even applied there. I have degrees from two universities, both of which are completely out of OU's league.

[zen]

I hate to say it but nobody outside of OU's most die-hard, kool-aid drinking proponents see it as anything more than an average, run of the mill, regional state university.

I think I have heard several times that OU has a nice film program.

Also, their mascot attacked Brutus Buckeye.

Don't mess with their rep.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Well, this thread certainly went off into an interesting direction...

OU aside, I am interested in understanding Jupitertoos POV on where/why/how UA went awry under Dr. P, who I thought most people really liked. I am definitely disturbed that alot of key indicators-- like enrollment-- are down when the goal was for them to actually be up dramatically at this point after the Landscape for Learning projects. I think the goal was to be on course to be about 35K in main campus enrollment. It is definitely true that Can't (and OU) are up in enrollment. We aren't. Why?

And yes, any combo of Akron and Can't would be a merger of equals, not UA absorbing Can't. But, my point is that this is far better than UA getting absorbed into CSU. Does anyone know how close that came to happening under Fingerhut?

[a-zip]

If we are no longer an open enrollment school, wouldn't that be a reason for a decrease in enrollment?

[zip-O-matic]

Well, this thread certainly went off into an interesting direction...

OU aside, I am interested in understanding Jupitertoos POV on where/why/how UA went awry under Dr. P, who I thought most people really liked. I am definitely disturbed that alot of key indicators-- like enrollment-- are down when the goal was for them to actually be up dramatically at this point after the Landscape for Learning projects. I think the goal was to be on course to be about 35K in main campus enrollment. It is definitely true that Can't (and OU) are up in enrollment. We aren't. Why?

And yes, any combo of Akron and Can't would be a merger of equals, not UA absorbing Can't. But, my point is that this is far better than UA getting absorbed into CSU. Does anyone know how close that came to happening under Fingerhut?

I had problems with Proenza. I actually thought that he was very similar to the OU Prez in that he talked a good game but the actual accomplishments were less than the rhetoric. Like the OU President, he also couldn't resist poking OSU in public speeches, and while that may have been fresh meat for the faithful, I think it did a lot of harm behind the scenes with influential politicians and business leaders. I also think that he spent money like a drunken sailor and got out of town before the bills came due. He was no savior. That being said, I also liked a lot of what he did. Much like the current UC President, he was great at getting people to think about what Akron could be not just what it had always been, and the campus did need to be made more residential if it was to compete. Why that hasn't translated into positive gains, I would throw these reasons out there as the two biggest factors.

• The lagging negative implication of being an open admission university. As the facts note, UA does every bit as well as OU in attracting top students, but around the middle of the class it has that severe drop-off. Akron should be rejecting more of them and sending them to branch campuses. Not only would it help our perception around the state, but it would be a huge boost in solving our problems meeting the state's funding metrics of grad rates, retention and so on. It's a tricky game though. In the short-term, that's only going to lower enrollment until those lost students get made up down the road by better ability students. After that process, however, the university as whole will be a lot more attractive.
• Is enough of UA's endowment devoted to undergraduate aid--merit and need based?

As for Scarborough's missteps. While I absolutely agree with the sentiment expressed on that napkin, making that part of the public discussion was just too stupid to fathom.

[zip-O-matic]

If we are no longer an open enrollment school, wouldn't that be a reason for a decrease in enrollment?

Not when we're still accepting 90+ percent of applicants, and the 25th percentile ACT score is 19. If we had, over a two or three year period, simply lopped off that bottom fifth of the class to bring our overall class profile in line with OU's, then I think there'd be some link between the two.

[jupitertoo]

Zip-O-Matic might be interested in knowing that the fundraising figures he disputes come from the latest audited statements of the Ohio University Foundation, which I think I'll trust more than his odd website. I think he'll also be interested in trashing Miami U, which has dropped in the US News Ratings (from the mid-50s to 70s) through the years. Obviously another 200 year old institution on the decline.

On the topic of recruiting high-achieving high school students, it should be noted that universities located in urban areas actually have a bit of a leg up. A friend of mine who worked for 6 years in UA's admissions department explained that a certain percentage of these kids are far more likely to attend a local university, at least for the first year or two, due either to financial constraints or parental influence. Some parents are reluctant to send their kids away to school and others simply can't afford it. I saw the former with several of my fellow graduates at Walsh Jesuit back in the day. Many of them eventually transferred to Ohio State or other school. Cincinnati has the same advantage, as does OSU. It also should be noted that OSU has been masterful in upping its class profile by "parking" kids on the Mansfield campus before eventually allowing them to transfer to Columbus.

