Being an SMU fan

[gostangs]

SMU is not Rice, Vanderbilt or Harvard. We are also light years ahead of Tech, quality-wise.

We are the best private university in Texas other then Rice. Tech may not be the fifth best public university in Texas.

No doubt you get more applications. So does DeVry - that proves nothing relative to quality.

[FloridaMustang]

Dear Dumb Tech Bastard,

The reason SMU recieves less apps than a state school like Tech is because not everyone has the qualifications to even apply to SMU. And most importantly, SMU is expensive, and not everyone can be accomodated with financial aid (and many still simply don't want to repay those loans). Texas state scholarships won't cover the tuition costs of a private school nearly as completely as they would a state institution. Therfore, the applicant pool will be substantially smaller at universities such as SMU, Baylor, and Rice. A school's athletic program hardly has has anything to do with the applicant pool. The reason I had to leave SMU is because my parents couldn't afford more than a semester because SMU kept raising tuition and not my aid package. SMU is guilty of have having less than satisfactory financial aid staff, but it's definitely a fantastic school and a Tech fan such as yourself certainly has about as much room to brag about academics as an SMU fan does about our football team. Trash talk is one thing, but anyone that truly believes that Tech grads have better degrees or that SMU has experienced post-DP football sucess is just dilusional or in denial.

That's all obvious.. so what exactly are we arguing about?

[Arkpony]

You STILL cannot get around the fact that TECH is an also-ran state school IN LUBBOCK!!! for God's sake. What idiot would be proud of that?? (Answer: only a tech student, of course!)

[Observer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by UNFMustang06:
<B>Dear Dumb Tech Bastard,

The reason SMU recieves less apps than a state school like Tech is because not everyone has the qualifications to even apply to SMU. And most importantly, SMU is expensive, and not everyone can be accomodated with financial aid (and many still simply don't want to repay those loans). Texas state scholarships won't cover the tuition costs of a private school nearly as completely as they would a state institution. Therfore, the applicant pool will be substantially smaller at universities such as SMU, Baylor, and Rice. A school's athletic program hardly has has anything to do with the applicant pool. The reason I had to leave SMU is because my parents couldn't afford more than a semester because SMU kept raising tuition and not my aid package. SMU is guilty of have having less than satisfactory financial aid staff, but it's definitely a fantastic school and a Tech fan such as yourself certainly has about as much room to brag about academics as an SMU fan does about our football team. Trash talk is one thing, but anyone that truly believes that Tech grads have better degrees or that SMU has experienced post-DP football sucess is just dilusional or in denial.

That's all obvious.. so what exactly are we arguing about?

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This guy 55-0 seems to have really gotten under your skin. Since you started getting personal with the name calling it also looks like he won the argument.

It appears that since you can't win the argument about who has the better athletic program, you changed the subject to academics. 55-0 didn't say that SMU wasn't a good school, he said it wasn't as good as many of you seem to think. He's right.

This thread wouldn't happen on the Rice board for two reasons. First, they don't think their school's academics are better than they are because they truly are first class. They don't have to convince anyone how good they are because everyone respects them and knows Rice truly is a great institution. Second, Rice fans know their football program isn't ever going to be Big 12 caliber, and they aren't naive enough to try and convince anyone it is. SMU fans could learn alot from Rice fans.

The truth of the matter is that SMU is the same thing as TCU and Baylor, no better no worse on average. Any of you who think SMU is exceptionally selective in admissions are proof that it isn't.

Considering that you SMU fans were fighting a losing argument and decided to change the subject to how great your education is, it is doubly amusing that the Techster has made you all look so silly.

[gostangs]

Dear Observer -

(why not participant?) - Anyway, if you want to see name-calling just visit the tech board - the education level displayed there should answer all of your questions. SMU is a better school then TCU and Baylor - statistics and third party rating service say so. Anyone who says SMU is better then Tech or A$M in football has lost their mind -there is no evidence of that whatsoever. There is also no reason to think that SMU, at sometime in the future, cannot be as good in football as a Big 12 school - though we have more hurdles to overcome. TCU has done it and I would say they would hold their own against most of the Big 12 - certainly Tech. If you want to do like MacArthur , declare victory and get out, thats fine, but you have lost the arguement.

