TCU- The SMU Junior College

[ponygrad90]

This was the perception back in the 80's, Who could have imagined the reversal of fortunes since then.


Note to Bennett- Make it a game on Saturday or Leave!

[San Diego Frog]

Well, that was a great post. I love that type of attitude. I wish you bunch of losers would show the same type of attitude your great fans of the Pony Express of the 80's showed!!!

[RE Tycoon]

At least they had something to cheer for. Most people have stuck by this team while averaging less than three wins a year, which includes an 0-12 season. Hope springs eternal, but this spring has run dry. I'm glad people are pissed and giving up, it's pretty unanimous among "ponyfans.com" and I can only hope that the people who pull the strings behind the scenes are fed up as well.

[Deep Purple]

On the other hand, a decade ago, kids who couldn't get into SMU or Baylor came to TCU. Now just the reverse is true. Kids not admitted to TCU are snapped up by SMU and Baylor.

For the past 3 years, TCU has had 9,000-10,000 applicants for 1,500-1,600 admission slots. Because of that high application rate, TCU has had the luxury of being more selective in admissions. Today we admit a lower percentage of applicants than either SMU or Baylor.

[mustang_of_smu]

On the other hand, a decade ago, kids who couldn't get into SMU or Baylor came to TCU. Now just the reverse is true. Kids not admitted to TCU are snapped up by SMU and Baylor.

For the past 3 years, TCU has had 9,000-10,000 applicants for 1,500-1,600 admission slots. Because of that high application rate, TCU has had the luxury of being more selective in admissions. Today we admit a lower percentage of applicants than either SMU or Baylor.

On the other hand all three have seen much higher SAT scores and higher admission applications. The quality of students admitted has stayed relatively the same. The reason TCU gets a higher # of applicants is because of the price. I'm not saying SMU or Baylor are better than TCU academically, but that is the perception from the Princeton review among other polls. I think they are similar in type of education with one major exception. The school with the bigger grad program (Baylor and SMU both have much larger grad schools than TCU (and by that I mean size and rating)) is the best education because this indicates the school is research oriented. If you want to get into grad school after undergrad it helps to have a more research oriented school. I guarantee you if the population of students that applied to TCU had applied to SMU, SMU would have admitted even less from that population. We would also begin to lower our standards because we would be so distraught that we had drawn such low performing students. SMU is a place for those turned down by Stanford to go. TCU is still the place for those turned down by SMU and Baylor to go.

No contest really. You better stay in the football relm if you want to talk smack.

[San Diego Frog]

To be honest with you I think there admission standards are about the same. I applied to both SMU and TCU back in 1993 and was accepted to both. Never even thought about Baylor. Have you seen that campus? Absolutely atrocious. Plus who the hell would want to go to school in gang laden Waco. Can't complain about SMU. My roomate from boarding school went there and sure did enjoy the women since his sister was a cheerleader there. Spent many of good nights down on SMU campus. :wink:

[jtstang]

My roomate from boarding school went there and sure did enjoy the women since his sister was a cheerleader there.

Dude, your old roommate was getting it on with his sister?? That certainly would not have been allowed in Waco.

[SMU Football Blog]

On the other hand, a decade ago, kids who couldn't get into SMU or Baylor came to TCU. Now just the reverse is true. Kids not admitted to TCU are snapped up by SMU and Baylor.

For the past 3 years, TCU has had 9,000-10,000 applicants for 1,500-1,600 admission slots. Because of that high application rate, TCU has had the luxury of being more selective in admissions. Today we admit a lower percentage of applicants than either SMU or Baylor.

Ordinarily, I'd let this slide because you are kind of making a point I try to make, but your numbers are too way off base. I looked them up (it is what I do) and they are attached below. Now for the record, both SMU and TCU's numbers are improving. But TCU's numbers are improving a little faster than SMU's. Part of that is due to TCU's recent athletic success, according to their admissions department. I don't have long term stuff for Baylor.

TCU FRESHMAN ADMISSION PROFILE
% of Applicants Accepted: 71%
% of Accepted Applicants who Enroll: 39%
25th - 75th Percentile Verbal SAT Range: 510-620
25th - 75th Percentile Math SAT Range: 520-630
25th - 75th Percentile ACT Range: 21-27

SMU FRESHMAN ADMISSION PROFILE
% of Applicants Accepted: 66%
% of Accepted Applicants who Enroll: 34%
25th - 75th Percentile Verbal SAT Range: 540-630
25th - 75th Percentile Math SAT Range: 550-650
25th - 75th Percentile ACT Range: 23-28

BAYLOR FRESHMAN ADMISSION PROFILE
% of Applicants Accepted: 81%
% of Accepted Applicants who Enroll: 48%
25th - 75th Percentile Verbal SAT Range: 530-630
25th - 75th Percentile Math SAT Range: 550-650
25th - 75th Percentile ACT Range: 22-27.

[Deep Purple]

I think they are similar in type of education with one major exception. The school with the bigger grad program (Baylor and SMU both have much larger grad schools than TCU (and by that I mean size and rating)) is the best education because this indicates the school is research oriented.

First, people who work in higher education understand that, for the most part, exactly the opposite of what you describe is true. Schools that emphasize grad programs and research -- particularly private universities, where resources are more limited -- often do so at the expense of undergrad education. That's why non-research, non-grad-oriented schools like Southwestern and Austin College admit students with higher GPA's and higher SAT scores than either SMU or TCU.

Second, apart from siphoning off some resources, grad programs and research have very little impact on undergrad education for the following reasons:

-- Very few undergrads are involved in faculty research; that role is generally reserved for grad students.

-- At major research universities, most senior research faculty do not teach undergrads.

-- Many so-called "grad programs" like business, law, and medicine are actually not grad programs; they're professional programs that have no research component.

I guarantee you if the population of students that applied to TCU had applied to SMU, SMU would have admitted even less from that population.

The numbers don't bear you out on that claim. Here are the numbers for Fall 2004:

Applied
=============
TCU: 8,061
SMU: 6,434

Admitted
=============
TCU: 5,153
SMU: 4,136

Admission Rate
=============
TCU: 63.9%
SMU: 64.3%

Enrolled
=============
TCU: 1,607
SMU: 1,313

Admission Yield
=============
TCU: 31.2%
SMU: 31.7%

The absolute percentages are virtually neck-and-neck, but TCU was admitting a slightly lower percentage and doing so from a significantly larger applicant pool. In fact, our target freshman enrollment last year was 1,500. We admitted and enrolled more than planned because of the unexpected flood of applications. (This year, it was well over 9,000.) Had we stuck to our targets, the acceptance rate would have been in the neighborhood of 57% and the yield around 33%.

[Deep Purple]

Ordinarily, I'd let this slide because you are kind of making a point I try to make, but your numbers are too way off base. I looked them up (it is what I do) and they are attached below.

I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers, but they're about 2-3 years old. For more current numbers, see my post above.

However, I will concede that even the current numbers show very little difference between the quality of education obtained at SMU, Baylor, and TCU. For the most part, we're arguing about fractions. I was merely trying to point out that the title of this thread, touting TCU as "SMU junior college," has no basis in fact.

[ThadFilms]

I was merely trying to point out that the title of this thread, touting TCU as "SMU junior college," has no basis in fact.

Um... that's the point of the title, which ponygrad90 clearly refutes in the subject of his post...

Who could have imagined the reversal of fortunes since then.

[EastStang]

A high percentage of SMU classes are taught by full and assistant professors despite it being a research instititution. The school doesn't fund much research, the professors have to go out and get grants on their own although the University will help them with grant applications. They have to agree to teach undergraduate classes. That is one of the things that makes SMU very special, few classes taught by adjuncts and graduate assistants. When they do use adjuncts, it is for specialized courses that is outside the competency of the full time faculty (like business law, or collective bargaining classes in the Business School). They only use graduate assistants for labs and when there is overflowing demand for a certain class in a given semester.

[GoRedGoBlue]

On the other hand, a decade ago, kids who couldn't get into SMU or Baylor came to TCU. Now just the reverse is true. Kids not admitted to TCU are snapped up by SMU and Baylor.

For the past 3 years, TCU has had 9,000-10,000 applicants for 1,500-1,600 admission slots. Because of that high application rate, TCU has had the luxury of being more selective in admissions. Today we admit a lower percentage of applicants than either SMU or Baylor.

Not true. Though applications have gone up, they have not surpassed SMU.

Low percentage of admittance doesn't necessarily mean that they are 'more selective'.

IF you get 5x more lower applications, then you are going to be 'more selective', aren't you?

It's not like you get 3000 'qualified' applicants, and then and ADDITIONAL 6,000 superb ones... there are a LOT more people aspiring to go to TCU (because of the football success, no doubt) that aren't really qualified either.

Your 9-10,000 figure is rediculous. It is more like 3,000-4,000 for 1,400 slots - tripling effect since TCU's resurgence in Football.

[SouthernMustang]

Your 9-10,000 figure is rediculous. It is more like 3,000-4,000 for 1,400 slots - tripling effect since TCU's resurgence in Football.

Probably not 9-10k but not way too far off. Think about it like this...

TCU accepts 70% of applicants, so if 10,000 applicants apply than 7,000 are accepted. Now if 35% of those accept their spot (which is what's reported). That's an incoming class of 2,450.

So if you do the math ... about 7500 applicants apply to TCU. That would put the freshman class around the 1800 or so that enter each year.

** And the "If I didn't get in to TCU/SMU I went to SMU/TCU" argument goes both ways all of the time. Most of the time when someone didn't get in to either it was b/c they weren't qualified for either one ... but "daddy" knew someone at one institution and Voila! -- an acceptance letter came a few weeks later.

[Mexmustang]

Look it looks like a virtual tie...but what I would like to see is the trends of the two schools over the past ten years. It would appear that TCU has gained considerable ground. The question is are they still moving forward?