PonyFans.com

Maybe Dallas, in the past, has not placed the same value on having a leading university as have other cities. Schools such as Stanford and Chicago are not much older than SMU, yet they have significantly larger endowments (Stanford about 16.5 billion and Chicago about 6.6 billion). Both schools started out with large endowments which have allowed them to climb to the top of the rankings at a fairly fast pace. Our sister school, Emory, has a 5.4 billion dollar endowment and Rice has 4.5 billion dollar endowment. So, perhaps we should ask why Dallas has not seen the benefit of making similar investments in its private university; maybe SMU deserves more.

Considering the post above where SMU rejected ties to two of the major academic elements in the city, perhaps SMU's goal was not always elite status.

How affordable was SMU in 1965?

couch 'em wrote:Considering the post above where SMU rejected ties to two of the major academic elements in the city, perhaps SMU's goal was not always elite status.

How affordable was SMU in 1965?

FYI, in 1963 Princeton cost only $350.00/ semester for a full load.

I like SoCal_pony, wonder what happen to the University, as I graduated in the early '70s; and, at that time most major functions in Dallas were held at SMU. Under Willis Tate, it seemed, the school on the whole, and specifically the B-school undergrad and grad,and the Computer Science Dept. enjoyed a national reputation, we've yet to again achieve. I don't know if this too can be laid at Ken Pye's feet, as he drove away many alums and prospective students with his actions. Would like to hear other's opinions.

I believe he did try to deemphisize the engineering and other non-liberal art schools

Almost with a sense of resentment.

Almost with a sense of resentment.

Could it be because male-dominated sectors like engineering are more supportive of athletes than his buddies in liberal arts?

LOL! With Pye, anything 'was' possible.

couch 'em wrote:Considering the post above where SMU rejected ties to two of the major academic elements in the city, perhaps SMU's goal was not always elite status.

How affordable was SMU in 1965?

Turning down the Tech Money (that was used to start UTD) was an epic mistake. It is hard to imagine what the board was thinking.

"...hard to imagine what the board was thinking."

That was the problem, they weren't!

It appears they have recovered to some degree or another but it's been costly for sure.

UC has an undergraduate population of about 30,000. SMU's is 6,000. Much larger endowment per student than UC.

I would be willing to bet that the 'per student' ratio is quite better at SMU compared to many universities with over a billion in endowment dollars.

NavyCrimson wrote:I would be willing to bet that the 'per student' ratio is quite better at SMU compared to many universities with over a billion in endowment dollars.

The bottom line is that SMU is a well capitalized school (new facilities and money in bank) located in one of the growing areas of the country.

The next step is raising the endowment enough to reduce tuition and/or increase financial aid packages. When the student loan bubble starts to burst, people are going to look lower costs programs.

example: Yale offers "no loan" financial aid packages. They are able to do it because of the enormous endowment Yale has.

Digetydog wrote:

NavyCrimson wrote:I would be willing to bet that the 'per student' ratio is quite better at SMU compared to many universities with over a billion in endowment dollars.

The bottom line is that SMU is a well capitalized school (new facilities and money in bank) located in one of the growing areas of the country.

The next step is raising the endowment enough to reduce tuition and/or increase financial aid packages. When the student loan bubble starts to burst, people are going to look lower costs programs.

example: Yale offers "no loan" financial aid packages. They are able to do it because of the enormous endowment Yale has.

Yale is the John Holmes of the Northeast.