Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic:  RE: We are #182 Topic:  RE: We are #182 Author Message OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 13,462 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/23/2023 9:30:31 PM  OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: I've never understood the whole liberal arts college schtick. Something like 60% of their students major in business or education. Yes, they have some basic arts and science requirements, but so does every respectable university in the country. I'll grant them "undergraduate focused," but in no way are they a liberal arts college. Ohio does have a much broader based selection of graduate and professional degrees. I'd like to see a lot more of them reach into the top 100 though. If I could magically put the toothpaste back into the tube, this is how I would have restructured the system in the 1960s. Just make the damned deal with the devil and anoint OSU as the flagship. It's what they were before Rhodes and what they quickly reasserted themselves as after Rhodes. Ohio becomes the system's other comprehensive research university and is given medical and law schools at that time. Ohio, OSU and Miami are granted selective admissions and let the chips fall where they may. Toledo and Akron are merged into Bowling Green and Kent. They are limited grad/research universities with open admissions undergraduate. When Cincinnati comes into the system in the late 70s, they would be a second comprehensive research university alongside Ohio. Wright and later Shawnee are probably never founded. Also, no branch campuses. The state has a statewide community college system. EDIT: And regarding "public ivy" that was the result of some long forgotten book that came out in the early 80's. It had no methodology and was the completely subjective opinion of one guy who included Miami and Vermont over far more likely choices like Wisconsin, Illinois or Washington as a means to gin up a little controversy and talk. As I've mentioned, I had to spend a miserable weekend researching Miami's claim that they had been anointed as "the honors campus of the university system." They were desperately trying to get OSU's selective admissions rolled back and Ohio's killed in the womb. It was all a myth. There wasn't a single piece of legislation or executive action by a Governor or Regents Chair that ever did that. Thanks for the information on the number of Miami students graduating with business degrees. I didn't realize that the percentage was that high. I guess I fell for the "public ivy" notion, without looking at the actual data. I guess I should have known better, though, because my eldest daughter went there two years before she "saw the light" and transferred to OHIO. I'd like to turn the clock back even further than your hypothetical to right after the Morrill Act was passed and have Miami and Ohio cooperate and split the A and M, which was legal, and have two Morrill Act Land Grant schools in the Buckeye State before the concept of starting a brand new school in Columbus was even a glimmer in the collective eyes of the General Assembly. According to Thomas Hoover, who wrote the seminal history of Ohio University, there was a small window of opportunity for a few years post rebellion when this could have happened. But, Hoover implies that the unwillingness of Ohio and Miami to devise a joint plan in the first few legislative sessions postwar gave time for other possibilities to develop and the idea of a new university to emerge as a salient concept. It would have been a pretty narrow window. Hayes comes in as Governor in January 1866, and he becomes the primary catalyst for founding the new university, putting it in Columbus away from the agricultural interests in Springfield and having it adopt a full classical curriculum. Aa part of his wheeling and dealing he ended up creating the University of Cincinnati as we know it. To get the support of the Cincy pols, he agreed to a bill allowing municipal universities in cities over 150K in population (only Cincy at the time). The Cincinnati founders then cobbled together several smaller colleges and endowed it as the municipal University of Cincinnati. The 1809 founding date they claim is merely the oldest of those colleges. For all intents and purposes, they were founded around 1871 or 1872. As I re-read Hoover he provides some interesting detail. First, in 1865 a commission set up by the legislature made a report recommending that the the Morrill land grant be split with one half going to Miami as an A&M and other half to a new college to be created in northern Ohio. A minority report recommended replacing Miami with a school in College Hill near Cincinnati. Neither report was adopted by the legislature. Second, from 1865-70, Hoover says that "the question of founding an Ohio agricultural and mechanical college dragged on." He lists three proposals that got consideration during that time period: 1. Establishment of a new independent college with some emphasis on scientific and classical education, 2. The division of the grant between Ohio and Miami universities, each of which would establish an agricultural and mechanical department, and 3. the division of funds among a number of institutions, all of which would establish agricultural and mechanical departments. He then says that the commissioner of education suggested a fourth plan, which would have "divided the funds between a centrally located professional institution and three well-endowed colleges in different parts of the state, which would be required to offer training in agriculture and science. Presumably, Ohio University would have been included in this plan." Professor Hoover says that in this five year period that the Ohio and Miami trustees continued to lobby the legislature, often in conjunction with one another. It's obviously a complex period in history, and with a few breaks could have gone more in Ohio University's favor. For instance, if John Brough, Ohio alumnus and Marietta native, had not died in office in 1865, he might have exerted significant influence in our favor. As a beloved war-time governor, he had tremendous political power. FYI: Rutherford B. Hayes did not become Ohio governor until 1868. When Brough died he was succeeded by Lt. Governor Charles Anderson (1865-66), then Jacob Cox (1866-68), then Hayes (1868-72), Edward Noyes (1872-74), William Allen (1874-76), and then Hayes again (1876-71). Edit: Very interesting detail about the University of Cincinnati. I'm curious, do you know the oldest of those colleges that went into the merged school? The one founded in 1809? I got the date wrong on Hayes then. 1868 would give a much more realistic window to have come to some kind of a compromise. As you've mentioned too, the Copperhead presence at Miami along with their proud tradition of having served as a finishing school for rich Southerners (more things change...the more they stay the same) made them an anathema to a large number of state legislators. The book is boxed up, but I'll try and dig it out over the weekend. I remember that it was more than two colleges that they cobbled together and then endowed with some fund that they were trying to find a use for. So, Hayes is to blame for not only Ohio State's creation but also UC's and, later through the law he enacted combined with population growth, the eventual creation of Toledo and Akron. Hayes was also to blame for ending Reconstruction too early, even though as governor he supported black suffrage and earlier as practicing lawyer had defended escaped slaves arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. He was kind of an opportunist, who jettisoned his principles in the compromise of 1877. I once read a contrafactual piece that made a strong argument that if the compromised had not been reached and Tilden had been declared the winner that the GOP-controlled congress would never have allowed Tilden to end Reconstruction. By extending Reconstruction another four years or so, this author argued, it would have allowed freedmen to have better established their rights under the new constitutions in the old CSA states enough that it would have made it much harder for Redeemer governments to have later taken power and overturned them. In his scenario, the civil rights battles of the 1960s were fought in the 1870s and early '80s. To the extent that there is any truth in this conjecture (something we'll never know, of course), Hayes not only screwed up the Ohio higher education system, messed up Ohio's first and finest, but he also was responsible for continuing racial strife for another 80 years. Not one of my heroes! "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top OUPride General User Member Since: 9/21/2010 Post Count: 541 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/23/2023 11:23:54 PM  OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: I've never understood the whole liberal arts college schtick. Something like 60% of their students major in business or education. Yes, they have some basic arts and science requirements, but so does every respectable university in the country. I'll grant them "undergraduate focused," but in no way are they a liberal arts college. Ohio does have a much broader based selection of graduate and professional degrees. I'd like to see a lot more of them reach into the top 100 though. If I could magically put the toothpaste back into the tube, this is how I would have restructured the system in the 1960s. Just make the damned deal with the devil and anoint OSU as the flagship. It's what they were before Rhodes and what they quickly reasserted themselves as after Rhodes. Ohio becomes the system's other comprehensive research university and is given medical and law schools at that time. Ohio, OSU and Miami are granted selective admissions and let the chips fall where they may. Toledo and Akron are merged into Bowling Green and Kent. They are limited grad/research universities with open admissions undergraduate. When Cincinnati comes into the system in the late 70s, they would be a second comprehensive research university alongside Ohio. Wright and later Shawnee are probably never founded. Also, no branch campuses. The state has a statewide community college system. EDIT: And regarding "public ivy" that was the result of some long forgotten book that came out in the early 80's. It had no methodology and was the completely subjective opinion of one guy who included Miami and Vermont over far more likely choices like Wisconsin, Illinois or Washington as a means to gin up a little controversy and talk. As I've mentioned, I had to spend a miserable weekend researching Miami's claim that they had been anointed as "the honors campus of the university system." They were desperately trying to get OSU's selective admissions rolled back and Ohio's killed in the womb. It was all a myth. There wasn't a single piece of legislation or executive action by a Governor or Regents Chair that ever did that. Thanks for the information on the number of Miami students graduating with business degrees. I didn't realize that the percentage was that high. I guess I fell for the "public ivy" notion, without looking at the actual data. I guess I should have known better, though, because my eldest daughter went there two years before she "saw the light" and transferred to OHIO. I'd like to turn the clock back even further than your hypothetical to right after the Morrill Act was passed and have Miami and Ohio cooperate and split the A and M, which was legal, and have two Morrill Act Land Grant schools in the Buckeye State before the concept of starting a brand new school in Columbus was even a glimmer in the collective eyes of the General Assembly. According to Thomas Hoover, who wrote the seminal history of Ohio University, there was a small window of opportunity for a few years post rebellion when this could have happened. But, Hoover implies that the unwillingness of Ohio and Miami to devise a joint plan in the first few legislative sessions postwar gave time for other possibilities to develop and the idea of a new university to emerge as a salient concept. It would have been a pretty narrow window. Hayes comes in as Governor in January 1866, and he becomes the primary catalyst for founding the new university, putting it in Columbus away from the agricultural interests in Springfield and having it adopt a full classical curriculum. Aa part of his wheeling and dealing he ended up creating the University of Cincinnati as we know it. To get the support of the Cincy pols, he agreed to a bill allowing municipal universities in cities over 150K in population (only Cincy at the time). The Cincinnati founders then cobbled together