PonyFans.comBoard IndexAround the HilltopFootballRecruitingBasketballOther Sports

SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

General discussion: anything you want to talk about!

Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby rodrod5 » Sun May 07, 2017 9:42 am

deucetz wrote:
New Leadership
In addition, having President R. Gerald Turner since 1995 isn't good for any institution beyond Harvard, Yale and Princeton. SMU needs an infusion of fresh ideas and better execution. Furthermore, some of the main colleges may be ripe for new leadership. The private schools (SMU, TCU, Baylor) in Texas are all not run well, beyond Rice (and maybe Trinity). The Texas private schools have beautiful campuses but they all leave something left to be desired. I think football has a lot to do with it in terms of sports over academics. I would guess all have spent close to a Billion each in the last 15 years for football. Imagine if they kept the donations for the endowment.


you say "football" in the above, but what you should really be saying is "athletics" because at least at Baylor and TCU football is more than paying it's own way and paying a large chunk of the cost of other sports as well

these are the expenses for football for Baylor, TCU and SMU in 2015

$29,544,710 $33,471,085 $17,267,570

these are the revenues for football

$38,305,937 $52,009,661 $17,267,570

these are the total expenses mens teams

$45,903,986 $54,240,505 $28,935,602

total revenue mens teams

$54,665,213 $69,578,208 $28,935,602

total expenses womens teams

$22,561,820 $18,930,176 $15,991,418

total revenues womens teams

$22,561,820 $13,929,819 $15,991,418

not allocated by gender or sport

Expenses $13,542,008 $9,751,355 $11,982,270
Revenues $22,303,235 $20,088,701 $11,982,270

so at least in the case of Baylor and TCU even if you placed 100% of the non-allocated expenses on football and zero of those revenues well football is still not the major money loser

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/details

so at least in Texas and at least at the schools mentioned football is not the main issue
rodrod5
Junior Varsity
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:26 pm

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby deucetz » Sun May 07, 2017 2:14 pm

rodrod5 wrote:
deucetz wrote:
New Leadership
In addition, having President R. Gerald Turner since 1995 isn't good for any institution beyond Harvard, Yale and Princeton. SMU needs an infusion of fresh ideas and better execution. Furthermore, some of the main colleges may be ripe for new leadership. The private schools (SMU, TCU, Baylor) in Texas are all not run well, beyond Rice (and maybe Trinity). The Texas private schools have beautiful campuses but they all leave something left to be desired. I think football has a lot to do with it in terms of sports over academics. I would guess all have spent close to a Billion each in the last 15 years for football. Imagine if they kept the donations for the endowment.


you say "football" in the above, but what you should really be saying is "athletics" because at least at Baylor and TCU football is more than paying it's own way and paying a large chunk of the cost of other sports as well

these are the expenses for football for Baylor, TCU and SMU in 2015

$29,544,710 $33,471,085 $17,267,570

these are the revenues for football

$38,305,937 $52,009,661 $17,267,570

these are the total expenses mens teams

$45,903,986 $54,240,505 $28,935,602

total revenue mens teams

$54,665,213 $69,578,208 $28,935,602

total expenses womens teams

$22,561,820 $18,930,176 $15,991,418

total revenues womens teams

$22,561,820 $13,929,819 $15,991,418

not allocated by gender or sport

Expenses $13,542,008 $9,751,355 $11,982,270
Revenues $22,303,235 $20,088,701 $11,982,270

so at least in the case of Baylor and TCU even if you placed 100% of the non-allocated expenses on football and zero of those revenues well football is still not the major money loser

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/details

so at least in Texas and at least at the schools mentioned football is not the main issue


I always enjoy your posts. I will still argue that the amount of investment that it took to get them to this point isn't being reflected in your analysis. For example, Baylor stadium cost $266 million, TCU $180 million, and SMU $42 million ($58.4 million in 2016 dollars).

Either way, I'm not sure investing in football and being P5 is the best use of the school's money. I would rather SMU emulate Tulsa's stinginess and football success, then try and outspend everyone and get mediocre results.
deucetz
All-American
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby CA Mustang » Mon May 08, 2017 6:40 pm

deucetz wrote:I always enjoy your posts. I will still argue that the amount of investment that it took to get them to this point isn't being reflected in your analysis. For example, Baylor stadium cost $266 million, TCU $180 million, and SMU $42 million ($58.4 million in 2016 dollars).

