PonyFans.comBoard IndexAround the HilltopFootballRecruitingBasketballOther Sports

Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

General discussion: anything you want to talk about!

Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby AfricanMustang » Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:18 pm

NewAgeMustange wrote:I'm all for the new buildings they look great but even after they are completed. The older builders need to be redone. Science facilities are second rate at best, three plus years at utsw I have yet to come across a smu intern, lots of utd and few Stanford ones. The classrooms across the campus have fallen behind, just compare the cox school to the new engineering school. These are the parts of the campus that parents look at and coment to kids during the tours.

I love smu but the campus is too small to hid building faults that larger university's hide to the public.


President Turner once said its like the old chicken and egg problem. Great (Research) Facilities attract Great Faculty. Great Faculty attracts Great Students. Great Students (A smart and inquisitive student body) attract Great Faculty...
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
― C.G. Jung
AfricanMustang
Junior Varsity
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:35 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby deucetz » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:26 pm

Having good facilities are a plus, but great Faculty is what drives a university.

It is Faculty, students, administration, and then physical plant.

Great Faculty will put demands on the administration and students to be better.

A great facility doesn't matter if you have uninspired low level researchers working there. Then you just have bad researchers in a pretty facility.

If anything, if we are the top university at paying faculty in Texas, then I can assure you will get better very quickly. Same will be true at giving out financial aid to students.
deucetz
All-American
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby NewAgeMustange » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:10 pm

Actually the faculty i had were some of the smartest people I've worked with or was in class with. I can't say that I wasn't challenged , is that a complaint that people have?
NewAgeMustange
Varsity
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:57 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby Greenwich Pony » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:15 pm

We do need to draw better faculty. It isn't a slight on the people we have, I had wonderful professors in my time, but we still need to draw better.
Support the Commitment! We're all SMU Mustangs fans- we should all be committed!
Greenwich Pony
Varsity
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Westport, CT, USA

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby Pony^ » Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:56 pm

NewAgeMustange wrote:Actually the faculty i had were some of the smartest people I've worked with or was in class with. I can't say that I wasn't challenged , is that a complaint that people have?


On the off chance that you are not being facetious, I will comment as follows:

SMU is a research university and we are accorded recognition based upon the type, quantity and quality of the research produced by our faculty. Evaluators for U.S. News, the AAU, the national academies, etc. do not know our professors by their teacher evaluations; but rather, by the research they publish in recognized academic journals. Frankly, one can find excellent teachers at community colleges who can challenge their students -- becoming a top research university requires much more.

I referenced the following quote from Berkeley’s website in another thread:

Even first-year students may find themselves in a classroom with one of Berkeley's 144 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 32 MacArthur fellows, 235 members of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, 13 National Medal of Science awardees or four Pulitzer Prize winners.


http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses/berkeley/
Pony^
All-American
 
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:34 pm

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby orguy » Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 am

Pony^ wrote:
NewAgeMustange wrote:Actually the faculty i had were some of the smartest people I've worked with or was in class with. I can't say that I wasn't challenged , is that a complaint that people have?


On the off chance that you are not being facetious, I will comment as follows:

SMU is a research university and we are accorded recognition based upon the type, quantity and quality of the research produced by our faculty. Evaluators for U.S. News, the AAU, the national academies, etc. do not know our professors by their teacher evaluations; but rather, by the research they publish in recognized academic journals. Frankly, one can find excellent teachers at community colleges who can challenge their students -- becoming a top research university requires much more.

I referenced the following quote from Berkeley’s website in another thread:

Even first-year students may find themselves in a classroom with one of Berkeley's 144 members of the National Academy of Sciences, 32 MacArthur fellows, 235 members of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, 13 National Medal of Science awardees or four Pulitzer Prize winners.


http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses/berkeley/


Comparing SMU to the University of California is not fair. Cal is a unique world class institution with resources we simply do not have.

SMU is a great school. Convincing the world of it requires better students, faculty, culture etc. A long ways to go.
orguy
All-American
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:02 am
Location: SF bay area

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby orguy » Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:35 am

deucetz wrote:Having good facilities are a plus, but great Faculty is what drives a university.

It is Faculty, students, administration, and then physical plant.

Great Faculty will put demands on the administration and students to be better.

