GrisinWashington's "tougher school" debate (again)

[crazycat]

t just turns out our school is harder than a lot of schools

I thought we'd covered this ground. Many, many times.

Do you honestly believe MSU is any more difficult than any other university in the Big Sky Conference? And if so, what criteria are you using, and what objective evidence do you have to support the contention?

(mind you, I'm not arguing your point about Kramer; just your point that msu is anymore difficult than any other university in the conference).

I think he answered your question before you asked it. If we don't have a "football major" that makes us more difficult than all the schools that do. I'm not saying we don't, because I bet that's one of the bits of advice (in so many words) that the SEC boys gave us when they came up. I'd say that MSU is more difficult because it didn't/doesn't support its student-athletes the way most other universities did/do. In that way its not more difficult than Sac State, Weber St., NAU and one other BSC school that was hit with scholarship reductions due to the APR.

Do you really think MSU's football players are dumber than most of the other football players in the criteria? Because in a round-about way that's what you'd have to be saying. I.E.: If we are on a par in terms of difficulty with all others, then we must be dumber since our APR isn't equal to most other schools. The APR is already being exposed as flawed. There's a direct correlation between schools with big money in their programs and schools with small money in their programs. And don't come back and tell me you don't have any more money in your program than we have in ours.

In other words we were making our athletes earn their degrees the olde fashioned way -- they earned it. No wintersessions, no football degrees, no other 'support'. According to Kramer the only support the players were getting was from assistant coaches and himself, who he said were not properly equipped to do this:

Here is his entire explanation of the APR as it relates to MSU in his "Coaching Career Notes" that were handed out at the press conference in Billings last spring:

"APR measures the percentage of credits passed in a given major at a specific time. In 2003 these thresholds were defined as 25-50-75. At the end of two years a student-athlete was required to have passed 25% of his major. At the end of the three years, 50%. At the end of four years, 75%. These numbers were doable.

In 2005, the ratio was changed to 40-60-80 and a whole set of APR points were lost. We are just now beginning to recover.

In addition to APR, academic standards at MSU, in 2002-2004, were "ramped up" with each major requiring more math and statistics making progress-toward-degree tougher.

APR is highly dependent up correct class scheduling. We (had) several instances where highly motivated and brilliant student-athletes are below NCAA standards because the classes they need for APR ar not offered at the acceptiable APR rate.

APR places a premium on accurate, precise, and cogent academic counseling. Very often, university-appointed academic advisors have little or no understanding of NCAA APR requirements.

Our athletic department academic staff is overwhelmed by the needs of APR. With great effort and diligence our athletic academic staff has tried to help raise our team's APR.

This past spring, I placed the most burdens on each position coach. These guys are not the best sources of academic advising, counseling, and tutoring at MSU. We ran daily study hall before practice. We did class checks to the best of our ability. We ran a "notebook system" in which we instructed our student athletes how to take notes. We assigned over 45 student athletes to one of the three athletic department advisors (only one of which is a full-time employee).

My staff did what they could to function as academic advisors and tutors. Sadly, the overall result was frustrating and needs to change."

MSU is also more difficult than most other BSC schools because it houses a large (relative to MSU - 300 engineering grads per year out of 1,800 grads overall) engineering program and all the satellite programs that go along with it. Engineering degrees are widely considered one of the most difficult undergraduate degrees to attain. Obviously there are other opinions and I won't deny that some people find engineering easier than history.

Quid pro Quo: What objective evidence do you have to support it's not more difficult?

[Eastcoastgriz]

t just turns out our school is harder than a lot of schools

I thought we'd covered this ground. Many, many times.

Do you honestly believe MSU is any more difficult than any other university in the Big Sky Conference? And if so, what criteria are you using, and what objective evidence do you have to support the contention?

(mind you, I'm not arguing your point about Kramer; just your point that msu is anymore difficult than any other university in the conference).

