UTD determined to reach Tier One

[friarwolf]

You know, I posted this in hopes that someone, Friarwolf, SMT, MexMustang....somebody, would give insights into the progress we are making towards gaining more research $$$.

Still waiting

Sorry, got nothing on this. As of 2 years ago, RGT was saying gaining AAU status was not a high priority. Last I heard, I think we were around $22MM in sponsored research funding and this was in 2010/2011. However, building the computing center, Ford's gift for the research center, and Deason's gift sounds like we are getting pretty serious regarding research from a science and engineering perspective. How long before these things start delivering more research $$$, don't know. I'll check and see if I can get an updated figure.

[StallionsModelT]

I've been told that after this current fundraising campaign has concluded that increasing the endowment and research dollars will be the #1 priority for the university moving forward in the next decade. AAU is something they want whether they will admit it to you or not. I also know that the powers that be want the endowment to get to $2 billion in the next decade as well.

In a macro sense the last 15 years at SMU has been about expanding the campus footprint with fantastic new facilities. I believe the next 15 years will not be so much physical construction but allocation of financial resources that will position SMU to achieve the goals cited above ($2 billion endowment and Tier One research status).

[SoCal_Pony]

Thanks for your posts Friarwolf & SMT, always enjoy your insights about the future of our school.

[NavyCrimson]

Absolutely!

[tristatecoog]

UT-D getting Tier 1 research status is very different from attaining AAU status. U of Houston achieved Tier 1 research status a couple years ago and is ahead of TX Tech and UT-D in that regard. AAU takes a long time to develop and Nebraska was recently kicked out of that group. Some of the longstanding AAU members, like NU, were there due to their land grant status and ag research. Medical school research is also huge. SMU is working with UT-Southwestern quite a bit on projects and I suspect the $22MM or so figure to rise substantially in the years to come.

Having AAU status is more exclusive than being a Phi Beta Kappa institution, but the criteria seem somewhat arbitrary and linked. ??

[rodrod5]

UT-D getting Tier 1 research status is very different from attaining AAU status. U of Houston achieved Tier 1 research status a couple years ago and is ahead of TX Tech and UT-D in that regard. AAU takes a long time to develop and Nebraska was recently kicked out of that group. Some of the longstanding AAU members, like NU, were there due to their land grant status and ag research. Medical school research is also huge. SMU is working with UT-Southwestern quite a bit on projects and I suspect the $22MM or so figure to rise substantially in the years to come.

Having AAU status is more exclusive than being a Phi Beta Kappa institution, but the criteria seem somewhat arbitrary and linked. ??

there is no such thing as "tier 1" US News used to use that term for the national universities they gave a numerical ranking to, but they no longer do so

when the state of Texas talked about "tier 1" for TRIP and NRUF funding and they mentioned the number of other "tier 1" universities in other states they specifically were counting only those universities with AAU membership and AAU membership was the only criteria discussed which is why Texas had 3, California 9, NY 6 (now 5) and other states fewer and they were specifically were listed out as having AAU membership

UH is basing their false claim of "tier 1" on being CLASSIFIED by the Carnegie Foundation as RU/VH

there are several issues with that

1. The Carnegie Foundation specifically states on their website they their classifications are NOT rankings and even more specifically they state that being in the same classification in no way shape or form implies similarities or dissimilarities in academic quality

it simply implies a few factors have been met

to be in the Doctorate classifications you have to have awarded at least RESEARCH 20 doctorates in 2008-2009 (the last years the metrics were evaluated for the 2010 release of classifications which happen every 5 years)

so JDs do not count nor do EdDs, MDs, PharmDs ect

next to move above DRU (Doctoral Research U) to RU/H or RU/VH they look at research for Science and Engineering, research for fields outside of S&E and also research funding per capita for total faculty identified as research, instruction, or research instruction and public service

then they graphed it out and classified from there and they further specify that it is a total dollar look and not looking at quality or importance

