PonyFans.com

I can't imagine SMU going after Khator after RGT.

StallionsModelT wrote:I can't imagine SMU going after Khator after RGT.

I would fully agree with this

I think she is a first rate administrator and an asset for UH and The State of Texas (even though I feel her "tier 1" marketing blitz cheapened her concrete accomplishments at UH), but she is not the type of administrator that SMU needs to push SMU to the upper echelons of private universities

Her style is just not what SMU needs at this point and time.....she has all the substance in the world as well and came from a "research" background at USF where she was credited for helping elevate their research profile, but SMU needs someone different than her

as for her and the legislature I am positive they respect her and listen to all that she has to say, but the whole purpose of the NRUF and TRIP programs was to make concrete changes not just to make a few things happen and declare "success" and again she has cheapened what she has accomplished at UH (and those things are significant and will only IMO continue) and she marketed to the "low hanging fruit" of students (that are not necessarily bad students) that would fall for that marketing blitz

Increasing on campus housing and the quality of it and twice elevating the admissions standards will pay off greatly in the future for getting rid of the "commuter school" label and increasing the graduation rates (which is sorely needed) and she has attracted some quality faculty, but there is a lot of work left to do for UH to get where all UH alumni want UH to be and even where she wants UH to be, but there are people out there now that are thinking "that is it that is all"

you say you are "tier 1", but national perceptions are little changed, graduation rates are not up significantly (and won't be because the admissions and on campus housing are still kicking in) and everything else to most outsiders still looks like "tier 1 UH" the same as "non-tier 1 UH"......and that IMO is not acceptable

and lets be honest the legislature is filled with idiots in all shapes and sizes and I (as a true conservative) know that on one side of the aisle some that want to hold state funding firm can say "well UH is now "tier 1" so no need for more funding" and then the bigger buffoons on the other side can point and say "that little bit of extra funding got UH to "tier 1" and think of what some more money could do for our university with decades of corrupt and ineffective leadership and a single digit graduation rate where is our money!"

and if you confronted the one person on one side of the aisle they would admit that UH is not "tier 1", but the "message" is selling so there is really no need for more funding because so many are buying the story and if you confronted the other buffoon on the other side of the aisle who knows what stupidity they would spew, but it would end with "more money" and no desire for accountability even if more money was given with no appreciable results.....and of course that would lead to "it was not enough money" because it never is

back to SMU....SMU has done a pretty damn good job of overcoming a "state wide" reputation and getting their message out nationally which is why SMU has 50% of their enrollment from out of state and the top 3 states are California, Illinois, and Florida for enrollment

so while it is popular in Texas to toss out the (asinine) "rich kids with daddies money going wild" BS that one school in particular likes to toss out if you know what you are talking about you would know that SMU has a very very large % of students that get a very generous financial aid package (based on need and merit) which hardly qualifies them as rich and when you look at those 3 states and California and Illinois in particular and consider the other choices those students had to choose from (and again knowing that those students would have had an average 1300 SAT because that is the SMU average) I think it says something that those students are passing over some of those choices and coming a good distance away from home to attend SMU and again considering they have a 1300 SAT and probably have very good high school grades even if they were to like to "party" well you can "party" at any university except for BYU, Liberty and Oral Roberts so you have to believe they were at some point and time doing something besides "partying" while in high school....so the chances that they decided to leave their home state (and their party friends) to come to SMU based on "partying" is just stupid

and there is the ever popular (again with idiots and the logically challenged) concept that alumni favoritism plays a roll in the success of SMU graduates without regard for actual academics.....which is again just stupid...so if you examine that concept

1. stupid people can make a lot of money, but the reality is there is very little chance that stupid people from the same university will have financial success over and over and especially at a rate anywhere close to SMU's major alumni

2. successful people do not think "boy I sure wasted my time and brain cells while at SMU and I lucked into all this success so lets keep rolling the dice by hiring more graduates from the place where I feel like I "partied" 4-5 years of my life away"......because of course yea that will build a strong foundation for a company and others will flock to do business with you (especially if they are hiring SMU grads and finding them poorly prepared (but it must just be their hiring policies right))

