Re: US News rankings released Tue, Sept 13
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:33 pm
gostangs wrote:Like it or not - we are definitely linked to UT. If a big state school is viewed as better why would you pay at least 2X more for SMU? Getting tied with them in this ranking is definitely a great step - i would guess we will rise above them in a year or so, and at least be able to tell in state kids - hey, we are more expensive but you get what you pay for. That should help apps and yield.
@
Current leadership got our numbers up so not sure why you think it is vital we have a change. The issue is we don't communicate our student quality very well to counselors or our peers - thus the "below reality+ rankings from them. That has got to be stepped up. Quiet isn't getting it done.
SMU has done more with less. It's not hard to get our numbers up with an explosion in college applications at all institutions all over the country--students apply to more colleges due to the common app and the lower selection rate of colleges. Students apply to more schools then they did in the past. Same with student quality. It improves with most top colleges. Even Ivy League schools student quality continue to go up in terms of SAT/ACT scores and GPAs. It' could be that kids are getting smarter or that the kids are getting better preparation for standardized tests with more information (all the years of viewing SAT tests) and that high schools are inflating grades--especially due to AP and honor courses. It's better to compare statistics with schools of similar size and resources than anything. SMU should have always been ranked higher than UT, due to resources per student and the need to not have to take a class size of their magnitude. While half of US News rankings is about PR, SMU has had 25+ years to figure out how to market itself for them.
If the school is doing so well, why has Baylor and TCU caught up to us in terms of endowment? Why have their applications risen at a faster rate? I think SMU still offers more, but without carefully monitoring everything, we may be selling the institutions short.
SMU had a top 20 endowment in the 90s, now its in the 60s. North Texas population, economy, and number of Fortune 500 companies have grown during this time. The number of Texas high school students are growing at an exponential rate and SMU has to be able to capture that. President Turner was great at building the institutions brick and mortar through fundraising, but that's not all that's needed to make a great university--having an amazing faculty, the best students possible, forward thinking administration, and small efficient staff (SMU needs to continue to reduce bloated staff and administration) is a major key. Throwing money incorrectly at an issue helps, but we don't have Stanford or Harvard money. It needs to be directed carefully at key issues to ensure SMU's place. After Turner gets our IPF, he should leave lol--maybe he already knows that hence the delay.
I'm not saying SMU isn't a great institution, I just think SMU should be better for its current students and alumni. Dallas needs it to be better as well.