I don't think 20th vs 80th gets a higher percentage to stay in Pittsburgh. I think that profession, save the absolute cream of the crop schools and their top grads, lends itself to staying in area. What being 80th vs 20th means is that you are attracting better students and producing alumni more likely to succeed. Plus, those focuses (business and law) produce the demographic, before even considering they are more likely to stay in the area, most likely to donate to athletics.
Lyke can only take Pitt up from being the lowest power 5 school in Learfield '15-16
- Thread starter cbpitt2
- Start date
I would be lying if I, or the vast majority of the collective college fan base, really care about the Sears/Learfield Cup.
Focus on football and men's basketball. Only two sports anyone cares about at the college level. Rest are money drains on those two sports. Pitt would have to add scrabble, tiddlywinks, fencing, and other random "sports" to compete regardless....which they shouldnt in good conscience.
Focus on football and men's basketball. Only two sports anyone cares about at the college level. Rest are money drains on those two sports. Pitt would have to add scrabble, tiddlywinks, fencing, and other random "sports" to compete regardless....which they shouldnt in good conscience.
Graph appears to be in indictment of Pitt's educational prowess more that anything in that the income levels of its grads must be so low such that they cannot afford to contribute the cash necessary to make Pitt a swimming and gymnastics powerhouse...It is quite an indictment of the starting place of the athletic department, and the place should not be a surprised since Pitt's revenue and giving rates are well known to be at the bottom of the P5.
What's sad is the above graph compared to the # of living alumni:
# of living alumni (grad & undergrad)
1. FSU 315,425
2. Pitt 306,821
3. UNC 296,046
4. Syracuse 251,067
5. VT 238,169
6. UVA 213,000
7. NCSU 205,400
8. BC 168,651
9. Miami 168,000
10. Duke 157,017
11. Louisville 138,340
12. Clemson 132,198
13. Georgia Tech 130,000
14. ND 127,553
15. Wake 67,065
your conclusion then must be they (alumni) are just selfish or the athletic department is not doing its job at incessantly begging for money...correct? Its your chart, please feel free to elaborate on what conclusion you are trying to draw.
Last edited:
Every professional or graduate school lends itself to its graduates staying in the area. Look at the number of Pitt Med students matching to UPMC residencies. I don't see how the quality of a law or business school necessarily alters the location of where their graduates end up in their profession. There is a finite number of positions in Pittsburgh, which is an employment market with substantially less positions to fill than larger locations. So then it comes down to just general financial success of the graduates of these schools, and their likelihood to support the university's athletics. Is Reed Smith going to pay enough Pitt Law grads more if the the school is ranked 20th vs 80th, such that the difference would significantly impact athletic giving? That's what I doubt. That may be true, but I wouldn't stake resources on that outcome as opposed to cultivating future donors at the undergraduate level: students that were more inclined to be populating the Zoo or Panther Pitt while they are in Oakland.
My conclusion, based on that data, is that Pitt graduates are far less likely to support their alma mater's athletic department compared to Pitt's peer institutions.
I don't think there is much room to argue that conclusion.
Because of that, it is more difficult for the athletic department to compete with its peer competition. Pitt's place among its peer competitors in both giving and overall athletic revenue generation is a quantitative matter of fact.
So the question pertinent to this discussion is how to cultivate more giving by Pitt alumni to athletics. That's the question Barnes wanted to tackle, and one I agree with him that it is a topic of both great importance and potential.
Last edited:
Pittsburgh has an underrated presence of law firms, having 3 in the area that are among the largest 40 firms in the world: K&L Gates, Reed Smith, and Orrick Harrington & Sutcliffe (global operations based out of Wheeling). I know for certain that K&L Gates doesn't even sniff graduates from the Pittsburgh area, and only recruit out of the top law firms, mainly those in the northeast. I'm sure the others are that way too.
That said, there would have to be a monumental effort by Pitt (and Duq) to change this dynamic, and I agree with Paco that there are many other community outreach directions we should go (on the undergrad level) that would yield a better return.
It would probably take getting those law firms to substantially invest in the Law School. I don't know how you convince them of that.
The Reed Smith School of Law at the University of Pittsburgh sounds pretty good to me though.
so in other words for those of us who do not have the aptitude to use phrases such as devoid of logical fallacy and pertinent to this discussion is how to cultivate more giving uh, or shall I say duh.... " the athletic department is not doing its job at incessantly begging for money.. " ie, what I just said.
No, what you said is Pitt was so academically deficient that it produced alumni which were too poor to donate, or that they were too "selfish". I'll translate for you. Your original reply was both idiotic and asinine.
Last edited:
ah, but not as idiotic as one that cannot pick up on simple sarcasm, no? I bid you adieus my good sir as my boorish ramblings cannot keep up with your advanced intellect.