several smaller colleges and endowed it as the municipal University of Cincinnati. The 1809 founding date they claim is merely the oldest of those colleges. For all intents and purposes, they were founded around 1871 or 1872. As I re-read Hoover he provides some interesting detail. First, in 1865 a commission set up by the legislature made a report recommending that the the Morrill land grant be split with one half going to Miami as an A&M and other half to a new college to be created in northern Ohio. A minority report recommended replacing Miami with a school in College Hill near Cincinnati. Neither report was adopted by the legislature. Second, from 1865-70, Hoover says that "the question of founding an Ohio agricultural and mechanical college dragged on." He lists three proposals that got consideration during that time period: 1. Establishment of a new independent college with some emphasis on scientific and classical education, 2. The division of the grant between Ohio and Miami universities, each of which would establish an agricultural and mechanical department, and 3. the division of funds among a number of institutions, all of which would establish agricultural and mechanical departments. He then says that the commissioner of education suggested a fourth plan, which would have "divided the funds between a centrally located professional institution and three well-endowed colleges in different parts of the state, which would be required to offer training in agriculture and science. Presumably, Ohio University would have been included in this plan." Professor Hoover says that in this five year period that the Ohio and Miami trustees continued to lobby the legislature, often in conjunction with one another. It's obviously a complex period in history, and with a few breaks could have gone more in Ohio University's favor. For instance, if John Brough, Ohio alumnus and Marietta native, had not died in office in 1865, he might have exerted significant influence in our favor. As a beloved war-time governor, he had tremendous political power. FYI: Rutherford B. Hayes did not become Ohio governor until 1868. When Brough died he was succeeded by Lt. Governor Charles Anderson (1865-66), then Jacob Cox (1866-68), then Hayes (1868-72), Edward Noyes (1872-74), William Allen (1874-76), and then Hayes again (1876-71). Edit: Very interesting detail about the University of Cincinnati. I'm curious, do you know the oldest of those colleges that went into the merged school? The one founded in 1809? I got the date wrong on Hayes then. 1868 would give a much more realistic window to have come to some kind of a compromise. As you've mentioned too, the Copperhead presence at Miami along with their proud tradition of having served as a finishing school for rich Southerners (more things change...the more they stay the same) made them an anathema to a large number of state legislators. The book is boxed up, but I'll try and dig it out over the weekend. I remember that it was more than two colleges that they cobbled together and then endowed with some fund that they were trying to find a use for. So, Hayes is to blame for not only Ohio State's creation but also UC's and, later through the law he enacted combined with population growth, the eventual creation of Toledo and Akron. Hayes was also to blame for ending Reconstruction too early, even though as governor he supported black suffrage and earlier as practicing lawyer had defended escaped slaves arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. He was kind of an opportunist, who jettisoned his principles in the compromise of 1877. I once read a contrafactual piece that made a strong argument that if the compromised had not been reached and Tilden had been declared the winner that the GOP-controlled congress would never have allowed Tilden to end Reconstruction. By extending Reconstruction another four years or so, this author argued, it would have allowed freedmen to have better established their rights under the new constitutions in the old CSA states enough that it would have made it much harder for Redeemer governments to have later taken power and overturned them. In his scenario, the civil rights battles of the 1960s were fought in the 1870s and early '80s. To the extent that there is any truth in this conjecture (something we'll never know, of course), Hayes not only screwed up the Ohio higher education system, messed up Ohio's first and finest, but he also was responsible for continuing racial strife for another 80 years. Not one of my heroes! The problem with the Tilden Compromise is that he was a good man who agreed to a Faustian Bargain to keep the election from being thrown into the House. I'm not sure that any President has ever faced such a choice. I'll fault him for a lot, but not that. 'Murica was 'Murica, and it was quite ready to get back to its business of white supremacy regardless of who was in the White House. It's what 'Murica does. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,781 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/24/2023 12:05:23 AM  Miami historically had better location than Ohio with regard to attracting students from the Midwest and South. In today's era where location on a highway is a big factor and the emphasis on professional programs which Miami has ceded largely to UC in its backyard they have some real problems. At one time it was a Public Ivy ranked within the Top 20 public schools in Ohio but now its 49th, a solid public university but no longer anything resembeling a "honors college" for the state. As pointed out Ohio has more programs that are nationally ranked than Miami though it has a lower USNWR ranking. If the main reason to go to Miami was their ranking and they continue to slide because of demographic changes and higher costs Ohio could eventually catch them. All the Ohio colleges are facing challenges but its Miami and to a lesser extent OSU that is relying on higher USNWR rankings to bring the students in. UC and Ohio are picking up students as cost alternatives. Kent has become the place to go if you want to stay in northeast Ohio. Toledo and Akron have enrollments that are once again following the pattern of Wright State and Cleveland State. Bowling Green is benefiting from less competiton out of Toledo, Wright State and Akron. The trend toward the urban schools has appeared to cool and UC is leveling off. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,781 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/24/2023 12:29:44 AM  OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: I've never understood the whole liberal arts college schtick. Something like 60% of their students major in business or education. Yes, they have some basic arts and science requirements, but so does every respectable university in the country. I'll grant them "undergraduate focused," but in no way are they a liberal arts college. Ohio does have a much broader based selection of graduate and professional degrees. I'd like to see a lot more of them reach into the top 100 though. If I could magically put the toothpaste back into the tube, this is how I would have restructured the system in the 1960s. Just make the damned deal with the devil and anoint OSU as the flagship. It's what they were before Rhodes and what they quickly reasserted themselves as after Rhodes. Ohio becomes the system's other comprehensive research university and is given medical and law schools at that time. Ohio, OSU and Miami are granted selective admissions and let the chips fall where they may. Toledo and Akron are merged into Bowling Green and Kent. They are limited grad/research universities with open admissions undergraduate. When Cincinnati comes into the system in the late 70s, they would be a second comprehensive research university alongside Ohio. Wright and later Shawnee are probably never founded. Also, no branch campuses. The state has a statewide community college system. EDIT: And regarding "public ivy" that was the result of some long forgotten book that came out in the early 80's. It had no methodology and was the completely subjective opinion of one guy who included Miami and Vermont over far more likely choices like Wisconsin, Illinois or Washington as a means to gin up a little controversy and talk. As I've mentioned, I had to spend a miserable weekend researching Miami's claim that they had been anointed as "the honors campus of the university system." They were desperately trying to get OSU's selective admissions rolled back and Ohio's killed in the womb. It was all a myth. There wasn't a single piece of legislation or executive action by a Governor or Regents Chair that ever did that. Thanks for the information on the number of Miami students graduating with business degrees. I didn't realize that the percentage was that high. I guess I fell for the "public ivy" notion, without looking at the actual data. I guess I should have known better, though, because my eldest daughter went there two years before she "saw the light" and transferred to OHIO. I'd like to turn the clock back even further than your hypothetical to right after the Morrill Act was passed and have Miami and Ohio cooperate and split the A and M, which was legal, and have two Morrill Act Land Grant schools in the Buckeye State before the concept of starting a brand new school in Columbus was even a glimmer in the collective eyes of the General Assembly. According to Thomas Hoover, who wrote the seminal history of Ohio University, there was a small window of opportunity for a few years post rebellion when this could have happened. But, Hoover implies that the unwillingness of Ohio and Miami to devise a joint plan in the first few legislative sessions postwar gave time for other possibilities to develop and the idea of a new university to emerge as a salient concept. It would have been a pretty narrow window. Hayes comes in as Governor in January 1866, and he becomes the primary catalyst for founding the new university, putting it in Columbus away from the agricultural interests in Springfield and having it adopt a full classical curriculum. Aa part of his wheeling and dealing he ended up creating the University of Cincinnati as we know it. To get the support of the Cincy pols, he agreed to a bill allowing municipal universities in cities over 150K in population (only Cincy at the time). The Cincinnati founders then cobbled together several smaller colleges and endowed it as the municipal University of Cincinnati. The 1809 founding date they claim is merely the oldest of those colleges. For all intents and purposes, they were founded around 1871 or 1872. As I re-read Hoover he provides some interesting detail. First, in 1865 a commission set up by the legislature made a report recommending that the the Morrill land grant be split with one half going to Miami as an A&M and other half to a new college to be created in northern Ohio. A minority report recommended replacing Miami with a school in College Hill near Cincinnati. Neither report was adopted by the legislature. Second, from 1865-70, Hoover says that "the question of founding an Ohio agricultural and mechanical college dragged on." He lists three proposals that got consideration during that time period: 1. Establishment of a new independent college with some emphasis on scientific and classical education, 2. The division of the grant between Ohio and Miami universities, each of which would establish an agricultural and mechanical department, and 3. the division of funds among a number of institutions, all of which would establish agricultural and mechanical departments. He then says that the commissioner of education suggested a fourth plan, which would have "divided the funds between a centrally located professional institution and three well-endowed colleges in different parts of the state, which would be required to offer training in agriculture and science. Presumably, Ohio University would have been included in this plan." Professor Hoover says that in this five year period that the Ohio and Miami trustees continued to lobby the legislature, often in conjunction with one another. It's obviously a complex period in history, and with a few breaks could have gone more in Ohio University's favor. For instance, if John Brough, Ohio alumnus and Marietta native, had not died in office in 1865, he might have exerted significant influence in our favor. As a beloved war-time governor, he had tremendous political power. FYI: Rutherford B. Hayes did not become Ohio governor until 1868. When Brough died he was succeeded by Lt. Governor Charles Anderson (1865-66), then Jacob Cox (1866-68), then Hayes (1868-72), Edward Noyes (1872-74), William Allen (1874-76), and then Hayes again (1876-71). Edit: Very