• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Thee Ohio State University News

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
ORD_Buckeye said:
It's a few things. Money: all the kids who we need to start rejecting aren't taking up any merit aid. They're cash cows. Politics: How selective can we get before there's some political blowback? I think the politics issue can be headed off by saying we're freeing up a lot of talented Ohio kids for the other schools to recruit. There's also the issue of socio-economic diversity. As selective as we are, the class still has 18% first generation college students and 20% Pell Grant recipients, and I don't think that should change. I don't want to see Ohio State have similar demographics to Fredo.

Ultimately, I think the acceptance rate should be down in the low 40s, and the class sizes around 7500, but it's a complex issue. That would probably boost our average ACT to around 32 from 30 and the percent of kids in the top tenth of their high school classes to around 80%. That would be pretty damned equal to tsun and UCLA.
Click to expand...
Jokes aside, the branch transfers and other transfers are not an insignificant number and there remains a pathway for nearly any Ohioan if they are worried about missions. If kids take the MAC route instead, that was probably a better fit for them anyway. Does that suck for highly structured programs? Yeah. Are those the kids we're talking about? Probably not. But then again a 20 year old is a different kid than a 17 year old, so those are important pathways too.
 
Upvote 0
Am I out in left field by reminding everyone that tOSU is a land grant university? (or have things changed). As such, any Ohioan HS graduate with a 2.0 (?) is entitled to attend tOSU. Believe that's what was intended when the State gave them the land for the university. (please correct me if in error, or has been amended). The 'best' go to the main campus, and the 'not best' get accepted at the satellite campuses around the state. Believe this actually works like the junior college route in California, go to a JC for two years, get your basics out of the way, and then to the 'big campus' for your major/specialty. Class size limiting factor for me at Miami U was number of dorm rooms available. Unlike C'bus, Oxford didn't have a lot of apartments nearby. Don't know about the aid part, but would opine that 'merit' aid was given to the cream of the HS crop, and other tuition aid given to those below certain income levels, but with high enough GPAs, test scores, etc to qualify. PS, Miami U was noted as a 'public ivy', and during a OSU reunion in Dallas, was told I was a 'preppy' for going there versus tOSU for undergrad.
 
Upvote 0
calibuck said:
Am I out in left field by reminding everyone that tOSU is a land grant university? (or have things changed). As such, any Ohioan HS graduate with a 2.0 (?) is entitled to attend tOSU. Believe that's what was intended when the State gave them the land for the university. (please correct me if in error, or has been amended). The 'best' go to the main campus, and the 'not best' get accepted at the satellite campuses around the state. Believe this actually works like the junior college route in California, go to a JC for two years, get your basics out of the way, and then to the 'big campus' for your major/specialty. Class size limiting factor for me at Miami U was number of dorm rooms available. Unlike C'bus, Oxford didn't have a lot of apartments nearby. Don't know about the aid part, but would opine that 'merit' aid was given to the cream of the HS crop, and other tuition aid given to those below certain income levels, but with high enough GPAs, test scores, etc to qualify. PS, Miami U was noted as a 'public ivy', and during a OSU reunion in Dallas, was told I was a 'preppy' for going there versus tOSU for undergrad.
Click to expand...
And the branches continue to fulfill that land grant mission...

As to the rest... things have changed.
 
Upvote 0
calibuck said:
Am I out in left field by reminding everyone that tOSU is a land grant university? (or have things changed). As such, any Ohioan HS graduate with a 2.0 (?) is entitled to attend tOSU. Believe that's what was intended when the State gave them the land for the university. (please correct me if in error, or has been amended). The 'best' go to the main campus, and the 'not best' get accepted at the satellite campuses around the state. Believe this actually works like the junior college route in California, go to a JC for two years, get your basics out of the way, and then to the 'big campus' for your major/specialty. Class size limiting factor for me at Miami U was number of dorm rooms available. Unlike C'bus, Oxford didn't have a lot of apartments nearby. Don't know about the aid part, but would opine that 'merit' aid was given to the cream of the HS crop, and other tuition aid given to those below certain income levels, but with high enough GPAs, test scores, etc to qualify. PS, Miami U was noted as a 'public ivy', and during a OSU reunion in Dallas, was told I was a 'preppy' for going there versus tOSU for undergrad.
Click to expand...
Berkeley is a land grant university, so being a land grant university does not necessarily equate with easy admissions.

As for Fredo, they backdoored their way into selective admissions with some real sleazy political shit that went down in the 60s. Essentially, their President (Millett) was chosen by Rhodes to be the Chair of the Regents and he forced every public school except Fredo into building enough dorm space for the baby boom enrollment boom. Fredo was allowed to start rejecting applicants solely because they could make the argument that they didn't have space for everybody. Their "public ivy" glory was essentially the result of the state's flagship having been forced into open admissions for 20 years. And we saw how fast that fizzled and the historical pecking order was reestablished once Ohio State could compete on a level playing ground. The book was a list of 8 schools that was completely the subjective view of the author and had no real metrics or methodology. In fact, it was argued at the time that Miami and Vermont were only included to jazz things up and get a debate going to publicize the book. Does anyone really believe that those two schools belonged ahead of Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, Georgia Freaking Tech?

