Should SMU seek a new president?

[Stallion]

Here's a recent published report of the Top 25 rearranged by Grad rates-it suggests at least that Wisconsin and Ohio St probably don't

http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/blo ... ings-41517

[Samurai Stang]

I would say no more than 30% of the schools ranked above us on the US News & World Report AT THE MOST take all minimum NCAA qualifiers and quite frankly if you are talking about kids scoring less than 700 SAT I think its likely less. In fact, I can't say for sure any of them would.

Do you mean 30% of all schools ranked above SMU, or 30% of schools ranked above SMU that play Division I football?

[Stallion]

I'm calling you on this statement:

"Better schools than SMU use minimum NCAA standards"

I truly believe that since the SAT was deemphasized a majority of the schools considered academically rigorous do not take what you are calling NCAA minimum qualifiers. I'd bet most would not admit recruits that score below a 700 SAT which was formerly the NCAA minimum. I've cited 11 recruits whose scholarships were revoked in recent years despite being full qualifiers. Every school is different but I don't see many of these schools committing kids with SATs in the 500s and 600s which could be a full qualifier

[Stallion]

Here is a list of the Schools with the best APR which is persuasive but not conclusive proof with regard to at least 8 of those schools rated above SMU. You'd have to do a pretty through study to definitely determine but I'm comfortable with my prediction

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index ... lic_i.html


Here's a list of the NCAA Coaches with the Best and Worst APR performances in their lifetime. At least 13 of the Top 25 Coaches are at schools rated among the Top Coaches in APR:

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/0 ... de-in-apr/

Calls into question whether additional schools like Miami(presently), Wisconsin, Purdue really admit minimum NCAA qualifiers.

[Samurai Stang]

Here is a list of the Schools with the best APR which is persuasive but not conclusive proof with regard to at least 8 of those schools rated above SMU. You'd have to do a pretty through study to definitely determine but I'm comfortable with my prediction

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index ... lic_i.html

I understand what you intend with your post, but I do not believe this is appropriate evidence for your point. The question at hand is admissions. What you are offering are graduation rates. One is the beginning, the other the end.

I find it interesting that with all of the discussion regarding athletes lowering the value of an SMU degree, such "questionable" athletes have actually resulted in SMU's US News & World Report ranking rocketing.

[stc9]

Stallion - I am going to go with Samurai. See my earlier post. SMU can't hide marginal students in "Green's Keeper" Classes. At many large Universities there are a lot of ridiculous degrees that a trained newt could get through. Graduation rates are not really applicable to the argument. SMU needs to find a way to get these kids through school. If they don't, then they are doing a disservice to the kids. That is wrong. As we make "our" bones this problem will diminish. We are just feeling another level of angst and pain from admin's neglect of the football program.

Just for giggles: When you get the time, research where the football and basketball players from Vandy get their degrees. Most of their diplomas don't have the word Vanderbilt on it.