hoyaguy
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,852
|
Post by hoyaguy on Sept 18, 2021 18:15:04 GMT -5
Rating is ok--to improve it somewhat materially without somebody handing us a pile of money I guess one could do the following--based on DFW's detail from last year: Resources per student: Gtwn has a lot of students in academically marginal masters programs--I get that the univ does most MA programs to make money but at some level it takes away from undergrad resources and probably hurts our ratings somewhat--some type of more sophisticated cost benefit analysis should be applied to the masters programs. I get that a few like the security studies programs are very good--most are marginal Academic reputation: The level of teaching in a lot of our masters programs is what one would get at the advanced undergrad programs in most top colleges. Top colleges know that in a lot of subjects gtwn undergrad from pure acdemic perspective could use an upgrade--This is somewhat within our control. I think a lot of gtwn people may think its just some residual anti catholic thing or the fact that we're not affiliated with an elite acaddemic conf is the cause of our lower than expected academic reputation rating--there's maybe a little truth to the complaint but also a some justification for the lower score based on the actual quality of the programs. If we hire somebody from an elite institution to replace DeGioia when he retires I suspect the above issues willbe addressed and for better or worse focus more on the ratings--if we go with an internal or random jesuit i suspect that it will be status quo I did not study STEM but that is so emphasized and focused on by so many people these days (most likely too much honestly now as I have friends in stem that find it difficult to get jobs in “high demand” fields unless you got connections or went to top 25) I had some great stem profs in my electives but it is no secret that whole area is probably the weakest by far compared to how well we place in Wall Street, government work, consulting, grad schools in other subjects, etc. I can’t imagine being in stem before regents was built as Reiss is in dire need of upgrades. I’m not saying we need to start an engineering program but applied sciences and comp sci improvements would move the needle the most I think. And I agree that hiring from the outside would be the best move with the long term goal for continued endowment growth and getting in the top 20 when De goes. His tenure has shown that a non Jesuit was what we needed a long time ago if we really want be totally on par with others in top 15-20 and he has laid some great groundwork and construction projects moving forward. Has he mentioned retirement any time recent? I think Loyola of Maryland pres retired and I sure others will follow as the pandemic was so draining and stressful on everyone
|
|
hoyaguy
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,852
|
Post by hoyaguy on Sept 18, 2021 18:19:26 GMT -5
Also did anyone see Forbes for 2021? We went from 12 in 2019 to 15 in 2020 and now 21 in 2021. What the hell happened
|
|
nbhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 394
|
Post by nbhoya on Sept 20, 2021 19:20:33 GMT -5
This is not great
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Sept 20, 2021 20:18:14 GMT -5
Any list that has schools moving around like the Forbes rankings is a joke. That said, if the rankings don’t change from year to year no one will bother to look. It’s all about eyeballs.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2021 16:58:29 GMT -5
Our selectivity rating at Princeton Review fell to 97 this year. This shows real erosion and that list serves the same function that Barron’s most competitive list served in the 1980s before it was watered down. We should worry about this as much as U.S. News. Also, I don’t know how we can be number 1 in Fulbright scholarships and get the kind of low ratings we receive in anyof these ratings which consider outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2021 19:40:22 GMT -5
Remember, with our weakness in financial resources and endowment, maintaining selectivity is essential to our reputation and ability to be the kind of institution that leads the nation in Fulbright production. It is a slippery slope from elite institution to “BC in the DC” or “GW on steroids.” I hope our leadership is cognizant of this.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,748
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 22, 2021 19:42:55 GMT -5
