Enrollment

[zip-O-matic]

On 9/1/2024 at 1:03 PM, ZipCat said:

 

Or...the radical idea...the state could properly fund higher education like they used to, thus increasing the educational opportunities as those other schools outside OSU. Also, the state doesn't control OSU's (or any other Public University's) enrollment criteria.

 

The fact that they don't currently mandate enrollment limits doesn't mean that the state--either through the Ohio Regents or the legislature--couldn't in the future.  OSU is a public institution.  Now, I think there would be some behind the doors wheeling and dealing, and they'd need to get something they want.  Give them a separate funding bill and state acknowledged "flagship" status.  Who cares.  That's always been the de-facto reality, so it doesn't change the actual reality on the ground, and the other schools get something very tangible in return.  

Edited September 3 by zip-O-matic

[Hilltopper]

OSU and Cincinnati lowered their enrollment standards in order to make up for lost revenue due to covid. Most of their losses were due to drops in out of state and overseas students. Between the 2 schools they have gobbled up 30,000 instate students who would have normally gone to the MAC schools and smaller private institutions. This probably cost UA at least 1000 freshman enrollments. What really needs to happen is for the state to insist that OSU increases their standards to a level even higher than before. This is how many other states are set up. Go to a school like Akron or Toledo for undergrad and then maybe OSU for an advanced degree. But what we have is pure greed by OSU. Hopefully this will change after students find out the horrible conditions they are subjected to in Columbus. Overcrowded dormitories, 500 person class sizes taught by grad assistants etc..

[egregiousbob]

How do you explain the continued success of other Ohio schools in attracting large freshman classes during this period?

[zip-O-matic]

On 9/3/2024 at 7:33 AM, Hilltopper said:

OSU and Cincinnati lowered their enrollment standards in order to make up for lost revenue due to covid. Most of their losses were due to drops in out of state and overseas students. Between the 2 schools they have gobbled up 30,000 instate students who would have normally gone to the MAC schools and smaller private institutions. This probably cost UA at least 1000 freshman enrollments. What really needs to happen is for the state to insist that OSU increases their standards to a level even higher than before. This is how many other states are set up. Go to a school like Akron or Toledo for undergrad and then maybe OSU for an advanced degree. But what we have is pure greed by OSU. Hopefully this will change after students find out the horrible conditions they are subjected to in Columbus. Overcrowded dormitories, 500 person class sizes taught by grad assistants etc..

 

I don't know about UC, but OSU doesn't seem to have lowered their standards much to grow their class.  I looked up their common data set for the last year and compared it to the last freshman class before the pandemic.  It looks like a small drop on test scores, but class rank is better and acceptance rate has gone down.  The one big change is that they're getting a ton more applications.

 

2019 Freshman Class

Applications/Acceptance Rate:  47,700/53.7%

Middle 50% ACT and SAT: 28-32/1300-1420 (55% between 30 and 36)

Percent in top 10%/top 25%: 60%/93%

 

2023 Freshman Class

Applications/Acceptance Rate:  70,028/50%

Middle 50% ACT and SAT: 27-32/1290-1440 (51% between 30 and 36)

Percent in top 10%/top 25%: 67%/95%

 

But yes, I agree with you.  They should lower their acceptance rate to about 33%.

 

 

 

Edited September 4 by zip-O-matic

[Akron1]

 

[Hilltopper]

A story on OSU overcrowding problem.

 

https://h5.newsbreakapp.com/mp/0vJtXsnH?

[Hilltopper]

On 9/3/2024 at 3:30 PM, zip-O-matic said:

 

But yes, I agree with you.  They should lower their acceptance rate to about 33%.

 

 

 

Lower their acceptance rate and raise their fees. If so many students want in then they should pay more. Having fewer students would make it a better experience. 

[zip-O-matic]

1 hour ago, Hilltopper said:

Lower their acceptance rate and raise their fees. If so many students want in then they should pay more. Having fewer students would make it a better experience. 

 

I disagree with that.  Ohio schools are already unaffordable.  Plus, I don't think OSU should aspire to be a country club like Miami.  If Miami and OU are so foolish and arrogant as to try and charge more than OSU, then good luck with that.

 

I think the state and regents should work something out where they get a supplemental appropriation if their freshman class is under 7K to make up for lost tuition revenue and lose it if it's larger.

[UAZipster0305]

On 8/28/2024 at 5:56 PM, egregiousbob said:

I don't think I'd call what Kent, Ohio Univ. and BGSU are doing "cannibalizing."  Clearly, they are winning.  OU's last 3 freshman classes have set school records for size and academic rankings.  BGSU has grown and Kent is holding its own and is much larger than UA and Toledo, which are shrinking. 