2. the other issue with UH claiming "tier 1" besides the fact they are claiming something based on totally misusing what the intentions of the Carnegie Foundation Classifications are meant to be used for is right on one UH website where they talk about being "tier 1" they say that "tier 1" is being recognized with the top universities and that California has 9, NY has 6 (5 now that SU is out of the AAU) ect and then they go ahead and claim "tier 1" based on the Carnegie Classification

wile ignoring that if one was to count "tier 1" universities in California or NY or anywhere else based on Carnegie RU/VH Classification then those states would have several more than 9 and 5 "tier 1" universities

http://www.uh.edu/about/tier-one/tier-one-faq/index.php

under "What is the Significance of Tier 1"

furthermore under their questions they have the question about what the "tier 1" RANKING means

they correctly call the specific Carnegie designation a classification, but of course they claim "tier 1" RANKING based on that sole classification and at the same time they list out the numbers of AAU members for California and NY as the number of "tier 1" universities in those states when again those states have more than those numbers for Carnegie RU/VH classified universities

it is simply academic and intellectual dishonesty that really should be above UH (or any university), but they continue to push this false claim and it is really a shame and dishonest to do so

you can't claim a ranking based on a metric that is specifically not a ranking and specifically not meant to imply academic similarity or quality and and you can't list out numbers for universities in other states that meet that "standard" while only using numbers that reflect AAU membership instead of Carnegie Classification RU/VH classification while using that classification to claim you are in a similar grouping with those types/numbers of universities in other states.....when those types and numbers reflect AAU members only

Nebraska was kicked out of the AAU because they failed to elevate their research profile over a decade of warnings from the AAU

Nebraska made the false claim that the AAU was biased against them because of lack of a medical school and because their agricultural research was not fully counted

both of these claims were false and fully debunked by the AAU

1. there are multiple AAU members that do not have a medical school including all 3 in Texas (UT, A&M and Rice).....Georgia Tech the AAU member that was added right after NU was let go does not have a medical school......Cal does not have a medical school and at least one other of the UC AAU member universities does not have a medical school

2. Nebraska has a decade to merge their medical school in Omaha into their main campus if they felt that would help them meet AAU criteria and they specifically declined to do so (the NU BOR voted against it)

3. there are numerous land grant AAU members including A&M, Penn State, Cornell, Florida, ISU and others

the AAU specifically excludes some of the research dollars that go to land grant universities specifically because those dollars are not competitively awarded those dollars are simply handed off to those universities by the fact of the entire land grant program with the USDA that was why land grant universities came to be

all of the land grant universities in the AAU have their non-competitively awarded funding excluded from consideration in the metrics for membership so there was nothing that Nebraska was subjected to that all other land grants were also not subjected to

4. the AAU weighs universities on the whole of the university and against the mission of that university

this is why Nebraska (that has relatively low admissions criteria) and some other AAU members that have relatively low admissions standards compared to other (especially private) AAU members and also compared to other (again especially private) non-AAU members because the AAU recognizes that Nebraska is the only research level public university in the entire state and thus it has an obligation to try and serve a much larger population than a private school does

Similar Iowa has only three public universities total, Iowa, ISU and UNI and until recently UNI was still more of the undergrad and masters university so just like Nebraska ISU and IU have an obligation that is significantly different than Rice does and thus to try and hold them to the same admissions standards is not a totally fair comparison overall

also the AAU weighs the research performed on a per faculty basis as well as other things like total dollars

the AAU looks at members of the national academies, other faculty awards, post doc numbers, post doc support

and they weight all of these criteria in several ways and then view them on the whole for the university and this is why there are non-AAU members that have significantly higher total research dollars than several AAU members because for example some of them may have a very large medical school with a ton of faculty, but when you look on a per faculty member basis it is not all that impressive

or they have a lot of faculty, but few if any of them are recognized as being at the top of their field or fields of study

they have few post docs and PhD students and they fund them poorly and on and on

so Nebraska specifically had every opportunity to remain in the AAU and they failed to take the admonishments seriously or to work to correct them and Nebraska was fully and fairly evaluated before they were ask to leave and there was no bias against them because of land grant status or mostly ag research

for 2012 the total research AND development for SMU was $24,387,000

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site ... od=ranking

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site ... 3613&id=h1

there is a defined difference between research and development and off the top of my head it is basically "development" is more along the lines of educating about something VS researching it

sort of like the difference between ag research and ag extension......research is of course researching something while extension focuses on educating the target audience on the results of that research and other pertinent aspects of the areas their audiences are involved in

for the NSF it is usually STEM development so getting teaching students involved in earth sciences so when they graduate they can take that into the classroom.....things of that nature

when most universities and other groups report on research (the more widely discussed criteria) they will almost always be taking specifically about just research and if they mean development they will specify R&D......there are some that will try and toss their R&D numbers out there as research when they feel they can get away with it for the audience they are dealing with because of course R&D will be larger and it will generally be places that have a larger focus on non-STEM degrees and or places that have a lot of those that might be going into the "classroom" as educators upon graduation because they will be much weaker on the R than similar sized universities with stronger STEM programs and their D funding will usually give them a decent bump up