No, on a board cluttered with the most ridiculous nonsense, and apparently, a lot of self-anointed cleverness, I cannot read minds nor discern intent. The ignore button is one click away. I suggest you use it to avoid further boorishness.
Last edited:
I care about two sports...Men's basketball and football. I could completely care less about this. I know an annoying Pedo fan that brings up stuff like this. I simply tell him that Pitt has beaten the Pedo's 9 of the last 10 times in the sports that matter-men's bball and football.
Does seem to demonstrate that Pederson was grossly over-compensated for doing a pretty piss-poor job. Hail to Pitt!
Generally speaking, graduate and professional students are most loyal to and contribute in greater $'s to their undergraduate institution. This undergraduate loyalty phenomenon is widely known and cannot be disputed. So unfortunately having a higher ranked business or law school are not likely to significantly impact giving to Pitt athletics [unless Pitt decides to admit more Pitt undergrads to these programs]. Trust me, I graduated from Pitt Law...my classmates that graduated from Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame....all only cared about their undergrad school and will and would never give money to Pitt athletics.
And for what it matters, the law school is slowly climbing upward. The school recently ranked in the top 50 for placing graduates at AMLaw 100 firms--which is a great accomplishment. Dean Carter is doing a great job. But with little financial support...it is going to take quite a few years to get the school back in the top 50 overall. Hail to Pitt!
You are 100% correct. Pitt Law grads do not care about Pitt athletics unless: 1) they were a Pitt undergrad; or 2) they graduated from a school that did not play Division 1 football [e.g. IUP, St. Vincent's, Duquesne, etc.]. By the way, you may be interested to know that Pitt ranked #37 by the National Law Journal for placing grads with AMLaw100 firms. This is a great accomplishment. See generally, <http://m.nationallawjournal.com/#/a...-law-schools-report-ranks-pitt-law-37-nation>
Hail to Pitt!
Not sure what you are sniffing, but KLGates presently employs no less than FIFTY Pitt Law grads. In fact, KLGate's Global Managing Partner is a Pitt Law grad, and my classmate from '87. AMLaw 100 firms [like my firm, which also has a Pittsburgh office] hire the best grads they can from a diverse array of schools. Just to set the record straight. Hail to Pitt!
Great, K&L Gates School of Law at the University of Pittsburgh also has a nice ring to it.
Pitt's undergraduate population has traditionally included a high percentage of first generation and commuter students. I don't have evidence to support that claim, but have heard this often enough and I believe it is true. While those factors may have changed in more recent years, most of the undergraduate alumni attended Pitt more than a decade ago, and the result has been and still is fewer alums making donations. Alums who were commuters will have less of an affinity for obvious reasons. First gen students likely have less capacity to make donations and likely did not have a giving model in their families growing up. Even though Pitt now has more students from out of state, living on campus and are less likely to be first gen college students, they must take yellow school busses to football games and watch in an atmosphere less than desirable, so I wouldn't expect too much of an improvement for athletic donations.
Last edited:
Not sure who the "many" are? But those persons [should they actually exist] should make themselves known to the University. To the extent you are not just "stirring the pot" and actually have some factual based criticism--I'd be very interested in hearing it! Dean Carter has made significant gains on all fronts from where the school was when he was hired. Hail to Pitt!
A lot of it is all over this thread. Your evidence to support your statement is what?
Yes, falling rankings, poor bar passage, and a dean caught up in his own causes without the top focus on academics. Of course, that much was clear with Carter from Day 1. At least he was honest about it.
Been lurking here for a while, but thought it was appropriate to join in this discussion. I'm a pretty recent Pitt Law grad, and I'm surprised at some of the comments here.
First, I think the comments about giving are spot-on. I did my undergraduate at a different school and primarily follow them in athletics, and my giving has so far been almost exclusively either to my undergraduate school and to Pitt Law. Although I went to a handful of basketball games as a law student, I (and other classmates I know who also didn't go to Pitt for undergrad) don't give to the undergraduate school or to the athletic program. I generally want Pitt to do well, but if my money is going anywhere, it's to the law school.
Second, Pitt Law's biggest problem by far isn't Dean Carter or the faculty; Pitt Law's issues stem primarily from the same issue that's plagued law schools across the country - less students are applying to schools, and law schools are put in the position of either cutting class sizes (and losing money), or loosening standards for incoming students' LSATs and GPAs. Dean Carter (who, full disclosure, was the dean for my entire time at Pitt, although I never had him as a professor) arrived at Pitt right when the bottom was falling out of the law school market, and wisely made the decision to cut class sizes and take the financial hit that resulted. The class before me (2015) had around 225 incoming students - that number for the class of 2019 is around 130. That's a significant drop, and the law school has needed to come up with the dollars to balance the budget from the university, because they're getting ~75% less in tuition dollars from students.
