|
Post by Big D on Jan 16, 2005 12:40:37 GMT -6
Touche, FreeRadical strikes again.....nice job with the research.....
|
|
|
Post by huskyboy on Jan 17, 2005 2:46:08 GMT -6
freeradical, the numbers will show that uic has a great faculty, but why do you think this is so? because uic is a historic university with great prestige? haha, far, far away. because it's a state of Illinois established school, and those endowments to UIC are to the faculty who only are research-oriented, not teaching-oriented. do you really think all that faculty is compelled to teach? no, all that research funding is attracting them to uic.
but lets go to fact #2...
what is uic's graduation rate? us news states a staggering 46%, while NIU is at 53%, DePaul is at 63%, and Loyola is at 69%. graduation rates directly reflect quality of instruction as well as the faculty's attention to students and their genuine interest to see students succeed.
fact #3...
if uic was so great, why does everyone hate it? 98% of uic's undergrads are just there for a straight-up education, paying no heed to anything else outside the classroom. after they graduate, they will probably never come back to nor speak of uic again.
fact #4...
uic, as is the state of Illinois, is in a budget crisis. this is causing classes being cut, and being merged with other classes, causing much fewer sections. this results in huge classes, and upperclassmen not getting the classes they need to graduate. no wonder people are pissed off at uic.
fact #5...
NIU appears several times on that list of research endowments and funding. doesn't really make uic a better school. for all we know, uic may only be receiving all this funding because 1. its located in the metropolis of chicago, and 2. it already has medical/science facilities in its medical campus to perform research using that money.
|
|
|
Post by UICJason on Jan 17, 2005 9:29:26 GMT -6
Hey HUSKY,
How can you go about refuting facts with ridiculous made up "facts?" 98% of UIC students are only there for acadmics? I would venture to say more than 2% of UIC students are involved in the Student Government, let alone any of the 180-some other student organizations that flourish. I hate when people pretend that schools that don't have big drinky frat whorehouses don't have interested students.
As for graduation rate, that is an immensely misleading stat the way it is presented. Because of UIC's price and location, along with its status as a pretty good school, smart students or those who don't want to leave home use it as a community college of types before heading off to a Big Ten school or a private school somewhere else. Those people are all considered non-graduates even though they may very well go off and graduate in two more years.
Your point about the medical center is stupid as well. It's like saying Harvard wouldn't be as great without their Law School, well no damn kidding.
Lastly, while research doesn't necessarily equal great teaching, it does create opportunities for hands on learning that many students do not have. In many fields, this is more important than teaching.
|
|
|
Post by huskyboy on Jan 17, 2005 16:07:17 GMT -6
i know the 98% statement is made up, but you have to admit it, there are probably no more than 5% of the undergrad student body who are actually involved in stuff more than class.
you just dissed your own school by saying that a lot of students use uic as a "community college" to transfer to big 10 schools. why do u think this is? everyone hates uic, and this is the harsh truth. everyone i know who go to uic say that uic sucks. it attracts a lot of students, however, because of the great parties that uic students throw. add being in downtown chicago, and you've got a nice party and bar school.
you said "Your point about the medical center is stupid as well. It's like saying Harvard wouldn't be as great without their Law School, well no damn kidding." well, harvard has built their reputation as being one of the best law schools in the country. they didn't become great just because of the fact that they get millions in research endowments. they have a philosophy of providing academic excellence. uic receives funding at this level because of the University of Illinois Medical system, and because it's in chicago, the third largest city in the nation, and easily one of the best cities in the nation. great faculty are attracted to uic just because of this reason, not because they are coming due to the "academic standard" that uic provides.
my points are well grounded...
|
|
|
Post by huskyboy on Jan 17, 2005 16:12:15 GMT -6
one final point: i bet all that research funding is almost exclusively for scientific research.
let me remind you that not everyone in the world are pursuing science-based degrees. there are other things out there other than repetitive scientific inquiry. all science does is create more and more questions.
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Jan 17, 2005 17:02:52 GMT -6
i know the 98% statement is made up, but you have to admit it, there are probably no more than 5% of the undergrad student body who are actually involved in stuff more than class. I'm sorry, but without some link or proof of this, nobody is going to take you seriously. I happen to know many people who were involved in things outside of class (and what is meant by that anyway?).....I would say much more than 5% of the total people I knew did something outside of class. Many students go to school and do not get involved...I'm sure you have plenty of those at NIU. everyone hates uic, and this is the harsh truth. everyone i know who go to uic say that uic sucks. This is the truth? Again, please provide a link or something which backs this. I actually quite enjoyed the school. I mean c'mon....I think every school has people who do not like the school. In fact, I knew multiple people who attended NIU and thought it sucked. I also knew people who wouldn't even visit NIU because it sucked. uic receives funding at this level because of the University of Illinois Medical system, and because it's in chicago, the third largest city in the nation, and easily one of the best cities in the nation. great faculty are attracted to uic just because of this reason, not because they are coming due to the "academic standard" that uic provides. Wait, so faculty are attracted to UIC because of Chicago and the amount of money that a city like Chicago can bring in? Wouldn't you say that the city itself allows UIC to be a great university and will continue to allow UIC to become better? I mean, we're in Chicago....so if that helps, great. Just because Dekalb isn't bringing in the big research bucks, don't complain about UIC only being good because it's in Chicago....I'm confused about this one. I think great faculty and "academic standard" are ultimately synonymous....even if they aren't the best of teachers, they still carry that reputation. For instance, look at what Stanley Fish did for this school....he was a huge get from Duke University.....could he teach? Who knows....but just him being there raised the entire reputation of that college (LAS)....and he was able to recruit other top scholars....
|
|
|
Post by mayurT on Jan 18, 2005 16:06:41 GMT -6
huskyboy, shut the hell up with your babbling.
the fact that you're from NIU is the sole reason why you can't say anything about UIC.
don't ever try to compare NIU to UIC. UIC isn't the greatest school in the world, but NIU is a notch above community colleges.
|
|
|
Post by NewFoundGlory on Jan 19, 2005 18:04:08 GMT -6
Lol, this is the first time I've read this threat. But is this guy really thinking NIU (Nothing Intersting University) is a good school?
|
|
|
Post by FreeRadical on Jan 19, 2005 21:34:26 GMT -6
NewFoundGlory:
He's not here to promote NIU.
He's here to trash UIC.
My guess is he couldn't get into Urbana, hates the University of Illinois for rejecting him, but hasn't yet reached the conclusion that plan B (NIU) is good enough.
At any rate, I encouraged him to transfer to UIC. He's too concerned about the veneer of academia to really ever be satisfied with NIU.
|
|