The history is that Ohio State was founded to be the flagship university. That's why the campus was located in Columbus rather than Springfield--to keep it away from the ag interests. It's why the name was quickly changed from A&M and the trustees voted for it to have a "classical curriculum." The ATI in Wooster was the compromise with the ag interests. They got that in return for not meddling with Columbus. Two important political acts back up that history. First, in 1906, the state passed a law saying that only Ohio State could have professional schools, offer doctoral programs and conduct basic research. Ever wonder why Fredo, OU, BG or KSU never established law or medical schools? Second in 1921, when the state first instituted an annual appropriations bill to support its public universities, it established two bills. One appropriations bill would fund the "four corners" universities while a second and separate flagship appropriation bill would fund Ohio State.

As Ed Jennings would tell every politician, editorial board or business leader he could speak with in the 80s, "Ohio can have a nationally renowned flagship university that brings incredible economic impact to Ohio or it can have an open admissions flagship university; it can't have both."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 1
Great stuff, Ord. Having grown up in C'bus, didn't know any of that. Makes sense the way you lay it out. My father was a life-long Buckeye, all five of his siblings matriculated there, and roomed together. He was familiar with most of the Presidents of tOSU, and do remember that Jennings wasn't his favorite. Anyway, good to know. No, never wondered why the universities noted didn't have any med or law schools. Appreciate the insight, thanks.
 
Upvote 0
calibuck said:
Great stuff, Ord. Having grown up in C'bus, didn't know any of that. Makes sense the way you lay it out. My father was a life-long Buckeye, all five of his siblings matriculated there, and roomed together. He was familiar with most of the Presidents of tOSU, and do remember that Jennings wasn't his favorite. Anyway, good to know. No, never wondered why the universities noted didn't have any med or law schools. Appreciate the insight, thanks.
Click to expand...
Jennings is undoubtedly the second most important President after Thompson in the university's history...third if you count Rutherford B Hayes who was essentially the de-facto President when he came back from Washington.

That being said, a lot of people don't like Ed Jennings precisely because he moved Ohio State forward and rolled back the open admissions. There was a populist belief that had taken hold in the previous 20 years that any Ohio kid who wanted a chance to go to Ohio State deserved one. Sad thing is that the university didn't want them and flunked out those who were unprepared at an alarming rate. Those kids would have had a much better chance had they stayed at Kent or Bowling Green.

The notion that you cut the state's flagship university and only AAU member off at the knees and force it into open admissions while you allow a preppy little undergraduate college in a cornfield to start selective admissions has to be one of the stupidest bits of public policy in US history. How unnatural and ahistorical it was was evidenced by how quickly Ohio State flipped the selectivity gap between the two schools. The bad blood between Ohio State and Fredo goes back a lot further and runs a lot deeper than simply their running up the score on our hockey team when we sucked.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
And FWIW, I've read through the transcripts of Ohio State's oral history project. We had drawn up plans (like all the other B1G schools) in the late 50s to tighten up admissions standards for when the baby boom generation hit in 1964. And our administration was fine with Fredo and OU going to selective admissions along with us and letting the chips fall where they may while BG and KSU would stay open admissions and Rhodes would build his community college system. When the prohibition on the other schools having doctoral programs was lifted, we even put together Fredo's first Ph.D programs for them. For the first couple of years, the diplomas literally said, "Miami University In Conjunction With The Ohio State University." We were willing to cooperate with the other schools with regards to some common sense reforms and easing of the restrictions that had been in place for the previous 70 years.

But Fredo and OU didn't want that because they understood that they would never be able to compete with Ohio State on a level playing field, a fact evidenced by the reality on the ground today. They thought they'd cripple Ohio State's reputation and be the only two selective admission schools in the state. Fredo stabbed us in the back, and then--in a true reflection of the character and integrity of the place--they turned around and stabbed their partner OU in the back (although they 100% had it coming) when Millett forced them to keep open admissions. And of course, the combination of Rhodes' populist anti-intellectualism and grudge he held against Ohio State for flunking him out played right into Fredo's hands.

All that history certainly explains why Ohio State immediately went to Defcon 1 when Yoko Ono started giving his "multiple flagship" interviews to newspapers around the state.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
One final little tidbit to illustrate how Fredo and OU were historically viewed by objective observers outside the state of Ohio happened in 1909. At that time, the state applied to have its university professors included in a pension fund run by the Carnegie Endowment's higher education branch. The application was rejected, and in his letter to the Governor, the head of the Carnegie Endowment actually advised the state to sever its relationship with Fredo and OU and focus all its resources on Ohio State so that "it might build a system similar to what Wisconsin has built" and one which would then become a strong candidate for inclusion. If only!

They were always little mediocrities thinking that an earlier founding date entitled them to things they had never been able to create and earn on the ground, meddlesome little ankle biters whose existence not only held back Ohio State but damaged the state of Ohio as a whole. They were cowardly hyenas who saw their opening in the 60s to try and take down the Lion. Well, if you take your shot at the Lion, you'd better damn sure kill him and not just wound him.

mufasa-lionking.gif
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
muffler dragon said:
@ORD_Buckeye Love reading what you've posted (historically and contextually).
I'm curious how Case Western has become so premier in certain elements to where (from what I see) it benefits the students, the state, the school, and so forth without being in conflict with the state flagship.
Click to expand...
Ohio's big enough to have a premier public and a premier private university coincide Plus, they're not in the same city, which helps. It's not that uncommon. Hell, Emory and Ga Tech manage to make it work in the same city. The only Cleveland institution that Ohio State seems to have a conflict with is The Cleveland Clinic, and I've never bothered to look into why.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top