Check this out.

[TripleCrownCoug]

Re: Check this out.

This is the comment Newsbreaker has been addressing, dingo. No one is saying BYU sucks at academics.

We are merely refuting BYUTexan's argument that BYU is academically head and shoulders above "most other division 1a schools." More specifically that BYU is not head and shoulders above us.

I have no opinion on which school is better academically. Like in Football they appear to be in separate 'divisions' in the US NEWS' rankings with BYU placed among the 'National' universities and UNI in the 'Masters' section.

I will say that after reviewing the criteria that is used to do the rankings I am not surprised that BYU does not rank that high. Fully 65% of the scoring weight is based on things that BYU would not show well in.

For Example: 25% is based on Peer evaluation, meaning that administrators from other universities give their opinion on the level of academics at another school. It is very well documented in this region, based on lawsuits and other incidents that most other administrators think that BYU lacks 'Academic Freedom' because of how tightly controlled it is by its sponsoring institution. This may be true, I don't know. What I do know is that the majority of the students don't have an issue with it.

20% is based on retention. Our missionary program hurts us here as retention is defined as the percentage of freshman who return then next year and the percentage of students who graduate in 6 years. Pretty tough to score well here when on average 80% of your male freshmen leave school voluntarily after their first year to serve 2 year missions. This also makes it hard for anyone to graduate in 6 years.

20% on Faculty resources, defined as percentage of small(20 students or less) and large(more than 30 students) classes and on Faculty pay. Our faculty is not paid well, based against the national average. There are many reasons for this but the fact is they aren't. It is also true that most of the general ed classes for freshman and sophmores are very large, though once you get into higher level classes they get smaller, though very few are as small as 20 students.

Anyway I just thought it was a good idea to show this, before we make to much of rankings - football or otherwise- it's always good to understand the formula behind it.

[Dingo]

Re: Check this out.

Good points, TripleCrownCoug. The USN&WR rankings provide some useful information, but by no means do they tell the whole story or describe, in any definitive way, the quality of education one will receive at a particular institution. No single ranking system can take into account all of the unique strenghts and weaknesses of all the major colleges. In BYU's case, there are numerous other ranking systems in which BYU is ranked very highly. For example:

• BYU's Marriott business school is ranked #1 in the Regional Ranking category of the Wall Street Journal/Harris business school survey (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/services/bschools.asp).
• Both the business school and law school are consistently ranked highly, even in USN&WR (29 and 46 respectively this year). See http://marriottschool.byu.edu/news/rankings.cfm for more business school rankings.
• Last year the Princeton Review ranked BYU #1 in the Best Value Private College category, which takes into account the quality of the education students receive weighed against the cost of tuition.
• I saw another ranking a year or so ago in which BYU ranked 10th nationally in the number of alumni who go on to earn PhDs.

The point is not to boast or try to say BYU is better than another university. But to claim that BYU is "not in the top tier, or even top two tiers, of DI football schools in terms of academics" is not really accurate, particularly when you base your argument on one ranking system.

[Newsbreaker]

Re: Check this out.

You know, Newsbreaker, I haven't said anything negative about UNI, because I really do respect the program, but it's very amusing to see you denigrate Collie's performance against a 6-7 UCLA team--a team that had some excellent athletes on defense--while trumpeting UNI's win over "big time" ISU, a team that went 3-9 and also lost to such powerhouses as Kent St. and Toledo.

I want to make sure I understand your logic (which is remarkably similar to BYUTexan's). If ISU is big time, simply because they are in the Big 12 (not because of the quality of their team), then where exactly does that put UNI? But wait, ISU is big time and UNI beat ISU, therefore UNI > big time. Got it.

Newsbreaker = BYUTexan

It's like you guys can't see each other's posts, and think every post by a UNI fan is made without reference to any earlier BYU-fan post. It's fascinating.

To return to the "GPA" argument...the 3.8 GPA (still with nothing to back that claim up) wasn't made in reference to the US News rankings, I referenced the rankings to show that objectively, BYU isn't on the academic level claimed. Showing that US News converts 5.0 to a 4.0 scale doesn't make the point if the original claim didn't reference the US News rankings.