A great facility doesn't matter if you have uninspired low level researchers working there. Then you just have bad researchers in a pretty facility.

If anything, if we are the top university at paying faculty in Texas, then I can assure you will get better very quickly. Same will be true at giving out financial aid to students.


Why do you say this? SMU lags far behind Rice and UT in regards to Faculty compensation in every area except for the Business School. Important to note that its not he B school that will make SMU great. Its focusing on Science and Engineering. Something SMU and its GreekCentric culture have failed to do over the years. B school coursework is a joke relatively speaking. Real universities are made by strong programs in disciplines such as Literature/Physics/Chemistry/Electrical Engineering etc.. and not on soft programs like communications arts, finance, psychology, accounting etc.. The latter are easy majors for those who either like to party or have weak high school backgrounds. All the great schools of the south (RICE, VANDY, WAKE) are far ahead of SMU for obvious reasons. Take the emphasis off the B school and transfer it to real academic disciplines and SMU will excel. The B school should be secondary to the real work of the University which is Engineering/Science/Humanities. When SMU becomes serious about this it will rise in the rankings. Until then NOT.

Anyone, regardless of academic background can excel in B school. This is not true in the more academic programs of a given university. Want to be like RICE? minimize the B school as Rice has done and emphasize Engineering/Science/Hardcore Humanities.

Facts of life Folks. Do not flame me. I speak only the truth.
orguy
All-American
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:02 am
Location: SF bay area

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby gostangs » Sat Aug 13, 2016 10:07 am

Several incorrect things here. Totally agree that we need more focus and emphasis on engineering and sciences, and the key to that is a medical school or stronger affiliation (Methodist hospital jumps to mind). But de emphasizing the business school would be just flat out stupid. Over 25 pct of the undergrads in our university are in cox, and another 10 pct came here because they wanted to be in cox. That means over a third of our students are here because of cox. Cox is singlehandedly responsible for keeping us in second place in student quality in Texas behind only rice - and is therefore the only reason we have been hanging around top 50. But business school reputations are born from the MBA rep so in that area we are behind. We need about 30 million more in MBA scholarships to compete better for the 700 plus GMAT's. To put it bluntly, cox pays the bills for SMU. You think we draw all those kids from California because of Perkins? Simmons? Dedman? Don't be silly.

Agree research won't advance much unless we do better in engineering and sciences, and research advancement at SMU is top priority. Our new provost having this background is very encouraging. However Humanities is a waste of time and more and more students are coming to the conclusion that paying 55k plus a year for a literature or humanities degree is silly. It is dying and rightfully so. All that "learning how to learn" b.s is going out with print media. If someone pays 200k plus for an education they deserve a marketable skill, not an invitation for another 3 yrs of school to become something someone will pay for.

And calling finance and accounting soft is just comical. How do you think UT keeps their business school ranking so high? It's because they have a fantastic accounting and finance strength within McCombs.

We can do better in engineering and especially sciences without killing the golden goose (cox). And finally we are far behind rice and vandy, but Wake is very catchable.
gostangs
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 12097
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 4:01 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby deucetz » Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:15 pm

I argued Faculty and students, first and second, because they help drive the university. An analogy would be football, since most of us are on ponyfans due to football. Most football programs thrive due to wins and getting players to the NFL. Great universities thrive by research and getting students high paying jobs and into great graduate programs, with good student outcomes, alumni are more happy to give.

Having a great coach (faculty) is the most important piece for a winning football team. A good coach can help develop and inspire players, and can cause the administration to make investments in the program. Getting a great coach is hard. You will usually have to pay a lot for a proven one, or scout them very well and pay enough to take them away from other programs (aka Morris).

Students also help drive a winning team. Having top talent usually will help a coach do a better job. Hence why we always stress the amount of stars or offers they have. Similar to what a high school GPA and standardized tests do. While the ratings may not always pan out, they usually are very helpful to identify talent. There are always diamonds in the rough but you would like to limit those type of players and students. Football players that make it to the pros help a program since other students see this and want to go to a program that can send them to the pros. Good students want to go to universities that have proven track records to send them to good jobs or graduate schools.

Having a good AD is important since they help drive fundraisers, help get coaches and set the general directions of how athletic programs are run at the university. The administration helps get great faculty, sets the tone of what is important for the university, helps drive the efficiency for funding, and helps with fundraisers as well.