3. successful people do not think "boy that was a huge time and money waste, but hey I will give a large sum of money so that others can benefit from that same large waste of time on MY money"......then of course I can hire them to run my business into the ground.....brilliant

so with that in mind and back to Dr. Khator....SMU has done very well with getting their undergrad reputation out there nationally even if people in Texas still cling to past perceptions, but what SMU really needs is to push the research aspect and the graduate and faculty profile.....and really that was the exact same goals as "tier 1" and NRUF, but instead Dr. Khator choose to market UH to the population of Texas based on "tier 1" and while I will admit that has sold well and attracted more students and a slightly better quality of students it has really done nothing outside of Texas for UH and it will not do anything similar to what SMU has managed to do for their undergrad reputation

and while Dr. Khator has a lot left that she can and will do (I still really like her and believe in her and feel she will elevate UH overall) SMU is at the point where they need to attract someone that really makes people look and say "SMU made that hire for a reason and there is no chance they will fail in those goals and SMU really brought in the heavy hitter"....and again she was and is a "heavy hitter", but just in a different fashion than what SMU will need in the future

the reality is (in part IMO thanks to Dr. Khator and in part because of the Texas legislature) the whole "tier 1" moniker was very very poorly chosen by the Texas Legislature and never ever should have been said or mentioned because it is already a stupid term with no real meaning and using that term has clouded (and allowed Dr. Khator to cloud) the whole NRUF program and the actually somewhat meaningful goals of that program.....I thought the metrics were a bit weak to start with, but so far even the one university (that I will not name) that I knew would try and cheat the metrics every way possible has failed to do so and in part that is because of their continual turn over in "leadership" and the lack of leadership by their leadership

and now you have multiple other university presidents (like the former president of UNLV when he was at UNLV) running around talking about trying to reach "tier 1' when of course those that really follow academia and are in academia (and those at the AAU and The Carnegie Foundation and the CMUP) all know that is just a stupid term tossed out with undefined goals that can at some future time be claimed as having been met with little actually accomplished...Wyoming has talked about "tier 1" and others as well and I know at least for UNLV it was really just a branding and marketing campaign overall to say "hey look we are going to do some things that we have really not defined to meet undefined rankings of success".......other places might be more serious in their actual goals, but it is my opinion they should publish those defined goals and flush the use of the term "tier 1" because as of now the "best" you can hope for when you say "we want to be "tier 1"" is for people to think of cool you are going to try and cater to the highly flawed US News rankings big deal and at worse they will think great let us know in the next presser that you have "made it"

and I know it was a term used in the past by The Carnegie Foundation and by US News, but The Carnegie Foundation specifically moved away from that when they changed their system and clarified it was not for rankings purposes and US News had moved away from it as well and then damn it The State of Texas started using that stupid term again and they WASTED a chance to have a term with meaning and defined goals even if just for a group of 7 (now 8 ) public universities in Texas that would have been clear in definition and easy to point to at the conclusion of reaching those goals as having actually made meaningful change

now they have just crap that sounds like a damn billboard slogan that stands in the way of all that has been and will be accomplished and other saps have latched onto it to market their lower 100s US News school or their US News "ranked not published" school as "he we have arrived as soon as the billboards go up"....all the worse when there is not even a small amount of state funding increases that will come to most if not all of those other schools while at least Texas had funding increases for meeting metrics

and of course that crap does not really sell for a private school anywhere and SMU has made REAL changes in their undergrad profile (not that it was ever bad it is just getting even better) and for real change to happen SMU will need to make actual things happen with faculty recognition, graduate student production and research funding.....and they appear to be heading in that direction with a clear purpose now and will need the exact right person to keep that going if and when change is made

two very different universities both with very different needs and in need of very different forms of leadership to make it all really happen they way each of them desires for it to happen.....and it can happen for both

Excellent incites - thanks!