That said, it's not enough, and the school, university and alumni community need to do more to provide scholarship dollars to raise the credentials of the incoming classes. The market for law students is incredibly competitive, and Pitt's peer schools have increased scholarship funding substantially to maintain the quality of their incoming students, and Pitt hasn't kept pace with its competitors at the expense of the quality of its students. Just as an example, last year's ABA disclosures reflect that at Penn State Dickinson in Carlisle (was tied with Pitt last year and is now ranked 10-15 spots higher), 97% of its students receive scholarship money, with 40% receiving full tuition scholarships. At Pitt, 65% receive scholarship money, with only 10% receiving full tuition. As a result, Dickinson's median LSAT and GPA scores are 158 and 3.48, while Pitt's are 156 and 3.42. Those numbers might not seem like a lot, but when incoming class statistics are ~20% of the US News ranking score, it's quite significant. The market today dictates that schools essentially compete against each other for law students with scholarship money, and the fact is that Pitt hasn't kept up with its competition.
As a recent graduate, Pitt has a tremendous amount to offer, and is pretty "underrated" as far as the US News rankings go. Its employment scores are strong - and look good for this year, as another grad mentioned with the placement of grads in big law firms - its faculty is well-respected nationally, the University approved a $6 million renovation to the law building, and Dean Carter has put into place a number of worthy initiatives that have strengthened the law school but don't tend to attract headlines. The factors that lag behind are Pitt's incoming class statistics (which can be corrected with additional scholarship funding to attract top students, as Pitt's competitors have done) and the bar passage rate (which correlates with LSAT score and can be corrected with higher-achieving incoming students). Improve in those two aspects and you likely have a law school ranked in the ~40-60 range as my fellow alum mentioned.
Pitt Law's current ranking is not representative of the education that I or my peers received. Although I loved my time at Pitt Law and feel that the education I received has put me in a position to achieve what I wish to achieve professionally - and regardless of the imperfect nature of the US News rankings - I want for the rankings to reflect what Pitt has to offer. But I feel it needs to be given the resources to do so, because the name of the game is the LSAT and GPA scores of the incoming classes.
First, I think the comments about giving are spot-on. I did my undergraduate at a different school and primarily follow them in athletics, and my giving has so far been almost exclusively either to my undergraduate school and to Pitt Law. Although I went to a handful of basketball games as a law student, I (and other classmates I know who also didn't go to Pitt for undergrad) don't give to the undergraduate school or to the athletic program. I generally want Pitt to do well, but if my money is going anywhere, it's to the law school.
Second, Pitt Law's biggest problem by far isn't Dean Carter or the faculty; Pitt Law's issues stem primarily from the same issue that's plagued law schools across the country - less students are applying to schools, and law schools are put in the position of either cutting class sizes (and losing money), or loosening standards for incoming students' LSATs and GPAs. Dean Carter (who, full disclosure, was the dean for my entire time at Pitt, although I never had him as a professor) arrived at Pitt right when the bottom was falling out of the law school market, and wisely made the decision to cut class sizes and take the financial hit that resulted. The class before me (2015) had around 225 incoming students - that number for the class of 2019 is around 130. That's a significant drop, and the law school has needed to come up with the dollars to balance the budget from the university, because they're getting ~75% less in tuition dollars from students.
That said, it's not enough, and the school, university and alumni community need to do more to provide scholarship dollars to raise the credentials of the incoming classes. The market for law students is incredibly competitive, and Pitt's peer schools have increased scholarship funding substantially to maintain the quality of their incoming students, and Pitt hasn't kept pace with its competitors at the expense of the quality of its students. Just as an example, last year's ABA disclosures reflect that at Penn State Dickinson in Carlisle (was tied with Pitt last year and is now ranked 10-15 spots higher), 97% of its students receive scholarship money, with 40% receiving full tuition scholarships. At Pitt, 65% receive scholarship money, with only 10% receiving full tuition. As a result, Dickinson's median LSAT and GPA scores are 158 and 3.48, while Pitt's are 156 and 3.42. Those numbers might not seem like a lot, but when incoming class statistics are ~20% of the US News ranking score, it's quite significant. The market today dictates that schools essentially compete against each other for law students with scholarship money, and the fact is that Pitt hasn't kept up with its competition.
As a recent graduate, Pitt has a tremendous amount to offer, and is pretty "underrated" as far as the US News rankings go. Its employment scores are strong - and look good for this year, as another grad mentioned with the placement of grads in big law firms - its faculty is well-respected nationally, the University approved a $6 million renovation to the law building, and Dean Carter has put into place a number of worthy initiatives that have strengthened the law school but don't tend to attract headlines. The factors that lag behind are Pitt's incoming class statistics (which can be corrected with additional scholarship funding to attract top students, as Pitt's competitors have done) and the bar passage rate (which correlates with LSAT score and can be corrected with higher-achieving incoming students). Improve in those two aspects and you likely have a law school ranked in the ~40-60 range as my fellow alum mentioned.
