PonyFans.com

Most participants in Ponyfans want SMU's revenue sports to reach and maintain a competive level where championships are won.

The university has relaxed many recruiting restrictions. Some fans support SMU funding and offering "athlete-friendly" (sports related) majors.

SMU is working hard to improve and expand programs offered by the engineering school. A second new engineering building will be constructed this year.

SMU has also recently spent millions renovating and expanding science and technology teaching and research facilities.

Graduates of these challenging programs attract lucrative jobs.

With the exceptions of a few well-funded state universities and a select handful of heavily endowed private universities, at most institutions of higher education requests for funding exceed available budget across most departments.

The article below made me wonder if decent paying jobs really await graduates with sports majors or are the successful people in sports business/services actually intelligent/motivated individuals with degrees in other fields?

Insights are welcome.



Most lucrative college degrees (Money Magazine)

Latest survey on hiring and starting salaries finds there may be more in '04 for many college grads.
February 5, 2004: 3:30 PM EST
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – The job market may not be booming. But for many in the college class of 2004, it won't be quite as dismal as it was for last year's grads.

That's the preliminary conclusion of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), which released its latest quarterly starting-salary survey on Thursday.

It's still early days for most college seniors on the hunt for a job. Only a small number of students typically have full-time job offers in hand halfway through their senior year. And the number of offers covered in NACE's winter survey is a small percentage of the offers covered in its fall survey, which reflects hiring through the previous August.

Still, NACE thinks there's reason for cautious optimism.

On balance, employers said they expect college-grad hires to be up 12.7 percent from last year, which is the first hiring increase in two years, said NACE spokesperson Camille Luckenbaugh.

Based on the 2,300 offers covered in the current survey, more disciplines were reporting increases in starting salaries. Only a third of disciplines are seeing starting salaries drop, compared with nearly half at the same time last year.

Major dollars
Majors in computer engineering and chemical engineering top the list of most lucrative college degrees. Average starting salaries for computer engineers reached $53,117, up very slightly from their levels at this time last year. Starting salaries for chemical engineers, meanwhile, rose 2.5 percent to $52,563.

Starting salaries for those who major in civil engineering and electrical engineering still compare favorably with those of most other majors, but both experienced modest declines compared with last year.

For the first time since 2001, employers reported increases in starting salary offers to students in computer science, information sciences and systems, and management information systems.
Average offer for computer science majors rose 8.9 percent to $48,656; and more than half the offers surveyed topped $50,000.

Information sciences grads had an average starting salary of $42,108, up 2.6 percent from last year, while management information systems grads have seen starting salaries average $41,103, up a modest 1.3 percent.

Meanwhile, liberal arts majors still rank on the low-end of the salary scale, although as a group, the average starting offer rose 3.5 percent to $30,153.

Many psychology majors aren't as likely to see that kind of paycheck, however. Their starting salary average fell 8 percent to $25,032.

<img src="http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/05/pf/college/lucrative_degrees/degree_worth.gif" alt=" - " />

<small>[ 02-05-2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Cheesesteak ]</small>

the answer is academic..pun intended. Its not like you can ask the majority of successful 1-A athletes to earn a degree in the "successful" majors - they just can't do it with only a few exceptions. They know it - and want to go to schools where they can atay in school while they play. Create the athletic friendly majors or move down to a lower level - that is our choice. Wishing it were different will not make it so.

If the only criteria for whether SMU should have a major is whether it leads to lucrative future employment, then where do we start cutting the fat?

Art
Art History
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Dance
Economics
English
English with Creative Writing Specialization
with Biomedical Options
Ethnic Studies (African/African-American or Mexican-American Studies)
Foreign Languages and Literatures (Concentrations in French, German, and Spanish; Italian Area Studies; German Area Studies)
History
Individualized Studies in the Arts
Individualized Studies in the Liberal Arts
International Studies
Latin American Studies
Medieval Studies
Music
Music Composition
Music Education with Teacher Certification
Philosophy
Psychology
Public Policy
Religious Studies
Sociology
Teacher Certification at the Elementary and Theatre (Acting, Theatre Studies)

Money majors aside, I noticed on their bios that at least three new scholarship footballers listed "physical therapy" as the desired major.

Does SMU off er such a program?

Posted by Dooby:

If the only criteria for whether SMU should have a major is whether it leads to lucrative future employment, then where do we start cutting the fat?

Art
Art History
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Dance
Economics
English
English with Creative Writing Specialization
with Biomedical Options
Ethnic Studies (African/African-American or Mexican-American Studies)
Foreign Languages and Literatures (Concentrations in French, German, and Spanish; Italian Area Studies; German Area Studies)
History
Individualized Studies in the Arts
Individualized Studies in the Liberal Arts
International Studies
Latin American Studies
Medieval Studies
Music
Music Composition
Music Education with Teacher Certification
Philosophy
Psychology
Public Policy
Religious Studies
Sociology
Teacher Certification at the Elementary and Theatre (Acting, Theatre Studies)

The above majors are already funded in SMU's curriculum and are generally part of Dedman College's core requirements. Some students majoring in the aforementioned subjects are receiving financial aid while others are paying full tuition - contributing to SMU's revenues.

Hypothetical "athlete-friendly" majors probably would divert funds away from established programs that have passed strategic plan reviews and are identified as pieces of SMU's liberal arts focus accompanied by pre-professional and professional curriculums.

How many regular students would pay SMU's tuition and Dallas' cost of living to sit in "athlete-friendly" classes with a group of (not-all) academically unique (athletes) classmates?

posted by gostangs: Its not like you can ask the majority of successful 1-A athletes to earn a degree in the "successful" majors - they just can't do it with only a few exceptions. They know it - and want to go to schools where they can atay in school while they play.

How are other small D-1A private schools funding/managing academic hideaways for athletes?

I'm not pushing money majors...but how many self-funded students are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to participate in an SMU academic hideaway?

<small>[ 02-05-2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Cheesesteak ]</small>

Originally posted by Dooby:
If the only criteria for whether SMU should have a major is whether it leads to lucrative future employment, then where do we start cutting the fat?

Art
Art History
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Dance
Economics
English
English with Creative Writing Specialization
with Biomedical Options
Ethnic Studies (African/African-American or Mexican-American Studies)
Foreign Languages and Literatures (Concentrations in French, German, and Spanish; Italian Area Studies; German Area Studies)
History
Individualized Studies in the Arts
Individualized Studies in the Liberal Arts
International Studies
Latin American Studies
Medieval Studies
Music
Music Composition
Music Education with Teacher Certification
Philosophy
Psychology
Public Policy
Religious Studies
Sociology
Teacher Certification at the Elementary and Theatre (Acting, Theatre Studies)

All arts (music, studio art, theater, etc.) would be out the window. Journalism would have to go. Same with history. And religious studies. In fact, I bet almost every item on your list would have to be scratched.

It used to be that the Education Department was the home of every sorority girl looking for that MRS. degree. Is that marketable today in an enviornment where both spouses work? The answer is "yes". If they intend to have children a decent percentage of women still choose the traditional role of staying home and many take teaching jobs to have their schedules mirror their children's schedules, and some home school their children. Will paying students take physical education classes? I think so. I know two women who have PE degrees and play on my co-ed softball team, and teach. So, will Daddy pay the bills at SMU so his little pumpkin can get a mere teaching degree. I think so.

Cheesesteak, I don't know what your point is. You list the lucrative jobs out of college and then try to draw some correlation between those fields of study and and the efforts to add "athlete-friendly majors". Well, whatever correlation you are trying to make also applies to the majors I listed above and many others (including the major I graduated with, BTW). I don't think anybody was trying to say that the "athlete-friendly" major suggestions were going to lead to lucrative employment for these kids.

The only thing that I think Bennett has said on the subject is that he wants to increase diversity in the curriculum. There are kids that come here and want to teach or go into coaching and we don't really have a program for those kids. Bennett is, of course, right on this point. Now, teaching and coaching aren't as "lucrative" as engineering, but neither is an art history degree.

Now if you want to say we are diverting resources from other more worthwhile fields of study then, well, you are making a very tired Lisa Simpson argument. And you might as well make the same argument to what is already being done-85 shcolarships to student-athletes and a $50 Million dollar stadium and several hundred thousand to coaches in football alone. If you want to follow that logic to its conclusion, then you can only conclude that we need to scrap sports alltogether.

If you are trying to make some other point, you need to tell me what it is, because I am too dumb to figure it out (after all, I didn't graduate from the engineering school or the business school).

<small>[ 02-06-2004, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Dooby ]</small>

As to money-making majors, it depends what you do with it. I was a History major with an art history minor, and my starting gig (in journalism) put me in the mid-40's (thank you SMU), helped pay for the law degree, and now I make substantially more. And please note the number of engineers who came out making great money, and now are baristas at Starbucks. There are so many factors that play into the equation, just majoring in a field isn't sufficient to determine your income beyond it (what would you do with an Texas Tech degree in anything?- a joke, no flames please).

Considering SMU's emphasis on management, I don't see why we do not have a sports management program. It would be more athelete friendly as to transfer hours, but does have to be an absolute joke. Where most schools fall down is with supervision of students. I may be getting alzhimers, but that seemed to be the thing SMU was very good at- if I missed a class, I recall one professor even called to see if I was okay. At least we could take some more of the JUCO transfer hours than we do now to work towards a major that might interest these kids. Physical therapy is also a good idea.

It would be great if athletes took all academic classes- they are in theory here to get an education, but the fact is that many JUCO kids don't, and we do have to live and work with that fact. That doesn't mean commit academic fraud or have counting for credit, but we could institute good programs for their enrollment. And there seems to be a growing market for sports marketing and management, and the skills learned to be transferred to other areas. Again much depends on the student and the individual program.

I would love for us to have a sports management degree (and a graduate degree). I might end up with yet another another degree.

By the way, my English/International Studies/Economics major with minors in History, African American Studies, and Political Science didn't turn out too badly for me and mine.

I have some questions about "athlete-friendly" majors:

A) Is it realistic to believe that millions could be raised and the university would enthusiastically try to raise millions to create an athlete-friendly major(s) that might be in conflict with the SMU's core academic strategic plan?

B) Are there really jobs available for, say, sports management majors or do sports industry employers traditionally hire intelligent and promising graduates of business school/liberal arts/sciences/creative arts programs and teach them the sports management business?

C) Would regular students (self-paying - possibly nominal financial aid received) actually pay SMU tens of thousands of dollars to participate in an academic program mainly populated by athletes?

D) Would sports management (as an example) be with only some exceptions an academic hideaway for athletes - lacking respect of regular students and possibly employers?

D) Some have said that an athlete-friendly major (Phys. Ed. for example) is appealing to athletes who want to get into coaching.

SMU football coaches (including graduate assistants) Bios indicate the following majors:

Education - 4
Health/Phys. Ed - 2
Economics - 1
Human Relations - 1
College degree (major not identified) - 3
Biology - 1
General Studies - 1
English - 1

As most know, SMU dropped its Education Department years ago. If SMU established an athlete friendly major would it likely reside in Dedman College?

Some point out that SMU has several traditional academic programs that don't lead to high-paying jobs.

True, but these programs are already funded, established, accredited, have alumni/employer connections and are generally thought to be (in SMU's core curriculum) part of creating a well-educated (at least in theory) person/SMU graduate.

Much of the money SMU has invested recently has been spent on strengthening Dedman College (core curriculum) and expanding/improving SMU's professional/technical programs that lead to higher paying employment (engineering - two new buildings) (business - Collins Executive Education Center) (Dedman Life Sciences Building) (Guildhall) (Fondren Science Building renovation) and respond to market demands.

Other than making recruiting easier for SMU's hard-working coaches, how are athlete-friendly majors not in conflict with SMU's strategic academic plan?

I'm looking for insights into these murky areas.

<small>[ 02-08-2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Cheesesteak ]</small>

Let's clear something up. There's education and there's vocational training. Those of you with undergraduate business degrees, for instance, received the latter.

Fortunately, I understand that SMU now requires at least one liberal arts minor to graduate. So everyone gets at least a taste of education -- the real reason for attending a university versus a vocational school.

How all this helps us get football players, I don't know.

One more comment. Those with liberal arts educations who don't immediately go on to get a masters level degree (law school, for example) DO have a hard time finding jobs that pay well. But liberal arts majors are better off in the long run because of the the high level skills acquired studying subjects like Philosophy, English, Political Science, etc.

Originally posted by Cheesesteak:
I have some questions about "athlete-friendly" majors:

A) Is it realistic to believe that millions could be raised and the university would enthusiastically try to raise millions to create an athlete-friendly major(s) that might be in conflict with the SMU's core academic strategic plan?

Response:

Where do you get “millions”? The assumption that any program will cost millions is a dubious. The fact of the matter is that we do not know the size and scope of any program being discussed, much less the nature of such a program. Therefore, I will not refer to “sports management” or “athlete-friendly major”, because such labels pigeonhole any curriculum changes as being made solely for athletes. Because we don’t know the nature, size and scope of such a program, such labels are meaningless.

For example, if SMU were to fund an education department, the size of such a program could be quite large and be of interest to a large number of students, athlete or not. Such a program would obviously be more expensive than a smaller program. On the other end of the spectrum, a smaller program could be developed using existing curriculum and existing faculty; the added cost would be limited. Again, since we don’t know, you can’t make the assumptions that you have already made.

What is SMU’s “core academic strategic plan”? You use this term throughout your post. I have never heard this term before. I guess you are referring to this: http://www.smu.edu/leadership/strategicplan.asp?print=true

This “plan” is a mission statement. One can fit any conceivable program into this “plan”. Perhaps it is better to say we are a small liberal arts college and leave it at that. Plus we have an additional focus on business and technical and post-graduate degrees. And the arts. And communications. I just fail to see how any program or any added major shakes the foundation upon which SMU is founded.