Again, great info and a very balanced perspective.

So, RGT was chancellor at Ole Miss for eleven years before SMU and was known as an ethical leader and prodigious fundraiser. With an OU and Pepperdine background before that, he moved up rapidly and has served SMU very well. He started on the Hilltop at age 49 which is a good age (45 to early 50s) with lots of room for growth. Would you be excited about hiring someone with his background again, or do you feel that he's raised the stature of the U enough to command a better candidate?

You said, "I will admit that [the Tier 1 marketing] has sold well and attracted more students and a slightly better quality of students it has really done nothing outside of Texas for UH and it will not do anything similar to what SMU has managed to do for their undergrad reputation." Isn't that what Khator wanted out of the promotion? Raise the overall profile of the school within Texas? UH shouldn't be concerned with drawing students from other states, even though about 10% come from elsewhere (and probably 1/3 of the Honors College). That's her mission with a slightly state funded public university whose mission is to serve Houston. Given her trajectory, I could see her taking over a big, public university system like SUNY, UT or UC. She could feel like she's done all she can and move to another large system in between but I feel she'd stick with a large city. Hopefully she and RGT stay for at least another five years and keep the momentum going. [Sidenote: I don't think UH is truly "tier 1." I doubt the school will ever be AAU but it can be a lot more than it is today with the city of Houston and demographic trends on its side.]

On to SMU, it has a very wealthy student body on average. I believe the average/median student's family makes $200K per year. There are extremes on both ends of the income spectrum which make it interesting. I was in the UH Honors College dorms and roughly half of the students were from out of state. That's an experience that I want my kids to have at SMU. Most of those students at UH came to get away from home and due to very cheap in-state tuition. I suppose SMU students from other states enroll due to the quality rankings, fun reputation, great campus, weather and opportunities in Dallas. The school has also done a good job of spreading money around to get a wide range of academically talented students. The opportunity seems to be in research funding. SMU is in the heart of Dallas, a great city, and could spend more energy on research like USC, Emory and Wash U.

tristatecoog wrote:Again, great info and a very balanced perspective.

So, RGT was chancellor at Ole Miss for eleven years before SMU and was known as an ethical leader and prodigious fundraiser. With an OU and Pepperdine background before that, he moved up rapidly and has served SMU very well. He started on the Hilltop at age 49 which is a good age (45 to early 50s) with lots of room for growth. Would you be excited about hiring someone with his background again, or do you feel that he's raised the stature of the U enough to command a better candidate?

You said, "I will admit that [the Tier 1 marketing] has sold well and attracted more students and a slightly better quality of students it has really done nothing outside of Texas for UH and it will not do anything similar to what SMU has managed to do for their undergrad reputation." Isn't that what Khator wanted out of the promotion? Raise the overall profile of the school within Texas? UH shouldn't be concerned with drawing students from other states, even though about 10% come from elsewhere (and probably 1/3 of the Honors College). That's her mission with a slightly state funded public university whose mission is to serve Houston. Given her trajectory, I could see her taking over a big, public university system like SUNY, UT or UC. She could feel like she's done all she can and move to another large system in between but I feel she'd stick with a large city. Hopefully she and RGT stay for at least another five years and keep the momentum going. [Sidenote: I don't think UH is truly "tier 1." I doubt the school will ever be AAU but it can be a lot more than it is today with the city of Houston and demographic trends on its side.]

