PonyFans.com

Pye was a turnaround guy. That's what he did. Everything he did at SMU was directed by a dual-mission: a) get the university budget in the black and keep it there by any means necessary...and that is quote from a board member... b) refine the academic mission of the university so that the next president could build stuff...also a quote from a board member.

To wit, Dr. Turner is a closer. He is an aggressive money-raiser, and he has strong diplomatic skills. Early in his tenure before he built up a reservoir of good will with SMU board and administration stalwarts, he gave wide latitude to his faculty and the academic mission of the university. As soon as the major fund raising initiatives were starting to pay directly from his efforts (as opposed to efforts started by Pye), he segued to athletics. As it so happened, the timing couldn't have been any better. He has, in my mind, largely expended his goodwill with faculty with the strides taken in revenue sports, particularly football, and the Bush Library (for some reason, faculty member don't mind basketball).

Is he as solid as Tate? I dunno. Tate has the benefit of 30 years of hindsight, and it is to his favor. However, in his time, I don't think he was regarded as the adept and erudite leader he is today.

But since it is an opinion question, yeah, I think Turner will go down as a distinguished SMU president.

Turner is a good fund raiser. Period.

OC Mustang wrote:Pye was a turnaround guy. That's what he did. Everything he did at SMU was directed by a dual-mission: a) get the university budget in the black and keep it there by any means necessary...and that is quote from a board member... b) refine the academic mission of the university so that the next president could build stuff...also a quote from a board member.

To quote myself, Pye was the worst president in the history of SMU. He sought to eliminate the business school and turn SMU into a small East Coast liberal arts college. I doubt you realize this, but the business school is what keeps the rest of the university afloat. Therefore, it would not seem as though he was doing anything to keep SMU in the black that actually made any sense except in his own delusional mind. End quote.

Samurai Stang wrote:I doubt you realize this, but the business school is what keeps the rest of the university afloat.

That, and my tuition increases.

O' mighty Cox. I am truly ignorant to your contribution to the university's buoyancy. Your density is truly lower than that of water, so that you may more than counteract the effects of gravity. O Cox, you truly worth our adoration and gratitude.

Edit:


This looks like most of the revenue to SMU comes from tuition and fees.

PK wrote:WILLIS M. TATE
SMU PRESIDENT 1954-1972, 1974-1976

DING!! DING!! DING!! DING!!

We have a winner!

Good point, Samurai

perunapower wrote: This looks like most of the revenue to SMU comes from tuition and fees.

I addressed tuition in my earlier post. I suggest you learn how to read Engrish. You swing at your allies instead of your foes, and even then you come up empty. The endowment is made up of gifts from the business school. The reason people go to SMU is largely for the business school. That means that the majority of tuition comes from business school students, what as it is one of the largest schools. Hence, the business school keeps the university afloat. It is what is internationally recognized. Prove to me you are a wise man and demonstrate that you can see how utterly naive your statement is.

Additionally, my statements regarding the business school were never intended to sing of its praises blindly, but to point out the idiocy of Pye in regards to not seeing its benefits. It would seem he is not alone in his thinking.

If I remember correctly that during the times SMU was having financial troubles after the DP & Pye's time on the Hilltop, I believe the school ("the big school") was having to borrow $$$ from Cox.

Samurai Stang wrote: To quote myself, Pye was the worst president in the history of SMU. He sought to eliminate the business school and turn SMU into a small East Coast liberal arts college. I doubt you realize this, but the business school is what keeps the rest of the university afloat. Therefore, it would not seem as though he was doing anything to keep SMU in the black that actually made any sense except in his own delusional mind. End quote.

For the record, I'm not advocating that Pye should be in the all-time list.
Since that is out of the way, I will state my points. You are mistaken;
Pye did not seek to eliminate the business school. He felt if the university could leverage business school resources into a Top 10 (yeah, you read that right) Graduate Business Program, it would offset any perceived reduction in resources in the undergraduate program. His model was Dartmouth. If you want to read more into it than that, knock yourself out. He certainly recognized the strength of the undergrad program, and over time, as the university came out of its financial funk, that both a top tier grad program as well as an undergraduate program could be maintained. He did push the change from a 12 calendar month MBA to a full two-year program. At the time, that upset some folks, but it was the right thing to do.

As an aside, however, some hard decisions were made in schools that had a much rougher time...particularly CME in Engineering. Its capital requirements made it, at the time anyway, not viable.

As for your assertion that the B-school floats the university, that's laughable. That distinction was floated back in the late 1980s. I thought then and I think now that those experiencing angst about it tended to be quick to point out sunk cost as well as the idea of 1+1=3 with the value of athletics to a university, and yet at the same time pushed the idea that Cox could survive all alone as the dominant school at SMU. Uh...no. I'm a Cox grad who didn't share that brainfart.

Cox student undergrad enrollment for 2007 = 965 including part-time students. Didn't feel like digging around for MBAs. Let's say 250. So SMU's full Cox student contribution is 11% of total university enrollment (11,000). So that leaves everybody else in Perkins, Meadows, Engineering, Law, and Dedman. Sorry, but the numbers don't foot for enrollment either.

Sorry, Samurai. Althought I find your schtick one of the coolest on the board, you are patently incorrect here.