Originally posted by Cheesesteak:



B) Are there really jobs available for, say, sports management majors or do sports industry employers traditionally hire intelligent and promising graduates of business school/liberal arts/sciences/creative arts programs and teach them the sports management business?

Response:

The days when IBM and Xerox hired anybody with a college degree passed by so long ago, that I just don’t think such discussions about promising liberal arts graduates are even relevant. I fought tooth and nail just to get a job out of college. And people noted that I went to SMU, but I don’t think anybody gave a darn (or even asked) about what my degree was in. Now, business school and engineering are different in that regard, but that isn’t me. In my mind, any major or program added at this point won’t be any different than a history, English or biology major. They may have had on campus interviews in the law school, engineering school and the business school, but with rare exception, everybody else has to go out and fend for themselves (I know that many engineers and business grads had to do the same thing, too).

Originally posted by Cheesesteak:

C) Would regular students (self-paying - possibly nominal financial aid received) actually pay SMU tens of thousands of dollars to participate in an academic program mainly populated by athletes?

Response:


Frankly, I just don’t understand the question. I see it as the same question as the one below. So I will deal with both here.

Do students at every other university resent student-athletes? It is a ridiculous question, but it seems like that is what you are asking. Will students resent paying tuition and working hard to get a degree when an athlete (in your mind) doesn’t work hard and doesn’t pay tuition and still get a degree with the same name on the diploma?

First, I don’t think anybody is suggesting that SMU do anything that our traditional rivals and contemporaries do not already do. Whether they be state schools Texas or Texas A&M or Miami (OH) or private schools such as TCU, Tulsa, Duke, Vanderbilt, Temple, Miami, USC. Some people hold SMU to some bizarre higher standard. I suppose one could argue that Harvard and Princeton have high standards, but they chose not to compete at this level. Like it or not, that decision has already been made for SMU. SMU chose to compete at this level; SMU might as well choose to be competitive.

Second, the question fails because of its phrasing. Beneath your question is the assumption that any change in the curriculum will result in the curriculum being less challenging; less competitive and allow people who are unable to get into SMU currently to get into SMU in the future. That assumption is flawed.

For example, although not the sole basis for making curriculum changes, look at the current junior college athlete dilemma at SMU. Former junior college students enroll at SMU every semester-this is a fact. Further, I know many SMU students who took summer course at junior colleges. Likewise, a junior college student who happened to play football could be admitted and go to SMU as nothing prevents it. However, that junior college football player (with very rare exception) cannot enroll here AND PLAY FOOTBALL, not because he could not get in but because the courses that he took at his previous institution although valid college hours and transferable at nearly every other institution in Texas do not transfer to SMU, and therefore, while the student might be able to go to SMU, he could not play football. Because he can’t play football for SMU (and receive a scholarship), he goes elsewhere. Not because that student doesn’t want to and not because that student cannot otherwise get into SMU, but because that student is arbitrarily prohibited from playing at SMU and earning a scholarship.

Third, there are plenty of degrees that have very little respect at SMU. I was a Radio/TV/film major and my buddies in the business school made fun of me to no end. I took Accounting I as a lark and got an A, while my same friends got a B in film history. Screw respect. But I digress, no one has suggested admitting anyone into SMU that cannot already get into SMU. Whether they play football (live or Madden 2004) or smoke pot all day, where do we hide them now?

Originally posted by Cheesesteak:

D) Would sports management (as an example) be with only some exceptions an academic hideaway for athletes - lacking respect of regular students and possibly employers?

Response: See above.

[quote]Originally posted by Cheesesteak:
[b]

D) Some have said that an athlete-friendly major (Phys. Ed. for example) is appealing to athletes who want to get into coaching.

SMU football coaches (including graduate assistants) Bios indicate the following majors:

Education - 4
Health/Phys. Ed - 2
Economics - 1
Human Relations - 1
College degree (major not identified) - 3
Biology - 1
General Studies - 1
English - 1

As most know, SMU dropped its Education Department years ago. If SMU established an athlete friendly major would it likely reside in Dedman College?

Some point out that SMU has several traditional academic programs that don't lead to high-paying jobs.

True, but these programs are already funded, established, accredited, have alumni/employer connections and are generally thought to be (in SMU's core curriculum) part of creating a well-educated (at least in theory) person/SMU graduate.

Much of the money SMU has invested recently has been spent on strengthening Dedman College (core curriculum)

I've read, on this board from men who entered the program, that SMU had an "athelete friendly" major before the end of Football I. I believe it was PE or similar, which is not to say that would be the best choice today. I suspect a good handle on the costs could be obtained by updating the old figures.