interesting detail about the University of Cincinnati. I'm curious, do you know the oldest of those colleges that went into the merged school? The one founded in 1809? I got the date wrong on Hayes then. 1868 would give a much more realistic window to have come to some kind of a compromise. As you've mentioned too, the Copperhead presence at Miami along with their proud tradition of having served as a finishing school for rich Southerners (more things change...the more they stay the same) made them an anathema to a large number of state legislators. The book is boxed up, but I'll try and dig it out over the weekend. I remember that it was more than two colleges that they cobbled together and then endowed with some fund that they were trying to find a use for. So, Hayes is to blame for not only Ohio State's creation but also UC's and, later through the law he enacted combined with population growth, the eventual creation of Toledo and Akron. Hayes was also to blame for ending Reconstruction too early, even though as governor he supported black suffrage and earlier as practicing lawyer had defended escaped slaves arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. He was kind of an opportunist, who jettisoned his principles in the compromise of 1877. I once read a contrafactual piece that made a strong argument that if the compromised had not been reached and Tilden had been declared the winner that the GOP-controlled congress would never have allowed Tilden to end Reconstruction. By extending Reconstruction another four years or so, this author argued, it would have allowed freedmen to have better established their rights under the new constitutions in the old CSA states enough that it would have made it much harder for Redeemer governments to have later taken power and overturned them. In his scenario, the civil rights battles of the 1960s were fought in the 1870s and early '80s. To the extent that there is any truth in this conjecture (something we'll never know, of course), Hayes not only screwed up the Ohio higher education system, messed up Ohio's first and finest, but he also was responsible for continuing racial strife for another 80 years. Not one of my heroes! The problem with the Tilden Compromise is that he was a good man who agreed to a Faustian Bargain to keep the election from being thrown into the House. I'm not sure that any President has ever faced such a choice. I'll fault him for a lot, but not that. 'Murica was 'Murica, and it was quite ready to get back to its business of white supremacy regardless of who was in the White House. It's what 'Murica does. News and ideas didn't move at the pace they do today in the 19th century. The social changes in the 50's and 60's were presaged by increased literacy across the population. Four more years of reconstruction its difficult to see having much of an impact over the longer term. 1865 to 1965 was a really long time. American lifestyle of lesuire and consumerism was entrenched quickly after the civil war. Think about how baseball, horse racing, football all became established in the 1870's. Urbanization and urban politics were only beginning to become a factor at that time. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 13,462 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/24/2023 9:48:08 AM  Campus Flow wrote: OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: OUPride wrote: I've never understood the whole liberal arts college schtick. Something like 60% of their students major in business or education. Yes, they have some basic arts and science requirements, but so does every respectable university in the country. I'll grant them "undergraduate focused," but in no way are they a liberal arts college. Ohio does have a much broader based selection of graduate and professional degrees. I'd like to see a lot more of them reach into the top 100 though. If I could magically put the toothpaste back into the tube, this is how I would have restructured the system in the 1960s. Just make the damned deal with the devil and anoint OSU as the flagship. It's what they were before Rhodes and what they quickly reasserted themselves as after Rhodes. Ohio becomes the system's other comprehensive research university and is given medical and law schools at that time. Ohio, OSU and Miami are granted selective admissions and let the chips fall where they may. Toledo and Akron are merged into Bowling Green and Kent. They are limited grad/research universities with open admissions undergraduate. When Cincinnati comes into the system in the late 70s, they would be a second comprehensive research university alongside Ohio. Wright and later Shawnee are probably never founded. Also, no branch campuses. The state has a statewide community college system. EDIT: And regarding "public ivy" that was the result of some long forgotten book that came out in the early 80's. It had no methodology and was the completely subjective opinion of one guy who included Miami and Vermont over far more likely choices like Wisconsin, Illinois or Washington as a means to gin up a little controversy and talk. As I've mentioned, I had to spend a miserable weekend researching Miami's claim that they had been anointed as "the honors campus of the university system." They were desperately trying to get OSU's selective admissions rolled back and Ohio's killed in the womb. It was all a myth. There wasn't a single piece of legislation or executive action by a Governor or Regents Chair that ever did that. Thanks for the information on the number of Miami students graduating with business degrees. I didn't realize that the percentage was that high. I guess I fell for the "public ivy" notion, without looking at the actual data. I guess I should have known better, though, because my eldest daughter went there two years before she "saw the light" and transferred to OHIO. I'd like to turn the clock back even further than your hypothetical to right after the Morrill Act was passed and have Miami and Ohio cooperate and split the A and M, which was legal, and have two Morrill Act Land Grant schools in the Buckeye State before the concept of starting a brand new school in Columbus was even a glimmer in the collective eyes of the General Assembly. According to Thomas Hoover, who wrote the seminal history of Ohio University, there was a small window of opportunity for a few years post