On to SMU, it has a very wealthy student body on average. I believe the average/median student's family makes $200K per year. There are extremes on both ends of the income spectrum which make it interesting. I was in the UH Honors College dorms and roughly half of the students were from out of state. That's an experience that I want my kids to have at SMU. Most of those students at UH came to get away from home and due to very cheap in-state tuition. I suppose SMU students from other states enroll due to the quality rankings, fun reputation, great campus, weather and opportunities in Dallas. The school has also done a good job of spreading money around to get a wide range of academically talented students. The opportunity seems to be in research funding. SMU is in the heart of Dallas, a great city, and could spend more energy on research like USC, Emory and Wash U.

the goal of the NRUF (ugh "tier 1") campaign was 2 fold

attract a larger % of federal research dollars to Texas and the subsequent business and product spinoffs that are perceived to come with those dollars.....Texas lags other states in federal research dollars on a % basis compared to what Texas sends to the feds in taxes and Texas (for all I and everyone else loves about it) lags a number of other states in venture capital funding.....in fact Texas is downright poor in that metric especially with dallas and Houston and San Antonio

and the other goal was to keep more of the top students in state in Texas and going to Texas universities instead of not getting into UT or A&M, deciding against one of the private schools and either deciding that Ole' Miss, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State or Arkansas (all that heavily recruit Texas students especially the last 3) was a better university than the other in state Texas options or deciding that the aggressive financial aid package offered by those universities made it a better value for the same or a similar education.....all predicated on the idea that students often stay and work in the areas closer to where they graduate from .....which I agree with for the most part, but also believe is not as applicable to Texas, especially in relation to the above listed universities, because Texas is a draw for Texans to return to and the large metro areas in Texas are a draw for the graduates of all those universities and others.....but again the large presence of alumni from those universities in Texas makes it appealing for Texas students to also go out of state even if they do return because they know those alumni bases exist

and it is my opinion that Dr. Khator did not attract those students in particular to UH and keep them in Texas and keep them from going out of state.....it is my opinion that she made UH more attractive to students that were looking at some other state school in Texas (and quite possibly not one of the other 7 emerging research universities even) because they did not get into UT or A&M and they were just not interested in going out of state at all.....they were never a risk to leave

the whole issue with the 10% rule in relation to UT and A&M specifically is there are unfortunately a large number of high schools in Texas where you can have little more than a pulse and be in the top 10% of your class and really there are a large number of rural schools where the classes are so small in size, and the % of students there not interested in college are large enough, that just "ok" students can push hard and get in the top 10% and get into UT or A&M when they might be better served elsewhere

while there are schools in Texas with graduating classes of 1,000+ students in areas where a very large % of those families have chosen to live because of academics that can have 400-500 very high quality students in that 1,000 student class and half of them are probably going to be shut out of UT or A&M if they do not do very well on the SAT or ACT

and many of these students are the very students that are looking for a "4 year college experience" and they are looking for a "college town" experience and they have been to Lubbock, College Station, Waco and maybe even Norman, Baton Rogue and elsewhere and like that feeling and UH just does not do it for them and "tier 1" still does not do it for them.......now if UH had the academic reputation of UT or UCLA or the campus life/fan support of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Ole' Miss or LSU well UH might appeal to some of them

so while UH has some very high quality academic programs they are not at the real "tier 1" level for academics that attracts students to look past living in a large metro area (and lets be honest Austin is 30 years past a "college town") and it does not have the campus vibe to draw students that truly feel the academics are on par with Ole' Miss, OU, LSU or Arkansas if they want a college town experience to go with not getting into UT or A&M

so it is my opinion that UH has just managed to shift the enrollment metrics around a bit and probably managed to attract mostly students that were looking at smaller schools in Texas because they felt all things equal they would prefer a smaller town and now "tier 1" makes UH a little better sell for them in a larger metro area and there are known athletics programs on campus.....so it was a success for UH......but it was not a success in terms of the NRUF "tier 1' program and one of the two main goals.....and all the worse it really clouded those goals and the actual meaningful metrics (although really not all that high of a bar)

the whole deal with NRUF was create an endowment (to stop the complaining about the PUF) and then set some decent (not high enough) goals to access the proceeds from that endowment AND THEN use that money to aim for what Texas (mistakenly) called "tier 1" which was AAU type metrics

now what we have is "man on the street" believing that the whole goal was to gain access to the funds and then "tier 1" was achieved......when the reality is those metrics to gain access tot he funding are hardly worthy of a US News top 200 ranking which is why UH and Texas Tech that are already in the (highly flawed) US News top 200 gained access to the funds pretty much at the first available opportunity which was 2 years after the fund was set up and UTD (also in the US News rankings) is going to easily be the third to gain access most likely in 2 years from now and the real truth is with the exception of an increase in research grant funding (that only gets each schools research grant dollars up to where they should have been relative to the schools that are taking top HS students from Texas) none of those three schools have even had time to make any type of real concrete changes that will be meaningful for their national perception or even for the perception of the students that are choosing to go to Oklahoma, OkState, LSU, Arkansas, Ole' Miss and the rest....because grant funding is really not a major undergrad factor and meaningful "change" in academia does not happen over night even with a ton of cash tossed in

The State of Texas made a huge mistake ever mentioning "tier 1" as a term and I truly believe that kicked off a lot of other places (other universities in other states) talking about the same damn thing using the same stupid term and I will not "blame" it 100% on Dr. Khator, but other places absolutely saw that UH was able to make some hay with a simple claim of "tier 1" and unfortunately for some of those universities their administration has taken it upon themselves to follow the same path and again all the worse when there is no state funding even backing it up.....no private donation matching and no endowment fund to give to a school for meeting any metrics......just a goal to be "tier 1"

and again all the worse for Texas and UH when the reality is there is money available that will help....137 million (or more I would have to add it all up) in matching dollars for private donations and then 10 million per year (so far) going to UH and Texas Tech from the endowment

now it was said that it would take 50 to 70 million PER UNIVERSITY to get even a single emerging research university to "tier 1" (with "tier 1" being AAU like metrics) so of course 10 million per university is not enough, but when it happened to come during a terrible economic recession that Texas weathered better than most and that crushed state funding for higher ed many places and crushed university endowments for public and private universities for several years well it is my opinion that the TRIP matching money, the private dollars that TRIP match managed to draw out and that additional 10 million in NRUF endowment funding probably went further than it should have......but unfortunately all of that REAL MONEY is clouded with "we have arrived "tier 1""

and now other universities in Texas are having to "hold their own" against UH by stating that they are just a few short breaths from also gaining access to the NRUF funds and then "tier 1"......which of course is not even the same as becoming a Carnegie Foundation RU/VH university classification which requires about 100 million in annual research and a a few other metrics being met.....so the "tier 1" bar is lowered yet again and now it is at the point of 45 million in restricted research and then 4 out of 6 other not that high metrics being met

Texas Tech has been far and away the most up front about "meet these metrics and then start down a long path to AAU like metrics" and UTD has kind of gone with the "we want to be "tier 1"" with a bit of an honest definition of what it will take but riding on the whole "we are doing something" deal and then UTEP has suddenly started in with the "every man university for El Paso" BS and UTSA has sort of gone with the "NRUF money is the goal" and then "success" while UTA has sort of backed away from the discussion of it and Texas State has been able to first sell the "emerging research we are in the discussion" message before even needing to worry about anything else.....the other university out there came up with a new tag line, four really stupid non-goal goals, some swag bags and a hotdog party and then they are pushing the idea that being in the emerging research category and the NRUF ("tier 1" ugh) discussion means they are keeping up with the other 7 universities (which is what they have always tried to ride on really based on "hey we are a big university north of a large metro area and other big universities in Texas are good or great so we must be too")

so again it is my opinion that Dr. Khator and the whole "tier 1" deal clouded the discussion that Texas was actually putting some dollars out there and worse it really allowed all the other 5 original emerging research universities to still pretend that they are just steps behind UH and Texas Tech (no matter what anyone really feels or believes) and that UH and Texas Tech have really not done all that much by going right out and claiming access to the NRUF endowment proceeds immediately upon the first available opportunity or the fact that the 10 million (especially during the recession) was actually going to make any meaningful change (even if not enough for the long term AAU like metrics)....and really it kept UH and Texas Tech right in the frame of "oh now like Arkansas, OU, OkState, LSU and Ole' Miss" as big state universities of some known reputation

there was a chance there for a real meaningful discussion and for UH and Texas Tech to show they had put some distance between themselves and the other 30,000-35,000 student universities in Texas and that real dollars were flowing to them to head down a long path.....instead it is as though they both reached a really really low goal and it is over the end here we are and there are the others a step behind and probably by the time you get your degree they might even be there so then you have a "tier 1" degree too!