[a-zip]

Not when we're still accepting 90+ percent of applicants, and the 25th percentile ACT score is 19. If we had, over a two or three year period, simply lopped off that bottom fifth of the class to bring our overall class profile in line with OU's, then I think there'd be some link between the two.

Seriously with a 97% acceptance rate, we are still essentially an open enrollment school and our enrollment is going down…..not good. In reading through the last couple days of information here it is absolutely clear that re-branding and restructuring of our programs has to happen. I liked Proenza but I am seriously questioning his administration.

[zip-O-matic]

Zip-O-Matic might be interested in knowing that the fundraising figures he disputes come from the latest audited statements of the Ohio University Foundation, which I think I'll trust more than his odd website. I think he'll also be interested in trashing Miami U, which has dropped in the US News Ratings (from the mid-50s to 70s) through the years. Obviously another 200 year old institution on the decline.

On the topic of recruiting high-achieving high school students, it should be noted that universities located in urban areas actually have a bit of a leg up. A friend of mine who worked for 6 years in UA's admissions department explained that a certain percentage of these kids are far more likely to attend a local university, at least for the first year or two, due either to financial constraints or parental influence. Some parents are reluctant to send their kids away to school and others simply can't afford it. I saw the former with several of my fellow graduates at Walsh Jesuit back in the day. Many of them eventually transferred to Ohio State or other school. Cincinnati has the same advantage, as does OSU. It also should be noted that OSU has been masterful in upping its class profile by "parking" kids on the Mansfield campus before eventually allowing them to transfer to Columbus.

So, you're saying that the reason that OU can't recruit more high ability students than Akron is because the city of Akron gives it such a huge advantage. Rrrrriiiggghht. Funny, I seem to remember you--just a page or two back--bragging about OU's beautiful campus and idyllic setting as a huge advantage and reason why it's "the hottest college in the state." Miami has no problem being in a rural area, nor do several other high quality publics in the region that aren't located in metropolitan areas such as Penn State, Illinois, Madison, Indiana and Purdue. Just face it, OU is simply playing in another league.

As for branch campuses, every public university does the same thing as Ohio State. It's something that Akron needs to seriously consider. And BTW, you do know that it's OU that has the largest and most extensive branch campus network in the state. In fact ,OU has 13,000 undergrads at branch campuses relative to 23,000 in Athens. In other words, your branch campus students are fully 36% of your overall undergraduate enrollment. How does that compare to OSU and Miami? Miami has 4,000 relative to 14,800 at Oxford or 21%. Ohio State only has 6,300 relative to 44,000 at Columbus or only 12% of their total undergraduate enrollment. And you leave one other slight distinction out. Ohio State is parking kids with 23 and 24 ACT scores (and Miami 22-23) at their branch campuses who would be easy admits at OU. Out of curiosity, I dug up the common data sets for OSU's branch campuses.

Mansfield 21-25 ACT middle range

Newark 20-25

Marion 21-25

Lima 19-25

What were OU's numbers again? That's right 22-26. In other words, OU-Athens is taking in freshman classes that are only slightly better prepared than OSU's branch campuses. Would you like to remind me again how OU is the hottest college in the state and out from OSU's shadow. How it is such a better, more selective and more prestigious university than Akron or Can't or Toledo or Bowling Green? Again, you were in the left column of that napkin for very good reason. That's the biggest difference between OU and Akron. Akron knows that it belonged in the left column. Akron knows that it has big challenges and a lot of work ahead. Akron doesn't sit around smelling its own farts and pretending its something that it's not.

This whole thing started because I made one comment (on an Akron board in a discussion about the future of Akron) stating that UC rather than OU is the university that Akron should be paying attention to and modeling itself after and that a big part of this is UC's focus on the future in contrast with OU's perennial infatuation with perceived past injustices. This brought on your deluge of personal insults ("didn't get accepted at OU" "didn't get tenure at OU" "Crawl back under your rock") all because I pointed out with facts, statistics and the criteria that academics judge most important when gauging the quality of a university that OU is a peer--by all of these standards except endowment--of UA and Can't more than it ever could be of Miami or OSU. And even your endowment pales on a per student basis compared to Miami and is nowhere remotely close to that of OSU. I'm sorry if that upset your fragile little OU psyche that so desperately needs to believe that the glorious day is just around the corner when OU throws off the oppressive shackles of 150 years of unfairness and claims its rightful place as Ohio's flagship university. Yes, it's only a matter of time before you burn down the Buckeye Plantation and proclaim "Flagship at last. Thank God Almighty, we are Flagship at last."

