Incoming Freshman Class

[gostangs]

Tide - that number includes graduate students - and we get little benefit in the enthusiasm area from the grad students - its just not the same.

The better apples to apples comparison is undergrads - and only Rice and Wake are smaller. Vanderbilt is about our size and TCU is about 2k bigger.

For a state the size of Texas and our increased draw nationally - we should be looking at Northwestern and USC as targets for comparable sized institutions. institutionally being bigger would help our "share of mind" a great deal in all areas, especially sports. Don't want to sacrifice rankings so it should be done over 5-7 yrs.

[deucetz]

I would go one step further and state that USC and Northwestern can do that due to history of academic rigor and a much larger endowment.

Northwestern has 10.2 Billion dollar endowment, while USC has 4.2 Billion. They can increase their class size while not sacrificing quality. School's with great academic quality and bigger endowments, can get larger without sacrificing quality. Both of those schools have a much larger postgraduate population than undergraduate. Both their undergraduate and many of their main postgraduate programs, are highly regarded. Without a medical school, it will be hard to try and do the same, since most of the research opportunities and money are associated with medical schools. Rice should be SMU's model with more competitive sports. Stanford, Duke, and Notre Dame are the prototypes of great academics and sports tradition. They will consistently get 3 or 4 star recruits, that know if they do not make it to the pros, they will have a good job.

All of those school's listed are Aspirational Peer Universities according to SMU (https://www.smu.edu/Provost/IR/Resource ... iversities). I doubt the majority of those schools find SMU as their peer. In addition, almost all of those schools have medical schools and larger endowments per students. Our peers according to SMU are: Syracuse, Baylor, TCU, Tulsa, and University of Miami.

The lack of prestige in US News ranking for undergraduate education is a Texas issue outside of Rice. Both UT and Texas A&M should be ranked higher but for the top ten percent law and other factors. In addition, all the private schools in Texas aren't doing well either. Higher education in Texas is a mess. If we want to continue to associate ourselves with our Texas peers, SMU is not going to advance. For a state of this size, and the amount of business the state receives, all of the schools are pretty lackluster. California higher education system should be the prototype for Texas. They are all fairly new schools that grew with prestige. While we do not have Silicon Valley, our oil & energy money hasn't helped Texas as much as the Silicon Valley money in California. The Silicon Valley has spent more money on academic programs, while Texan's oil men have spent money on athletics. For example, Dedman School of Law naming rights was bought for only $20 million. That is the price dorm naming rights are at most prestigious colleges and universities.

When I applied to SMU for undergrad I got a full ride, but I decided to go to a top 10 school in the east coast. If I stayed in Texas it was either UT or Rice--they both didn't give me a good financial aid package. Beyond my acceptance letter SMU did a bad job recruiting me. Most of the top schools that I applied to, flew me to visit the school, had alumni interviews, and first year acceptance events in Dallas at an alums house so that I could make a more informed decision. SMU needs to proactively recruit, especially outside Texas. I am not sure if SMU does this, but if they want to compete, they definitely need to implement this type of moves on top of doing more rigorous research and acquiring more accomplished faculty.

For private schools, the competitiveness of the undergrad reflects the grad programs--specifically in law and business schools. Public schools are very different so we shouldn't model ourselves after them. While Cox and Dedman have their own issues, there is a correlation with a more competitive undergrad helps the grad programs. The same kids that get rejected for undergrad, will eventually apply to the respective programs for grad school at the same institutions.

[RednBlue11]

Setting up to be a big class numbers-wise and the metrics are good.........

we still letting in more than 50% of applicants?

[friarwolf]

I am going from memory but I think we just got under that number last year. Applications were about the same as the previous year - I think - so not having to hit the wait list should drop that number fractionally this year.

[CalallenStang]

Tide - that number includes graduate students - and we get little benefit in the enthusiasm area from the grad students - its just not the same.

The better apples to apples comparison is undergrads - and only Rice and Wake are smaller. Vanderbilt is about our size and TCU is about 2k bigger.

For a state the size of Texas and our increased draw nationally - we should be looking at Northwestern and USC as targets for comparable sized institutions. institutionally being bigger would help our "share of mind" a great deal in all areas, especially sports. Don't want to sacrifice rankings so it should be done over 5-7 yrs.