Our selectivity rating at Princeton Review fell to 97 this year. This shows real erosion and that list serves the same function that Barron’s most competitive list served in the 1980s before it was watered down. We should worry about this as much as U.S. News. Also, I don’t know how we can be number 1 in Fulbright scholarships and get the kind of low ratings we receive in anyof these ratings which consider outcomes. Princeton Review gave Georgetown 97 out of 99 points on selectivity. www.princetonreview.com/college/georgetown-university-1023791At some point, it is safe to say that these rankings are more about marketing than methodology. US News knows this as well as most, and it was only when they readjusted their rankings in the late 1980's that the "top 25" interest took off. In its original 1984 list, Illinois was ranked #8 and Wisconsin #13, while Johns Hopkins and Penn weren't even ranked. Georgetown wasn't ranked until 1988. The other rankings spike their methodology to get attention. Washington Monthly put additional emphasis on number of Pell Grant recipients for is latest list, which dropped Georgetown from #8 to #38, trailing the obscure "National Louis University". But the list is almost immediately suspect as a result: Wisconsin (#4) is ranked ahead of Harvard (#5), Yale (#18) is just ahead of Florida, and Dartmouth is #47. The top ranked school in "service" is Montana, GWU is #3, Georgetown #32. The ratings Georgetown scores the lowest in is the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), of which 20 percent of its ranking is papers published in the Journal of Nature and Science and 20% for "[Number of] Staff as Nobel Laureates & Medalists". GU ranks in the "201-300" category, ranking lowest on medical sciences. But no one (save some international grad students) is making a decision to attend based on ARWU. One ranking drives a lot of these discussions: endowment. Georgetown has moved from #72 to #60 in the endowment but no Top 25 school is as underfunded, largely as a result of the time value of money. Outside of Georgetown at $1.8 billion, the smallest endowment of the US News Top 25 is Caltech at $2.8 billion, but an astonishing $1.2 million in endowment per student (versus just $98,064 per Georgetown FTE.) Endowment isn't everything, of course--the University of Texas endowment is now larger than Princeton and Columbia combined and it's only ranked #38. But 21 of the US News Top 25 are also in the Top 25 in endowment and Georgetown is most decidedly not, and won't be in our lifetimes.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2021 19:52:07 GMT -5
It is correct, 2 years ago we were 99 and have fallen two notches to 97. Sandwiching the 98s.We are effectively in a third tier even though at this level the actual differences are not that great in absolute terms.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 22, 2021 20:03:09 GMT -5
Don’t want to jinx it but the prime minister of the world’s third largest economy, Japan, is possibly soon to be a 1985 BSFS graduate. I hope this fact will be reflected in the “outcomes” rankings next year in these ratings.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,600
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 22, 2021 21:52:14 GMT -5
Rating is ok--to improve it somewhat materially without somebody handing us a pile of money I guess one could do the following--based on DFW's detail from last year: Resources per student: Gtwn has a lot of students in academically marginal masters programs--I get that the univ does most MA programs to make money but at some level it takes away from undergrad resources and probably hurts our ratings somewhat--some type of more sophisticated cost benefit analysis should be applied to the masters programs. I get that a few like the security studies programs are very good--most are marginal As you noted, master's programs on the whole - at all schools - are cash cows. Master's students bring in a lot of tuition dollars and are relatively cheap. They are not "taking away from undergrad resources," they are providing more resources in the aggregate that are then consumed by undergrads (and, to some extent, PhD students). With respect to the actual rankings, USNWR actually does some scaling to try to boost schools with robust master's programs: Georgetown's issue with resources per student is pretty much summed up by the word "endowment." Also, DC is a very high cost-of-living area, so dollars don't go as far here. If we hire somebody from an elite institution to replace DeGioia when he retires I suspect the above issues willbe addressed and for better or worse focus more on the ratings--if we go with an internal or random jesuit i suspect that it will be status quo Did y'all not get the memo that DeGioia's successor-in-waiting was chosen over a decade ago?
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 23, 2021 9:55:07 GMT -5
Russky Hoya said
"As you noted, master's programs on the whole - at all schools - are cash cows. Master's students bring in a lot of tuition dollars and are relatively cheap. They are not "taking away from undergrad resources," they are providing more resources in the aggregate that are then consumed by undergrads (and, to some extent, PhD students)."