PBK membership is based on the actions of the faculty of the university and basically a university needs to have a large enough body of faculty that are themselves PBK members and those faculty need to get together and form a group to work with the university to submit a request for a chapter and then it goes from there and the chapter is awarded to that group usually not the university

http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=49

AAU membership has nothing to do with having a PBK chapter or not and the criteria (basics) are outlined above

the AAU has always refrained from publishing specific membership criteria (although when NU was ask to leave there was a paper from the AAU outlining what they look at and it is still out there on the WWW, but was removed from the AAU website some time later)

the AAU also frowns on universities specifically going around and chest pumping that they are gunning for AAU membership specifically because there are no set criteria and universities are evaluated against their mission and other factors relative to the university itself as well as against other universities in and out of the AAU

so there is no "do this, do that, get here, get there apply to AAU, get in

you do not call the AAU they call you and really they do not seek to add new members or to get above the membership levels they are currently at give or take a few

there is a story on the WWW about the president of Georgia Tech going here and there and people thinking that Georgia Tech was already a member or people asking him why they were not or when they would be.....wisely he always answered that basically Georgia Tech was not a member, but of course they would welcome being a member and they were just concentrating on making the university the best it can be and elevating themselves against their own goals and working on the things they can control and anything else would be a welcome occurrence if and when it happened

it should also be noted that a common misconception is that the AAU is all about research when the reality is arts and humanities and liberal arts matter as well and that was what was said to have held A&M back for so long from admission in 2001 because again the AAU is looking for a whole university not one that is a super star in a few or even many categories especially if there are clear areas that are lacking that have been ignored in favor of the other areas

when you have very high quality programs across the board along with very competitive research dollars total and per capita, high quality under grad programs, well funded graduate and post doc programs and recognized faculty the AAU might call.....before that they probably will not

[SoCal_Pony]

Thanks RR5, for the lengthy & informative post.

Shame on UH, didn't realize they were being so deceptive.

In your opinion, do you think SMU is pursuing AAU status and if so, what are our chances of achieving it?

[SoCal_Pony]

Would also appreciate your opinion of UTD reaching AAU status.

[rodrod5]

just opinions here I am sure some may disagree

first in another thread in the football forum the claim was made that the AAU was "all about research" and while research is important the AAU is never going to let any member in because they have a large total dollar research profile while ignoring other areas

http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10972

the above is about the most public the AAU will ever let their membership criteria be made public and while research is a large factor near the end it makes clear that the production of PhDs for the sole purpose of producing PhDs will be discounted by the AAU

you will also notice the overall points are quite vague as well

and you will notice right up front they mention comprehensive, undergraduate, graduate and professional programs and breath and depth.....I feel they give these factors great weight and more so that research

here is an article from when NU was ask to leave and SU left on their own

http://chronicle.com/article/Extended-L ... arch/65212

it should be noted that the top 25 AAU universities in total research dollars are not on the graph so UAB is below the top 25 AAU members in terms of federal research

it should also be noted that in phase 2 research other than federal counts as well and again undergrad education is specifically mentioned

and it is my contention that the AAU (based on things I have read) does not have fixed metrics they weigh a university based on mission and against itself and the above document supports that several times

for a short answer about UTD and SMU.....the interesting thing is if SMU and UTD were to merge (of course not happening, but a hypothetical) I would say they could well be on the cusp of membership, but would probably still fall short because of total research dollars......UTD is weak on the arts and humanities and SMU is weak on PhD production, post docs, total research dollars and the life sciences and STEM programs at SMU are far from weak, but they are more undergrad focused (not a criticism, just an opinion)

if the two were to merge the number of total faculty and students would again put the combined body of work especially in total research near the lower end of comparable universities in the AAU and for that reason there would be a need to elevate research and also to hire a few more members of the national academies and other similar organizations

individually (of course what is realistic) lets look at some metrics

http://mup.asu.edu/research2012.pdf

using the 2012 CMUP report (latest available)

SMU does very well on undergrad aspects, but I feel there could be an improvement in some areas....the 1245 median SAT is impressive (I know I know it is higher now, but we are using the available comparisons), but if you look at Brandise, Rice, Tulane, Emory and other comparable PRIVATE universities SMU is lower

National Merit Scholars SMU is at 30 which is the same as recent AAU addition BU, but well below Rice at 178, Tulane at 43 and Emory at 55 and Vanderbilt at 238

again before this goes in the ditch this is not a "pick on SMU" fest, but the REALITY is you are not going to squeak into the AAU by running particular metrics up just above the bottom members of the AAU especially since it will usually be different members that are at the lower levels or particular metrics VS one university (like NU ended up which is why they are out)

and I will use Rice specifically because the are in the same state, they are actually lower in total research than many AAU members (although they have grown that aggressively), but when you look at their other metrics it is more clear why they are in and should stay in

Endowment SMU is probably OK there, with one caveat.....the reality is SMU has some things they need to work on to be in consideration and this is WITH that endowment and it would be my personal opinion this works against them (I will talk more about this)

National Academy Members....SMU 3....Emory and Vanderbilt 25, Rice 18, BU 18 and SU (that left) 4 Tulane 2

Faculty Awards, Emory 22, BU 18, Vanderbilt 17, Brandise and Rice 11, Tulane 6, SU 5, SMU not listed

so looking at the factors where 2 (to me important) other universities SU (former private member) and BU (newest member and private as well) where SMU compares to the factors listed

SMU 1245 SAT (again I know I know higher now, but we are using a same basis comparison) BU 1260

National Merit SMU 30....BU 30

Endowment SMU 1,196,508,000.......BU 1,159,583,000....913,662,000

Annual Giving SMU NA (I would imagine SMU is close to a listing here).....BU 89,499,000...SU 71,555,000

National Academy Members SMU 3....BU 18...SU 4

Faculty Awards SMU NA.....BU 18....SU 5

Doctorates awarded SMU NA.....BU 491....SU 150

Post Docs SMU NA......BU 870....SU 49

total research SMU 22 million or so.....BU 344,687,000....SU 76,808,000

federal SMU under 22 million.....BU 298,467,000....SU 26,971,000

other things to look at the % life sciences ect and the research dollars held steady for 1983 dollars (where Nebraska was one of the few to decline) and research excluding med school

I think if you went through and did the same for Rice would would see that total research and federal research is a factor, but there is a reason why Rice can be at the low end of that and probably not at any risk of being voted out of the AAU (at least soon and especially normalized for enrollment and faculty count which the AAU does) and while BU is high in research they are high in a number of other categories as well and SU while not low in research they were at the lower end and they were at the lower end of a number of other metrics as well

one could do the same for UTD and probably see some similar things....UTD is still too low in total and federal research, they are too low in faculty awards and National Academy Membership and the reality is they are not a broad and deep universities especially in the arts, liberal arts and humanities and while what they do have they have tried "do well" the reality is they are a long way off on those areas and more so if you used a comparison to public universities like UC Riverside, Nebraska and others that would be comparable PUBLIC universities and UTD suffers in endowment as well

SMU as I said before does well in endowment and to the benefit of SMU (in my opinion and as it relates to AAU membership) a great deal of that does support arts, liberal arts and humanities, but SMU still charges a relatively high tuition (even compared to some other private universities) and I think there is a general (FALSE) consensus that rich kids just pay it while ignoring the REALITY that SMU is pretty generous with financial aid, but as the national merit numbers and perhaps even the SAT numbers point out SMU it attracting high quality undergrads with that support, but not to the level of Rice, Vanderbilt, Duke, Emory and some others and again this may be a bit of a "liability", but it is correctable and more so SMU does not have the graduate school profile of some of them

UTD on the other hand I would say is actually in the tougher position their endowment is low for a university of their size (but they are a new university in terms of universities), but they will be judged as a state university and it is not going to be possible to elevate the arts, liberal arts, and humanities on the backs of state funding and UTD still has some work to do on research dollars and faculty profile as well.....now drop an endowment the size of SMUs on UTD and look out, but of course that has little chance of happening.....SMU on the other hand with additional endowment dollars added to their current endowment that would equal the endowment of what UTD currently has and focused on research, graduate programs, and faculty recruitment and again look out.....and I would say that has a much better chance of happening over the same period of time (say 15-20 years) so again I would say that SMU is in a pretty good position relative to UTD all things considered

the UTD endowment is $275 million and a drop of that type (even in portions of course) directly into the endowment (VS spent on buildings ect) would recruit a hell of a lot of new faculty, a hell of a lot of National Merit students, graduate students and post docs

just looking at what Texas Tech has done recently with the recruitment of 3 new (or maybe 4) National Academy Members it looks like about 3.5-7 million for a faculty position will recruit a National Academy Member with 3.5 probably getting it done for a program that is already strong and adding to it VS 5-7 getting it done for recruiting a faculty member to build a new program

UTD has a nice start (especially for a young public university) on freshman class metrics, decent for faculty, just OK for research (again for a public university) and probably medium for overall graduate programs they have a nice % of grad students and their programs all "publish" well especially their business program (which business programs are often weak on publishing, but UTD has always focused on and even runs a journal that discusses business program publication numbers) and I think the truth is the SMU business program is probably not as strong on faculty publications

http://jindal.utdallas.edu/the-utd-top- ... s#20092013

some might note for instance that Vanderbilt is lower than SMU, but they are only a graduate business program (as is Rice) and Rice is higher as well than SMU

and again this is not a "pick on SMU" discussion, but business is one of the strengths of SMU and it is just not as strong in overall research and the program itself is academically and in reputation and I would imagine these are the types of behind closed door criteria that the AAU looks at

and again to be clear programs can be strong without research and publications and many are, but if you want into the AAU well you have to compete at the level of the AAU and that will involve strength across the board not just "well we focus mainly on undergrad strengths and on real world MBA preparation" because the reality is many universities can probably make that same claim legitimately and part of the reason they can is because they have not concentrated on research and publications as well (and again back to the "the AAU is all about research" argument well you do not have to always get a ton of money to be strong in publications for business, arts, liberal arts and humanities and sure money ALWAYS helps, but that is most likely the difference between SMU and one of the private members of the AAU....SMU has used endowment dollars to build arts and humanities and liberal arts and undergrad education first before research while others were on the research first and as that grew it allowed them to shift endowment focus to arts, liberal arts and humanities

and I will say many of them because of medical school affiliation, age of the university, large dollar drop upon founding and on and on probably were not faced with some of the choices that SMU was along the way and SMU has done well any way you slice it and it is my opinion that the arts and humanities and liberal arts will be harder to build into the future (public or private) and so SMU again is probably in a nice position

I think that corporate dollars will probably flow more to STEM, faculty will be harder to pull from strong liberal arts, arts and humanities universities especially to build one VS adding to an already strong one and again that is probably harder for UTD to deal with (even in dallas which is an advantage for both SMU and UTD because of the strong local arts)

so overall personal opinion and looking at the numbers I would say that 15-20 years (probably on the longer end) is where SMU and UTD might consider themselves being looked at and the reality is even then who knows the AAU is not looking to grow, they took some heat over SU and NU leaving, they rarely add members (and the last time was with 2 others leaving) and there are a number of universities that are (mistakenly in my opinion) publicly stating a desire for membership

but if I was to handicap between UTD and SMU making it if (and IF since who knows if that is a real goal for SMU specifically while UTD has been more vocal) they were to both actually focus on membership I would say that SMU actually has an easier path overall.....undergrad and arts, liberal arts and humanities are solid, the foundation is solid to add to in a number of areas and researchers and STEM types will move (in my opinion) easier than the arts, liberal arts and humanities types will and SMU and dallas already have attractive merits in those three areas anyway so it is not a move that people (peers) would say "you are going there" and in fact they would probably say congrats you are moving to a great opportunity

the engineering at SMU lacks some of the things I think it needs like biomedical, materials or chemical engineering and what SMU does have (environmental always seen as the little sister of engineering pretty much anywhere), management focused programs and even electrical and CS are easier to run as non-research focused programs and or they are generally not the major research dollar programs.....so IMO adding materials AND a biomedical department (with materials more focused on wafers, polymers and the like) and obviously biomed having some collocation with materials would really boost SMU and then of course the addition of the needed chemistry, physics, biology and math professors all with a strong research focus

again this is a strength of UTD they have always had research focused engineering programs and they have recently added biomedical and I believe that civil and chemical may be on the way (or one other I can't remember)

some have said that SMU could benefit from UTSW and I agree and that is how many universities can attract National Academy Members by offering dual appointments even across public and private universities and institutions and "affiliations" with faculty (that can attract others as well).....I do not know if Rice shares faculty with anyone in the TMC specifically, but I would bet that if Rice was ever faced with what SU and NU were faced with they would be sharing faculty left and right and there would be several members of the TMC that would be glad to do so including all the UT components of the TMC and Baylor College of Medicine.....Rice is already a valued member in the TMC, but I think they probably have the faculty full time themselves and "share" them out to others and affiliate them with others VS the other way around, but again if to was crunch time it would easily work the other way as well

I (again my opinion) think this is actually more difficult for SMU specifically because UTA and UTD are both looking for similar things and it is a "goal" of the UT System to elevate UTD and UTA (especially UTD, but UTA is in the mix because they made clear they will not be left out) where as Rice does not face those same issues in Houston and the TMC......so while I think it would be easier for Rice to make a call and say "can we pay Dr X. some cash and bring him on faculty" (if needed) I think with UTSW and SMU it is more SMU is going to have to pay the freight and the "closer" to the deal to perhaps sway Dr Y. to come is oh by the way UTSW said they would toss in some cash and a lab and some support staff as well....of course with SMU having the main "rights" (very poor choice of terms) to that faculty member that looks good, but again SMU will need to repeat that over and over to make it work in any meaningful way where I think Rice could probably make something meaningful happen working it the opposite way with 8-10 new affiliated faculty (again if ever needed) that others have already attracted to the TMC

nothing against SMU to be clear over Rice or anyone else it is just a difference of circumstances where there are not the same "pressures" facing institutions in the TMC and there are so many more members in the TMC many of which would never need to concern themselves with AAU membership or who was the main university that attracted faculty members or if that faculty member was affiliated with others......Baylor Medical, TAMU, and the UT components really face none of those issues VS UTSW that has UTD and UTA looking to affiliate first and foremost.....and again to be clear I am not saying the door is closed on SMU it is just an opinion that SMU would need to be the main catalyst for the faculty member to come and then to affiliate

long winded I am sure and I am sure some will disagree and some may even want to be argumentative and pick out specific metrics here and there and toss them up, but the reality is you are not going to move into the AAU from the bottom you are going to move in placed in the middle or slightly lower and if you want to compare to others in a group you better be ready to make a comparison VS trying to point out the flaws of the current members and pick at them....and realistic (even if opinion) discussions of things like higher ed take more than 140 characters

[NavyCrimson]

Thank you. Great info.

"...some have said that SMU could benefit from UTSW and I agree and that is how many universities can attract National Academy Members by offering dual appointments even across public and private universities and institutions and "affiliations" with faculty (that can attract others as well)..."

Your suggestion about SMU working with UT-Dallas or UTSW makes a lot of sense. Businesses have been doing it for years with incredible positive results.

“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

― Aristotle

[gostangs]

Great post rod rod and appreciated. I always think of AAU as being more research oriented, and although I still think that carries a bigger "real world" weighting and that AAU gives other factors more lip service, I was encouraged to see your evidence that smaller privates would be measured against other smaller privates.

SMU might have to change some top thinking if we are to be considered. We don't think of ourselves as a doctoral factory - but the areas of possibility are bio research, expanded engineering, alignment with SWMC and expanded publishing in business school and other research outreach. All of those you mentioned so appreciate the tutorial.

I look forward to our move toward endowment enhancement (that's a softball for someone) and expansion of these areas. One of the other benefits of research is that those dollars take a ton of financial pressure off of a smaller private school like SMU, so we can do quite a bit more with our resources if we can get our research up over 50 million.

[SoCal_Pony]

Once again, thanks rodrod. Very informative and seems to be consistent to what SMT said; SMU built infrastructure and is now focused on endowment which should improve the areas you are speaking about.

Good stuff. Always feel free to provide your updates.

[StallionsModelT]

That is the strategic plan I was told about last year. Essentially, once the Unbridled campaign is complete (and we will finish over $1 billion), the next step for the university is twofold:

1) Endowment growth to $2B by 2022
2) Double or triple research footprint and financial commitment

We will not go public with our aspirations to be AAU, but our actions speak far louder than our words. We had to make the physical improvements to the campus with new buildings and increasing the campus footprint, but that is now over. There really isn't much more room left for SMU to build anything. The next 10-20 years will be about research and endowment growth combined with our continuing efforts to attract, recruit, and retain a higher caliber of prospective student. By 2020 we will have left UT-Austin totally in the dust and will only be looking up at Rice in this state.

[friarwolf]

We are ramping up research - the MANA computer we just bought from the Navy will at least temporarily vault us into the top 15 universities in terms of computing power. We just hired a director of research. So, while I haven't heard anyone say AAU is a goal, we are definitely moving toward doing more research. Looking to ramp up PHD programs, too..............

[StallionsModelT]

Like I said, our actions speak for themselves. We aren't doing these things without a plan. If RGT plans to stick around for another 8-10 years then this will be the final piece of his legacy: Making SMU a truly outstanding research institution.