[Dingo]

Re: Check this out.

It's like you guys can't see each other's posts, and think every post by a UNI fan is made without reference to any earlier BYU-fan post. It's fascinating.

To return to the "GPA" argument...the 3.8 GPA (still with nothing to back that claim up) wasn't made in reference to the US News rankings, I referenced the rankings to show that objectively, BYU isn't on the academic level claimed. Showing that US News converts 5.0 to a 4.0 scale doesn't make the point if the original claim didn't reference the US News rankings.

Newsbreaker, you made your lame argument to put BYU football in its place in response to BYUTexan's comment about UNI being 1aa and BYU being big time. Yeah, I got your point. And in the process you definitely put UNI it its place as well (my point).

Regarding the GPA argument, I'm starting to think you have a serious learning disability. I gave you two links, both of which back up the 3.8 GPA claim. Did you even look at the sources? Now you're just rambling incoherently.

Give it up, man. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Newsbreaker]

Re: Check this out.

Do I have a link? Yes.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...-search/page+5

I understand by page 5, what with all those unrecognizable schools comprising #1 - #113, you might've given up, and hence missed BYU as a school.



Learning disability? I have a learning disability, but not one of your own who claimed that BYU holds an academic prestige over "most of division I".

By a quick, rough count, I found 54 FBS football schools ranked more highly than BYU. That's almost half of the total number of FBS teams. I guess by "not many" what he meant to say was "almost half." FWIW, I didn't include FCS teams, which would increase that number by about a dozen, nor am I going to argue with you over the very highly ranked FCS (and a few FBS) teams that don't appear on the "national" list because they have a more regional scope.

By the way, BYU has a raw score of "37." UNI has a raw score of "58." Higher is better. Hell, most schools on the field Saturday night can make a claim to being a better academic school than BYU.

Of course there are very highly regarded programs at any school any significant number of students might want to attend, and as a better-than-average school BYU is no different. Putting the highly regarded programs into the context of the total raw score, it would make an objective observer question what sort of regard the rest of the university is held in. If something is high, but the average is not, something is bringing the highly regarded programs down.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...ege/items/1890

I understand that by "you don't know what you're talking about" what you really mean is "BYU is the best school in Utah, and is my school, therefore it has to be one of the best anywhere" but unfortunately for you (I'd probably just blame this on your Utah education if I were you ) I, and the other UNI graduates, are smart enough to see evidence for evidence and understand what it means.

Before I go...you're two links of "evidence" don't prove your point. The first just lists GPA, but it doesn't say that it's "converted". The second says explicitly that the GPA score is...get ready for it..."Average GPA (unadjusted)".

Don't take it too hard...I'm sure your football team will perform much more impressively than you have.

[Dingo]

Re: Check this out.

Do I have a link? Yes.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...-search/page+5

I understand by page 5, what with all those unrecognizable schools comprising #1 - #113, you might've given up, and hence missed BYU as a school.



Learning disability? I have a learning disability, but not one of your own who claimed that BYU holds an academic prestige over "most of division I".

By a quick, rough count, I found 54 FBS football schools ranked more highly than BYU. That's almost half of the total number of FBS teams. I guess by "not many" what he meant to say was "almost half." FWIW, I didn't include FCS teams, which would increase that number by about a dozen, nor am I going to argue with you over the very highly ranked FCS (and a few FBS) teams that don't appear on the "national" list because they have a more regional scope.

By the way, BYU has a raw score of "37." UNI has a raw score of "58." Higher is better. Hell, most schools on the field Saturday night can make a claim to being a better academic school than BYU.

OK, Newsbreaker. I'm going to bottom line this thing for you, because critical thinking does not appear to be your strength.

I have argued that you cannot accurately measure the quality of academics using a single ranking system and that you have to consult a variety of measures to gain a clear understanding of what an institution has to offer.

Your entire argument regarding the relative quality of education at BYU hinges on the US News & World Report ranking. That is the only source you have cited and you seem to have unquestioning trust that its rankings are objective, accurate and reliable, and, consequently, proof that BYU's academics are at best "better than average" due to the 113 ranking.

Now if the USN&WR rankings for BYU and UNI are to be considered objective facts, one would expect that a similar picture could be drawn from other ranking systems, because after all, we're talking about object facts here. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Compare the following:

US News Rankings
BYU 113 (raw score 37)
UNI 17 (raw score 58)
Source: http://www.usnews.com/sections/rankings

Forbes Rankings
BYU 217
UNI 472
Source: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/94/...eges_Rank.html

How does one explain the disparity? After all, I thought we were talking about objective facts. And since you provided the profound insight that "higher is better", one is left with a bit of a quandry--which higher is better?

The point, in case you missed it, is that the ranking is not necessarily a reliable and objective measure. Some of the inputs are, but as the example above shows, the methodology used by the ranking system affects the outcome rather than reflecting some kind of objective reality.

Dale Rogers Marshall, President of Wheaton College, puts it this way:

"As a social scientist, I am acutely aware that quantitative measures of quality are inherently imperfect. Combining many disparate measures into a single ranking does students a disservice by pretending it's possible to reduce the multiple dimensions of a college experience to a single number. This can make schools of similar quality appear far apart. The difference in scores between schools among the "top 50 national liberal arts colleges" is so small as to be meaningless. At the same time a single ranking can obscure real differences.

Equally important is the fact that the rankings reflect a skewed picture of higher education. The ratings are overly reliant on measuring each college's wealth and reputation, "measuring inputs such as faculty salaries, test scores of incoming freshmen and alumni giving rather than what kind of learning is really taking place on campus," according to an article published by U.S. News itself."

Source: http://www.collegenews.org/x2732.xml

The reality is that the methodology used by USN&WR is seriously flawed. There are myriad sources you can consult that detail the flaws in the methodology used in the rankings. Here's but one: http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/pop...-inquiry17.pdf. Because the methodology is so flawed, only 46% of colleges now participate in the USN&WR survey.

Robert L. Woodbury, former chancellor of the University of Maine system, says the following about the USN&WR ranking methodology:

"Ultimately, what's more important than any particular strategy is understanding the assumptions, approach and methodology that governs the ratings game. When Consumer Reports rates and compares cars, it measures them on the basis of categories such as performance, safety, reliability and value. It tries to measure "outputs" -- in short, what the car does. U.S. News mostly looks at "inputs" (money spent, class size, test scores of students, degrees held by faculty) rather than assessing what the college or university actually accomplishes for students over the life of their enrollment. If Consumer Reports functioned like U.S. News, it would rank cars on the amount of steel and plastic used in their construction, the opinions of competing car dealers, the driving skills of customers, the percentage of managers and sales people with MBAs and the sticker price on the vehicle (the higher, the better)."

Source: http://www.college-advisor.com/articles/fudging.html

By itself, the USN&WR rankings "prove" nothing. The "objective observer" will consider the implications of the methodology used rather than placing unquestioning confidence in a single number spit out by a single ranking system.

Of course there are very highly regarded programs at any school any significant number of students might want to attend, and as a better-than-average school BYU is no different. Putting the highly regarded programs into the context of the total raw score, it would make an objective observer question what sort of regard the rest of the university is held in. If something is high, but the average is not, something is bringing the highly regarded programs down.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...ege/items/1890

What you fail to consider is that that "something" may very well be the flaws in the methodology used to determine the rankings.

I understand that by "you don't know what you're talking about" what you really mean is "BYU is the best school in Utah, and is my school, therefore it has to be one of the best anywhere" but unfortunately for you (I'd probably just blame this on your Utah education if I were you ) I, and the other UNI graduates, are smart enough to see evidence for evidence and understand what it means.

This is a pathetic attempt at a strawman argument and more accurately reflects your own lack of critical thinking. You would say, "The USN&WR ranks BYU at 113 and University of Utah at 127, therefore you will get a better education at BYU." After all, relying on a simple ranking is a lot easier than doing your homework and weighing all the relevant information.

I would say it depends on your educational goals, the major you intend to pursue, what you value in education, what you intend to do after college and many other variables. Depending on those factors, the University of Utah may very well be the best choice and provide the best educational opportunity for you.

Before I go...you're two links of "evidence" don't prove your point. The first just lists GPA, but it doesn't say that it's "converted". The second says explicitly that the GPA score is...get ready for it..."Average GPA (unadjusted)".

Umm...transcripts are required in the university admissions process. If a different grading scale was used in high school, which is not nearly as common as you assert, then it is converted to the scale used by the institution. BYU uses a 4.0 scale.

Go back and look at the graphic at the bottom of http://saas.byu.edu/admissionsservic...e_averages.htm. If you don't accept that 5.0 scale GPAs (if in fact any even applied) are converted to 4.0, then please explain the absence of the GPAs above 4.0. The burden of proof shifts to you to provide documentation showing that 5.0 scale GPAs are skewing the 3.8/4.0 GPA requirement of BYU.

The term "unadjusted GPA" has nothing to do with the 5.0 GPA scale. It has to do with whether or not adjustments are applied to account for more difficult classes taken and higher numbers of credits. Most universities use unadjusted GPAs for entering freshmen. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Don't take it too hard...I'm sure your football team will perform much more impressively than you have.

Weak. No response necessary.

[clenz]

Re: Check this out.

all hail byu. We are not worthy! You are far superior to everyone in every way!

[Dingo]

Re: Check this out.

all hail byu. We are not worthy! You are far superior to everyone in every way!

I never said that, Clenz, nor have I said anything to denigrate UNI. However, your boy Newsbreaker reminds me a lot of our boy BYUTexan.

[clenz]

Re: Check this out.

I never said that, Clenz, nor have I said anything to denigrate UNI. However, your boy Newsbreaker reminds me a lot of our boy BYUTexan.

All you have done is say how BYU is better than UNI in pretty much every way...on and off the field. How else should it be taken?

[Dingo]

Re: Check this out.

All you have done is say how BYU is better than UNI in pretty much every way...on and off the field. How else should it be taken?

I don't think you have read any of my posts. You must have me confused with someone else. I defended BYU academics against Newsbreaker's BS, but I haven't said anything negative toward UNI. If you think I have, then quote me. If not, then give it a rest.

[Newsbreaker]

Re: Check this out.

Dingo,

Of course rankings are inherently flawed. Of course they are imperfect. Of course they are "rough" at best. Nobody says otherwise. They are, however, at minimum better than one man's opinion, which is what the rankings were offered in response to. I think I've said this before, it's almost like you BYU folks can't see each other's posts. The claim was made that BYU is academically superior to almost all of the Division I football schools. BOTH the US News and Forbes rankings show that to be a completely fictitious statement. It's just wrong. BYU is a fine school, but it, like UNI, is far short of elite.

Note the other part of Texan's instant post...it's a battle "you" and "most" schools will lose. By the most widely publicized and accepted rankings, rankings which evaluate a school on a university-wide basis, both of those statements are untrue. The rankings, while imperfect, are at least better than simple opinions.

The point of this whole discussion is this...the claim was made that BYU is academically superior to most of Division I as well as UNI. Since opinion is worthless in such a discussion, all we have are some objective measure. The most widely accepted measure is the US News rankings (there's a reason the Forbes list is almost universally ignored while the US News list is examined and studied by every school in the country). By either measure, BYU isn't as elite as advertised. By the more authoritative, BYU is significantly less highly regarded than UNI.

Your GPA graph is still unpersuasive (and does nothing for the point that I made many posts ago, which is really the only important post on the subject - grade inflation - which has yet to be even addressed in passing) as it still says UNWEIGHTED. It's one thing to properly weight GPA's and covert students from a 5.0 system (which is many HS's, if not most, today) down to a 4.0 system. The word "UNWEIGHTED" proves my entire point. A student who graduates High School and attends BYU is a 4.0 GPA but who did not get straight A's, and had their GPA inflated by getting a score of greater than 4.0 for certain courses skews the numbers BYU is reporting in an upward direction. Yes, it is "converted" to a 4.0 system in that they place the number in the context of a 4.0 system, but the 5.0 system used by the high schools makes the number BYU is claiming a misrepresentation.