[Observer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gostangs:
<B>Dear Observer -

(why not participant?) - Anyway, if you want to see name-calling just visit the tech board - the education level displayed there should answer all of your questions. SMU is a better school then TCU and Baylor - statistics and third party rating service say so. Anyone who says SMU is better then Tech or A$M in football has lost their mind -there is no evidence of that whatsoever. There is also no reason to think that SMU, at sometime in the future, cannot be as good in football as a Big 12 school - though we have more hurdles to overcome. TCU has done it and I would say they would hold their own against most of the Big 12 - certainly Tech. If you want to do like MacArthur , declare victory and get out, thats fine, but you have lost the arguement. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TCU has only done it because they play a pitifully easy schedule. 9 or 10 Big 12 schools would win 10 games a year if their toughest games were against Cincinnati and Louisville. TCU is a decent team, but they would be sub .500 if they played a Big 12 schedule plus a tough OOC schedule.

Still, you have to hand it to them for making the most of an easy schedule.

As far as SMU goes, it's a better school than TCU and Baylor when and only when you ask an SMU student or alum.

[gostangs]

Or any third party rating service.

[Observer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gostangs:
<B>Or any third party rating service. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. The only school that really stands out in this group is Rice. The others are close give or take a few points.

US News and World Report:

Academic Reputation Score:
Baylor 3.3
Southern Methodist 3.1
TCU 2.7
Texas A&M 3.5
Texas Tech 2.7
Rice 4.2

Entering Freshmen in Top 10% of High School Class:
Baylor 40%
Southern Methodist 35%
TCU 28%
Texas A&M 55%
Texas Tech 22%
Rice 83%

Acceptance Rate:
Baylor 81%
Southern Methodist 66%
TCU 71%
Texas A&M 68%
Texas Tech 69%
Rice 24%

Alumni Giving Rate:
Baylor 35%
SMU 16%
TCU 28%
A&M 18%
Tech 22%
Rice 35%

[gostangs]

Check my earlier posting for the recent U.S. News rankings. Shows SMU ahead of every private school but Rice.

[Pony_Fan]

Aggie "Observer" AND Tech ZERO - LEAVE the board.

Read this over and over:

Texas Tech WILL NEVER WIN the BIG 12 or a NAT'L Championsip - GET LOST! We don't care.

[Observer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gostangs:
<B>Check my earlier posting for the recent U.S. News rankings. Shows SMU ahead of every private school but Rice. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check my latest posting for the recent U.S News rankings. No it doesn't.

[Observer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Pony_Fan:
<B>Aggie "Observer" AND Tech ZERO - LEAVE the board.

Read this over and over:

Texas Tech WILL NEVER WIN the BIG 12 or a NAT'L Championsip - GET LOST! We don't care.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They will come alot closer to it than SMU ever will.

[FloridaMustang]

Observer, my post was very fair. Sure I called the guy a name, but apparently you haven't been reading the other threads because we've been called much worse by these Tech [deleted].

Stay on the board, get off.. I don't care. anyone that had read my post would have realized that I put together a very reasonable argument and I never said that SMU had a better program than Tech, which seems to be what's getting under Tech's skin.

WHatever. This is dumb. You're obviously too huge a moron to have a reasonable argument with anyone.

[Tech55_SMU0]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by UNFMustang06:
<B>You're obviously too huge a moron to have a reasonable argument with anyone.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Too huge a moron"? And you are bragging about SMU having such high academic standards?

And Observer is right, the minute you start with the name calling you lose the argument. Apparently name calling is the only approach you know. Later on.

[gostangs]

At the risk of keeping this lame thread alive - I wanted to correct Observer. You mentioned U.S. News report does not have SMU ranked above Baylor and TCU - and , of course, you are incorrect again (sort of a trend for you, but since you are an aggie I guess you are used to it).

In the September 2003 issue - it clearly states the rankings in the left margin of the report. You are either a little slow (don't want to call names of course)or you are disingenuous. Even for an aggie - it seems hard to miss this, especially since the other quoted criteria were from the same report. SMU is ahead of both Baylor and TCU. What you stated as "academic reputation" score is really the Peer Assessment Score - which is only one of the criteria they used to come up with the ranking. If you are going to troll, please do so with some degree of accuracy, or you will continue to be batted around like a hockey puck.