(edit) Oh, yeah...the endowment thing. Uh...sorry, but Meadows has, does, and will continue to win that war. The difference is that you don't see it because the university doesn't publish the resources of the Meadow Foundation as directly buttressing Meadows, but it has, does, and will continue to do so. The Meadows deans all figure out week 1 that they can play with that number a little to sandbag their budgets and still get stuff done that they need to. But I don't expect anybody to catch that straight out of the gate. It was pointed out to me by someone back in the early 90s. I checked, and well, it foots.

OC Mustang wrote: Cox student undergrad enrollment for 2007 = 965 including part-time students. Didn't feel like digging around for MBAs. Let's say 250. So SMU's full Cox student contribution is 11% of total university enrollment (11,000). So that leaves everybody else in Perkins, Meadows, Engineering, Law, and Dedman. Sorry, but the numbers don't foot for enrollment either.

While this is old information and does not bring the Cox student contribution percentage to a level greater than 50% (which would be quite necessary to support Samurai Stang's argument), the following link reports grad enrollment as 1110 (reported in 2002...did not feel like digging for more current info). Therefore, it can be reasonably estimated that Cox accounts for roughly 2,000 students of the university's 11,000, or a little more than 18%

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/02 ... es/smu.htm

NavyCrimson wrote:If I remember correctly that during the times SMU was having financial troubles after the DP & Pye's time on the Hilltop, I believe the school ("the big school") was having to borrow $$$ from Cox.

It can't do that. Same financial statement. I don't doubt that they increased their contribution, or attempted to do so, because the deans at the time had a row about it with Meadows (they have the most money of anybody, and they sandbag their budget because the money sits outside the university...see post above). However, neither Dedman nor the other schools borrow money from any other part of the university.

And again, for the record, I don't think Pye is on the all-time cool list of university presidents. However, I knew the guy, and I was heavily involved as a student on the student trustee committee. And a lot of the propaganda that got spread around about him and the university isn't true. I am not on a mission to correct those notions, but some things just tempt me too much.

CalallenStang wrote:

OC Mustang wrote: Cox student undergrad enrollment for 2007 = 965 including part-time students. Didn't feel like digging around for MBAs. Let's say 250. So SMU's full Cox student contribution is 11% of total university enrollment (11,000). So that leaves everybody else in Perkins, Meadows, Engineering, Law, and Dedman. Sorry, but the numbers don't foot for enrollment either.

While this is old information and does not bring the Cox student contribution percentage to a level greater than 50% (which would be quite necessary to support Samurai Stang's argument), the following link reports grad enrollment as 1110 (reported in 2002...did not feel like digging for more current info). Therefore, it can be reasonably estimated that Cox accounts for roughly 2,000 students of the university's 11,000, or a little more than 18%

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/02 ... es/smu.htm

Is possible, but 2007 says UG got smaller. That could be natural variance; it could also be that the university increased selectivity. Dunno. Good point though. Brings enrollment to roughly parity with other schools.

OC Mustang wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:

OC Mustang wrote: Cox student undergrad enrollment for 2007 = 965 including part-time students. Didn't feel like digging around for MBAs. Let's say 250. So SMU's full Cox student contribution is 11% of total university enrollment (11,000). So that leaves everybody else in Perkins, Meadows, Engineering, Law, and Dedman. Sorry, but the numbers don't foot for enrollment either.

While this is old information and does not bring the Cox student contribution percentage to a level greater than 50% (which would be quite necessary to support Samurai Stang's argument), the following link reports grad enrollment as 1110 (reported in 2002...did not feel like digging for more current info). Therefore, it can be reasonably estimated that Cox accounts for roughly 2,000 students of the university's 11,000, or a little more than 18%

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/02 ... es/smu.htm

Is possible, but 2007 says UG got smaller. That could be natural variance; it could also be that the university increased selectivity. Dunno. Good point though. Brings enrollment to roughly parity with other schools.

As a current Cox UG, I can speak to the university's raising of the standards to get into Cox. It seems like they raise the "subset" GPA requirement by a tenth of a point every year...for students who enter next year, it is something like 3.4. I didn't have to worry about that (and neither do approx. 100 other students each year) due to the Business Scholars program (http://www.cox.smu.edu/undergrad/bba/pr ... ssscholars), which recently received a $5 million gift from Ed Cox.

The reason why they continue to raise the subset GPA requirement is because they continue to attract more and more students who are interested in business and want to keep UG enrollment at approximately 900. Coupled with a grad enrollment that (I am guessing) is still around 1100, that brings our total enrollment to about 2000.

One area that Cox does add to the university that has not been mentioned is that it has an excellent reputation, and this reflects on the university as a whole. That being said, Cox does NOT carry the entire university on its coattails: it is a big part of our university but it is just that - a part of the larger whole.

OC Mustang wrote:

NavyCrimson wrote:If I remember correctly that during the times SMU was having financial troubles after the DP & Pye's time on the Hilltop, I believe the school ("the big school") was having to borrow $$$ from Cox.

It can't do that. Same financial statement.

SMU accounting is not the same as public accounting. It is a not for profit entity. The point is that the business school is not necessarily funding them directly as a separate entity, but is able to support them through their non-restricted gifts. In this way, the rich alumni of the business school, which are amongst the wealthiest of the donors, can support other areas of study within the university that would normally never receive funding from donors, such as philosophy. Thus, many departments at the university remain able to function that would otherwise be unable to. There is nothing controversial about this statement.