Either way, I'm not sure investing in football and being P5 is the best use of the school's money. I would rather SMU emulate Tulsa's stinginess and football success, then try and outspend everyone and get mediocre results.

Much of the facilities money came from direct donations. If there weren't stadium campaign drives, there's no assurance most (or even some) of that money would have still been given to the school.
CA Mustang
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 2606
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:01 am
Location: Elk Grove, CA

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby deucetz » Tue May 09, 2017 10:26 am

CA Mustang wrote:
deucetz wrote:I always enjoy your posts. I will still argue that the amount of investment that it took to get them to this point isn't being reflected in your analysis. For example, Baylor stadium cost $266 million, TCU $180 million, and SMU $42 million ($58.4 million in 2016 dollars).

Either way, I'm not sure investing in football and being P5 is the best use of the school's money. I would rather SMU emulate Tulsa's stinginess and football success, then try and outspend everyone and get mediocre results.

Much of the facilities money came from direct donations. If there weren't stadium campaign drives, there's no assurance most (or even some) of that money would have still been given to the school.


I guess that comes down to the priorities of the alumni. Those priorities are helped formed while they are an undergraduate. There are only a handful of private universities in the P5: Stanford, Northwestern, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Duke, Syracuse, Boston College, University of Miami, and Wake Forest. Our cohorts in this group are: TCU, Baylor, Syracuse, and University of Miami--all of them leave something left to be desired and are heavily known and influenced by sports. All the others have the funds and tradition with P5 to successfully fund their programs.

Cox and every other college at SMU, will not become great due to athletic accomplishments in football. I am not saying we can't do both, but priority should be spent on the colleges--and if we are to fund a sport like a P5 to basketball, better ROI. The issue with athletics, especially football, as your team gets better you have to continue to feed the beast to stay relevant. If we want to try and become like the rest of the D1 universities in Texas, besides Rice, then we will continue to play a losing game. There are a lot of other factors but money/funding and new leadership (president, under-performing deans, and trustees) are the main issues for Cox and many of the other colleges at SMU. If you want dynamic alumni that will fund your endowment, you can't saddle them with debt and give them limited options.

List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _endowment

I put this link, to show how little the endowment has progressed since 2007. SMU has had a billion dollar endowment for awhile, but it hasn't grown by much. SMU went from being a top 30 endowment in the 90s to top 64. SMU still has a chance to turn itself around if Dallas continues to be the fourth largest metroplex in the US.

This is an article in the D from 1976, called "Can SMU Get It Together". It seems some of the same issues persist almost 4 decades later.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/ ... -together/
deucetz
All-American
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby gostangs » Tue May 09, 2017 9:34 pm

We are well ahead of all four universities you list as cohorts, and that is with them having p-5 exposure. So I guess in a way that proves your point. It's not how many students are attracted to apply to your school. It's who they are.

Agree on endowment. That is where we have fallen short. Combo of not the top emphasis and bad management. Very disappointing.

On the positive side, our student quality at the BBA level is well above our ranking. We need to use that model (uber fund scholarships) in several other areas to jump a few spots in the rankings. Especially in the MBA area.
gostangs
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 12311
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 4:01 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby tristatecoog » Tue May 09, 2017 11:57 pm

Quick defense of Dean Blount at Kellogg. She was a Kellogg alumna (MS and PHD) and previously taught at UofC and was the undergraduate Dean at NYU Stern. Hired seven years ago, Blount has made significant progress in advancing her plan, setting repeated fundraising records with the school's $350 million Transforming Together campaign and constructing a 415,000-square-foot lakefront global education center scheduled to open in early 2017.

One Cox professor expressed some concern to me about Meyer's lack of research prowess...having come from a largely undergrad focused campus and not one doing strong research. Anyway, there are lots of examples of questionable hires that seem to have worked well. A couple may have been Michigan's Dean and Columbia's (internal professor hire).

On the undergrad side, an incoming freshman parent recently commented to me about SMU tying UT in US News' rankings. Despite SMU's higher cost, they didn't think SMU was the same school of their youth (i.e., rich party school). I said UT and SMU are going in opposite directions in the rankings.
tristatecoog
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 3:01 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby midwestpony » Wed May 10, 2017 1:09 am

tristatecoog wrote:On the undergrad side, an incoming freshman parent recently commented to me about SMU tying UT in US News' rankings. Despite SMU's higher cost, they didn't think SMU was the same school of their youth (i.e., rich party school). I said UT and SMU are going in opposite directions in the rankings.


