Gerald Turner

[perunapower]

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.

Looks like all these nice guys answered you for me.

What gifts would you be referring to? What rich Cox alum donated money so generously to other departments because they can't seem to get their own donations?

I'm not disputing that Cox has many rich alum because they do, naturally so. People donate where they have ties and interests. Prothro donated to Perkins (has ties), Simmons donated to the School of Education (his wife was an Elem. Education major here), Caruth donated to the School of Engineering (has ties), Perrine donated to the English department (worked at SMU), Cox donated to Cox (has ties). That's just how it works.

[Samurai Stang]

People donate where they have ties and interests.

That is correct. But when these people give non-restricted gifts to the business school they are then able to be used elsewhere. You listed all of the departments that have huge donors. Not every department has its own champion donor. "That's just how it works."

As for your question regarding identities and donation amounts, you cannot seriously expect me to prepare some sort of receipt.

[perunapower]

People donate where they have ties and interests.

That is correct. But when these people give non-restricted gifts to the business school they are then able to be used elsewhere. You listed all of the departments that have huge donors. Not every department has its own champion donor. "That's just how it works."

As for your question regarding identities and donation amounts, you cannot seriously expect me to prepare some sort of receipt.

The freakin' English department has huge donors? No way. I listed all the donations that were recent and news-worthy.

Regardless, I just don't like hearing that Cox is the savior of the rest of the university. Each of the schools is respectable and does not have to ride the coattails of any other department to even exist. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and arrogant.

[Samurai Stang]

People donate where they have ties and interests.

That is correct. But when these people give non-restricted gifts to the business school they are then able to be used elsewhere. You listed all of the departments that have huge donors. Not every department has its own champion donor. "That's just how it works."

As for your question regarding identities and donation amounts, you cannot seriously expect me to prepare some sort of receipt.

The freakin' English department has huge donors? No way. I listed all the donations that were recent and news-worthy.

Regardless, I just don't like hearing that Cox is the savior of the rest of the university. Each of the schools is respectable and does not have to ride the coattails of any other department to even exist. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and arrogant.

So what you are saying is that you know that the examples you gave to support your argument were in fact useless in supporting your argument. Your proposal that each department is capable of supporting itself is simply false, OC Mustang will agree with me on this point as well. This is very notable under Pye, as part of his reasoning in eliminating physical education was its inability to achieve economic stability. Certain departments continue to suffer from this unfortunate problem. Walk into Hyer or Heroy Hall and then one of the business school buildings. There is obvious economic disparity. Certain departments are not able to fund themselves. You might as well be saying that Women's Equestrian (a noble sport) is self-sufficient simply due to its existence, which it is not.

[PK]

I may very well be wrong here, but is not the tuition each student pays determined by the over all school budget and not based upon the particular department the student majors in. Thus a base for each department is set and those departments that can bring in more gifts from alums that are targeted to a particular department can then add to their base budget? In other words, a Cox student may be paying more than he/she would have to if some of his/her tuition was not going to support other departments or perhaps some other department student may be paying more for the same reason. Just a thought.

[smu diamond m]

I may very well be wrong here, but is not the tuition each student pays determined by the over all school budget and not based upon the particular department the student majors in. Thus a base for each department is set and those departments that can bring in more gifts from alums that are targeted to a particular department can then add to their base budget? In other words, a Cox student may be paying more than he/she would have to if some of his/her tuition was not going to support other departments or perhaps some other department student may be paying more for the same reason. Just a thought.

I believe this to be true. Some of the more affluent departments have GOT to be contributing to keeping the spanish.... err other departments afloat.

[Samurai Stang]

I may very well be wrong here, but is not the tuition each student pays determined by the over all school budget and not based upon the particular department the student majors in. Thus a base for each department is set and those departments that can bring in more gifts from alums that are targeted to a particular department can then add to their base budget? In other words, a Cox student may be paying more than he/she would have to if some of his/her tuition was not going to support other departments or perhaps some other department student may be paying more for the same reason. Just a thought.

I believe this to be true. Some of the more affluent departments have GOT to be contributing to keeping the spanish.... err other departments afloat.

Truly you are on the path to becoming a Buddha.

[OC Mustang]

I think Samurai is correct about departments not being able to float it on their own. It is especially true in Dedman and Engineering, the former because of the wide variety of majors and the latter because it is so bloody expensive to run a top notch engineering school, especially since the "body of knowledge" keeps expanding and subdividing to accomodate the increase.

And frankly, Samurai has a point about unrestricted gifts and their sources. However, twasn't always so, and really, to be honest, the university is receiving considerable largesse from a wide array of sources, arguably the largest in its history. I recall four very large donors in the 1990s who served on the Board or somesuch committee, and all of them were engineering by discipline. And the business school guys who were giving at the time actually got their degrees well before the current Cox School came around.

I still stick to my view that discussions of contribution miss the point nowadays. We are not in a place where discussions of cuts are rampant; in fact, quite the contrary is true. Contribution is usually determined for financial viability or perhaps to determine where growth is a good idea. One can use investment theory as the model for where to place emphasis in a university; it works, and it's okay. However, I like strategic strengths as a location. IMHO, it is less of a guess and more forward-looking in spans of time that universities are typically measured and measuring.

Still doesn't make Pye Joe-stud. But it certainly gives another lens through which to view Turner coming on Pye's heels. Does it make Turner Joe-stud? We'll see.

[The Spaz]

Greatest SMU President of all Time???? Talk amongst yourselves.............

I guess we know who Friarwolf is now...

[CalallenStang]

I realize that I have posted a lot of information on this thread and none of it has been extremely relevant to the original question regarding the relative greatness of President Turner. While I am not well-versed enough in SMU Presidential History to make an accurate assertion to the question posed by the OP, I will say that Turner impresses me for the following reasons:

1) Fundraising. How much has this guy grown the endowment since he got here? Just this school year, we have received multi-million dollar gifts for undergrad Business, a new Caruth Hall for engineering, the brand-new education school, and the biology department. We also saw the Circle of Champions formed, and even if Orsini deserves all the credit for that, he is a Turner hire. Plus, a new fundraising campaign has been launched: http://www.smu.edu/vision/

2) The Boulevard. It was his idea. Enough said.

3) Commitment to SMU architecture. In his years, every new building built, even parking garages, have been built in the Georgian style. I had a chance to discuss the Bush library with Dr. Turner back in the fall, and he said that one of the sticking points at the time was whether or not the architecture would be Georgian. Laura Bush, he said, wanted a very modern design, but Dr. Turner had told the committee that the library would "have" to conform to the university's architecture, i.e. Georgian.

4) Increased academic standards. Take a look at where our university was before Turner in terms of admissions and overall rankings...then take a look at where we are now. Night and day.

I don't know whether Turner is the best SMU president of all time, but I will say that Turner has been a very good president during his time at SMU.

[couch 'em]

We also saw the Circle of Champions formed, and even if Orsini deserves all the credit for that, he is a Turner hire.

Is he really a "Turner hire"? Under Turner, we had years and years of horrible Copeland AD-ing, then suddenly we get Orsini. Orsini came in right around the time the board of trustees shuffled. I'm not privelaged with the inner workings of the board/Turner, but I wonder if it was really Turner who chose Orsini. That pick, along with everything that has gotten accomplished (JJ, bringing back PE that Pye killed, better game presentation, etc.) is totally different from what went on all the rest of Turner's tenure. Did he suddenly wake up in the last two years, or did someone higher up tug his strings different from before?

[SMU Football Blog]

Turner picked Orsini.

Turner has his faults; he is slow to act and probably loyal to a fault. I.e. It took him too damn long to get rid of Copeland (even though Turner didn't hire Copeland). When he does make changes, he makes good ones.

Pye's vision for SMU was very different than everyone else's; he should not have been hired. Pye wanted to airlift SMU to New England, shrink the student body to about 500 and make everyone read Robert Frost twelve hours a day. He wanted a nice liberal arts college; we wanted a great University.

If Pye hadn't quit for health reasons, he would have eventually been forced out in favor of someone like Turner who recognizes the greatness of SMU today and its potential.

They will name buildings after Turner; if they ever try to name a building after Pye, I am going to retch.

[Eddie P]

"Bringing back PE" was happening well before Orsini set foot on this campus. Just an FYI.

[smu diamond m]

They will name buildings after Turner; if they ever try to name a building after Pye, I am going to retch.

I think the next engineering building still needs a namesake.



(this was a joke, now laugh. I don't know about any plans beyond the new Caruth)

[Samurai Stang]

Turner picked Orsini.

Turner has his faults; he is slow to act and probably loyal to a fault. I.e. It took him too damn long to get rid of Copeland (even though Turner didn't hire Copeland). When he does make changes, he makes good ones.

Let us be careful not to give Turner too much credit for Orsini, as he only followed the recommendation of the committee hired to find an AD. I find it far too coincidental that the powers behind athletics and the university were shifting just as many of these changes were coming about. Turner simply started taking commands from a new group of individuals.