PonyFans.com

If a conference (PAC 12 or ACC) wanted to make a splash (academically) to enhance their prestige, while adding Texas to their market (Dallas and Houston), they could add SMU and Rice. Even Tulane would be a great brand.

All of these candidates would raise their own performance as a result with P5 money, attendance and athletic programs, including BB for Men and Women. Big XII would be the big loser.

A man can dream!

Looks like UC is doing better under Jerry Brown:

http://www.dailycal.org/2015/06/21/brea ... et-debate/

Neither #27 Michigan (28,3312 undergrads) nor #44 Illinois (33,368 undergrads) are as large as UT and A&M.

It's just more difficult to put together an elite student body when a school is so large. The only school larger than Illinois in the top-50 is Penn State (tied at #50).

orguy wrote:What does "conservative" have to do with anything? It is not USC's business school that has put them near the top of the rankings. Try research oriented disciplines like Engineering, Science, and Medicine. Throw in a location that attracts top notch wealthy students from all over the world and you have a recipe for success. Not to mention a historically good football program. No longer the "University of Spoiled Children".

Regarding Boston; Northeastern really should be removed from that list. A school that was mired in overpriced mediocrity for years and simply targeted the US News algorithm as a way to improve its stature. Still a quite sniff able school in the Boston area. Taking wealthy European students with high SAT's does not make an elite University (though it seems US News disagrees).

So both USC and Northeastern have desirable locations and attract wealthy students from other countries. How are they so different? Perhaps USC got a head start, but USC wasn't so desirable not so long ago ("University of Spoiled Children" -- your reference). A school has to start somewhere; hasn't USC been accused of gaming the U.S. News algorithm in the past?

Regarding the US News Counselor Survey --

One has to wonder if the metric is worthwhile after reviewing the results, and taking the counselors' very low participation rate into account. Does anyone really think Texas A&M Corpus Christi is on par with UT Dallas and significantly above Texas Tech and UH?

The counselors' one-year response rate was 9 percent for the spring 2016 surveys, up slightly from 7 percent in spring 2015.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-co ... e-rankings

Pony^ wrote:

orguy wrote:What does "conservative" have to do with anything? It is not USC's business school that has put them near the top of the rankings. Try research oriented disciplines like Engineering, Science, and Medicine. Throw in a location that attracts top notch wealthy students from all over the world and you have a recipe for success. Not to mention a historically good football program. No longer the "University of Spoiled Children".

Regarding Boston; Northeastern really should be removed from that list. A school that was mired in overpriced mediocrity for years and simply targeted the US News algorithm as a way to improve its stature. Still a quite sniff able school in the Boston area. Taking wealthy European students with high SAT's does not make an elite University (though it seems US News disagrees).

So both USC and Northeastern have desirable locations and attract wealthy students from other countries. How are they so different? Perhaps USC got a head start, but USC wasn't so desirable not so long ago ("University of Spoiled Children" -- your reference). A school has to start somewhere; hasn't USC been accused of gaming the U.S. News algorithm in the past?

I can assure you, no one views Northeastern alums as being the brightest. They are like UNT in Boston. And nobody views them as a rich school either--you have Harvard, MIT, Boston College, Tufts, Boston University, Brandeis, Wellesley and you think Northeastern is viewed as the rich school?

No reason SMU shouldn't be well positioned to shoot up the rankings in the coming years with all of the economic and population growth in the DFW area. Having our football and basketball teams nationally relevant would certainly help.

I worked in admissions at UH and it really just comes down to passion and being able to connect with potential students. You also need a leader that has high standards.

deucetz wrote:I can assure you, no one views Northeastern alums as being the brightest. They are like UNT in Boston. And nobody views them as a rich school either--you have Harvard, MIT, Boston College, Tufts, Boston University, Brandeis, Wellesley and you think Northeastern is viewed as the rich school?

I don't know anything about Northeastern other than they have done well in the rankings. I was just pointing out that orguy indicated rich foreigner's were attracted to both USC and Northeastern. I have a much higher opinion of USC than Northeastern, but USC also made a big move in the rankings a number of years ago. Not trying to say that Northeastern is better or wealthier than the more established schools in the Boston area.

East Coast Mustang wrote:No reason SMU shouldn't be well positioned to shoot up the rankings in the coming years with all of the economic and population growth in the DFW area. Having our football and basketball teams nationally relevant would certainly help.

Agreed. Look at what the cowtown college has been able to achieve soley because of football.

Pony^ wrote:Regarding the US News Counselor Survey --

One has to wonder if the metric is worthwhile after reviewing the results, and taking the counselors' very low participation rate into account. Does anyone really think Texas A&M Corpus Christi is on par with UT Dallas and significantly above Texas Tech and UH?

The counselors' one-year response rate was 9 percent for the spring 2016 surveys, up slightly from 7 percent in spring 2015.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-co ... e-rankings

Who cares what a high school counselor thinks. Most of them probably have education degrees and went to a UTD or TAMU commerce type school to begin with. As a group high school counselors are often jealous of the privates and/or state flagships simply because they did not have the opportunity to go to one themselves.

deucetz wrote:

Pony^ wrote:

orguy wrote:What does "conservative" have to do with anything? It is not USC's business school that has put them near the top of the rankings. Try research oriented disciplines like Engineering, Science, and Medicine. Throw in a location that attracts top notch wealthy students from all over the world and you have a recipe for success. Not to mention a historically good football program. No longer the "University of Spoiled Children".

Regarding Boston; Northeastern really should be removed from that list. A school that was mired in overpriced mediocrity for years and simply targeted the US News algorithm as a way to improve its stature. Still a quite sniff able school in the Boston area. Taking wealthy European students with high SAT's does not make an elite University (though it seems US News disagrees).

So both USC and Northeastern have desirable locations and attract wealthy students from other countries. How are they so different? Perhaps USC got a head start, but USC wasn't so desirable not so long ago ("University of Spoiled Children" -- your reference). A school has to start somewhere; hasn't USC been accused of gaming the U.S. News algorithm in the past?

I can assure you, no one views Northeastern alums as being the brightest. They are like UNT in Boston. And nobody views them as a rich school either--you have Harvard, MIT, Boston College, Tufts, Boston University, Brandeis, Wellesley and you think Northeastern is viewed as the rich school?

I think the cost to attend is on par with those other schools you mentioned. Boston is an expensive area. My comment was made in relative terms. I'm sure its quite a bit more expensive to attend Northeastern than SMU simply because of the difference in cost of living between the two metro areas. Do not think Tufts is really that much more expensive Northeastern even though they are different parts of the city. Boston is expensive everywhere.

gostangs wrote:Speaking in generalities, most high school counselors are former teachers that didn't like teaching, and in the Texas area they mostly went to A&M or some such average big state school. They value different things then are offered by top academic schools, and tend to steer kids where they think they can get in.

This is an area we need to figure out - because it is hurting our ranking pretty dramatically.

Education Degree equals Basket weaving. Reaching out to these folks is difficult. Most were C students in High School who decided to major in Education simply because they could magically overnight become "A" students. The education major is a joke. So sorry SMU brought that degree back.

The best High School teachers I had were folks with real degrees in things like Physics, Math, English Literature, Biology, Economics, Languages etc. Not education majors.

SMU has done less with more. It was one of top 20 biggest endowments in the 90s, now it's in the high 60s. They need to do a better job of utilizing more of the early decision. Award early decision apllicants with need blind admissions, and the most generous financial aid packages. Make early decision applicants have alumni interviews where possible. This helps students get to know the school, and makes them more invested. More than half the class should be from early decision until more applicants prefer SMU. Pimp the wait list if you need more students at the end (which SMU does). Most schools in the 20 to 50 range do this to increase their selectivity. Give a lot of preference to SMU alums children, these could be SMU's biggest advocates as well.

From 2014

Overall Admission Rate 52% of 11,817 applicants were admitted
Women 51% of 6,581 applicants were admitted
Men 55% of 5,236 applicants were admitted
Students Enrolled 1,734 (28%) of 6,192 admitted students enrolled
Women 864 (26%) of 3,336 admitted students enrolled
Men 870 (30%) of 2,856 admitted students enrolled
Early Decision Admission Rate 51% of 406 applicants were admitted
Early Action Admission Rate Not reported
Students Offered Wait List 1,345
Students Accepting Wait List Position 476
Students Admitted From Wait List 98
Grade Point Average of Enrolled Freshmen (4.0 scale)

Interesting that the same percentage of early decision folks are admitted as regular admission.

Only 406 out of 11,817 applicants applied early.

You guys are crazy if you don't think UGA is a good school. Incredibly hard to get into too.