That's how I came to SMU (current undergrad finishing junior year) I got great scholarship and as a fan of the college process compared rankings and trends. Public schools will generally[i]
tied by state governments and a mission to serve their own. thus, they will continue to drop in the rankings. It is up to private schools like smu to climb and take better talent. It would be wise to focus recruiting effort externally, even more so than they do currently. I would focus on schools where state schools are weaker. Luckily many are close by I would just work to barrage these students with marketing material (those in Arkansas, Louisiana, new mexico, nevada,etc.) out of state numbers are used in rankings and these students may end up in Dallas down the line may as well do it sooner.

Price especially now with room and board at nearly 70k will be a huge factor if we can get more scholarship money, scholarships like the hunt where your price is that of your in-state institution, or move to a financial aid package similar to those offered by schools like vanderbilt where 100% of need is met with non-repayable grants. I think we will continue to see a rise.

I went to all of the potential dean meet and greets and was unimpressed except by the dean from wash-u who removed himself from consideration. Lets hope that Myers will prove me wrong. I will say I was between miami (oh) and smu when we were ranked neck and neck for undergrad business. Now 3 years later we haven't moved and they dropped 21 spots from 23 to 44. I know the rankings are not everything but man that is something that you have to consider when making a $250,000 investment and I do not wish to see that happen here.
[/i]
midwestpony
Recruit
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:22 pm
Location: Highland Park

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby Charleston Pony » Wed May 10, 2017 1:29 pm

Glad I attended SMU when I did. At today's prices, no way I would have gone to SMU. As proud as I am of my alma mater, I have never considered SMU "special" and I can't say my undergraduate degree really helped me in my career. As someone who did a lot of hiring over my 40 year career, that college degree only meant (to me) that the candidate I was considering was capable of learning because they were going to have to learn a lot to stay on the payroll and amount to anything with my companies.
Charleston Pony
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 27357
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 3:01 am
Location: Stonebridge Golf Club, NC

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby gostangs » Wed May 10, 2017 10:42 pm

Boy charleston i had a 180 degree experience. Had i attended a different university i have no doubt i would have had half the career i had. SMU knowledge and contacts have been critical the entire way - worth more than i paid. Its why i will always look for ways to support SMU - to try to pay it back.
gostangs
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 12311
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 4:01 am
Location: Dallas, Texas USA

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby dr. rick » Thu May 11, 2017 12:21 pm

I've watched this thread go on and have a couple of comments... Tke them for what they are worth...

1) the revenue/expense numbers are bogus (especially SMU's where they exactly match). This is an exercise in creative accounting and doesn't take the benefits of athletics into account (e.g., when we went to Hawaii, I think that the estimated advertising dollars was about $3 million, where does this show up? Our basketball team's success and press, where does this show up?). Where does the student life aspect show up? More importantly, what is the true cost of one more athlete? Meals, travel, uniform/clothing? We have seats in classrooms, we have space in dorms...
2) Yes, the Dean's key responsibility is fundraising. Then setting culture/priorities and external relationships. Yes, we need more money for scholarships, as SMU is overpriced for the Graduate programs (an university decision).
3) Yes, athletics help fundraising for the school (another indirect benefit). Telling donors/alums that we can get them tickets to moody or telling them to watch SMU on ESPN helps a lot.
4) Therefore, it is not a choice between funding academics or funding athletics (there is a balance though). They are symbiotic.
5) Undergraduate admits less than 50% for the last several years. A huge accomplishment for the school! A lot of things contributed: scholarships, athletics (brand recognition/awareness), new recruiting personal/firms, ...
6) yes, the endowment needs to focus on money instead of capital improvements. However, this is a harder proposition. Suppose you had the money to pay for the football IPF (say $20 million). Would you give the money for scholarships or for the IPF? I would hope we would take both donors.
dr. rick
Junior Varsity
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:46 pm

Re: SMU hires global expert as new business school dean

Postby dr. rick » Thu May 11, 2017 12:56 pm

sorry, i forgot to add that the dean does not recruit faculty... it is the purview of the departmen (e.g. finance). The dean does meet the final candidates, so s/he has veto power/influence on the final candidate.
Also, 'old' chaired professors are not the problem. it takes at least 15-20 years to become chaired. The issue is money for scholarships.
dr. rick
Junior Varsity
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:46 pm

Previous

Return to Around the Hilltop

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests