Texas A&M+SEC=Twitter rumors

[Al Bundy]

texashsfootball Texas HS Football
by UCFSports
Texas A&M Board of Regents will meet on Thursday to discuss a possible move to the SEC.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Brock

You sure it isn't a dillusion?

I'm quickly becoming disallusioned by this whole ordeal.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Nebraska lost AAU membership. Every Big Ten school except Nebraska has AAU membership. Thus, the league as a whole took a hit, and that is why they will never take another academic hit like the Nubs again. Chancellors and professors are embarrassed to be associated with Nebraska.

Exactly as I assumed you would respond. No objective evidence.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Infidel Goat

Nebraska does detract from the Big 10's academic reputation. I don't have any problem with Nebraska, but US News and World Report rankings makes it pretty clear that Nebraska has the lowest academic ranking of the 12 schools:

12 Northwestern
29 Michigan
45 Wisconsin
47 Penn St
47 Illinois
56 Ohio St
56 Purdue
64 Minnesota
72 Iowa
75 Indiana
79 Michigan St

104 Nebraska

I understand that US News and World Report's rankings aren't perfect, but I think it makes a strong case that they reached academically for Nebraska's football money.

Like I said, that in no way detracts from the credibility of the other schools.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Wow - talking a pretty big game for a guy that's mounting a lame horse, Chief.

By any objective measure (a couple of which have already been provided to you), Nebraska is a sub-standard academic institution. Oh, you could be given more sources if you'd like them; for instance Forbes placed the Nubs at 442 in the country, but it's really not worth the trouble.

Nebraska's academic program is, at it's very best, below average. The 'resources' required to prove it can be found in a local library or on google. The capacity to do so has apparently only alluded you, who failed to do a single bit of simple research before running your mouth.

You wrote a check your ass can't cash.

I didn't write any check, and mounted no horse. Nothing objective was provided for me. How is Nebraska's academic institution below average at best? What criteria were used to come to such a conclusion? Simply citing Forbes and US News (who were over 300 spots off from each other) doesn't provide objective fact. Taken together, that just tells me those rankings are inconsistent and incomplete.

You are biased. it shows by calling them the "nubs". Apparently a fair amount of people are butt hurt on here, but to simply pull out inconsistent rankings from two magazines does not equal objective evidence.

By the way, nothing "alluded" me. If you did some simply research before you ran your mouth, you would see you're looking for the word eluded. And you consider yourself an authority on higher education.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

His entire view of the situation is just an elusion.

Great insight. You really drove the point home there.

By the way, I'm done arguing about Nebraska academics. I really don't care about their academics or their sports teams.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

I didn't write any check, and mounted no horse. Nothing objective was provided for me. How is Nebraska's academic institution below average at best? What criteria were used to come to such a conclusion? Simply citing Forbes and US News (who were over 300 spots off from each other) doesn't provide objective fact. Taken together, that just tells me those rankings are inconsistent and incomplete.

You are biased. it shows by calling them the "nubs". Apparently a fair amount of people are butt hurt on here, but to simply pull out inconsistent rankings from two magazines does not equal objective evidence.

By the way, nothing "alluded" me. If you did some simply research before you ran your mouth, you would see you're looking for the word eluded. And you consider yourself an authority on higher education.

Actually, the rankings from multiple resources is the very definition of "objective evidence" (as you put it). If you had looked further into those two articles, you would easily see why there is a large difference in the numbers in the rankings but not in the order. You should work to improve your research abilities. Some higher education could help you with that. If you're looking for a good research school, you can't go wrong with any of the Big 10 schools (excluding Nebraska, obviously).

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Actually, the rankings from multiple resources is the very definition of "objective evidence" (as you put it). If you had looked further into those two articles, you would easily see why there is a large difference in the numbers in the rankings but not in the order. You should work to improve your research abilities. Some higher education could help you with that. If you're looking for a good research school, you can't go wrong with any of the Big 10 schools (excluding Nebraska, obviously).

Again:

Not one person has shown me how Nebraska affects the other 11 schools and their credibility. Also, how do you correctly quantify the criteria. Let's take career opportunities, for example. This is a very complex component that rests not only in the hands of the university but also the area surrounding the university. Obviously, a New York school is going to have more opportunities than a school in Nebraska. Geography, specifically the surrounding area, makes the comparison inherently difficult. Further, how do you quantify the meaning of a job opportunity (profession)? Does a becoming a teacher=1 point, but a physician=5? What if the teacher considers his/her life successful doing exactly what he/she wants to do, while the physician wished he could become a prominent Biomedical researcher but settled on medicine. How does that factor into the quantification?

And finally, another one of the criteria (as a matter of fact, the only other criterion that carries any weight) is quality of teaching. How could this be accurately quantified when Forbes undoubtedly never attended a lecture at the University of Nebraska? And please, there is no way they had time to accurately profile every professor from over 600 schools taken into account.

I love how you hid behind the Forbes ranking and considered that "research". And two sources=objective evidence? I'll try to submit my paper to the International Journal for Eating Disorders with 2 articles of supporting evidence and see how they take it.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Brock

You sure it isn't a dillusion?

It's all just one big allusion.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

I didn't write any check, and mounted no horse. Nothing objective was provided for me. How is Nebraska's academic institution below average at best? What criteria were used to come to such a conclusion? Simply citing Forbes and US News (who were over 300 spots off from each other) doesn't provide objective fact. Taken together, that just tells me those rankings are inconsistent and incomplete.

You are biased. it shows by calling them the "nubs". Apparently a fair amount of people are butt hurt on here, but to simply pull out inconsistent rankings from two magazines does not equal objective evidence.

By the way, nothing "alluded" me. If you did some simply research before you ran your mouth, you would see you're looking for the word eluded. And you consider yourself an authority on higher education.

No, I consider US News and Forbes to be authorities on higher education, as does most of the working world, both of whom consider the Nubs a below average institution.

You're welcome to research their methodology if you'd like.

But I'm sure the AAU yanked their accreditation just for grins.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Again:

Not one person has shown me how Nebraska affects the other 11 schools and their credibility. Also, how do you correctly quantify the criteria. Let's take career opportunities, for example. This is a very complex component that rests not only in the hands of the university but also the area surrounding the university. Obviously, a New York school is going to have more opportunities than a school in Nebraska. Geography, specifically the surrounding area, makes the comparison inherently difficult. Further, how do you quantify the meaning of a job opportunity (profession)? Does a becoming a teacher=1 point, but a physician=5? What if the teacher considers his/her life successful doing exactly what he/she wants to do, while the physician wished he could become a prominent Biomedical researcher but settled on medicine. How does that factor into the quantification?

And finally, another one of the criteria (as a matter of fact, the only other criterion that carries any weight) is quality of teaching. How could this be accurately quantified when Forbes undoubtedly never attended a lecture at the University of Nebraska? And please, there is no way they had time to accurately profile every professor from over 600 schools taken into account.

I love how you hid behind the Forbes ranking and considered that "research". And two sources=objective evidence? I'll try to submit my paper to the International Journal for Eating Disorders with 2 articles of supporting evidence and see how they take it.

You've been presented with evaluations\rankings from two credible publications to go along with the fact that they were stripped of AAU membership. Its not even like they were never members. They were in the AAU, and they were kicked out. We aren't trying to submit an article for publication here, so your taking the standard of evidence to its absurd extreme holds no water.

If you want to plant your flag in the ground and say that Nebraska is not number twelve with a bullet when it comes to academics in the Big 10, that's your prerogative. Good luck with that.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You've been presented with evaluations\rankings from two credible publications to go along with the fact that they were stripped of AAU membership. Its not even like they were never members. They were in the AAU, and they were kicked out. We aren't trying to submit an article for publication here, so your taking the standard of evidence to its absurd extreme holds no water.

If you want to plant your flag in the ground and say that Nebraska is not number twelve with a bullet when it comes to academics in the Big 10, that's your prerogative. Good luck with that.

Credible publications? Yes. Credible rankings based on quantifiable measures? No. Not in the slightest. The AAU membership is the only piece of evidence in this thread that I will adhere to. But that doesn't discredit my primary premise, which brings me to my next point. Where, in this thread, did you find me stating Nebraska was not number 12? I'll help you: it doesn't exist. My ultimate point was Nebraska's addition does NOT detract from the credibility of the other 11 schools that are members. That brought us to the discussion of the validity of the cited measures.

[Saul Good]

If you don't think that USN&WR and Forbes use quantifiable measures to rank entities that they evaluate, you're not worth debating. Go be stupid somewhere else.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No, I consider US News and Forbes to be authorities on higher education, as does most of the working world, both of whom consider the Nubs a below average institution.

You're welcome to research their methodology if you'd like.

But I'm sure the AAU yanked their accreditation just for grins.

Their criteria are as follows:

1. quality of teaching- As I mentioned earlier, how did they profile all professors from over 600 universities?
2. career prospects- Read previous post. Other factors are included that are out of a university's realm of influence.
3. graduation rates- If you've ever been to college, you will realize how worthless this criterion is. How is it the responsibility of the institution to make sure grown men and women complete their schooling? That's just silly.
4. student debt-loads- Really?

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

If you don't think that USN&WR and Forbes use quantifiable measures to rank entities that they evaluate, you're not worth debating. Go be stupid somewhere else.

Read my previous post. I gave you reasons as to why those rankings aren't completely objective. You didn't even address one of those points. So instead of addressing the content of my argument, you resort to personal attacks. Wonderful.

[WilliamTheIrish]

This thread has been so entertaining.

Nubbs praying/hoping that the team they couldn't beat on the field would have the conference disintegrate. (But they don't care, "we're not in the Big 12")