(10-04-2017 06:55 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  ...but they STILL have a great deal of influence and are an important part of Big Ten membership, especially to the academic side.

Who's saying that, though?

The Big Ten rebranded because their coop didn't seem to draw any recognition as "CIC." When the CIC wanted to be somewhere, the name didn't carry it. Nobody knew what they were.

So, if the name isn't recognizable or couldn't get into things where it wanted to be, per its mission, how can the darn thing have value?

If you mean, this is a great club for faculty to sit and talk about things and feel great about themselves because they get to hang out with other great schools' faculty...ok, sounds cool for the faculty. But, again, what does it do? Help with purchasing power? $20 million across fourteen schools' 9-10 digit individual operating budgets is what exactly? And membership dues are what?

It's overstated. It's Big Ten people (not necessarily individual faculty members) and school presidents talking this thing up. The bottom line is, whether we never heard of it as students...doesn't sound like us in the mob weren't the only ones.

Maryland's academic standing (USNWR) has fallen since becoming a Big Ten member, in spite of the merger between College Park and the Baltimore professional schools under College Park's control.

(10-04-2017 10:48 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 02:42 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  As a current Penn State student, all I can say is I have NEVER heard "CIC", or "Big Ten membership" before, during, and after the admission process. Not even once. That's when I realize all this CIC talk was just message board talking points. But that's Penn State, i don't know if other B1G schools use that, especially the new members.

Wait What? You didn't know Penn St. was in the Big 10?

Of course I knew that. But I was surprised the Penn State graduate admissions staff didn't use the CIC or whatever name it goes by these days nor they used the Big Ten as a perk for choosing them over other schools. The only time athletics came up for discussion was about football tradition, game day experience, discounted season tickets and men's hockey (apparently a big deal in Happy Valley). The Big Ten and Joe Paterno (and the whole scandal) were never mentioned. That's when I realize some of the things I thought were just message board talking points. But I can only speak based on my experience with Penn State. Now that I'm a student, I get emails about tickets to the games and things like that but that's about it.

(10-04-2017 11:47 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Maryland's academic standing (USNWR) has fallen since becoming a Big Ten member, in spite of the merger between College Park and the Baltimore professional schools under College Park's control.

I suspect that merger, like Rutgers' with UMDNJ has more bearing on the rating, near and longterm, than the Big Ten will.

I'll go out there and say Big Ten membership didn't do a lot of the work vaulting PSU, either. A lot of work was done to make Main Campus very hard to enter...Big Ten had nothing to do with that, other than more apps.

(10-04-2017 02:54 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:47 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Maryland's academic standing (USNWR) has fallen since becoming a Big Ten member, in spite of the merger between College Park and the Baltimore professional schools under College Park's control.

I suspect that merger, like Rutgers' with UMDNJ has more bearing on the rating, near and longterm, than the Big Ten will.

I'll go out there and say Big Ten membership didn't do a lot of the work vaulting PSU, either. A lot of work was done to make Main Campus very hard to enter...Big Ten had nothing to do with that, other than more apps.

I never bought in to the "CIC will do this and that for Maryland" proclamations the administration made to alleviate the anger of students, alumni and t-shirt fans from the sudden and unexpected move to B1G.

(10-04-2017 03:14 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:54 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:47 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Maryland's academic standing (USNWR) has fallen since becoming a Big Ten member, in spite of the merger between College Park and the Baltimore professional schools under College Park's control.

I suspect that merger, like Rutgers' with UMDNJ has more bearing on the rating, near and longterm, than the Big Ten will.

I'll go out there and say Big Ten membership didn't do a lot of the work vaulting PSU, either. A lot of work was done to make Main Campus very hard to enter...Big Ten had nothing to do with that, other than more apps.

I never bought in to the "CIC will do this and that for Maryland" proclamations the administration made to alleviate the anger of students, alumni and t-shirt fans from the sudden and unexpected move to B1G.

to be fair to Maryland it appears as of late that the US Snooze rankings have taken a turn against public universities in general

it is hitting the ones in the 100 and below ranking range harder and the larger ones as well, but most all public schools are taking a hit or barely moving up after a lot of work

and some private schools have taken hits on endowments or not seen the endowment growth of the past and yet they still maintain or even move up slightly

UTD is the only public I can recall right off hand that has moved up significantly in recent memory though there may be a couple of others

(10-04-2017 02:54 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:47 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Maryland's academic standing (USNWR) has fallen since becoming a Big Ten member, in spite of the merger between College Park and the Baltimore professional schools under College Park's control.