[K92]

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Well that sorted of chilled the conversation... but highly entertaining.

I still would love to get thoughts from anyone on the idea of UA and Can't adopting a policy of "competing locally but collaborating everywhere else". The schools remain independent and competitive in the core market, but look for ways to work together outside of Ohio.

One idea: create a "meta-university" that combines the best of both schools into a virtual institution that gets marketed to global students/constituents, basically an abstraction of the best of both. Take polymers, politics, and i/o pysch from UA and Liquid Crystals and, well, fashion (?) from Can't. Add in all the business programs from both and maybe UA's engineering school and maybe Can't's architecture school. These programs are still resident with each school, but for international students they are combined to form "NEOU Global Institute". The goal is to get 15,000 international students paying double the current non-resident surcharge. [sidebar: did you all realize that UA is now a bit more expensive to attend than Can't...this could explain enrollment dropping http://www.uakron.edu/finaid/cost-of-attendance/ http://www.Can't.edu/tuition]. These 15K students, all international and looking to partake in the best programs that Akron and Can't can offer, would generate something like $420 million in tuition revenue. This new institute would be attractive because its programs are all excellent.

The goal of the NEOU Global Institute would be to make NEO more economically vibrant by bringing in young, international talent that hopefully would stay in NEO, open businesses, etc. The presence of this type of talent would be draw for businesses since one of the biggest issues businesses face in the future is matching work-ready talent for critical jobs.

Working together, UA and Can't would be able to have a global network of offices and recruiters, since they are splitting the costs. NEO-U would have a global reach that neither UA nor Can't would be able to attain on its own.

The start up funding for this would come from Knight and other foundations in the Akron area as well as local corporations. The start up costs wouldn't be unsurmountable because it's really just a marketing construct, not a whole new school, that is being created.

Doing this would result in UA and Can't aligning their course of instruction so it would be fully inter-operable. It would prepare the institutions for a full merger if that becomes desirable or necessary in the future, while preserving their independence today.

[zen]

And we can resurrect my monorail idea from 10 years ago!

Instead of just having it cycle around campus, there could be a leg between campuses where that sucker revs up to like 70.

Both campuses can have local monotrail trams for getting from one stop to another, and the bullet monorail for getting between campuses. We can put it over Eastland ave and 261. The trams that make frequent stops (called hops) on each campus can be the Roo train. The bullet that flies between campuses can be the Golden flash.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[zip-O-matic]

Sorry if that turned into too much a pumping up of OSU and Miami, but I wanted to clearly outline that OU is not their peer but a peer of the rest of us and that the napkin was essentially correct in its analysis of the Ohio public university food chain. I wanted to make it very clear that for all of Akron's challenges OU is not a superior institution to it. Half of that meant pointing out how similar OU is to Akron, Can't, Toledo and BG across the board and the other half meant pointing out how far removed OU is from OSU and Miami. When the personal insults were the result, I couldn't help but twist that knife in a bit deeper.

My last thought on the subject.

[jupitertoo]

Let's use Ohio Board of Regents statistics.

1. Here's how the Board of Regents classifies state universities based on average ACT for incoming freshman:

A. Over 24: Miami U, OSU

B. 22.5-24: Cincinnati, OU

C. 21-22.49: BG, Can't, Toledo

D. Below 21: Akron

2. Student retention, 1st to 2nd year (among the schools you say are all the same)

OU 81%

Can't State 78%

BG 74%

Akron 69%

Toledo 64%

3. 6-year graduation rate

OU 71%

BG 63%

Can't 56%

Toledo 51%

Akron 44%

4. Doctoral/research degrees conferred - 2014 (you grossly misstated OU's)

Can't State 172 + 114 medical degrees

OU 135 + 163 medical degrees

Toledo 111 + 445 medical degrees

BG 107

Akron 115 + 137 medical degrees

5. Graduate enrollment

Can't State 4,521 (+33% since 2005)

OU 4,404 (+46%)

Toledo 3,981 (+22%)

Akron 3,062 (9%)

BG 1,538 (-33%)

6. Undergraduate enrollment

OU 26,213 (Up 6% over 2013; up 22% since 2005)

Can't State 25,426 (0% over prior year)

Akron 20,677 (-6%)

Toledo 18,840 (-5%)

BG 15,577 (-1%)

[jupitertoo]

University endoments, as reported by College & University Business Officers & Commonwealth Inst.

OU $515.9M (up 15% over prior)

Miami $464.3M (+11.5)

Toledo $416.1 (+16.9)

YSU 239.3 (included because I find it surprising)

Akron $211.7 (up 14.8%)

Can't State Did not report

BG Did not report