rebellion when this could have happened. But, Hoover implies that the unwillingness of Ohio and Miami to devise a joint plan in the first few legislative sessions postwar gave time for other possibilities to develop and the idea of a new university to emerge as a salient concept. It would have been a pretty narrow window. Hayes comes in as Governor in January 1866, and he becomes the primary catalyst for founding the new university, putting it in Columbus away from the agricultural interests in Springfield and having it adopt a full classical curriculum. Aa part of his wheeling and dealing he ended up creating the University of Cincinnati as we know it. To get the support of the Cincy pols, he agreed to a bill allowing municipal universities in cities over 150K in population (only Cincy at the time). The Cincinnati founders then cobbled together several smaller colleges and endowed it as the municipal University of Cincinnati. The 1809 founding date they claim is merely the oldest of those colleges. For all intents and purposes, they were founded around 1871 or 1872. As I re-read Hoover he provides some interesting detail. First, in 1865 a commission set up by the legislature made a report recommending that the the Morrill land grant be split with one half going to Miami as an A&M and other half to a new college to be created in northern Ohio. A minority report recommended replacing Miami with a school in College Hill near Cincinnati. Neither report was adopted by the legislature. Second, from 1865-70, Hoover says that "the question of founding an Ohio agricultural and mechanical college dragged on." He lists three proposals that got consideration during that time period: 1. Establishment of a new independent college with some emphasis on scientific and classical education, 2. The division of the grant between Ohio and Miami universities, each of which would establish an agricultural and mechanical department, and 3. the division of funds among a number of institutions, all of which would establish agricultural and mechanical departments. He then says that the commissioner of education suggested a fourth plan, which would have "divided the funds between a centrally located professional institution and three well-endowed colleges in different parts of the state, which would be required to offer training in agriculture and science. Presumably, Ohio University would have been included in this plan." Professor Hoover says that in this five year period that the Ohio and Miami trustees continued to lobby the legislature, often in conjunction with one another. It's obviously a complex period in history, and with a few breaks could have gone more in Ohio University's favor. For instance, if John Brough, Ohio alumnus and Marietta native, had not died in office in 1865, he might have exerted significant influence in our favor. As a beloved war-time governor, he had tremendous political power. FYI: Rutherford B. Hayes did not become Ohio governor until 1868. When Brough died he was succeeded by Lt. Governor Charles Anderson (1865-66), then Jacob Cox (1866-68), then Hayes (1868-72), Edward Noyes (1872-74), William Allen (1874-76), and then Hayes again (1876-71). Edit: Very interesting detail about the University of Cincinnati. I'm curious, do you know the oldest of those colleges that went into the merged school? The one founded in 1809? I got the date wrong on Hayes then. 1868 would give a much more realistic window to have come to some kind of a compromise. As you've mentioned too, the Copperhead presence at Miami along with their proud tradition of having served as a finishing school for rich Southerners (more things change...the more they stay the same) made them an anathema to a large number of state legislators. The book is boxed up, but I'll try and dig it out over the weekend. I remember that it was more than two colleges that they cobbled together and then endowed with some fund that they were trying to find a use for. So, Hayes is to blame for not only Ohio State's creation but also UC's and, later through the law he enacted combined with population growth, the eventual creation of Toledo and Akron. Hayes was also to blame for ending Reconstruction too early, even though as governor he supported black suffrage and earlier as practicing lawyer had defended escaped slaves arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. He was kind of an opportunist, who jettisoned his principles in the compromise of 1877. I once read a contrafactual piece that made a strong argument that if the compromised had not been reached and Tilden had been declared the winner that the GOP-controlled congress would never have allowed Tilden to end Reconstruction. By extending Reconstruction another four years or so, this author argued, it would have allowed freedmen to have better established their rights under the new constitutions in the old CSA states enough that it would have made it much harder for Redeemer governments to have later taken power and overturned them. In his scenario, the civil rights battles of the 1960s were fought in the 1870s and early '80s. To the extent that there is any truth in this conjecture (something we'll never know, of course), Hayes not only screwed up the Ohio higher education system, messed up Ohio's first and finest, but he also was responsible for continuing racial strife for another 80 years. Not one of my heroes! The problem with the Tilden Compromise is that he was a good man who agreed to a Faustian Bargain to keep the election from being thrown into the House. I'm not sure that any President has ever faced such a choice. I'll fault him for a lot, but not that. 'Murica was 'Murica, and it was quite ready to get back to its business of white supremacy regardless of who was in the White House. It's what 'Murica does. News and ideas didn't move at the pace they do today in the 19th century. The social changes in the 50's and 60's were presaged by increased literacy across the population. Four more years of reconstruction its difficult to see having much of an impact over the longer term. 1865 to 1965 was a really long time. American lifestyle of lesuire and consumerism was entrenched quickly after the civil war. Think about how baseball, horse racing, football all became established in the 1870's. Urbanization and urban politics were only beginning to become a factor at that time. I tend to disagree with both of the last two comments. Admittedly "historical ifs" are very problematic, but sometimes small changes can make major differences going forward. Another related issue that I've sometimes pondered is "what if" a majority of African Americans had heeded Frederick Douglass' warning against the "Great Migration." This probably would have also caused an earlier confrontation of the racial issues in the South. But, since all of this is just idle speculation, I'll leave it at that. No one is right and no one is wrong in this discussion. To return to your regularly scheduled programming . . . what actual relevance do these USNews rankings have anyway? Last Edited: 5/24/2023 9:49:07 AM by OhioCatFan "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top OUPride General User Member Since: 9/21/2010 Post Count: 541 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/24/2023 10:08:53 AM  OhioCatFan wrote: To return to your regularly scheduled programming . . . what actual relevance do these USNews rankings have anyway? I don't think they--or any other rankings--are perfect. Some of the metrics they use, I think are fundamental, and others are not. In any event, USNWR by far have the most general consciousness in society and are often the the first reference point that counselors, parents and potential students will turn to. Love them or hate them, one shouldn't ignore them. Back to Top OUPride General User Member Since: 9/21/2010 Post Count: 541 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/24/2023 10:19:20 AM  Campus Flow wrote: Miami historically had better location than Ohio with regard to attracting students from the Midwest and South. In today's era where location on a highway is a big factor and the emphasis on professional programs which Miami has ceded largely to UC in its backyard they have some real problems. At one time it was a Public Ivy ranked within the Top 20 public schools in Ohio but now its 49th, a solid public university but no longer anything resembeling a "honors college" for the state. As pointed out Ohio has more programs that are nationally ranked than Miami though it has a lower USNWR ranking. If the main reason to go to Miami was their ranking and they continue to slide because of demographic changes and higher costs Ohio could eventually catch them. All the Ohio colleges are facing challenges but its Miami and to a lesser extent OSU that is relying on higher USNWR rankings to bring the students in. UC and Ohio are picking up students as cost alternatives. Kent has become the place to go if you want to stay in northeast Ohio. Toledo and Akron have enrollments that are once again following the pattern of Wright State and Cleveland State. Bowling Green is benefiting from less competiton out of Toledo, Wright State and Akron. The trend toward the urban schools has appeared to cool and UC is leveling off. I don't know that Miami's 105th ranking is doing all that much to attract students. I think they have a very good marketing operation in the Chicago suburbs to entice some affluent kids who don't get into their top choices to come to Miami. Also, they're something of a magnet for a certain type (conservative, preppy, greek, business major) that wants to be in a bubble where everyone else is similar. OSU is cleaning Miami's clock for in-state students. If what I read in the Dispatch is true then 9 out of 10 Ohio kids who have an acceptance to both schools and end up attending one of them end up in Columbus. I think that can be attributed to a lot of things: much higher ranking, lower tuition and more scholarships, Big Ten sports, urban environment. I don't think Ohio needs to worry about competing with OSU at the moment. We should absolutely be tearing apart the metrics that separate us from Miami and UC and seeing how we can close the gap. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,781 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/25/2023 9:36:20 AM  OUPride wrote: Campus Flow wrote: Miami historically had better location than Ohio with regard to attracting students from the Midwest and South. In today's era where location on a highway is a big factor and the emphasis on professional programs which Miami has ceded largely to UC in its backyard they have some real problems. At one time it was a Public Ivy ranked within the Top 20 public schools in Ohio but now its 49th, a solid public university but no longer anything resembeling a "honors college" for the state. As pointed out Ohio has more programs that are nationally ranked than Miami though it has a lower USNWR ranking. If the main reason to go to Miami was their ranking and they continue to slide because of demographic changes and higher costs Ohio could eventually catch them. All the Ohio colleges are facing challenges but its Miami and to a lesser extent OSU that is relying on higher USNWR rankings to bring the students in. UC and Ohio are picking up students as cost alternatives. Kent has become the place to go if you want to stay in northeast Ohio. Toledo and Akron have enrollments that are once again following the pattern of Wright State and Cleveland State. Bowling Green is benefiting from less competiton out of Toledo, Wright State and Akron. The trend toward the urban schools has appeared to cool and UC is leveling off. I don't know that Miami's 105th ranking is doing all that much to attract students. I think they have a very good marketing operation in the Chicago suburbs to entice some affluent kids who don't get into their top choices to come to Miami. Also, they're something of a magnet for a certain type (conservative, preppy, greek, business major) that wants to be in a bubble where everyone else is similar. OSU is cleaning Miami's clock for in-state students. If what I read in the Dispatch is true then 9 out of 10 Ohio kids who have an acceptance to both schools and end up attending one of them end up in Columbus. I think that can be attributed to a lot of things: much higher ranking, lower tuition and more scholarships, Big Ten sports, urban environment. I don't think Ohio needs to worry about competing with OSU at the moment. We should absolutely be tearing apart the metrics that separate us from Miami and UC and seeing how we can close the gap. OSU has always attracted students on its academic merits even when it was an open admission university. The USNWR ranking helps but definitely isn't the whole story. We all know that the USNWR ranking does have some sway over kids decisions and with OSU much higher in the rankings than Miami at this point I think that is why you are seeing that 9 of 10 pick OSU number. As to Miami's Chicago bro' pipeline the type you describe doesn't fit Gen Z which has video game and music consumption above TV and respect for being socially concious. Today's 17 year old high school senior doesn't even remember life before the smart phone or Roku. I don't think going to Miami to find a spouse rates that highly as an idea anymore. If they continue to drop in the rankings at some point students will look elsewhere. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top OUPride General User Member Since: 9/21/2010 Post Count: 541 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 5/26/2023 4:37:00 PM  Campus Flow wrote: OUPride wrote: Campus Flow wrote: Miami historically had better location than Ohio with regard to attracting students from the Midwest and South. In today's era where location on a highway is a big factor and the emphasis on professional programs which Miami has ceded largely to UC in its backyard they have some real problems. At one time it was a Public Ivy ranked within the Top 20 public schools in Ohio but now its 49th, a solid public university but no longer anything resembeling a "honors college" for the state. As pointed out Ohio has more programs that are nationally ranked than Miami though it has a lower USNWR ranking. If the main reason to go to Miami was their ranking and they continue to slide because of demographic changes and higher costs Ohio could eventually catch them. All the Ohio colleges are facing challenges but its Miami and to a lesser extent OSU that is relying on higher USNWR rankings to bring the students in. UC and Ohio are picking up students as cost alternatives. Kent has become the place to go if you want to stay in northeast Ohio. Toledo and Akron have enrollments that are once again following the pattern of Wright State and Cleveland State. Bowling Green is benefiting from less competiton out of Toledo, Wright State and Akron. The trend toward the urban schools has appeared to cool and UC is leveling off. I don't know that Miami's 105th ranking is doing all that much to attract students. I think they have a very good marketing operation in the Chicago suburbs to entice some affluent kids who don't get into their top choices to come to Miami. Also, they're something of a magnet for a certain type (conservative, preppy, greek, business major) that wants to be in a bubble where everyone else is similar. OSU is cleaning Miami's clock for in-state students. If what I read in the Dispatch is true then 9 out of 10 Ohio kids who have an acceptance to both schools and end up attending one of them end up in Columbus. I think that can be attributed to a lot of things: much higher ranking, lower tuition and more scholarships, Big Ten sports, urban environment. I don't think Ohio needs to worry about competing with OSU at the moment. We should absolutely be tearing apart the metrics that separate us from Miami and UC and seeing how we can close the gap. OSU has always attracted students on its academic merits even when it was an open admission university. The USNWR ranking helps but definitely isn't the whole story. We all know that the USNWR ranking does have some sway over kids decisions and with OSU much higher in the rankings than Miami at this point I think that is why you are seeing that 9 of 10 pick OSU number. As to Miami's Chicago bro' pipeline the type you describe doesn't fit Gen Z which has video game and music consumption above TV and respect for being socially concious. Today's 17 year old high school senior doesn't even remember life before the smart phone or Roku. I don't think going to Miami to find a spouse rates that highly as an idea anymore. If they continue to drop in the rankings at some point students will look elsewhere. I think Miami is already down to only a few potential student pools: 1. Their bro pipeline from Chicago, which despite spending a ton of money, they've never been able to replicate in other regions. 2. Ohio kids who don't get into OSU. 3. Children of alumni who've been brainwashed since birth that Miami is some super elite pubic ivy. Back to Top mf279801 General User Member Since: 8/6/2010 Location: Atlanta, GA Post Count: 2,426 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 6/1/2023 11:20:19 PM  OUPride wrote: ... 3. Children of alumni who've been brainwashed since birth that Miami is some super elite pubic ivy. One of my (first) cousins (he went to BG) is married to a Miami grad (she's not too bad, considering). I was a junior at OU when their oldest was born, and I got him a pair of baby OU socks. She did not take it well, rolled her eyes, etc. etc. Last summer I had the pleasure of buying her an "Ohio University Mom" shirt to go with the Bobcat shirt I bought for her son/my 1st cousin once removed a couple of months before he started at OHIO. I was quite proud of myself (though in truth I had nothing to do with his decision) Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 13,462 Status: Offline     RE: We are #182    Posted: 6/2/2023 11:31:25 AM  mf279801 wrote: OUPride wrote: ... 3. Children of alumni who've been brainwashed since birth that Miami is some super elite pubic ivy. One of my (first) cousins (he went to BG) is married to a Miami grad (she's not too bad, considering). I was a junior at OU when their oldest was born, and I got him a pair of baby OU socks. She did not take it well, rolled her eyes, etc. etc. Last summer I had the pleasure of buying her an "Ohio University Mom" shirt to go with the Bobcat shirt I bought for her son/my 1st cousin once removed a couple of months before he started at OHIO. I was quite proud of myself (though in truth I had nothing to do with his decision) Never discount the lasting influence of those baby OU socks! ;-) "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top Showing Replies:   26 - 36  of 36 Posts Jump to Page:   < Previous    1 | 2 View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 88 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 88 Guests 0 Registered Users There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2023 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties