Long Threads and Notre Dame

<p>Why does (almost) every long thread comparing top schools devolve into an argument about the quality and/or ranking of Notre Dame?</p>

<p>Notre Dame is somewhat of a new phenomenon here...threads used to devolve into arguments about Berkeley, Duke, Michigan or Washington University.</p>

<p>Frankly, it is all about Football</p>

<p>and everyone knows that Notre Dame is known for their great football teams through the years...</p>

<p>great Football school!</p>

<p>JohnAdams you have a pattern of consistently undervaluing baseball, and I'm calling you on it, right here and now.</p>

<p>You also are slighting Notre Dame.
I believe it has other good sports teams besides football.</p>

<p>The preeminent academic institutions in this country are : Los Angeles Lakers, Dallas Cowboys, and New York Yankees.</p>

<p>Case closed.</p>

<p>Boston Celtics, Boston Red Sox, New England Patriots :)</p>

<p>Case closed.</p>

<p>OMG, More Northeast bias, it never stops...</p>

<p>"The preeminent academic institutions in this country are : Los Angeles Lakers, Dallas Cowboys, and New York Yankees."</p>

<p>As much as I hate to admit it, it's the New York Yankeers and then everyone else.</p>

<p>Notre Dame and USC are two classic examples of how succesful sports programs have assisted the schools to significantly better their academics....</p>

<p>look at these two institutions 20-30 years ago where they were ranked academically and now compare to how well they are doing now...</p>

<p>what? am I supposed to be un-biased? I do live in Boston :)</p>

<p>Because there are a few new people on CC who NEVER shut up about Notre Dame and make the most ridiculous claims about its prestige and academic quality.</p>

<p>314159 but I thought that Notre Dame was a football school, that's all. What do you mean "academic quality"?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because there are a few new people on CC who NEVER shut up about Notre Dame and make the most ridiculous claims about its prestige and academic quality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those historic institutions in order</p>

<ol>
<li>Yankees</li>
<li>Celtics</li>
<li>Red Sox</li>
<li>Dodgers</li>
<li>GB Packers</li>
</ol>

<p>"Notre Dame and USC are two classic examples of how succesful sports programs have assisted the schools to significantly better their academics....</p>

<p>look at these two institutions 20-30 years ago where they were ranked academically and now compare to how well they are doing now... "</p>

<p>That does not make much sense to me, since they had successful sports programs prior to 20-30 years ago, while at the same time their academic reputations were languishing.</p>

<p>They have indeed dramatically improved their academic profiles, but I'm not seeing the sports contribution. Other schools have also dramatically improved in their academic profiles, since the 70's: Wash U, NYU, Penn, Berkeley, Bard, Washington & Lee, Claremont, Emory, Boston College. As a group, Catholic-affiliated colleges became much more academically competitive over the years, as did California colleges as a group. I imagine there are some national/ demographic changes underlying some of these shifts, not sports.</p>

<p>"I thought that Notre Dame was a football school, that's all."</p>

<p>Again, denigrating its other fine sports programs..</p>

<p>meanwhile while I was reviewing this NCAA squash film, I thought that it was a ND player with the attitude. Turns out it was a Trinity player:</p>

<p>Trinity</a> senior sorry for squash rage - Chicago Breaking Sports</p>

<p>moneydad, why in the world would you ever inlude UC Berkeley in this group?</p>

<p>UC Berkeley was a top ranked institution going back to the 60's at least</p>

<p>
[quote]
Other schools have also dramatically improved in their academic profiles, since the 70's: Wash U, NYU, Penn, Berkeley, Bard, Washington & Lee, Claremont, Emory, Boston College.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I performed an analysis back when D1 was considering colleges, comparing admissions stats of colleges from circa 1971 to those from 2003. Because D1 was telling me that my opinions on colleges were all based on obsolete notions/data from when I was applying, and hence I was to be ignored.</p>

<p>In 1971 Berkeley admitted 72% of applicants with average SATs of 1177. From this data it ranked 86th in relative selectivity at that time, according to my weighting/methodology. In 2003 it ranked 41st. Its ordinal selectivity jump of 45 places in the "pecking order' between these two periods was exceeded only by the jumps of three other schools in this whole nation: Washington University (73 places), New York University (58 places), and USC (54 places).</p>

<p>And it's M-O-N-Y dad, not $$$.</p>

<p>My guess is the unrest in the 60s made Berkeley a relatively less desired destination in the early 70s. But I haven't looked into the matter.</p>

<p>yes, this would be my guess</p>

<p>
[quote]
My guess is the unrest in the 60s made Berkeley a relatively less desired destination in the early 70s. But I haven't looked into the matter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are large homogeneous communities who have great interest in ND football, and then there is the rest of the world that gets annoyed by how the Irish don't need to contend for NCs to get constant national coverage.</p>

<p>"yes, this would be my guess"</p>

<p>That's not necessarily all there is to it though. The data showed that, comparing these two years,the California colleges as a group significantly increased their relative selectivity. As did the major Southern colleges as a group. I imagine national population shifts played a role in the observed results, not just 60s unrest. Policies of the UC system also likely played a role, so for example UC Santa Cruz was highly selective in the 1971 data,when IIRC it was being promoted by UC as a "star campus" but became markedly less so in 2003. Actually Santa Cruz and Berkeley virtually swapped places in these two study years.</p>

<p>guess what this is turning into a long thread!</p>