Tulsa is smaller as well

[AfricanMustang]

I am going from memory but I think we just got under that number last year. Applications were about the same as the previous year - I think - so not having to hit the wait list should drop that number fractionally this year.

Fall 2015:
Applied - 12,992
Admitted - 6,360
Enrolled - 1,374
Admission Rate: 48.95%
Yield Rate: 21.60%
Average SAT: 1309
Average ACT: 29.5

Fall 2014:
Applied - 11,817
Admitted - 6,192
Enrolled - 1,459
Admission Rate: 52.40%
Yield Rate: 23.56%
Average SAT: 1308
Average ACT: 29.3

Fall 2013:
Applied - 12,080
Admitted - 6,125
Enrolled - 1,431
Admission Rate: 50.70%
Yield Rate: 23.36%
Average SAT: 1302
Average ACT: 28.9

Fall 2012:
Applied - 11,217
Admitted - 6,031
Enrolled - 1,426
Admission Rate: 53.77%
Yield Rate: 23.64%
Average SAT: 1274
Average ACT: 28.6

[SoCal_Pony]

I am very understanding that it is a very difficult climb, I work with a number of top academic institutions in my job, but we more or less have remained in the same 60's in the USNWR (and understanding that it not a perfect measure, but it is the one the administration discusses and is the most visible) since the 1990's. In fact we have seen lesser rivals rise far faster than we've ever done while we mark time.

When I graduated in 1983 we were in the mid-50's, actually think we were ranked #54, so for all the explosive growth of Dallas over the past 30 years, we've digressed.

http://www.ponyfans.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=64782&p=874866&hilit=does+smu+deserve#p874866

[friarwolf]

I am very disappointed with our stagnant ratings, too. My long running complaint of Turner is he is way too accepting of marginal performances by our deans. We need leaders who will demand better of our professors and more importantly, recruit the best and brightest minds to come here to teach and research. We continue to attract better classes of students and yet do little to raise the standards in the classroom. It is time for Turner to retire and for SMU to bring in a president who is going to demand better of the deans and professors.

[gostangs]

The business school is our "bell cow" and it is the one in the most need of fresh leadership. Would do wonders for the entire university to have a young aggressive business school dean that is completely connected to the Dallas business community.

Over a third of our total undergrads are either in Cox or came here to try to get in Cox. It is what attracts the best students to SMU. It is critical to have it be a high achieving school and it is performing flat in most people's opinion.

[friarwolf]

The business school is our "bell cow" and it is the one in the most need of fresh leadership. Would do wonders for the entire university to have a young aggressive business school dean that is completely connected to the Dallas business community.

Over a third of our total undergrads are either in Cox or came here to try to get in Cox. It is what attracts the best students to SMU. It is critical to have it be a high achieving school and it is performing flat in most people's opinion.

Couldn't agree more. Niemi is hurting us badly.......

[Pony^]

I am very understanding that it is a very difficult climb, I work with a number of top academic institutions in my job, but we more or less have remained in the same 60's in the USNWR (and understanding that it not a perfect measure, but it is the one the administration discusses and is the most visible) since the 1990's. In fact we have seen lesser rivals rise far faster than we've ever done while we mark time.

When I graduated in 1983 we were in the mid-50's, actually think we were ranked #54, so for all the explosive growth of Dallas over the past 30 years, we've digressed.

http://www.ponyfans.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=64782&p=874866&hilit=does+smu+deserve#p874866

I posted this before regarding US News rankings:

If we are talking about US News rankings, there is no way to know where SMU was ranked in 1986, or just prior to the death penalty.

Apparently, US News started their rankings in 1983 and only ranked the top 10 to 15 schools (depending on the year), and only published rankings every two years. In the early days the ranking was just a peer assessment survey. In about 1987, US News started ranking the top 25 schools and started publishing rankings every year. They also began to incorporate more factors into their rankings. Around 1996, US News began ranking the top 50 schools and listed the rest of the national universities in tiers. For instance, in the rankings published in the 8/30/1999 US News Magazine (for the year 2000), Rice was ranked at #14 and UT at #44. SMU, A&M, Baylor and TCU were all considered tier 2 schools which were listed alphabetically. Tier 3 started with school #121. In the rankings published in the 9/11/2000 US News Magazine (for the year 2001), Rice was at #13 and UT was at #49. Again, SMU, A&M, Baylor and TCU were listed alphabetically as tier 2 schools. Tier 3 stated with school #116 in that year. In the US News Magazine published on 9/1/2003 (for the year 2004), US News started ranking the second tier. In this year, Rice was at #16, UT at #54, A&M at #69, SMU at #75, Baylor at #78 and TCU at #102.

In the latest US News rankings, Rice is at #19, UT at #53, SMU at #58, A&M at 68, Baylor at #71 and TCU at #76. So from 2004 to the latest ranking, Rice is down 3, UT up 1, A&M up 1, SMU up 17, Baylor up 7, and TCU up 26.

With respect to TCU, it is easier to move up against lower ranked schools; however, they have made impressive progress. SMU is the only school that overtook another Texas school (at least at the upper end of the rankings). Overall, not too bad of a showing for SMU.

http://www.ponyfans.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=78059&start=15#p1129149

[smudubs]

Rankings are important, But as someone who recently went through the college decision process with my son and am doing it now with my daughter, they are not the only factor we considered or are considering. SMU was the right fit for my wife and I and I do not believe rankings would have played a part in the decision process for either of us. With my son, we looked at schools that were the right fit for him and he is very happy with his decision. My daughter is visiting schools next month. While every school she is looking at is higher ranked than SMU, she is looking for the right fit. She will visit SMU this fall and that is the right fit for her (which I would be overjoyed if it were) that's where she will go. I doubt that will happen though for reasons I have posted here before.

My point in making this post is that we often care too much about our rankings. They are not the only factor families consider in making a decision.

[gostangs]

Certainly a lot goes into the soup - but the one thing that we should all be very excited about is the overall increase in undergraduate student quality. As goes the student quality, so goes the rest of the University (professors want to teach bright kids, ranking and reputation will follow etc...). And as of the last couple of years, the average SAT for incoming undergrads at SMU is above any other school in Texas with the exception of Rice (yes - average SMU incoming freshman standardized scores are above UT).

And SMU offers a much more robust social life than Rice so in my view that is an additional "learning center". The social life at SMU teaches you how to maneuver in the real world - and some great universities underweight the power of social intelligence.

Teaching quality and reputation will eventually catch up with student quality - so to me it is just a matter of time, assuming we sustain great student quality.

[smusic 00]

You had me at soup.

[Mustangs_Maroons]

The business school is our "bell cow" and it is the one in the most need of fresh leadership. Would do wonders for the entire university to have a young aggressive business school dean that is completely connected to the Dallas business community.

Over a third of our total undergrads are either in Cox or came here to try to get in Cox. It is what attracts the best students to SMU. It is critical to have it be a high achieving school and it is performing flat in most people's opinion.

Couldn't agree more. Niemi is hurting us badly.......

Agreed. I've said it multiple times but it's not good for a university to have a President or dean for more than 10 years (perhaps there are exceptions but you have to clearly see progression each term). We've had Turner for far too long. He has stalled and has no fresh ideas and the University is suffering the consequences. He has made mistakes academically and with the athletic program.

I went to SMU for two reasons: 1) business school and 2) location since I decided to stay in north Texas. I didn't want a big public university and didn't apply to Rice because I wanted to go to the b-school. I turned down much top 15 and top 30 national universities to stay at SMU. There must be many kids that want the same but are now passing on SMU to go to other schools simply because we don't stand out enough. Niemi needs to go; he's been there for almost 20 years which is absurd. He hasn't done anything with the full-time MBA program to make it relevant nationally (unacceptable considering SMU's location) and I'm not even sure if we have PhD programs. When I see UTD and A&M ranked higher I almost vomitted. While I didn't get my MBA from SMU, it is all interconnected, and it relates to research, faculty and then trickles down to perception of the school for undergrads.

There is no need to sacrifice academics for sports. We can be a top 25-30 institution and be competitive in sports. Right now we're neither. We may have missed the boat in football because Turner could not read the athletic landscape and he doesn't understand how to make this a top 25 academic institution.

unfortunately most of the old guard are happy with status quo and don't realize we're standing still while others are passing us by.