Last is facilities. I'm not saying they aren't important, but you need someone to help direct the ship so it knows where it is going. Usually with good faculty, students, and administration it is easier to fundraise for facilities. Plus great faculty will demand it. Sort of how coach Morris wanted a commitment that he will get an IPF and other upgrades before he would commit. Get the faculty and they will make the facilities in their vision.

I disagree that we should demphasis Cox. Cox alums helps bring a lot of funds to the school. Plus Cox and Dedman School of Law are relatively cheap in terms of academics. You just need nice classrooms and good professors, compared to the sciences. I agree that we need to emphasize Lyle and the sciences in Dedman though. Rockstar faculty in the hard sciences and engineering will eventually demand a plan on getting appropriate facilities. The issue we have is where we would put them and how we can get money for it. We don't need an alum to get 5 million dollar naming rights, we need an alum that will give 50 million for some of the facilities. Engineering and hard sciences are expensive but SMU has the ability to do it if they want. President Turner was great but we need new vision--sort of how you have a coach that steadies the program before you can hire a great coach. Turner helped steady SMU after Pye.

At this point I'm running on fumes. Attendance is also important for football programs. I would say that is similar to students applying to a university. You get t-shirt fans by winning. You get students to apply mainly from good alumni outcomes.
orguy wrote:
deucetz wrote:Having good facilities are a plus, but great Faculty is what drives a university.

It is Faculty, students, administration, and then physical plant.

Great Faculty will put demands on the administration and students to be better.

A great facility doesn't matter if you have uninspired low level researchers working there. Then you just have bad researchers in a pretty facility.

If anything, if we are the top university at paying faculty in Texas, then I can assure you will get better very quickly. Same will be true at giving out financial aid to students.


Why do you say this? SMU lags far behind Rice and UT in regards to Faculty compensation in every area except for the Business School. Important to note that its not he B school that will make SMU great. Its focusing on Science and Engineering. Something SMU and its GreekCentric culture have failed to do over the years. B school coursework is a joke relatively speaking. Real universities are made by strong programs in disciplines such as Literature/Physics/Chemistry/Electrical Engineering etc.. and not on soft programs like communications arts, finance, psychology, accounting etc.. The latter are easy majors for those who either like to party or have weak high school backgrounds. All the great schools of the south (RICE, VANDY, WAKE) are far ahead of SMU for obvious reasons. Take the emphasis off the B school and transfer it to real academic disciplines and SMU will excel. The B school should be secondary to the real work of the University which is Engineering/Science/Humanities. When SMU becomes serious about this it will rise in the rankings. Until then NOT.

Anyone, regardless of academic background can excel in B school. This is not true in the more academic programs of a given university. Want to be like RICE? minimize the B school as Rice has done and emphasize Engineering/Science/Hardcore Humanities.

Facts of life Folks. Do not flame me. I speak only the truth.
Last edited by deucetz on Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
deucetz
All-American
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby Pony Boss » Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:52 pm

Does SMU deserve Dallas?
User avatar
Pony Boss
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 2411
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:22 pm

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby Pony^ » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:06 pm

orguy wrote:
Pony^ wrote:Comparing SMU to the University of California is not fair. Cal is a unique world class institution with resources we simply do not have.

SMU is a great school. Convincing the world of it requires better students, faculty, culture etc. A long ways to go.


The reference to the Berkeley faculty was not intended to be “fair;” but rather, to illustrate that intelligent, challenging teaching is insufficient, in and of itself, for a major research institution, and that, as you also noted, SMU has “A long ways to go.”

With respect to the academic quality of undergraduate business schools, many would not agree with you. Do you consider the University of Pennsylvania a lesser school due to Wharton? What about MIT, Berkeley, Michigan, Virginia, Carnegie Mellon, UNC, Cornell, Notre Dame or USC? They all have undergraduate business programs. Rice and Wake Forest, schools you apparently hold in high esteem, also have undergraduate business programs. These programs often require higher admissions standards than other programs within their respective universities. Virginia has an undergraduate business program (McIntire) separate and distinct from its MBA program (Darden).

The University of Pennsylvania awards 21% of its undergraduate degrees in business, USC 23.6%, and yes, Wake Forest 19.19%. For comparison, SMU awards 22.22% of its undergraduate degrees in business.

