Gerald Turner on CSpan

by **couch 'em** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:38 pm

UNT, UTEP, UH aren't even in the same stratosphere as UTD or UTA, much less real schools.

by **RednBlue11** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:41 pm

StallionsModelT wrote:By the year 2020 I see the TX rankings shaking out this way.

1. Rice - always will be #1
2. SMU - we pass UT somewhere around 2016-2017 in most national publications and become of the Top 40 schools nationally.
3. UT - 10 percent rule is KILLING that university. They've been treading water for a decade
4. Aggy - will close the gap on UT quickly.
5. Bible Aggy - really good school but I don't see them getting into the Top 50 nationally.

hahaha, that would be nice but totally unrealistic.

let me put it this way, and i know people aren't going to like this but...we don't offer enough at the undergraduate level to be a truly elite University, we don't do enough research, and nice buildings don't get your ranking up...renowned faculty that do well respected research do.

This years USN rankings have us at 56, to crack the top 40 we would have to pass in this order...

Ohio State
Fordham
Boston U
Syracuse
Florida
Pepperdine -

I stand corrected about what I said earlier but the perception of younger people previals

Tulane
GWU
Yeshiva
The U
Illinois
Penn St.
Wisconsin
Texas
Washington
Cal-Irvine
RPI
Case Western Reserve

now you might think, "all we have to do is what we are doing"...wrong...when you get into the top 40 (or any higher up the list) the competition for quality is much stiffer and jumping 18 institutions in 5-6 years is highly ambitious at this level.

Money doesn't get you status in academia, results do...and we have a ways to go.

i would be interested to see the quantifiable impact the 10% rule has made on the academic standing of Texas.

by **RednBlue11** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:19 pm

they've been talking about that for over 5 yrs now....nothing yet, politically its a poison pill

by **NickSMU17** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:17 pm

We are 56 and moved up 12 spots last year. A huge part of rating is alumni contribution percentage. As football get better that number will go up as will the rank right now we have a very small number of alumni donating.

Mustang club had around 2300 members last year. tcu frog program was double that...considering avg gift is $400 you do the math.

by **PonyKai** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:50 am

Ahh, the joys of being a big, dumb, land grant state university.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... lature.ece

by **NavyCrimson** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:36 am

You're right, Cox.

When it all comes down to the finish line, it is the endowment & it appears that "$3B level" is somewhat of a benchmark.

The school is raising a lot of $$$ in the 'Unbridled' campaign but much of that, I think, is being spent on infrastructure & so forth - not going into our endowment. So like you say, where's it going to come from?

by **RednBlue11** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:43 am

wait wait wait.....our endowment could be 1 dollar but if we had a great team of professors who did top notch quality research then endowment size would be totally moot...it's just a sexy number that makes it easy to "rank" universities in a popular way w/o looking at the things that allow a university to deliver a degree of substantial quality...i mean, ive never spoken w/ an employer who measured my talents by the amount of money the institution i came from had invested or in the bank.

by **RednBlue11** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:04 am

by **RednBlue11** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:16 am

CoxMustangFan wrote:
RednBlue11 wrote:+1

Will someone please explain the "+1" thing to me?

easier than typing "thumbs up"...its a sign of promoting the comment

by **NavyCrimson** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:22 am

Good point. Technology is now where it is & it ain't liberal arts which is SMU's history. I think that is what is difficult for the school to come to grips with.

by **RednBlue11** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:23 am

CoxMustangFan wrote:
RednBlue11 wrote:wait wait wait.....our endowment could be 1 dollar but if we had a great team of professors who did top notch quality research then endowment size would be totally moot...it's just a sexy number that makes it easy to "rank" universities in a popular way w/o looking at the things that allow a university to deliver a degree of substantial quality...i mean, ive never spoken w/ an employer who measured my talents by the amount of money the institution i came from had invested or in the bank.

True, but a larger endowment has profound implications for attracting top professors: more scholarship money attracts better students (for research); more money means more money for research; more money means higher salaries for in-demand faculty. You can go on and on about how more money leads to better faculty. I think you do raise a good point though. We don't always need a lot of money to have good faculty (esp if parents are willing to foot 100% of the bill). I suppose we can get good faculty who teach at SMU because they like Dallas (for example), and want to live here. In reality though, as much as we all just love Dallas, if Dallas is our only selling point SMU is in trouble...if the goal is top 40.

for all the history the Clements family has w/ this university, some of the greatest contributions to our legacy (and theirs) that they have made involves the endowment of positions for professors and the financial support for Dedman College that they have been so generous to provide...and im generalizing pretty heavily here, i know that have done many more things. I am aware that personally my major has (and will continue to have) significant credibility due to their aid.

by **RednBlue11** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:25 am

NavyCrimson wrote:Good point. Technology is now where it is & it ain't liberal arts which is SMU's history. I think that is what is difficult for the school to come to grips with.

to the 1st part yes...to your 2nd point, most definitely false.

both need to be exceedingly strong for us to be an elite institution..and we are most assuredly weaker w/o either.

by **RednBlue11** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:28 am

I would be remiss in leaving out the arts as well, Meadows is a very significant part of our intuitions identity and it is a consistently excellent and improving part of our university.

by **Samurai Stang** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:35 am

RednBlue11 wrote:I would be remiss in leaving out the arts as well, Meadows is a very significant part of our intuitions identity and it is a consistently excellent and improving part of our university.

More dancers enter SMU with questionable academics than football players.

by **RednBlue11** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:38 am

Samurai Stang wrote:
RednBlue11 wrote:I would be remiss in leaving out the arts as well, Meadows is a very significant part of our intuitions identity and it is a consistently excellent and improving part of our university.

More dancers enter SMU with questionable academics than football players.

so what?

you're really missing the point.