Maybe you are right-maybe not. I think your point above is more assumption than fact. I'll give you an ex--the masters in math at Gtwn teaches what would normally be done at high end undergrad elsewhere--do you look at that as taking away from undergrad or adding to it because of extra $--not sure that its purely additive is correct
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Sept 29, 2021 6:52:31 GMT -5
Don’t want to jinx it but the prime minister of the world’s third largest economy, Japan, is possibly soon to be a 1985 BSFS graduate. I hope this fact will be reflected in the “outcomes” rankings next year in these ratings. Doesn’t look like this will happen. ☹️
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 29, 2021 15:27:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on Sept 29, 2021 18:34:45 GMT -5
Don’t want to jinx it but the prime minister of the world’s third largest economy, Japan, is possibly soon to be a 1985 BSFS graduate. I hope this fact will be reflected in the “outcomes” rankings next year in these ratings. Doesn’t look like this will happen. ☹️ I guess polls in Japan mean nothing. Kono was ahead by large margins in all of them. Well, even though Kono fell short of becoming the world's 3rd most powerful person (behind Biden and Xi), he came close (lost the first vote by only a single vote before losing 3 to 2 in the runoff). This guy has the "little engine that could/energizer bunny thing" and I predict he will eventually get the job. In Japanese politics age 58 apparently makes one a baby.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,600
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Mar 30, 2022 21:51:09 GMT -5
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,748
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 30, 2022 21:58:51 GMT -5
The return to the T-14 is a bigger deal than the rating for clinical programs. There was some sting when they were dropped from the T-14 last year for UCLA.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,600
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Mar 30, 2022 22:52:06 GMT -5
The return to the T-14 is a bigger deal than the rating for clinical programs. There was some sting when they were dropped from the T-14 last year for UCLA. Everyone understands that the T-14 is a highly contrived construct and that USNWR f**** with it in order to generate buzz. The specialty rankings don't have the same level of gaming.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Mar 31, 2022 9:05:43 GMT -5
As a graduate from a not-quite-top-14 law school, I'm less surprised/interested in Harvard's drop and more infuriated that my alma mater has fallen below WashU of all places (which was basically openly buying students to inflate its ranking back when I matriculated at Vanderbilt), and is now tied with Boston University (huh?).
I don't have any connection with GULC, but it's nice to see the law school helping the overall university brand.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Apr 4, 2022 23:50:50 GMT -5
Looking back over this thread, a lot of discussion blames our "low" ranking on endowment. While that is technically correct, I think we have to realize that the endowment is not some completely exogenous thing. Part of the reason that our endowment is low relative to other top univ's is that Gtwn hasn't really generated a ton of great projects for significant investment by donors. Gtwn's fundraising pitches typically are much more emotionally based. Gtwn's pitches tend avoid rankings unlike other univ's which specifically address strategies to improve rankings in different disciplines. In other words our poor endowment is partially at least due to poor leadership, not just starting late in serious fundraising.
Other univ endowments have also made huge returns on their VC investments--my sense is Gtwn has not, but that was our choice.
Irrespective of the rankings I'm actually pretty concerned re the relative positioning of the univ recently. Over the past couple of years or so I've started to see a material gap in the postgrad outcomes of the students in the Ivy where I teach and Gtwn --historically they've been much more similar-obviously this is anecdotal to some degree, but I took a look at the grad outcomes from the career center from both uni's and the results seemed to reinforce my concerns. Gtwn seems excellent in getting kids Ibanking jobs but that's about it. I've also noticed less crossover in applications from the freshman with Gtwn recently, which is a bit concerning. I suspect this is because of Gtwn's relative weakness in STEM fields or even more quantitative approaches to econ/soc sciences etc, but again this is something within Gtwn's control.
If I were in admin I'd take a close look at the actual career and grad school outcomes of the students and benchmark them against our peers. T
Regarding our academic enterprise I think I'd focus on producing a truly elite undergrad experience and cut back resources devoted to the huge proliferation of marginal masters programs. At some level these are hurting the quality of the undergrad academic experience, though I understand that they are generally cash cows for the univ--again I think for both the academic and non academic aspects of the undergrad experience generally we need to seriously benchmark what we are doing.
For the Phd & research enterprise, I think I would try to form some joint programs with Johns Hopkins or some other credible research univ that wanted to combine efforts to produce top 10ish ranked programs in specific disciplines. I think we need to try to pick some winners rather than just perpetuating a bunch of mediocre programs.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,748
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 12, 2022 14:54:04 GMT -5
|
|