None of the foregoing excuses a lesser emphasis in STEM programs. If you review this very thread, you will find much agreement there. In short, a great business program and great STEM (and humanities) programs are not mutually exclusive.
Pony^
All-American
 
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:34 pm

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby Pony^ » Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:41 pm

Orguy,

Since you brought up Wake Forest, it’s interesting to make a few comparisons with SMU:

Both schools are non-AAU institutions with in-state competition from a well-regarded state school (UNC and UT) and a more highly ranked private school (Duke and Rice).

US News Rank:
Wake Forest – 27
SMU – 61

Endowment:
Wake Forest— (#78) $1,167,400,000 (some portion probably dedicated to their medical school)
SMU -- (#64) $1,505,296,000

SAT/ACT Range:
Wake Forest – 25%/75%
SAT:
CR 590/690
M 610/720
ACT Composite:
27/33

SMU – 25%/75%
CR 600/690
M 620/720
ACT Composite:
28/32

Applied/Admitted/Attended:
Wake Forest – 13,281/3903 (29%)/1283 (33%)
SMU – 12,992/6360 (49%)/1374 (22%)

6 Year Graduation Rate:
Wake Forest – 88%
SMU – 79%

Retention Rate:
Wake Forest – 93%
SMU – 90%

Perhaps there is something to learn here.
Pony^
All-American
 
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:34 pm

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby gostangs » Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:24 am

good facts. As I mentioned they are very catchable. No idea how they are ranked so high when our student quality is the same or even a hair better. I think the academic world has not caught up with where our testing scores have gone - hate to be a promoter, but we should be sending that information out in whatever ways are necessary. We will have a much higher yield when our ranking goes up.
gostangs
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 12097
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 4:01 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby rodrod5 » Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:32 am

a couple of things here

1. earlier on in this thread there was a comment about some schools being accused of hording endowment dollars

these accusations came from some of the most financially illiterate and most disingenuous people on the face of the earth....federal politicians

these are the same total blowhard jerks that themselves often have massive trust funds from diciest relatives and or massive investment portfolios and thus they should or do PERSONALLY understand the "rule of 5' or what is being called "the rule of 4" more recently

and that is you can spend 5% (or should be more like 4% now or a bit less) of your invested assets in retirement and never eat into the corpus over the long haul AND keep up with inflation

sure there will be ups and downs to this like right around the time some of these federal morons were calling out schools and then the stock market crashed and endowments took massive hits, but over the long haul if you adjust here and there the % to a degree you can have a dependable retirement and keep up with inflation

most endowments pay out 4.5% to 5% a 3 or 5 year rolling average of the corpus

all the worse being politicians they do not understand the concept that if you dig into the endowment and build new things well those new things come with NEW EXPENSES especially 10 or 15 years down the road as they age

this is why the USA is flay broke in debt because there has never been a dollar in good times that idiot politicians could not find a way to spend and then when times are bad all that garbage they spent money on in times of good now somehow has to be paid for and or left to break down and cost more in the future

so you do the worst of the worst.....instead of when times are good and the economy might be over heating you make some (INTELLIGENT) tax increases for a SHORT TIME and STASH THAT MONEY AWAY and then when times are bad you have that money to move into the economy and build/fix things on the cheap because cost are down and if you are smart you can even lower taxes a bit and you have a double stimulation to the economy

an example of this is the oft attacked "PUF" where:

A. people are too stupid to understand that even 5% of $1 billion is only $50 million so you cannot just "give free tuition to EvErYOnE" with the PUF

B. they just want to spend spend spend it especially on things that will be short term in nature and then when it is GONE or reduced dramatically suddenly where will the money come from that used to come from the PUF.....why RAISE TAXES! of course which is the mantra of the spend and tax buffoon

C. in Texas especially in the past when the economy was so oil based well often when Texas did well the rest of the USA was down because of energy cost (sometimes)

and when energy cost were low it hit Texas hard and the USA always sees a boost

with the PUF in place if you invested most of that OUTSIDE of energy well even when energy was down sometimes the PUF might even be doing a little better return wise and thus there is a bit of extra money in that 5%

but for politicians this is forebode you simply can't have any extra money laying around it always has to be SPENT SPENT SPENT

so the people that were calling out Harvard and the like were and are total and complete financial morons