I think he answered your question before you asked it. If we don't have a "football major" that makes us more difficult than all the schools that do. I'm not saying we don't, because I bet that's one of the bits of advice (in so many words) that the SEC boys gave us when they came up. I'd say that MSU is more difficult because it didn't/doesn't support its student-athletes the way most other universities did/do. In that way its not more difficult than Sac State, Weber St., NAU and one other BSC school that was hit with scholarship reductions due to the APR.

Do you really think MSU's football players are dumber than most of the other football players in the criteria? Because in a round-about way that's what you'd have to be saying. I.E.: If we are on a par in terms of difficulty with all others, then we must be dumber since our APR isn't equal to most other schools. The APR is already being exposed as flawed. There's a direct correlation between schools with big money in their programs and schools with small money in their programs. And don't come back and tell me you don't have any more money in your program than we have in ours.

Quid pro Quo: What objective evidence do you have to support it's not more difficult?

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Quote:
I love MSU as much as anybody, but you pretty much have to be a moron to be denied entry. At least, that was the case when I was trying to get in.

http://www.bobcatnation.com/bobcatboard ... hp?t=13027

[Cat in NC]

t just turns out our school is harder than a lot of schools

I thought we'd covered this ground. Many, many times.

Do you honestly believe MSU is any more difficult than any other university in the Big Sky Conference? And if so, what criteria are you using, and what objective evidence do you have to support the contention?

(mind you, I'm not arguing your point about Kramer; just your point that msu is anymore difficult than any other university in the conference).

I think he answered your question before you asked it. If we don't have a "football major" that makes us more difficult than all the schools that do. I'm not saying we don't, because I bet that's one of the bits of advice (in so many words) that the SEC boys gave us when they came up. I'd say that MSU is more difficult because it didn't/doesn't support its student-athletes the way most other universities did/do. In that way its not more difficult than Sac State, Weber St., NAU and one other BSC school that was hit with scholarship reductions due to the APR.

Do you really think MSU's football players are dumber than most of the other football players in the criteria? Because in a round-about way that's what you'd have to be saying. I.E.: If we are on a par in terms of difficulty with all others, then we must be dumber since our APR isn't equal to most other schools. The APR is already being exposed as flawed. There's a direct correlation between schools with big money in their programs and schools with small money in their programs. And don't come back and tell me you don't have any more money in your program than we have in ours.

Quid pro Quo: What objective evidence do you have to support it's not more difficult?

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Quote:
I love MSU as much as anybody, but you pretty much have to be a moron to be denied entry. At least, that was the case when I was trying to get in.

http://www.bobcatnation.com/bobcatboard ... hp?t=13027

And nowhere in BAC's post does he mention the relatively difficulty of the university. The post is solely about admission standards. You're trying to hold up as an example the words of an MSU graduate, saying "See? One of your own admits it!" when the post in question has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand...

[GrizinWashington]

1. Entrance requirements and graduation requirements are identical at all state universities in Montana. No school is more difficult to get into nor requires more to graduate than any other.

2. While I would argue all day that engineering is no more difficult than many of the majors out there, the argument has no bearing on the discussion anyway unless a greater majority of msu football players are majoring in engineering than say, UM players majoring in Forestry (which I would argue is just as difficult) or more players majoring in engineering than Weber State players majoring in engineering. It's a complete red herring, even if you COULD prove the degree is more difficult.

3. No, I don't believe msu players are "dumber" (did I really just quote someone using the adverb "dumber" when they are arguing how much better their institution of higher learning is??? ). APR deals with graduation rates. MSU's problems are linked to the high number of transfers (particularly JC), the vast majority of whom failed to graduate (reported in many articles and publications, as well as confirmed by msu adminstration following the off-the-field issues).

4. I have no idea what dollars in the budget have to do with graduating. Either the kids graduate, or they don't. And again, I don't see any correlation to this and the statement that "msu is the most-difficult school in the conference". I have never once used msu's APR rates to claim the school is inferior.

5. As you claim, the difficulty of a degree is dependent on the type of "learner" someone is. A linear person will not find engineering or math difficult. That person would struggle in history or philosophy (probably the two most difficult courses I took were my philosophy courses).

6. I don't have one shred of evidence that msu is not more difficult. But, understand, I'm not making the claim that it isn't. I'm simply saying that if you're going to make the claim that it IS, you should lay out the criteria and have some objective evidence to support that contention. (I'm pretty certain even engineers would need to do that to support a theory, would they not? I'm not asking for something outrageous here).

7. Do NOT make this MY argument, as you have in the subject of this thread. I have never ONCE begun the argument, nor would I EVER make the claim that UM is superior to msu. I'm objective enough to understand that a degree from either is a huge accomplishment.

[crazycat]

1. Entrance requirements and graduation requirements are identical at all state universities in Montana. No school is more difficult to get into nor requires more to graduate than any other.

2. While I would argue all day that engineering is no more difficult than many of the majors out there, the argument has no bearing on the discussion anyway unless a greater majority of msu football players are majoring in engineering than say, UM players majoring in Forestry (which I would argue is just as difficult) or more players majoring in engineering than Weber State players majoring in engineering. It's a complete red herring, even if you COULD prove the degree is more difficult.

3. No, I don't believe msu players are "dumber" (did I really just quote someone using the adverb "dumber" when they are arguing how much better their institution of higher learning is??? ). APR deals with graduation rates. MSU's problems are linked to the high number of transfers (particularly JC), the vast majority of whom failed to graduate (reported in many articles and publications, as well as confirmed by msu adminstration following the off-the-field issues).

4. I have no idea what dollars in the budget have to do with graduating. Either the kids graduate, or they don't. And again, I don't see any correlation to this and the statement that "msu is the most-difficult school in the conference". I have never once used msu's APR rates to claim the school is inferior.

5. As you claim, the difficulty of a degree is dependent on the type of "learner" someone is. A linear person will not find engineering or math difficult. That person would struggle in history or philosophy (probably the two most difficult courses I took were my philosophy courses).

6. I don't have one shred of evidence that msu is not more difficult. But, understand, I'm not making the claim that it isn't. I'm simply saying that if you're going to make the claim that it IS, you should lay out the criteria and have some objective evidence to support that contention. (I'm pretty certain even engineers would need to do that to support a theory, would they not? I'm not asking for something outrageous here).

7. Do NOT make this MY argument, as you have in the subject of this thread. I have never ONCE begun the argument, nor would I EVER make the claim that UM is superior to msu. I'm objective enough to understand that a degree from either is a huge accomplishment.

1. Entrance exams: Yeah, it's a wash. So what.

2. You didn't limit the discussion to football.

3. OK, so we're at least as smart, which has nothing to do with difficulty and this discussion.

4. Dollars in the budget assist students seeking assistance with course work. More dollars = more assistance.

5. Did you take an engineering course. No, not the one offered by Lionel.

6. That's OK that you didn't make that claim. I'm just wondering if you can.

7. Someone made a statement and you argued it. It then became your argument. A degree from either is a huge accomplishment, but a degree from MSU is hugeier!

[Billings_Griz]

I flunked Bowling 101 at Eastern. Talk about tough.

[GrizinWashington]

1. Entrance requirements and graduation requirements are identical at all state universities in Montana. No school is more difficult to get into nor requires more to graduate than any other.

2. While I would argue all day that engineering is no more difficult than many of the majors out there, the argument has no bearing on the discussion anyway unless a greater majority of msu football players are majoring in engineering than say, UM players majoring in Forestry (which I would argue is just as difficult) or more players majoring in engineering than Weber State players majoring in engineering. It's a complete red herring, even if you COULD prove the degree is more difficult.

3. No, I don't believe msu players are "dumber" (did I really just quote someone using the adverb "dumber" when they are arguing how much better their institution of higher learning is??? ). APR deals with graduation rates. MSU's problems are linked to the high number of transfers (particularly JC), the vast majority of whom failed to graduate (reported in many articles and publications, as well as confirmed by msu adminstration following the off-the-field issues).

4. I have no idea what dollars in the budget have to do with graduating. Either the kids graduate, or they don't. And again, I don't see any correlation to this and the statement that "msu is the most-difficult school in the conference". I have never once used msu's APR rates to claim the school is inferior.

5. As you claim, the difficulty of a degree is dependent on the type of "learner" someone is. A linear person will not find engineering or math difficult. That person would struggle in history or philosophy (probably the two most difficult courses I took were my philosophy courses).

6. I don't have one shred of evidence that msu is not more difficult. But, understand, I'm not making the claim that it isn't. I'm simply saying that if you're going to make the claim that it IS, you should lay out the criteria and have some objective evidence to support that contention. (I'm pretty certain even engineers would need to do that to support a theory, would they not? I'm not asking for something outrageous here).

7. Do NOT make this MY argument, as you have in the subject of this thread. I have never ONCE begun the argument, nor would I EVER make the claim that UM is superior to msu. I'm objective enough to understand that a degree from either is a huge accomplishment.

1. Entrance exams: Yeah, it's a wash. So what.

2. You didn't limit the discussion to football.

3. OK, so we're at least as smart, which has nothing to do with difficulty and this discussion.

4. Dollars in the budget assist students seeking assistance with course work. More dollars = more assistance.

5. Did you take an engineering course. No, not the one offered by Lionel.

6. That's OK that you didn't make that claim. I'm just wondering if you can.

7. Someone made a statement and you argued it. It then became your argument. A degree from either is a huge accomplishment, but a degree from MSU is hugeier!

1. Same quality students in, same quality students out. I'm guessing you are agreeing with me here, but your clack of clarity makes that somewhat difficult to ascertain.

2. Again, due to your lack of clarity, I don't even know what your statement for #2 means.

3. Correct. Students and graduates at both are equally as smart.

4. Do you REALLY believe msu's APR issues is due to the fact that they didn't have someone holding their hand in a study lab, and encouraging them to go to class? And if you answer yes, I would ask this follow-up question: if that is the case, shouldn't msu's APR results be lower across all athletics (men's and women's sports) than Montana's? And finally, I would ask one other question: Either way, how the hell does this prove that msu is a more-difficult school? Because football players didn't graduate? Please. If that is the basis of the argument, Louisville must be the most-difficult school in America, because they never graduate any BB players.

5. No, thank God. I would have been bored to tears. Did you (or for that matter the original poster or anyone who believes msu is more difficult) take a Forestry course. Or a music course. Or a 400 level Econ course. Or a Journalism course. Or ANY course at UM. Once again, you haven't made a point. Simply BECAUSE I haven't taken any courses at msu, I cannot POSSIBLY make the claim it's a less-difficult school than UM. Consequently, for someone making the reverse argument, I'm asking for facts to support the contention. In the 35 pages on the 19 threads on this issue, no one has been able to do so. Can you now, CC?

6. See #5 above. No I cannot. (Acutally I could, but I couldn't support it, so I never would). That appears to be where UM and msu grads differ. We support our contentions with objective facts, or we don't make them.

7. I didn't argue it all. I asked for supporting documentation to back up their claim. And, not surprisingly, I'm still waiting.

[crazycat]

1. Entrance requirements and graduation requirements are identical at all state universities in Montana. No school is more difficult to get into nor requires more to graduate than any other.

2. While I would argue all day that engineering is no more difficult than many of the majors out there, the argument has no bearing on the discussion anyway unless a greater majority of msu football players are majoring in engineering than say, UM players majoring in Forestry (which I would argue is just as difficult) or more players majoring in engineering than Weber State players majoring in engineering. It's a complete red herring, even if you COULD prove the degree is more difficult.

3. No, I don't believe msu players are "dumber" (did I really just quote someone using the adverb "dumber" when they are arguing how much better their institution of higher learning is??? ). APR deals with graduation rates. MSU's problems are linked to the high number of transfers (particularly JC), the vast majority of whom failed to graduate (reported in many articles and publications, as well as confirmed by msu adminstration following the off-the-field issues).

4. I have no idea what dollars in the budget have to do with graduating. Either the kids graduate, or they don't. And again, I don't see any correlation to this and the statement that "msu is the most-difficult school in the conference". I have never once used msu's APR rates to claim the school is inferior.

5. As you claim, the difficulty of a degree is dependent on the type of "learner" someone is. A linear person will not find engineering or math difficult. That person would struggle in history or philosophy (probably the two most difficult courses I took were my philosophy courses).

6. I don't have one shred of evidence that msu is not more difficult. But, understand, I'm not making the claim that it isn't. I'm simply saying that if you're going to make the claim that it IS, you should lay out the criteria and have some objective evidence to support that contention. (I'm pretty certain even engineers would need to do that to support a theory, would they not? I'm not asking for something outrageous here).

7. Do NOT make this MY argument, as you have in the subject of this thread. I have never ONCE begun the argument, nor would I EVER make the claim that UM is superior to msu. I'm objective enough to understand that a degree from either is a huge accomplishment.

1. Entrance exams: Yeah, it's a wash. So what.

2. You didn't limit the discussion to football.

3. OK, so we're at least as smart, which has nothing to do with difficulty and this discussion.

4. Dollars in the budget assist students seeking assistance with course work. More dollars = more assistance.

5. Did you take an engineering course. No, not the one offered by Lionel.

6. That's OK that you didn't make that claim. I'm just wondering if you can.

7. Someone made a statement and you argued it. It then became your argument. A degree from either is a huge accomplishment, but a degree from MSU is hugeier!

1. Same quality students in, same quality students out. I'm guessing you are agreeing with me here, but your clack of clarity makes that somewhat difficult to ascertain.

2. Again, due to your lack of clarity, I don't even know what your statement for #2 means.

3. Correct. Students and graduates at both are equally as smart.

4. Do you REALLY believe msu's APR issues is due to the fact that they didn't have someone holding their hand in a study lab, and encouraging them to go to class? And if you answer yes, I would ask this follow-up question: if that is the case, shouldn't msu's APR results be lower across all athletics (men's and women's sports) than Montana's? And finally, I would ask one other question: Either way, how the hell does this prove that msu is a more-difficult school? Because football players didn't graduate? Please. If that is the basis of the argument, Louisville must be the most-difficult school in America, because they never graduate any BB players.

5. No, thank God. I would have been bored to tears. Did you (or for that matter the original poster or anyone who believes msu is more difficult) take a Forestry course. Or a music course. Or a 400 level Econ course. Or a Journalism course. Or ANY course at UM. Once again, you haven't made a point. Simply BECAUSE I haven't taken any courses at msu, I cannot POSSIBLY make the claim it's a less-difficult school than UM. Consequently, for someone making the reverse argument, I'm asking for facts to support the contention. In the 35 pages on the 19 threads on this issue, no one has been able to do so. Can you now, CC?

6. See #5 above. No I cannot. (Acutally I could, but I couldn't support it, so I never would). That appears to be where UM and msu grads differ. We support our contentions with objective facts, or we don't make them.

7. I didn't argue it all. I asked for supporting documentation to back up their claim. And, not surprisingly, I'm still waiting.

Ahhh, that's just it. It's an opinion based statement. And you can either live with it or argue it. You choose to argue it. Soooo.....

I'm saying MSU is harder, because leastly a lot of people that I know that didn't go to MSU and went to UM are of that opinion, more so because a lot of people I know that went to both are of that opinion, and mostly because people I know that acquired a degree from both at the same time are of the opinion MSU was more difficult. That's pretty convincing to me, but it isn't objective as you so richly desire, yet are probably aware that such a thing is not capable of being objectively measured.

However, it doesn't necessarily need to be objective for me to believe something. For instance, if I go to bed at night and there's not snow on the ground, but when I wake up there is snow on the ground, I'm convinced that it was snowing overnight. I didn't see the snow coming down, but the alternative (someone installed a snow making machine in my yard) seems so unlikely that I have to believe it snowed.

Anyway, in the course of my years, I've been told numerous times by people with experience at both schools that MSU is the more difficult school. I've never been told that UM was the more difficult by anyone with experience at both. A few times, as in your case, some have said the schools are equally difficult. My opinion my change over time.

[GrizinWashington]

crazy, you make sh&t up better than anyone I know. The people you talk to are BOBCATS. What school do you think they will say is more difficult? Believe what you want. You've been wrong many, many times before. One more ain't gonna hurt you.

However, it doesn't necessarily need to be objective for me to believe something. For instance, if I go to bed at night and there's not snow on the ground, but when I wake up there is snow on the ground, I'm convinced that it was snowing overnight. I didn't see the snow coming down, but the alternative (someone installed a snow making machine in my yard) seems so unlikely that I have to believe it snowed.

THANK YOU for so perfectly making my point with this analogy. You see, you CAN make the statement that it snowed last night because you DO have objective facts to make the claim: THE SNOW!!!

msu a more difficult school. It's laughable.

[crazycat]

crazy, you make sh&t up better than anyone I know. The people you talk to are BOBCATS. What school do you think they will say is more difficult? Believe what you want. You've been wrong many, many times before. One more ain't gonna hurt you.

However, it doesn't necessarily need to be objective for me to believe something. For instance, if I go to bed at night and there's not snow on the ground, but when I wake up there is snow on the ground, I'm convinced that it was snowing overnight. I didn't see the snow coming down, but the alternative (someone installed a snow making machine in my yard) seems so unlikely that I have to believe it snowed.

THANK YOU for so perfectly making my point with this analogy. You see, you CAN make the statement that it snowed last night because you DO have objective facts to make the claim: THE SNOW!!!

msu a more difficult school. It's laughable.

Actually you're proving my point just by posting. Either that or you didn't even read what I wrote.

These opinions came from people who only went to UM, who went to both schools at separate times, and who went to both schools concurrently. If you read that more carefully, you see its true.

You poor soul. I don't even need to say that one word about possession.

[GrizinWashington]

If they only went to UM, how can they compare?

How do you attend both schools concurrently?

If they attended both schools, wouldn't it make sense that the one they attended last would be the more difficult? I know that my 400 level courses were a little more difficult than my 100 level.

Face it. There is NO objective evidence...none, zero, nada, zilch, nil, nyet, null, nix, naught, zip, cypher, bumpkis....to suggest that msu is more difficult.

You can believe it if you wish. But you may as well believe that moon is made of cheese.

[crazycat]

If they only went to UM, how can they compare?

How do you attend both schools concurrently?

If they attended both schools, wouldn't it make sense that the one they attended last would be the more difficult? I know that my 400 level courses were a little more difficult than my 100 level.

Face it. There is NO objective evidence...none, zero, nada, zilch, nil, nyet, null, nix, naught, zip, cypher, bumpkis....to suggest that msu is more difficult.

You can believe it if you wish. But you may as well believe that moon is made of cheese.

OMG. C'mon dude. I said that people I know that only went to UM think that MSU is tougher. Then I said that people I know that went to both schools think MSU is tougher. And then I said that people I know that went to both schools concurrently (at the same time) think MSU is tougher.

I don't think I can spell it out for you any better than that.

You can go to both schools concurrently when the two schools combine to offer a curriculum. In Helena, both schools do this for a Public Administration Master's program.

Some went to UM first, then MSU. Some went to MSU first, then UM.

As I've said before, I agree, there is no objective evidence. But as I pointed out, their doesn't need to be. Many cases are solved on circumstantial evidence only. But you know that, because you went the school that has a Law College.

I don't believe the moon is made of cheese, but you can believe that if you wish. Just like you want me to believe that MSU isn't tougher even though I've been told otherwise by numerous people with varied experiences at the two schools.

[GrizinWashington]

Well then, I guess if a number of people have told you that, I've GOT to believe it no matter what anyone else says, and no matter that there isn't any concrete support!!!! What was I thinking?????

Keep on believin', crazy. Keep on believin'.

[jagur1]

Ahhh the Internet I know people defense. It goes along with the, " My buddy is black so the racist comment I'm about to say isn't really racist for me to say.." defense.

I know a gay guy who says he knows Crazy cat is gay.

[Grizlaw]

You can go to both schools concurrently when the two schools combine to offer a curriculum. In Helena, both schools do this for a Public Administration Master's program.

That's the argument you're going with -- seriously?

So you think people who attended a joint UM/MSU Master's program in Helena are in a good position to judge whether it is tougher to attend MSU (in Bozeman) vs. UM (in Missoula)?

[CARDIAC_CATS]

1. Entrance requirements and graduation requirements are identical at all state universities in Montana. No school is more difficult to get into nor requires more to graduate than any other.

2. While I would argue all day that engineering is no more difficult than many of the majors out there, the argument has no bearing on the discussion anyway unless a greater majority of msu football players are majoring in engineering than say, UM players majoring in Forestry (which I would argue is just as difficult) or more players majoring in engineering than Weber State players majoring in engineering. It's a complete red herring, even if you COULD prove the degree is more difficult.

3. No, I don't believe msu players are "dumber" (did I really just quote someone using the adverb "dumber" when they are arguing how much better their institution of higher learning is??? ). APR deals with graduation rates. MSU's problems are linked to the high number of transfers (particularly JC), the vast majority of whom failed to graduate (reported in many articles and publications, as well as confirmed by msu adminstration following the off-the-field issues).

4. I have no idea what dollars in the budget have to do with graduating. Either the kids graduate, or they don't. And again, I don't see any correlation to this and the statement that "msu is the most-difficult school in the conference". I have never once used msu's APR rates to claim the school is inferior.

5. As you claim, the difficulty of a degree is dependent on the type of "learner" someone is. A linear person will not find engineering or math difficult. That person would struggle in history or philosophy (probably the two most difficult courses I took were my philosophy courses).

6. I don't have one shred of evidence that msu is not more difficult. But, understand, I'm not making the claim that it isn't. I'm simply saying that if you're going to make the claim that it IS, you should lay out the criteria and have some objective evidence to support that contention. (I'm pretty certain even engineers would need to do that to support a theory, would they not? I'm not asking for something outrageous here).

7. Do NOT make this MY argument, as you have in the subject of this thread. I have never ONCE begun the argument, nor would I EVER make the claim that UM is superior to msu. I'm objective enough to understand that a degree from either is a huge accomplishment.

1. Entrance exams: Yeah, it's a wash. So what.

2. You didn't limit the discussion to football.

3. OK, so we're at least as smart, which has nothing to do with difficulty and this discussion.

4. Dollars in the budget assist students seeking assistance with course work. More dollars = more assistance.

5. Did you take an engineering course. No, not the one offered by Lionel.

6. That's OK that you didn't make that claim. I'm just wondering if you can.

7. Someone made a statement and you argued it. It then became your argument. A degree from either is a huge accomplishment, but a degree from MSU is hugeier!

1. Same quality students in, same quality students out. I'm guessing you are agreeing with me here, but your clack of clarity makes that somewhat difficult to ascertain.

2. Again, due to your lack of clarity, I don't even know what your statement for #2 means.

3. Correct. Students and graduates at both are equally as smart.

4. Do you REALLY believe msu's APR issues is due to the fact that they didn't have someone holding their hand in a study lab, and encouraging them to go to class? And if you answer yes, I would ask this follow-up question: if that is the case, shouldn't msu's APR results be lower across all athletics (men's and women's sports) than Montana's? And finally, I would ask one other question: Either way, how the hell does this prove that msu is a more-difficult school? Because football players didn't graduate? Please. If that is the basis of the argument, Louisville must be the most-difficult school in America, because they never graduate any BB players.

5. No, thank God. I would have been bored to tears. Did you (or for that matter the original poster or anyone who believes msu is more difficult) take a Forestry course. Or a music course. Or a 400 level Econ course. Or a Journalism course. Or ANY course at UM. Once again, you haven't made a point. Simply BECAUSE I haven't taken any courses at msu, I cannot POSSIBLY make the claim it's a less-difficult school than UM. Consequently, for someone making the reverse argument, I'm asking for facts to support the contention. In the 35 pages on the 19 threads on this issue, no one has been able to do so. Can you now, CC?

6. See #5 above. No I cannot. (Acutally I could, but I couldn't support it, so I never would). That appears to be where UM and msu grads differ. We support our contentions with objective facts, or we don't make them.

7. I didn't argue it all. I asked for supporting documentation to back up their claim. And, not surprisingly, I'm still waiting.

Ahhh, that's just it. It's an opinion based statement. And you can either live with it or argue it. You choose to argue it. Soooo.....

I'm saying MSU is harder, because leastly a lot of people that I know that didn't go to MSU and went to UM are of that opinion, more so because a lot of people I know that went to both are of that opinion, and mostly because people I know that acquired a degree from both at the same time are of the opinion MSU was more difficult. That's pretty convincing to me, but it isn't objective as you so richly desire, yet are probably aware that such a thing is not capable of being objectively measured.

However, it doesn't necessarily need to be objective for me to believe something. For instance, if I go to bed at night and there's not snow on the ground, but when I wake up there is snow on the ground, I'm convinced that it was snowing overnight. I didn't see the snow coming down, but the alternative (someone installed a snow making machine in my yard) seems so unlikely that I have to believe it snowed.

Anyway, in the course of my years, I've been told numerous times by people with experience at both schools that MSU is the more difficult school. I've never been told that UM was the more difficult by anyone with experience at both. A few times, as in your case, some have said the schools are equally difficult. My opinion my change over time.

Yep I have heard the same thing by people I know that have attended both. Bozeone is another one who has been to both and also gave that assumption as well.

[GrizinWashington]

I just appreciated that crazy defined concurrently for me!!!

[GrizinWashington]

Well, I've heard from people who have attended both (in fact my college girl friend attended both after deciding to go into nursing), and they have all told me that UM is more difficult. So where does that leave us?

Oh, wait, I know. IT LEAVES US WAITING FOR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Huh. I think that's right where I started....

[Billings_Griz]

I'm serious, I did.

[BozoneCat]

Yep I have heard the same thing by people I know that have attended both. Bozeone is another one who has been to both and also gave that assumption as well.

I can't say that across the board, MSU is a more difficult school, because I know nothing about the many various programs at each respective school. I can say, without a doubt in my mind, that MSU has a far more difficult curriculum in the basic sciences... which should come as no surprise, as MSU is generally a science-based school and UM is generally a liberal arts school. Looking through the things that a 3rd-year pre-med roommate of mine was studying was shocking, I couldn't believe the lack of depth that UM's program had.

The thing that struck me most when I was in Missoula was the difference in the libraries. While MSU has put a ton of money into the Renne Library and it is the spot everyone goes to in the evening (partly as a social thing, no doubt), UM's Mansfield Library is quite possibly the worst building I have ever set foot in - and it is quite frankly a ghost building in the evenings. There was a palpable difference in the study habits of students at each school.