 

One place where Akron is really struggling is student experience.  

 

 

The difference between Kent, OU, and BGSU versus CSU, UA, and UT is that the latter are urban campuses. Conservative media's constant bashing of urban areas as unsafe and undesirable havens of criminals and minorities has likely taken its toll, especially in relatively conservative rustbelt states like Ohio that have many other suburban and rural options (Kent, OU, and BGSU). I'd be interested to know if analogous schools in similar states (e.g. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee) are seeing the same enrollment trends.

 

(I realize OSU and UC are both urban schools, but I believe their brand strength and cultures overcome the urban divide.)

Edited September 8 by UAZipster0305

[Hilltopper]

6 hours ago, UAZipster0305 said:

 

The difference between Kent, OU, and BGSU versus CSU, UA, and UT is that the latter are urban campuses. Conservative media's constant bashing of urban areas as unsafe and undesirable havens of criminals and minorities has likely taken its toll, especially in relatively conservative rustbelt states like Ohio that have many other suburban and rural options (Kent, OU, and BGSU). I'd be interested to know if analogous schools in similar states (e.g. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee) are seeing the same enrollment trends.

 

(I realize OSU and UC are both urban schools, but I believe their brand strength and cultures overcome the urban divide.)

Lol. Pointing out the obvious should clearly be censored!

[zip-O-matic]

22 hours ago, UAZipster0305 said:

 

The difference between Kent, OU, and BGSU versus CSU, UA, and UT is that the latter are urban campuses. Conservative media's constant bashing of urban areas as unsafe and undesirable havens of criminals and minorities has likely taken its toll, especially in relatively conservative rustbelt states like Ohio that have many other suburban and rural options (Kent, OU, and BGSU). I'd be interested to know if analogous schools in similar states (e.g. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee) are seeing the same enrollment trends.

 

(I realize OSU and UC are both urban schools, but I believe their brand strength and cultures overcome the urban divide.)

 

It wasn't so long ago that UC was an open admission, commuter college.  Today, they're more selective than OU and almost as selective as Miami.  And unlike OSU, they aren't AAU or have a top 50 US News ranking or are a Big Ten school, so I wonder how they've managed to do it.

[UAZipster0305]

1 hour ago, zip-O-matic said:

 

It wasn't so long ago that UC was an open admission, commuter college.  Today, they're more selective than OU and almost as selective as Miami.  And unlike OSU, they aren't AAU or have a top 50 US News ranking or are a Big Ten school, so I wonder how they've managed to do it.

 

Thanks for this observation. It is an interesting data point.

 

UC's upward trajectory corresponds to their investment in the physical campus (UA based much of the Landscape for Learning plan on what UC did), an emphasis on increasing their research portfolio, and advancing their athletics program from C-USA to the Big East to the AAC to the Big 12. UC is also in a much larger media market without other major public research universities (OSU being the closest). Which of these was a main driver of UC's image enhancement is unknown.

 

As compared to UC and despite having transformed its campus, UA does not have a medical school (a major source of research dollars), is stuck in the MAC, is not sited in the epicenter of a major media market, and has another equally large public research university only ~10 miles away, and a second in Cleveland (CSU). The proximity of Case Western and YSU are also a likely detriment.

 

It's fun to think what UA could be without the presence of KSU, CSU, and/or YSU and with NEOMED under its umbrella, but that's just fantasy.

 

Side note: I just noticed that UC cut its men's soccer program.

Edited September 9 by UAZipster0305

[egregiousbob]

On 9/9/2024 at 12:10 PM, UAZipster0305 said:

 

Thanks for this observation. It is an interesting data point.

 

UC's upward trajectory corresponds to their investment in the physical campus (UA based much of the Landscape for Learning plan on what UC did), an emphasis on increasing their research portfolio, and advancing their athletics program from C-USA to the Big East to the AAC to the Big 12. UC is also in a much larger media market without other major public research universities (OSU being the closest). Which of these was a main driver of UC's image enhancement is unknown.

 

As compared to UC and despite having transformed its campus, UA does not have a medical school (a major source of research dollars), is stuck in the MAC, is not sited in the epicenter of a major media market, and has another equally large public research university only ~10 miles away, and a second in Cleveland (CSU). The proximity of Case Western and YSU are also a likely detriment.

 

It's fun to think what UA could be without the presence of KSU, CSU, and/or YSU and with NEOMED under its umbrella, but that's just fantasy.

 

Side note: I just noticed that UC cut its men's soccer program.

UA should be announcing its Fall '24 enrollment today or tomorrow.  Other Ohio publics have already done so.

 

Interesting note on UC - they are highly leveraged financially, particularly in the athletics department.  Those investments in football and new conferences have not been offset by sufficient increases in revenue.

[Spin]

Very interesting, I never understood the types of major state colleges or their differences.

[ClevelandZip]

https://www.ideastream.org/education/2024-09-17/university-of-akron-reports-enrollment-drop-this-year-continuing-long-term-trend
 

UA is down another 180 in enrollment. Meanwhile, YSU increased enrollment by 11% and CSU up slightly.

[GP1]

1 hour ago, ClevelandZip said:

https://www.ideastream.org/education/2024-09-17/university-of-akron-reports-enrollment-drop-this-year-continuing-long-term-trend
 

UA is down another 180 in enrollment. Meanwhile, YSU increased enrollment by 11% and CSU up slightly.

Is this a good or bad? I guess they could have let 1,400 dimwits in and matched YSU. 

[LZIp]

12 minutes ago, GP1 said:

Is this a good or bad? I guess they could have let 1,400 dimwits in and matched YSU. 

Another ~$ 2 million loss of revenue is not good. That's only counting tuition, not room and board and other fees. PS Akron lets just about anyone in as far as I know.

[UA1996MAENG]

On 9/9/2024 at 12:10 PM, UAZipster0305 said:

 

Thanks for this observation. It is an interesting data point.

 

UC's upward trajectory corresponds to their investment in the physical campus (UA based much of the Landscape for Learning plan on what UC did), an emphasis on increasing their research portfolio, and advancing their athletics program from C-USA to the Big East to the AAC to the Big 12. UC is also in a much larger media market without other major public research universities (OSU being the closest). Which of these was a main driver of UC's image enhancement is unknown.

 

As compared to UC and despite having transformed its campus, UA does not have a medical school (a major source of research dollars), is stuck in the MAC, is not sited in the epicenter of a major media market, and has another equally large public research university only ~10 miles away, and a second in Cleveland (CSU). The proximity of Case Western and YSU are also a likely detriment.

 

It's fun to think what UA could be without the presence of KSU, CSU, and/or YSU and with NEOMED under its umbrella, but that's just fantasy.

 

Side note: I just noticed that UC cut its men's soccer program.

I think UC dropped men's soccer about five years ago. I can't imagine that UC in the Big12 doesn't have the funding to sponsor this sport, but as it goes across the country, even for "rich" universities, the cuts are always in the olympic sports in order to elevate FB and BB.

[egregiousbob]

On the bright side, I believe the undergrad population increased.

 

Other state schools that have reported thus far:

Cincinnati  +4.5%

BG +3.7%

Toledo -3.8%

OU +4.6%

OSU +2.3%

YSU +10.7%

CSU +0.002%

 

What's concerning about Akron numbers is that both applications and "admits" were up 10%, but seemingly few of these prospects chose to enroll.

 

 

 

Edited September 18 by egregiousbob

[GP1]

34 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Another ~$ 2 million loss of revenue is not good. That's only counting tuition, not room and board and other fees. PS Akron lets just about anyone in as far as I know.

It's less than one percent of overall revenue. 

[GP1]

33 minutes ago, egregiousbob said:

What's concerning about Akron numbers is that both applications and "admits" were up 10%, but seemingly few of these prospects chose to enroll.

This is concerning for me also. I'd like to know if the University knows why. It's like closing a deal. If you don't close a deal you should know why. 

[zippy5]

Eastern Gateway Community College in Youngstown closed and a large number of students went to YSU. Their increase is a one-time anomaly

[72 Roo]

11 hours ago, egregiousbob said:

On the bright side, I believe the undergrad population increased.

 

Other state schools that have reported thus far:

Cincinnati  +4.5%

BG +3.7%

Toledo -3.8%

OU +4.6%

OSU +2.3%

YSU +10.7%

CSU +0.002%

 

What's concerning about Akron numbers is that both applications and "admits" were up 10%, but seemingly few of these prospects chose to enroll.

 

 

 

We should seriously investigate what YSU did to increase enrollment. Any program they instituted when done by Tressel. The same guy who wanted to be president at UA but was opposed by the AAUP. He would have been great here.

[zippy5]

brother just read the last post before yours

[GP1]

11 hours ago, 72 Roo said:

He would have been great here.

Oh Christ with this again. I'm waiting for the investigation to show that YSU opened the floodgates for morons and increased enrollment. 

 

Miller did a good job at Akron doing what needed to be done at Akron. He cut unnecessary costs and filled the dorms. 

 

I'm still waiting for the investigation info what Dennison would have done in the 80s to put Akron football in a different position today. 

 

Move on already..... Christ Almighty.....