2. I think SMU will be loath to consider this next suggestion, but it is a very real suggestion and one that I would tell anyone that has even the SMALLEST connections to broach with the leadership

as you know TCU is working with north Texas state on offering an MD degree at the north Texas state TCOM/HSC in Fort Worth

I have mentioned this before on here I believe, but there is an actual LAW that prevents the north Texas state TCOM/HSC from offering an MD degree

it is not just a matter of THECB approval to offer a new degree (which THECB is actually a POWERLESS organization they have no weight the legislature can do as they please no matter what THECB says and often does).....it is an actual written and passed LAW that prevents the MD degree from being offered

that is where TCU comes in because TCU needs no approval from anyone to offer the MD degree (other than medical accreditation boards of course) and so the TCOM/HSC MD Degree will say TCU on it....it will not be a "north Texas state TCOM/HSC degree"

now in the past notorious BSer and "underestimater" of cost (see law school see failed south dallas campus) the north Texas state university system and TCOM/HSC have said that to get an MD going at the campus it would be as little as $25 million TOTAL over the first 5 years to get that degree up and running

this of course is a complete and total joke much like the "accounting" of the failed north Texas state=dallas college of unaccredited law

It cost $150+ million to expand the TTU Medical program in El Paso from being Jr Sr level to offering the first two years of the MD degree and again that was at a place that already had the final 2 years of classes being offered and of course the residency slots available (the whole reason TTU had operations there in the first place)

there is an investment of $1.5 billion going into the Dell Medical School in Austin and in south Texas there is an investment of at least $25 million a year for the first 5 years

yes those last two are new schools starting from scratch, but The State of Texas and some consultants they worked with (actual people that have opened and expanded medical schools not just the usual pigeons) stated that the north Texas state TCOM/HSC plan was nothing short of a joke and was as unrealistic as could be

the "idea" is that they will just simply put MD students at least for the first couple of years into classes that DOs are taking because "hey we already have these classes and teachers and stuff right" and then the final two years will be cheap because "hey we already have buildings and classrooms and stuff what does it take to hire a few faculty"

of course as everyone has pointed out if it is that simple why are you not just enrolling more DO students and it would be cheaper because then there is no need for even new upper level classes just put more students in those too!.....and there is no shortage of students that would enroll at a DO school if space was available it is not like DO schools (that have been the more recent medical schools opened in the USA outside of the MD programs in Texas) are sitting there begging for applicants and students and everyone is telling them "no I want an MD not a DO" (which some might feel that way, but some actually still want a DO)

so being north Texas state their "plan" is to do just like the failed south dallas campus and the failed law school......completely and totally low ball something and get it going even by cheating the system entirely and then once it is up and going "well we have already spent all this money we can't go back now" (like CLOSING the failed law school)

so I feel personally that north Texas state TCOM/'HSC and their failed system leadership believe that they will get this going with TCU, it will somehow barely get off the ground (probably with mostly privately raised money from TCU) and then it will become a massive boondoggle and either the state will have to step in and if the state steps in hopefully the law against the MD is removed at that time or TCU will have to keep bringing the private dollars

if the state steps in I believe that the north Texas state system TCOM/HSC thinks eventually they will push TCU out or that TCU will somehow "lose out" to the prestige and the more simple wording of a north Texas state MD instead of a TCU @ north Texas state TCOM/HSC MD degree and eventually TCU will fade away

on the flip side I think that TCU and their supporters especially the connected in Fort Worth know that the entire north Texas state system is a giant financial joke and a disaster and short on bonding capacity, meaning political support for things outside of failed economic development projects in dallas proper disguised as "educational opportunity" and short on private dollars and endowment dollars and they think the opposite

they think that once TCU can get something up and going with "MD: on it the support will grow and as soon as north Texas state TCOM/HSC screws it up TCU will be waiting in the wings with private and perhaps Fort Worth and Tarrant County (just like Travis County did for Dell) support for TCU to break it away and take it over

so what I am saying that SMU supporters and power brokers should strongly consider is this

have money available and in the pipeline and possibly even establish communications with TCU and be ready to step in and get a chunk of that new medical school when it gets broken off from the north Texas state system of failure and financial irregularity

I realize there are "issues" with "well that is TCU" or "but it would be in Fort Worth", but what I am saying is the opportunity will probably come and it is going to be much more readily available to SMU than trying to open up their own medical school (even a DO school which is not a research oriented degree)

and many universities have their medical school or MAJOR portions of their medical school much further away than Fort Worth is to dallas including Cornell, UC Davis, OU and others

so again I realize that might not be as "exciting" or the "rivalry" of schools and cities and counties gets in the way, but I think the alternative is to watch TCU end up with a full medical school eventually in Fort Worth probably situated somewhere South of I-30, North of Rosedale, West of S. Main and East of 8th Ave.......probably closer to Hemphill and Rosedale

and if Texas Wesleyan was smart they might have some of that Aggie law purchase money left over to get in on it as well......maybe even U. Dallas although they are TERRIBLE at fund raising it seems and could not get a pharmacy program off the ground a few years back

but my advice is "be ready" and have "cash in reserve" because I feel the opportunity will probably present itself sooner than later probably in the first 4-6 years of it starting up
rodrod5
Junior Varsity
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:26 pm

Re: Does Dallas deserve more than SMU

Postby deucetz » Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:37 am

gostangs wrote:good facts. As I mentioned they are very catchable. No idea how they are ranked so high when our student quality is the same or even a hair better. I think the academic world has not caught up with where our testing scores have gone - hate to be a promoter, but we should be sending that information out in whatever ways are necessary. We will have a much higher yield when our ranking goes up.


It's likely three areas that are hurting SMU's US News Rankings: 1) reputation 22.5%; 2) selectivity 12.5%; and 3) Graduation and retention rates 22.5%.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-co ... nd-weights

Reputation
SMU isn't good at all of the above. In terms of reputation, the east coast has an advantage. Students generally apply to multiple colleges and there are coastal leanings for both east coast, California, and Chicago. The schools such as Vanderbilt, Emory, Rice, and Washington University in St. Louis, that traditionally do well in the rankings all draw from the coasts and have massive research. The academic peer assessment survey allows top academics—presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions—to account for intangibles at peer institutions such as faculty dedication to teaching. http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/c ... -officials . The reputation of Texas schools aren't the best. Besides, Rice, University of Texas and maybe Texas A&M (due to research as size), the rest of the institutions could definitely use a bigger boost in reputation. The main reason UT and A&M ranking is lower is due to the Top 10 percent Rule and class size. They have to accepts students irrespective of their standardizes test scores, etc. In addition, the institutions are too big. Compare the class size of A&M and UT to Berkeley, UCLA, Virginia, UNC or Michigan. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandrevie ... top-public . UT and A&M became greedy and the politicians screwed up the public school system. Texas universities are looked down by the coasts and Chicago. It doesn't help that our public school system in Texas is trash either.

Selectivity
Selectivity and Graduation and retention rates should be the easiest ones to fix. GSelectivity is low due to affordability and finding the right students that want to apply. SMU needs to pimp the early decision apps. They already do, its at 51%. Early Decision Admission Rate 51% of 406 applicants were admitted. http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/coll ... oolId=1147

The issue now is that more students should be applying via Early Decision. They could make more students apply by making Early Decision apps free. Making all athletes apply early decision to secure a spot (obviously the best athletes can wait, i'm thinking at least the Olympic sports). Giving more financial aid to Early Decision apps. The highly selective schools in the 10-30 range definitely ensure that the Early Decision and Early Action Programs work for their advantage. I think that mandatory faculty or alumni interviews could be helpful in not only selecting students but also getting students interested selecting SMU.

Graduation and Retention Rates
Graduation rates are probably partially low due to affordability and job prospects after graduation. I'm not sure why job prospects should be an issue since SMU is in DFW. The main issue I see is that alums that can hire don't make sure all SMU alums have jobs. Affordability is an issue, since students may transfer or take time off if they do not have the money to finish. Accumulating loans with bad job prospects will do that. Finally, is probably student quality. While the quality has increased, we could still get higher quality students.

Again, I blame President Turner and the administration. They have a lack of vision for the University in terms of academics and athletics. They are over their head in terms of directing SMU to become a better version of itself. I love what Turner has done, but he needs to go. I also think SMU is financially mismanaged. I don't have all the numbers, but we could be more efficient.
deucetz
All-American
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Around the Hilltop

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests