what we need is another Billion dollar campaign for the endowment & scholarship $$$ to lower the cost of tuition. lower price = more student applicants
BRING BACK THE GLORY DAYS OF SMU FOOTBALL!!!
For some strange reason, one of the few universities that REFUSE to use their school colors: Harvard Crimson & Yale Blue.
Years ago, one of my people handled SMU's line of credit. As a non-profit, it didn't use GAAP, but a form of fund accounting used for non-profits. I'm not sure how standards may have changed but it took me several hours to understand how the university accounted for its financial condition different from a typical for-profit enterprise. In the end it was obvious that annual giving was required to supplement the annual budget, not paid for by earnings on endowment and student fees and tuition. But, to tell the truth, we had no idea how well the university was run, only if it was solvent.
How well was the school run? Only by comparison to other private universities in our peer group, beginning with charges for R&B, tuition and fees were we able to make an educated guess. Today, a better tool might be the university's debt rating, which just went down, and a comparison of relative rates of costs and overhead per student to make relative comparisons of efficiencies. Rating agencies have access to detailed numbers of numerous universities, that most of us don't have access to, enabling them to make decisions based upon real comparative financial analysis.
None of which explains why our student charges are so high in comparison to our peers. But, it suggests we are not very efficient.
Mexmustang wrote:Years ago, one of my people handled SMU's line of credit. As a non-profit, it didn't use GAAP, but a form of fund accounting used for non-profits. I'm not sure how standards may have changed but it took me several hours to understand how the university accounted for its financial condition different from a typical for-profit enterprise. In the end it was obvious that annual giving was required to supplement the annual budget, not paid for by earnings on endowment and student fees and tuition. But, to tell the truth, we had no idea how well the university was run, only if it was solvent.
How well was the school run? Only by comparison to other private universities in our peer group, beginning with charges for R&B, tuition and fees were we able to make an educated guess. Today, a better tool might be the university's debt rating, which just went down, and a comparison of relative rates of costs and overhead per student to make relative comparisons of efficiencies. Rating agencies have access to detailed numbers of numerous universities, that most of us don't have access to, enabling them to make decisions based upon real comparative financial analysis.
None of which explains why our student charges are so high in comparison to our peers. But, it suggests we are not very efficient.
NavyCrimson wrote:what we need is another Billion dollar campaign for the endowment & scholarship $$$ to lower the cost of tuition. lower price = more student applicants
I think you hit the nail on the head. We just went through the college decision process with our son and are now going through it with our daughter. When you factor in likely financial aid, SMU is easily the most expensive school she is considering. And honestly, because of cost and proximity to home, SMU is probably near the bottom of her list.
Something I did not realize is that SMU has had higher incoming freshman Student quality than anyone else in Texas except for rice for several years now. I would guess most people in state think UT is higher due to admission hysteria among the UT faithful. So it could be that location and cost make the decision tough, but at least the quality is there. Rankings will always follow student quality, it just takes a couple of years based on how long it takes that news to be known, and also the rankings are a blend of the average of the last several years.
