PonyFans.com

Here a path to the provost discussing SAT scores http://smu.edu/provost/pdf/FacSenateDec2013_2.pdf

Broken link. It should end in .pdf. Interesting report. It would be interesting to understand why the increase in applicants since 2011.

They show SMU's increasing SAT, and compare it to all college SAT average, likely influenced by more total college students on the low end, butwhat about the average of peer institutions?

Pretty obvious from looking at that information that SMU is way ahead of TCU on SAT. Yes I know its not the only metric for measuring an incoming class but SMU is clearly ahead of TCU. Really they are a non-factor in our prospective student pool. We need to keep our eyes on the likes of Emory, Tulane, ND, Vandy, Duke, etc. Those are the schools we aspire to be associated with and not the likes of TCU, Baylor, or Tulsa.

Also interesting to look at SMU's action items for "After the Brick" or the goal of getting the average SAT to 1300. A dramatic expansion of SMU's research efforts is the number one bullet point. IMO, this is where we can all agree SMU has historically been lacking. Gerald Ford has committed to giving SMU $15M to build a new Research Institute on campus so hopefully that is the first step to making SMU a major research institution.

AAU! AAU! AAU! That should be our goal. Those are the universities with which we should aspire to be associated. In Texas, we would join Rice, UT and A&M.

Gonna take A TON OF $$$ for us to get AAU status. However, when SMU sets its mind on something (Bush Library, Unbridled Campaign) it usually accomplishes the goal.

AAU is an academic factor that plays a role in conference realignment. IMO, SMU's best shot at a big boy's conference (Big 5) is if a conference is trying to raise its academic profile. AAU status would give us the upper hand. Especially if the Big 12 or Pac 12 is looking at a Texas School, out of Rice, SMU, or Houston, with AAU status, SMU would be the obvious choice. We have a significantly better academic situation than Houston, but we are a lot more committed to big time collegiate athletics than Rice.

Very very hard to achieve AAU status without a med school. We need to affiliate on that issue very quickly.

Never really understood why some conferences use AAU status as some sort of filter. It is not necessarily a quality thing, just a research level indicator. Many really strong universities are not AAU.

We really don't even need to talk about TCU and Baylor as it relates to student quality. Tulane and vandy are the targets for us, and I think we catch Tulane in the short term.

[quote][/quote]
Re: SMU fall SAT info
by gostangs » Thu Dec 26, 2013 5:10 pm

Very very hard to achieve AAU status without a med school. We need to affiliate on that issue very quickly.

Never really understood why some conferences use AAU status as some sort of filter. It is not necessarily a quality thing, just a research level indicator. Many really strong universities are not AAU.

We really don't even need to talk about TCU and Baylor as it relates to student quality. Tulane and vandy are the targets for us, and I think we catch Tulane in the short term.
I note that both Tulane and Vandy are AAU members.

Pugilistic Pony wrote:AAU! AAU! AAU! That should be our goal. Those are the universities with which we should aspire to be associated. In Texas, we would join Rice, UT and A&M.

We have to step it up in research spending. We are very competitive with Aggy and UT in most categories except the amount of funding they receive from the Fed. Govt for research grants, etc.

A couple of intersecting tidbits - all this info is pre bush library. Not saying that will swing things all that much, but if it moves up our completed applications by only 1,000 than our acceptance rate drops well below 50 pct - which if we hold the same yield will move us up quite a bit further in student quality. The good news is we are small, so we can move the boat a bit faster. The bad news is we have only so many really bad SAT spots to offer and still hold our average - so that' puts pressure on recruiting a bit. Our poor SAT scores don't get statistically "lost" like many other schools.

If you noticed athletics lowered the score by 10 points

7 freshman admitted equal to or under 830 SAT (which equals to old traditional 700 SAT under recentered test). One scored a 620 SAT. One scored 740. 5 were between 800-830 SAT. Very well could be student athletes. Average SAT for ALL ATHLETES (not sure if scholarship or non-scholarship) is 1071 (-131 below mean) but presumably that would include all sports including country club sports and men and women. Remember also that a kid with a low SAT has to have a corresponding higher GPA under NCAA sliding scale so SAT's have to be considered in conjunction with core GPA which doesn't appear in the chart. All "Athletes" accounted for -12 on the SAT mean -again I guess that's ALL athletes in ALL Sports and both Men and women. CAVEAT-I guess athletes who often take the more popular ACT for athletes have their scores extrapolated to a projected SAT score but I don't see any explanation of how kids taking ACT rather than SAT are accounted for in the chart

SMU had 15 minority scholarship freshman Football and Basketball admissions in 2013

I just saw an episode of College Football Live where they talked about AAU members among each conference. I personally think the U.S. News and World Report rankings are better indicators than AAU status. Like someone stated earlier, AAU status is mainly about research.