I suspect that merger, like Rutgers' with UMDNJ has more bearing on the rating, near and longterm, than the Big Ten will.

I'll go out there and say Big Ten membership didn't do a lot of the work vaulting PSU, either. A lot of work was done to make Main Campus very hard to enter...Big Ten had nothing to do with that, other than more apps.

It didn't help at all. Since joining the CIC, PSU's % of total federal obligations of research has actually fallen. And as far as admission standards, and at least since the fall of 1998, Penn State's rank among public colleges for highest standardized test scores has fallen from 25th to 51st (now 193rd among all colleges).

Penn State-main (University Park) isn't actually that hard to get into, unless you think 193rd highest test scores means it is difficult from an overall perspective. The average SAT CR+M scores are under 1200 and incoming freshman class to the main campus has an average GPA under 3.6. That's not terrible, but hardly "very hard." That also doesn't account to some nearly non-existent entrance requirements among its 19 branch campuses where about 60% of all PSU students begin before transferring, so really almost anyone can get to the main campus by their junior year, and none of those students are factored into the admissions numbers. And all diplomas read the same.

(10-04-2017 06:55 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  So the rule now is that just because one hasn't heard of it means it isn't important and doesn't have influence.

I'd be willing to bet most haven't heard of the government agency called the Special Collection Service.

Basically, they collect data (spy) on foreign countries on behalf of the CIA and NSA. Look it up.

But I suppose since "some" haven't heard of them they aren't important, right?

First, the CIC is no longer in existence, it's called the Big Ten Academic Alliance now so it's not surprising that some folks haven't heard of it. Second, sure they "pad their stats" so to speak and probably exaggerate their "power" so to speak, but they STILL have a great deal of influence and are an important part of Big Ten membership, especially to the academic side.

Sure, money if still the biggest influence when it comes to expansion which means that sports drives the bus. No one really disputes that, but on the other hand, no one can dispute that schools that are under consideration for expansion see the BTAA as a major selling point.

Institutional fit is a factor in invites when there are options between choosing institutions that are otherwise on similar footing athletically. If academic research profile was as big of a factor as some bloggers would have you believe, bloggers that never heard of the CIC or the AAU until they were searching the tea leaves for their realignment prognostications, the Big Ten would have a very different history of membership invites and different current membership makeup. If the Big Ten academic consortium was actually important in academia, athletic profiles of institutions wouldn't at all limit its membership. No one has moved to the Big Ten for its academic consortium. Sure its nice to be associated with higher regarded institutions like Northwestern, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and that is true for any school moving to a place where they will be associated with higher regarded academic schools, but the consortium itself is little more than nice talking point to help administrative leadership give higher meaning to an athletic affiliation or change. Not that the consortium doesn't have some nice programs, but it is hardly unique or a decision maker or something that carries any weight in the broader world of academia.

(10-04-2017 02:54 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:47 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Maryland's academic standing (USNWR) has fallen since becoming a Big Ten member, in spite of the merger between College Park and the Baltimore professional schools under College Park's control.

I suspect that merger, like Rutgers' with UMDNJ has more bearing on the rating, near and longterm, than the Big Ten will.

I'll go out there and say Big Ten membership didn't do a lot of the work vaulting PSU, either. A lot of work was done to make Main Campus very hard to enter...Big Ten had nothing to do with that, other than more apps.

Of course merging with UMDNJ will have more of an impact, although almost entirely on the graduate research side. The merger was actually a very substantive academic event for the university.

(10-04-2017 07:02 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  And all diplomas read the same.

That's not entirely true, but the differences are subtle. The business school thing has had its share of critics because the flagship school, Smeal, is set apart from the others. More on the MBA side.

It's a shell game. Timing, like when you apply, and what program you apply to has become an issue there. There's also been some tightening in the programs where transfers to Main Campus are more prohibitive. More branch campuses house full four-year programs than when most/all were doing the 2-2 thing and offering 2-year degrees. It's not what it used to be.

Pitt's administration would have sold its collective soul to Lucifer himself if it would have guaranteed Pitt a place in the Big Ten, IMO. Pitt's AD's actions with Penn State & WVU have told me that much.