Again, this is all off-topic. The point I made was about GRADE INFLATION. The GPA number does nothing to address that.

(By the way, even with this skewed number, the more realistic number is probably closer to 3.3 - 3.5, which is still quite high. Even accepting that as true, the high incoming GPA juxtaposed against BYU's relatively mediocre objective University-wide ranking casts a heavy shadow over the school. That high GPA should increase their objective standing, indicating that something is bringing it back down some distance.)

This is all generally just a bunch of pissing on each other's shoes. The point is that Texan's statements, which you are working awfully hard to defend, have been disproved by the best objective measurement available...and that's the actual point of the exchange. Continuing to defend his baseless claim will only further serve to undermine his point.

For anyone still reading this...I'd just like to point out that one of us has had to resort to "attacks" of the other, and one of us hasn't. You can each decide what that means.

[Dingo]

Re: Check this out.

Dingo,

Of course rankings are inherently flawed. Of course they are imperfect. Of course they are "rough" at best. Nobody says otherwise. They are, however, at minimum better than one man's opinion, which is what the rankings were offered in response to. I think I've said this before, it's almost like you BYU folks can't see each other's posts. The claim was made that BYU is academically superior to almost all of the Division I football schools. BOTH the US News and Forbes rankings show that to be a completely fictitious statement. It's just wrong. BYU is a fine school, but it, like UNI, is far short of elite.

Note the other part of Texan's instant post...it's a battle "you" and "most" schools will lose. By the most widely publicized and accepted rankings, rankings which evaluate a school on a university-wide basis, both of those statements are untrue. The rankings, while imperfect, are at least better than simple opinions.

The point of this whole discussion is this...the claim was made that BYU is academically superior to most of Division I as well as UNI. Since opinion is worthless in such a discussion, all we have are some objective measure. The most widely accepted measure is the US News rankings (there's a reason the Forbes list is almost universally ignored while the US News list is examined and studied by every school in the country). By either measure, BYU isn't as elite as advertised. By the more authoritative, BYU is significantly less highly regarded than UNI.

Your GPA graph is still unpersuasive (and does nothing for the point that I made many posts ago, which is really the only important post on the subject - grade inflation - which has yet to be even addressed in passing) as it still says UNWEIGHTED. It's one thing to properly weight GPA's and covert students from a 5.0 system (which is many HS's, if not most, today) down to a 4.0 system. The word "UNWEIGHTED" proves my entire point. A student who graduates High School and attends BYU is a 4.0 GPA but who did not get straight A's, and had their GPA inflated by getting a score of greater than 4.0 for certain courses skews the numbers BYU is reporting in an upward direction. Yes, it is "converted" to a 4.0 system in that they place the number in the context of a 4.0 system, but the 5.0 system used by the high schools makes the number BYU is claiming a misrepresentation.

Again, this is all off-topic. The point I made was about GRADE INFLATION. The GPA number does nothing to address that.

(By the way, even with this skewed number, the more realistic number is probably closer to 3.3 - 3.5, which is still quite high. Even accepting that as true, the high incoming GPA juxtaposed against BYU's relatively mediocre objective University-wide ranking casts a heavy shadow over the school. That high GPA should increase their objective standing, indicating that something is bringing it back down some distance.)

This is all generally just a bunch of pissing on each other's shoes. The point is that Texan's statements, which you are working awfully hard to defend, have been disproved by the best objective measurement available...and that's the actual point of the exchange. Continuing to defend his baseless claim will only further serve to undermine his point.

For anyone still reading this...I'd just like to point out that one of us has had to resort to "attacks" of the other, and one of us hasn't. You can each decide what that means.

The defense rests. I will restrain the urge to respond to your latest post and give you the last word.

Congratulations on a terrific effort by your team and good luck the rest of the year.