UTD determined to reach Tier One

[rodrod5]

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.

First to all that have replied I would like to make clear I hold no and claim no insider information these are my opinions based on keeping up with higher ed (especially in Texas) as somewhat of a hobby and I tried to present the info I based my opinions on to support why I hold those opinions

to this post specifically I would honestly say that 2 billion by 2022 would really not be a huge jump in terms of keeping up with others

1. conservative investment principles say you should be able to double your investments every 7 years.....now in the current economy with the current idiots on charge that is out the window

also that would be without removing money to "live on" or in the case of a university for operations......but at the same time that would also be without additional annual contributions

and the 4.5% to 5% 3-5 year rolling average of assets that most universities draw from their endowment each year for operations is designed to account for inflation and allow growth of the corpus to at least meet inflation (regular inflation levels of course not the potential ones the USA may face in the future thanks to QE Infinity)

but really with SMU currently at 1,268,079,000 getting to 2B only reflects $750 million in growth over 8 years

2012-2013 growth was 7.7% (not broken down for investment returns VS additional donations)

in 2005 SMU was at 1,013,703,000 and the were #55 in the NACUBO survey

as a comparison Rice was at 3,611,127,000 and #19

UT (the system) was 11,610,997,000 and at #4 below Harvard, Yale and Stanford

the A&M System was at 4,963,897,000 and #9 below the above 4 + Princeton, MIT, Cal and Columbia

(Cal actually has 2 listings, but we are looking at the one above A&M now and there is a chance Cal is growing the other and leaving this one as is because of "state" investing rules which is why UTIMCO and other "foundations often exist for state universities so circumvent these rules)

the latest 2013 Report

SMU is #65 with the above 1.2B

Rice is #20 with 4,862,728,000

UT (the system) is #3 with 20,448,313,000 below only Harvard and Yale and only 350m behind Yale (they were 3.5B behind in 2005)

Cal is #14 with 6,377,379,000

A&M (the system) is now #7 with 8,732,010,000 below Harvard, Yale, UT, Stanford, Princeton and MIT

so while there was not the doubling on assets for any of those (there was the major market crash of course) Rice pretty much held their own and only slipped below UVA (public school with a much older and larger alumni base) and UT and A&M (the systems) made major gains and SMU slipped 10 places

again to be clear this is not a "pick on SMU post", but if you hope to GAIN on the best well you have to surpass them in some areas correct

lets look at some that have moved above SMU since 2005

here are some notable ones

UF Foundation (large public and only Florida AAU member) (68 in 2005 58 today)

KU Endowment Foundation (large public and long term AAU member) (57 in 2005 63 today)

Boston University (newest AAU member and large private) (74 in 2005 57 today)

Nebraska (large public former AAU member) (52 in 2005 60 today) (so ahead of SMU by 3 then and by 5 today, but also out of the AAU)

Carnegie Melon (private AAU member) (67 2005 56 today)

Washington and Lee (98 2005 59 today)

Georgia Tech (public second newest AAU member) (59 2005 45 today)

obviously there are others and there are some that fell below SMU like Cincinnati (large public that does a lot of research with a med school and wishes they were in the AAU)

but I think what that shows is those that obtained AAU membership had a significant jump in endowment over 8 years before and after membership and along with that they elevated their endowment assets past a number of other universities that had been ahead of them

and those that slipped (especially a large public) faced removal from the AAU

one other Syracuse #70 2005 $858,258,000 and #78 $1,053,204......and of course former private AAU member as well and with a similar total dollar amount growth over that period as SMU about $250,000,000 and change

so again SMU is going to have to get well past 2B by 2022 if they really want to have impressive growth

2. SMU is at the age now (and their alumni are) where they have acquired significant wealth, they are retiring or entering the later years of life and some are ever passing on (regrettably, but hey such is life) and so it is my opinion that SMU should be in the position to gain in large dollar donations over the next decade as estate trust that have already been donated finally materialize and as older alumni pass on and or start to plan their estates......and while this is true for many universities SMU should be at a period when they can have a gain from that while others have had that first period of gain from that (some many years ago because of the age of the university)

3. the economy in Texas is still doing OK (and much better than in the past when others like California and the east coast were having their days) and "oil money" and others in Texas are much more adept at holding wealth VS even into the early and mid 90s when many were recovering from the 80s and taking one last "big risk" to either have it or die having had it.....and many were successful on that risk and again have tempered their risk since then as well....SMU should be able to take advantage of this

4. as corporate headquarters move to Texas and as Texas grows and grows companies and as SMU grows their research profile they should be able to increase corporate donations even if specific to research projects or just a small yearly donation of low 7 figures.....I feel this is an area that SMU is behind others in.....SMU excels (really excels) at private dollars and at foundation dollars, but those million dollar and half million dollar checks can really add up especially if they are an annual deal or even every 2-3 years over and over from corporations....and again not saying SMU does not ever get those I just don't think they get them in the volume that a medium sized private university of good repute in a major metro area should be bringing them in.....probably because there is not as much "research" going on which companies really like to fund


as to undergrad reputation again I feel that SMU has that under control as far as AAU membership would be concerned and it is really faculty reputation that SMU needs to work on....the faculty awards, members of national academies and other similar organizations as compared to other private AAU members really bares this out

as for passing UT by well really that is really not a goal SMU should really consider and the truth is most people will never really make a strong comparison between the two

UT is a MASSIVE public university with programs at the undergrad and graduate level that most universities would not even considering offering much less trying to excel at and it would be difficult to ever match the overall body of faculty that UT has or their research and graduate profile and they will always stand on that as well as a large number of strong undergrad programs across many schools and colleges

nobody (that wants to be taken serious) runs around comparing Cal Tech and UCLA or Berkeley because they are not even close to being the same type of university and while Stanford might get in the discussion with the UC schools Stanford is also a very large private university (overall compared to private universities especially at their reputation level) and the resources they have at their disposal are pretty hard to match

and UT and others like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and some other publics are still able to recruit faculty away from places like Harvard, Yale, Stanford and others and until a university can do that with any consistency (not that it happens every day, but when you set your sites, open discussions, and land the faculty member) making comparisons between a private university with no mandate of service to state residents to a large public university that is constantly under pressure to meet public service mandates is really not a comparison others will really take seriously

and it is my opinion that landing those types of professors (VS getting SAT scores to 1350 and HS graduating class to 5%) is really what SMU needs to consider if they want to take the next step in perception and reputation

[gostangs]

I think that is all pretty much dead on. We have moved our student quality faster than just about anyone in the last 5-7 yrs - faster then we have moved professor quality. We will get to 1350 in my view in the next couple of years just of momentum, expanded national reputation, basketball and Bush library…but the professor part will take a real focus with endowed positions.

Really agree with the corporate giving area - hits are not as big but are very attainable in Dallas. Should be a laser focus on that area.

[NavyCrimson]

gostang: ... expanded national reputation, basketball ...

SMU is going to find out real quick how our improving basketball team is going to bring in more money & improved student quality than they ever thought! Something that's very foreign to the administration. LOL!!!

[StallionsModelT]

Has anyone else heard what the expected application figures are for the next enrollment year? I have heard that the admissions office is planning on hitting the 15K application mark here in the next or two.

[friarwolf]

Applications are up but completed applications are down. Completed applications is the stat that is reported each year by schools. Baylor got in trouble for reporting applications, not completed applications several years ago...........

Our endowment is up to 1.4BB by the way...........

[StallionsModelT]

Really good info on the ROI of endowments. I wasn't aware of that stuff. Great information.

[rodrod5]

Applications are up but completed applications are down. Completed applications is the stat that is reported each year by schools. Baylor got in trouble for reporting applications, not completed applications several years ago...........

Our endowment is up to 1.4BB by the way...........

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/Endowme ... 232014.pdf

that may well be the case, but as I pointed out I am claiming no insider information and as pointed out in a prior post dealing with SAT scores I am going to use the latest COMPARABLE information to make the most fair and honest comparison possible

the above NACUBO report came out in January 2014 covering to the end of the 2013 fiscal year (normalized for those universities that do not end their fiscal year August 31st)

and I do know that SMU has pulled in probably 50-75 million since then at least in donations, but who knows if 100% will go to the endowment and who knows what other universities have pulled in during that same period (or what investment returns have been since then).....just like not knowing what every university of comparison has elevated their SAT scores to since the last CMUP report

also the NACUBO report seeks to have numbers presented in a comparable fashion (as pointed out in some of the numbers for some of the entries in the above report) so a university sitting on a large amount of invested money that is not actually "endowed" and restricted from being spent can't claim it as an endowment for a number of years (for whatever reason) and then one day spend it all on a new building or renovations or whatever else when their reason for wanting to elevate the assets of their apparent endowment has passed

also I do not recall Baylor getting in any trouble for reporting uncompleted applications VS completed applications, but I do recall they were criticized for offering students that had already been accepted potential additional financial aid if they took the SAT over again and scored higher

really the applications deal is a non factor if true because the reality is that acceptance % is the most meaningless and stupid statistic that has ever been reported for universities and it just shows how logically and mathematically challenged some "ratings" can be for higher ed of all things

if a university has 2,000 applicants and accepts all 2,000 students with a 1,400 SAT and a 3% or higher class ranking they would have a 100% acceptance rate VS say another school that has 10,000 applicants and accepts 2,000 with a 950 SAT and a 25% class ranking and thus a 20% acceptance rate......which school actually let in the better qualified applicants?

and it is 100% out of the control of a university how many students apply and how qualified those applicants are

and some would say (as I have actually laughably seen argued by someone from a public university, with fixed admissions no less, where acceptance % is even more meaningless) that a university can control their number of applicants by "marketing" themselves and getting more applicants.......but of course the only way that would help their acceptance % is if they were to attract more unqualified applicants which would be a huge waste of time and resources by all and would in no way elevate the quality of students they accepted it would just mean they chumped more unqualified students into wasting time and money applying......again especially true at a public university with fixed admissions standards

and as for Baylor and the SAT I actually see a lot less wrong with that because the reality is if a student wants to go to Rice, Stanford or Duke or somewhere similar they may well take the SAT 2-3 times and have the highest score counted while if they want to go to Baylor first they might take the SAT 1-2 times and get the needed score and stop when the possibility is they could potentially score higher if they took it yet another time

again I see this as even more of an issue for public universities where admissions are guaranteed for meeting particular metrics so a student gets that needed 1,200 with a top 10% high school class ranking after a night of hard partying and no SAT prep course and that is that they are in while if the wanted to go to say SMU (and the public was their backup) they would take a prep course, get 1 hour less sleep than normal (the recommended amount for prior to testing) and come in sober and rested and try and elevate their score and only the highest would count if they were to get into SMU

so Baylor did not "cheat" they allowed students to show their full potential while a school that would go out and market to less than qualified applicants would have in fact cheated (an already worthless) metric IMO

[gostangs]

i am pretty sure our completed applications are up also this year. Had not heard they were down.

I do know our neighbors to the west have a drop in applications, but that is coming off a historically high number so probably not that unusual.

Agree the application number is often used to try to create a false "lower acceptance rate" from applicant to accepted applicant.

[tristatecoog]

UH is #113 in endowment with $716MM. Not too shabby for a Tier 1 Carnegie research university.

UT-D's endowment is part of the UT System. I'd bet a lot of $$ that UT-D doesn't get AAU status within the next 50 years.

Notre Dame, Dartmouth and G-Town aren't AAU members. Heavy undergrad focuses at these schools. G-Town probably has a better chance than SMU. Most of these schools are urban.

Only four schools have gotten in since 2000 -- SUNY-Stony Brook and A&M, plus Boston U and GaTech. GT waiting so long to get in is a travesty. They should've been in a long time ago. The A&M College of Medicine was founded in 1977 and UT has numerous med schools, but so does Dartmouth.
http://medicine.tamhsc.edu/about/history.html

Oh, Natl Merits. UH had 24 or so last year. This is mostly a game of dollars. Rice plays the game and SMU does not. SMU is more into SAT scores on a wider scale (i.e., spreading scholarships around) than narrowly funding a few students with a lot of money. Look at the percentage that are college sponsored. I don't think any of the Ivies, Stanford, MIT... sponsor NM's but "second tier" schools like Northwestern, USC and Rice do.

[Pony^]

Applications are up but completed applications are down. Completed applications is the stat that is reported each year by schools. Baylor got in trouble for reporting applications, not completed applications several years ago...........

Our endowment is up to 1.4BB by the way...........

Completed applications are not down:

http://smu.edu/ir/Publications/Trends_2013/First_Time_Admissions_2013_Web.pdf

See also, https://smu.edu/provost/pdf/FacultySenateOct12.pdf page 7

[rodrod5]

UH is #113 in endowment with $716MM. Not too shabby for a Tier 1 Carnegie research university.

UT-D's endowment is part of the UT System. I'd bet a lot of $$ that UT-D doesn't get AAU status within the next 50 years.

Notre Dame, Dartmouth and G-Town aren't AAU members. Heavy undergrad focuses at these schools. G-Town probably has a better chance than SMU. Most of these schools are urban.

Only four schools have gotten in since 2000 -- SUNY-Stony Brook and A&M, plus Boston U and GaTech. GT waiting so long to get in is a travesty. They should've been in a long time ago. The A&M College of Medicine was founded in 1977 and UT has numerous med schools, but so does Dartmouth.
http://medicine.tamhsc.edu/about/history.html

Oh, Natl Merits. UH had 24 or so last year. This is mostly a game of dollars. Rice plays the game and SMU does not. SMU is more into SAT scores on a wider scale (i.e., spreading scholarships around) than narrowly funding a few students with a lot of money. Look at the percentage that are college sponsored. I don't think any of the Ivies, Stanford, MIT... sponsor NM's but "second tier" schools like Northwestern, USC and Rice do.

http://www.utimco.org/scripts/PrivateEn ... mplist.asp

the UTD endowment is $332,384,357.44 as of 1-31-2014 and as stated this is the "private" endowment so it is not any portion of the PUF (even though in reality the PUF participating universities besides UT Austin, Texas A&M College Station and PVAMU get no real advantage from PUF participation and thus the PUF is really not like an endowment for them)

and the Texas A&M College of Medicine is a component of the Texas A&M System and is not included in any research, faculty or awards numbers of Texas A&M College Station when it comes to AAU or NSF reported numbers, BUT Texas A&M is in the process right now of merging 100% of their College of Medicine into the College Station Campus and after that it will count in the numbers for research, faculty and awards and it will be all the components of THAT College of Medicine including the ones in Temple, Round Rock, Kingsville, Dallas, Houston as well as Bryan

and just like the A&M System medical school (until the merger for A&M) the UT Medical Components are independent of any 4 university.......there was a study then the NRUF was first started to merge the UTHSC-SA into UTSA, but they decided the two of them were too dissimilar in reputation at that time to make it a wise decision and the reality is in my opinion this was deemed politically unacceptable since the goal was to actually ELEVATE universities and to actually increase the amount of federal grants that Texas universities were obtaining instead of just merging existing components together and claiming "success" when really nothing was actually gained in the process

along with that it would have lead to Texas Tech merging their medical school (that is it's own institution in the Texas Tech System) and then north Texas state doing the same with TCOM......and then UH along with UTD and UTA would have been left in the cold because the have no medical component of the UT System would have been left facing the fight over UTD and UTA wanting to merge with UTSW (and UTSW most likely resisting that) and then if UTA was left out there is a chance they would have tried to move back to the A&M System (as they were long ago and as they have brought up in the recent past when they felt slighted by the UT System and UTD) and then trying to merge UTA (or whatever it would have been called) in with the Baylor College of Dentistry in Dallas (that has been looked at for possible renaming)

A&M would have been most likely amicable to this since they desire more of a DFW presence and since the A&M System currently has no university in the "Emerging Research" category or eligible for future NRUF funding (while every other state system does)

with all of that there may have even been cries by the UH System to hand over a UT System medical component in Houston (probably would not have gone anywhere) because of course UH and Texas Tech were the first ones in line for NRUF funding pretty much from the start and it was clear the requirements favored them and UTD the most

that would have made the whole NRUF process a joke because it was designed with criteria for 4 year universities exclusive of a medical school since at the time 100% of the public medical schools in Texas were independent of a 4 year university and again to increase funding not just merge existing institutions while holding things the same especially at the 4 year schools

and of course very soon UT Austin will have a 4 year medical school that will be a part of the university and count towards all faculty, research and awards metrics and with the merger of UTB and UTPA unto UT-RGV and the founding of the south Texas UT Medical school (also a part of UT-RGV) there will then be 3 four year universities in Texas with a medical school as a part of the campus and counting in their metrics

north Texas state also looked at merging TCOM into the Denton branch campus, but that system is so screwed it all blew up and the reality is it would have done little to change their metrics for NRUF eligibility and I am pretty sure the State of Texas told them "no" because of course they are well behind in obtaining NRUF funding and the required metrics and if the UT System and UTSA and the like were not going to merge 4 year campuses and medical schools well then north Texas state is not going to as well.....and I would imagine if they did there would have been a legislative change for NRUF that excluded medical school component metrics and or elevated the NRUF metrics for universities that had a medical school.......you know how it is some universities (like UH and Texas Tech and UTD and the like) have no issue actually working to better themselves and earning something while others will put out a tag line and a new slogan and act as though they belong while actually making no marked progress or advancement towards any real goals

[friarwolf]

Applications are up but completed applications are down. Completed applications is the stat that is reported each year by schools. Baylor got in trouble for reporting applications, not completed applications several years ago...........

Our endowment is up to 1.4BB by the way...........

Completed applications are not down:

http://smu.edu/ir/Publications/Trends_2013/First_Time_Admissions_2013_Web.pdf

See also, https://smu.edu/provost/pdf/FacultySenateOct12.pdf page 7

I am talking this year - not last year. The process is not complete so completed apps may finish up from 2013 when all is said and done. But as of now, not the case............

[StallionsModelT]

Hmmmm. I was thinking the admissions office was expected an uptick in apps this year.

[friarwolf]

The requirement to count an application is that it has to have all the stuff with it:

Step 3: Review the application checklist

Completed application
Completed Early Decision Agreement Form (if applying Early Decision)
$60 nonrefundable application fee
Official high school transcript
Official SAT or ACT scores
Counselor recommendation (PDF) or SENDedu (electronic submission)
Teacher recommendation (optional) (PDF)
Extracurricular resume
Home School Supplement (if applicable) (PDF)
Review audition and portfolio requirements (students applying for Dance, Music, Theatre, Art, or Film)

All of this stuff constitutes a complete application. If a student doesn't submit a transcript, it can't be counted. This stuff doesn't have to be submitted together but it all has to be submitted at some point to be considered complete. So, as of now, apps are up - but completed apps are not. Doesn't mean they won't be when all is said and done.............Esta bien??????

I

[tristatecoog]

Good stuff rodrod5. A couple years ago, I heard that Dr Khator, UH president, was trying to advance the school too quickly and needed to learn to play by the rules a bit more. This was from an important TX house rep.

Do you think she'd make a good SMU president when the day comes that RGT leaves? I hope she never leaves but at some point she will.