It seems that some on this board think that UMASS is an athletic program with a university attached and not the other way around. Recent suggestions that Swamy and Meehan be fired because the football and basketball programs are lousy is ridiculous. Both have shown what can be done when the leaders of a school are committed to academic excellence. This is a major achievement that all students and alumni should be proud of!!!
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/ ... _secondary
UMASS- #148 out of 1849
Re: UMASS- #148 out of 1849
UCONN #324, Boston College #625
Re: UMASS- #148 out of 1849
All due respect, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart, I'm gonna pass.
-
InnervisionsUMASS
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 16271
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
- Location: Milford, MA
- Contact:
Re: UMASS- #148 out of 1849
KahunaK wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:21 am It seems that some on this board think that UMASS is an athletic program with a university attached and not the other way around. Recent suggestions that Swamy and Meehan be fired because the football and basketball programs are lousy is ridiculous. Both have shown what can be done when the leaders of a school are committed to academic excellence. This is a major achievement that all students and alumni should be proud of!!!
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/ ... _secondary
Very good news!
Swamy and Meehan shouldn't be fired, but they should show some leadership in making athletics at the Flagship as top notch as they can be. Meehan's comments a few weeks ago were baffling and only muddled the water more.... he runs the system, he (and the Trustees) can step in at any time.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades
-
TheInsider
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 9:12 am
Re: UMASS- #148 out of 1849
They should make the flagship have top notch athletics. It starts with a top notch AD in which we don't have.
Re: UMASS- #148 out of 1849
Forbes ranks UMass #141 on their latest list. Up from #155 in 2019. https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/
Tbh their list looks sort of odd. Like there are some usual suspects at the top, but things get kind of wonky (compared to other ratings) the further you go down. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christiank ... da15d143e0
One skew may be that they base their figure on debt (and I believe ROI may be based on the same). Rather than cost of attendance after aid. In most cases, these should even out. Greater expense leads to greater debt. But I'm thinking if you base it on debt basically "rich-kid schools" would be favored.
Another skew is weighting notable alumni 15%. I mean it's cool. And I get it to an extent. But that's a pretty high weight for what amounts to no more than bar trivia for most alumni from most schools.
I'd make a similar argument about overweighting "academic success" (ie alumni who go on to be Rhodes scholars or earn PhDs). 10% seems high when what maybe only 1 or 2% of people with a bachelors pursue academia? But I suppose it may be a way to attribute the quality of education and/or undergraduate research opportunities?
Also, I do understand why you'd want to measure both. But doesn't graduation rate already capture retention rate?
Tbh their list looks sort of odd. Like there are some usual suspects at the top, but things get kind of wonky (compared to other ratings) the further you go down. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christiank ... da15d143e0
One skew may be that they base their figure on debt (and I believe ROI may be based on the same). Rather than cost of attendance after aid. In most cases, these should even out. Greater expense leads to greater debt. But I'm thinking if you base it on debt basically "rich-kid schools" would be favored.
Another skew is weighting notable alumni 15%. I mean it's cool. And I get it to an extent. But that's a pretty high weight for what amounts to no more than bar trivia for most alumni from most schools.
I'd make a similar argument about overweighting "academic success" (ie alumni who go on to be Rhodes scholars or earn PhDs). 10% seems high when what maybe only 1 or 2% of people with a bachelors pursue academia? But I suppose it may be a way to attribute the quality of education and/or undergraduate research opportunities?
Also, I do understand why you'd want to measure both. But doesn't graduation rate already capture retention rate?
Class of 2019 - @StatsMass