Pitt Law's current ranking is not representative of the education that I or my peers received. Although I loved my time at Pitt Law and feel that the education I received has put me in a position to achieve what I wish to achieve professionally - and regardless of the imperfect nature of the US News rankings - I want for the rankings to reflect what Pitt has to offer. But I feel it needs to be given the resources to do so, because the name of the game is the LSAT and GPA scores of the incoming classes.
I don't doubt for a second everything you said is accurate, except I'm not sure how a 42% reduction in class size can result in a 75% loss of tuition dollars unless you are including concurrent additional tuition discounts being applied.
So I guess the question is the wisdom of where the available resources are being placed considering the importance of perception in the legal education industry.
It sounds like they should be out trolling for scholarship donations and building scholarship endowments. Have you or your fellow law alumni been contacted for such contributions? It's not like the Law School put forth a successful effort on Pitt's recent Day of Giving to collect any extra matching funds.
Last edited:
Football "Trump's all". The Athletic Directors tenure will be judged on how Football performs and that will be the result of stability which is on her to keep Narduzzi here until he retires.
The School of Law certainly is pounding the pavement and attempting to raise money, including endowments. However, much like athletics, it still lags behind the competition. Frankly, unless you are a law alum...giving money so kids can get a legal education [for free or at a greatly reduced price] just does not resonate with many people. Foundations and corporations rarely support legal education by making donations. Many people hate lawyers, so that is a hurdle. Additionally, lawyers tend to make a good amount of money--so people just do not feel like funding that kind of an educational opportunity. Legal scholars generate little sponsored research and rarely any grants. Many of the School of Law's alumni that do support Pitt--support other units within the university--like athletics, etc. So fundraising for law, and in particular Pitt Law, is a very tough job. Pitt Law can certainly and must do better at fundraising--but it is an even tougher sell than athletics. Hail to Pitt!
No doubt it is tough, but the part that matters is "it still lags behind the competition."
In evaluating the job the progress of the law school, I'd be interested in the change in fundraising over the last 5 years, and how does that change compares to peer schools, say from 40-60 in the rankings?
Agreed. I also think the university is lacking in its institutional support of the law school in terms of scholarship funding - they've done a nice job of supporting the faculty, the school has certainly been given the resources to broaden its programming, and the building has undergone multiple renovations over the past five years to put it on par with its peers in terms of facilities.
But, look at a school like Temple, which is currently ranked 53rd in US News and is the preeminent school in the Philadelphia market as Pitt is in Pittsburgh. Both are state schools that offer in-state tuition, but Temple charges $5,000 less than Pitt and even with lower tuition they offer more scholarship funding to more students. And while scholarship funding can be influenced by donor support, the tuition rate is determined exclusively by the university - and Temple has made a more conscious effort in making the cost of a legal education more affordable to Pennsylvania residents. In a more stark example, Penn State Law is tied with Pitt in the rankings, and even though they don't charge in-state tuition 95% of their students have scholarships, and more than 60% have scholarships of more than half of the tuition cost - compared to 25% for Pitt. And I feel confident saying that Penn State isn't getting that support from donors, they're getting it from the university. The University of Florida just increased their US News ranking to #41 this year, and in a news release they credited the ranking to a higher-quality incoming class (from 157/3.50 to 160/3.60) that was created through heavy, aggressive investment in scholarship funding from the university.
Pitt has done a pretty good job at reaching out for donations - I was contacted for the day of giving and a few other occasions since graduating - and even though I'm a recent grad with loan debt I give what I am able to. They can do more, for certain - in particular in reaching out to law firms and corporations with heavy law alumni presence - but the university needs to step up its support, too, in order to keep pace with its peers who appear to be getting much, much more from their parent institutions than Pitt is currently getting.
I am in the process of gathering data on where the school was when Dean Carter was appointed, and where it is now. It will be clear though, the school is absolutely trending in the correct direction [in one of the worst climates for legal education and legal employment in the past 100 years]. The data is largely public, but is unfortunately not in any one place that is easy to review. I am not aware of a data base that compiles law school fundraising and private support? It [database] likely does not exist, as many institutions do not disclose this kind of data on such a granular level. Hail to Pitt!
If Lyke is planning to move the needle on athletics standing, she appears to be off to a rocky start with a lackluster commitment and hire with her first head coach (men's wrestling). Maybe it will work out, but it sure seems like a stretch.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Good to See The New Staff is on Top of Pitt’s New Commitment- Latest: Zeldas Open Roof
-
-
