This is why I raise my eyebrow at some of the chest beating done about Pitt having improved SAT scores, more applications, "better" students. Its usually during a debate over why having good football and basketball teams is important or not beyond selling tickets.
When I say it's important because it helps (or hurts) the university brand which affects the shine or tarnish on our degrees, someone invariably points at the "better" students we get now vs, say 1981 at our football peak. As argument that for Pitt anyway, embarrassing sports isn't a visible detriment.
Ok, fair enough...i truly don't think the impact is more than superficial either ...but is Pitt's improvement really that impressive? What are these superlative students actually learning? And is the growth at Pitt at least as much a factor of the overall influx of college students compared to 30 years ago? It rose Pitt' s boat a little compared to 1981, maybe ... but in context with the growth in college attendance and questionable degrees everywhere else, did it really rise at all?