Can we fire this woman already?

[crzykillernut]

Yes, and most of those improvements were during the past several years. But some people on this board would rather return to the day of open admissions and were drunks were allowed to roam free on gamedays.

But the real question is, is it the role of a public state university to hold selective admissions? I guess my jury is still out. I of course like to hear about high act averages and what not, but is it worth denying some folks an education over, who deserve it, simply because their act score was not high enough to boost the average?

"A goal of the 2008 Enrollment Management Plan is to recruit an entering class with a median ACT score of 26 by 2006 and 27 by 2008. We are on track to meet this goal. "

OSU is shooting for a 27 ACT average by 2008. Thats HIGH considering we have 37,000 undergraduates. I just dont know how I feel. The number of GOOD students who aren't making the cut is appalling, all in the name of 'averages'.

 

[sandgk]

Obviously, the larger the sample size the more watered down the average

Mmm -- well if you are dealing with the difference between say 20 and a hundred, or one hundred and a thousand perhaps.
Here all the schools (including N'Western) have pools well above the level needed to be statistically significant.

Or put another way you are calling the effect of a policy the cause.

The lower SAT scores you show accurately reflect a lower threshold for acceptance into Ohio State. It is simply a matter of fact that the academic achievement in high school needed to gain entry to our state's largest land grant university sets a hurdle which is intended to be easy to clear.

Its a result of policy, not a consequence of class size.

 

[crzykillernut]

Or put another way you are calling the effect of a policy the cause.

Its a result of policy, not a consequence of class size.

Of course. But my point isn't cause or effect, its a theoretical one.

If Ohio State state furtherly raised admission standards enough to say, trim 9000 of those bottom and middle % students off., putting our enrollment numbers closer to the other schools in that same step, Our averages would definitively improve.


Lets say we have 6000 students with a 31+ ACT. Those students improve the average more if our total undergrad base is 28000 instead of 37000, as well as factoring in the removal of 9000 bottom to midtier students.

 

[tsteele316]

if you want to crack down on binge drinking tailgaters, that's fine. we still drink at our tailgate, and the cops dont bother us because we are respectful and not rowdy. however, tolerance after the game is little.

the issue i have with tailgating is that you could have gone to the fawcet center lots where all the rich alumni are tailgating and watch them booze like retards with no regard, but there was never any enforcement there.

i work for the state, and i was in the committee meetings when the permissive tailgating pass bill was heard. holebrook's lackeys came in to testify. they directly stated that the tailgating policy would deter further riots, which is an absolute lie.

there have been incidents on chittenden and norwich many times in the past when it wasnt even football season. the problems arise when about 50-100 18-21 year olds get together with 10 kegs chained together in their back yard.

 

[tibor75]

But the real question is, is it the role of a public state university to hold selective admissions? I guess my jury is still out. I of course like to hear about high act averages and what not, but is it worth denying some folks an education over, who deserve it, simply because their act score was not high enough to boost the average?

"A goal of the 2008 Enrollment Management Plan is to recruit an entering class with a median ACT score of 26 by 2006 and 27 by 2008. We are on track to meet this goal. "

OSU is shooting for a 27 ACT average by 2008. Thats HIGH considering we have 37,000 undergraduates. I just dont know how I feel. The number of GOOD students who aren't making the cut is appalling, all in the name of 'averages'.

There are plenty of good schools for those who can't cut it:

UT
Akron
UC
Miami (OH)
KSU
OU

If you can't cut it at OSU, then go somewhere else.

 

[crzykillernut]

There are plenty of good schools for those who can't cut it:

If you can't cut it at OSU, then go somewhere else.

But just because someone doesnt have an above average act doesnt mean they can't cut it. Be realistic. I took the test twice receiving 32 both times. The girl who was co-valedictorian with me took the test and got a 23, then a 26. She was one of the smarter people I've met in my life, she just didnt perform well on that sort of test format.

 

[buckeyefool]

There are plenty of good schools for those who can't cut it:

UT
Akron
UC
Miami (OH)
KSU
OU

If you can't cut it at OSU, then go somewhere else.

And the differnece in all those schools is that most of them are MORE expensive that OSU.

 

[tibor75]

But just because someone doesnt have an above average act doesnt mean they can't cut it. Be realistic. I took the test twice receiving 32 both times. The girl who was co-valedictorian with me took the test and got a 23, then a 26. She was one of the smarter people I've met in my life, she just didnt perform well on that sort of test format.

If the average ACT score is 26, then she can still get into OSU. Your combined ACT average would be 29.

BTW, if you got a 32, why the hell did you take it again?

 

[crzykillernut]

If the average ACT score is 26, then she can still get into OSU. Your combined ACT average would be 29.

BTW, if you got a 32, why the hell did you take it again?

I wasn't talking about her chances at OSU. She went to Duquesne. I was making the point that test scores and grades don't always reflect upon ability.

I took it again because I thought I could get higher. I received a perfect on reading and science, a 35 on the other part, and then flubbed up on math. I took another Calculus class hoping to improve my score, but the problem lies in the way I need to learn math vs. the way math is taught. I suck at math because I have to know WHY i'm doing it, not just memorize formulas and what not, which is how its popularly taught.

Besides, most Universities take your highest score for the tests.

 

[scooter1369]

what's the process of firing the president of a University? Who is her boss?

The alumni association.

 

[buckeyefool]

The alumni association.

Which is why she would need to be careful because football is where most alumni have there interaction with the university still. esp those out of town alumni. Think about this, you are an alumni, and you travel up for the game. You are sitting at a tailgate cooking out, watching the early games on tv and drinking a beer. We will assume this is happening behind the schott. A officer walks up and gives you a ticket for open container. Who are you going to blame? The university of course, and whats likely to happen? you dont buy your tickets, or you dont give money that you may have otherwise given. What Holbrook needs to understadn is yes there needs to be a sense of control and you can't have drunks running around campus. But you alos need to keep your alumni base happy, and making life hard on alumni during football saturdays is the best way to piss them off

 

[sandgk]

But the real question is, is it the role of a public state university to hold selective admissions?

Yes. For admission to The Ohio State University always required some level of attainment, even before the current push to strengthen admissions standards. Thus, the only discussion point is whether the bar is set too high or too low. That discussion is impacted by money.

You do recognize that there are achievement (graduation rate requirements) that affect the ability of the university as a whole to attract and retain Federal funding?

Set the bar lower for opportunity, but risk losing funds by virtue of a diminished overall graduation rate..

Set the bar higher to try and elevate standardized score requirements on admission. For, like it or no, the trend has it that a higher admissions score translates to a higher graduation rate.

Follow the money.

 

[Bucklion]

I will be ssking a major wmployment position soon, so I care about the university's reputation academically as much as anyone. The couple of people I know that work with her say she isn't the witch everyone depicts her as...I have no idea, because I've never met the woman. I don't have a problem with the tailgating thing...I think the pendulum swung too far the other direction, but better that than people rioting or being killed by drunk drivers on the way home.


Getting back to the orginial story, if true, I would have a problem with that. At the surface, of course, is the tradition of the band's name that doesn't hurt anybody. Of real substance, though, are the issues that several posters have brought up, with housing, tuition, admissions, etc. IF (I say if) she is more concerned with changing the name of the band in the name of political correctness to make herself feel better about having done something, it is a monumental waste of time, energy, and resources, not to mention an unpopular change that is entirely useless for improving the university or its image. One would like to think that the leader of one of the biggest universities in the country had something of greater importance to worry about...of course, one could say the same things about the idiots in Washington too.

 

[crzykillernut]

Yes. For admission to The Ohio State University always required some level of attainment, even before the current push to strengthen admissions standards. Thus, the only discussion point is whether the bar is set too high or too low. That discussion is impacted by money.

You do recognize that there are achievement (graduation rate requirements) that affect the ability of the university as a whole to attract and retain Federal funding?

Set the bar lower for opportunity, but risk losing funds by virtue of a diminished overall graduation rate..

Set the bar higher to try and elevate standardized score requirements on admission. For, like it or no, the trend has it that a higher admissions score translates to a higher graduation rate.

Follow the money.

But I think I'm speaking to a level more rational than either extreme.
Knowing the scores of the students that University is looking to admit, and knowing the cut off, there are PLENTY of students who are more than capable of being admitted and successfully graduating who arent getting that chance at Ohio State. I'm not talking about kids who have an act score in the teens. I'm talking about kids with ACT scores in the twenties. Kids who probably have a score equal to or higher than most of the people on this board. They're missing the cut. Its all numbers. The University is determined to retain a certain minority percentage. A minority student with a lower ACT will make the cut over a middle class student in the 24 range. The middle/upper class students are having to get higher and higher scores to get in. Urban and rural students, which are being actively recruited, are being held to a lower standard than middle/upper class students, yet that 'lower' standard is still much higher than it was years ago. And there are still countless minority students chomping at the bit to get out of their subpar schools and receive a quality education.

I'm still torn. I want tOSU to be visibilly recognized as the great institution that it is, and the higher heights it is headed to. But I dont like to see it done at the expense of kids who should be admitted who are getting denied. Continually raising admission standards without improving the quality of education these kids are receiving in HS is the wrong path.

 

[sandgk]

Crazy -- you make good points about the need to balance our responsibility to provide access to higher education. To be clear, my point isn't that one approach is right or the other wrong. Rather, attainment benchmarking is, was and probably always will be part of the admissions landscape. Still, thanks for reminding us that in the end the primary role of a tOSU as a College, particularly as a land-grant institution, is the betterment of the citizens of the State of Ohio.
While we are speaking truths, I feel it is important to inject one more piece of reality in defence of KH. Numerous times in this thread it has been either, asserted, implied, or accepted that KH is responsible for higher tuition.
In a very limited sense that assertion is true. She is President, she along with the Board of Regents make requests for State Funding. In failing to obtain adequate funding to offset what would otherwise be a shortfall KH bears some responsibility. Yet, it is abundantly clear from her speeches on this topic that her preferred means of addressing the budget gap is for the State to play its traditional role of improving funding. As she notes in one of her recent speeches the cost to teach each student has risen $1600 per annum. In response to this the University has raised tuition by $1300, eating the other $300. Clearly that is a kind of math which will not make Mr. Micawber a happy man if it is to continue.
The root cause is at the State House and their collective unwillingness to fairly apportion funds -- which unwillingness has impacted education at every level in Ohio. Frankly, you want to gripe about something, that is the bone to pick on. Failing to invest in our children's future is a crime. Here is a link to some sobering reading on promised versus actual access.

As for the TBDBITL -- even if she wished to change the name to TBBITL it is a foregone conclusion. No matter, as far as some folks are concerned KH is damned if she does, and damned if she wasn't going to do a damned thing.