so terrible for UH and even Texas Tech as far as anything meaningful for students also looking for an alternative to not getting into UT or A&M and just a total disaster as far as any type of national discussion about two universities taking concrete steps down a LONG path instead of misusing Carnegie Classifications, US News type speak and babbling about the AAU (which the AAU frowns upon).....but yes a score of the low hanging fruit for UH vs. them perhaps just staying home and going to the local university or the close by university

as for the "every man" mission of UH that crap should have been dropped 10+ years ago with UHD being around (or really even longer) and even more so when there is a "have a pulse" state university right next door and even UTSA has been able to dump that ASAP once Texas A&M-SA became a reality after the city of SA pushed the desire for a second state university through and for freeing up UTSA from the have a pulse mission

as for who SMU would target if the current president left....I think that would be better decided at that time since there is a good chance SMU will have a bit different profile at that time and can probably shoot for better candidates.....another 25 to 50 million in annual research (which could happen over the next 5 years with a real concerted effort) would IMO place SMU into a different area of candidate....the proven can't miss heavy hitter......less research dollars than that is probably more of the "continue to build" type

when your goals change or increase you are either looking at the ladder, on the first rung of the ladder or climbing the latter (you are always climbing right if you want to be at the top)......if you are stepping up from the first rung (climbing the ladder) then you open yourself up to a much different type of candidate in my opinion than if you have leaned the ladder up and are getting ready to step on the first rung....and a larger research profile for SMU might not be a change in goals, but it is a new set of goals I hope they really go after hard

I'm glad UH claimed the Tier 1 moniker. Whatever works in marketing. Are they really Tier 1? Well, by the Carnegie metrics, yes, but they were already close. It seems like it was a good ploy for UH to use Tier 1 and then reach out to Houston area businesses and alumni for more funding.

About the top 10%, I went to a large east Texas high school. It took more than a pulse to graduate in the Top 10%, or 7-8% for UT now. The top 44 (top 10% at that time) would all be taking AP/Honors classes of some sort and mostly making A's. Anecdotal warning: My niece is Top 12% at the same school and plans to be a nurse and go to the local JUCO. She was in the Top 8% until this year because she said a bunch of people dropped out and she probably didn't excel enough to keep pace. Anyway, she's a Latina and if she'd been Top 10%, she could've been admitted to A&M. Do I think she could do the work? Yes, with the right resources and support structure. Many at that school, even in the top 10%, wouldn't go to A&M (or UT) due to the cost and distance from home. I know she'd benefit from going to UH and exploring other career options in addition to nursing. Maybe it's about keeping more of those type students in the greater Houston area from going to JC and making the most of their skills. They have added a lot of dorms so those students had to come from somewhere and probably not from out of state.

If all the big wealthy DFW school students can't get into UT and A&M, well, that's a long term issue. There's TCU and Baylor for a lot of them but Tech is not much better than Arkansas or OK State, especially when you get in-state tuition at those schools. Texas should have been better funding its colleges all along like California did. Now, California has a great UC system and solid regional universities. There are an increasing number of high school students in Texas and that's helping a lot of the TX schools vs. schools like Michigan, Purdue, Syracuse, etc. in the northern US.

UT-D started with a focus on the sciences and business. These disciplines attract high test score applicants. The sciences are expensive to maintain but business is cheap. Has it kept people in state? It seems that UT-Austin's feeder program has helped UTD and UTSA disproportionately. UTD has used deceptive marketing about its #1 ranked b-school when SMU is clearly the best in the area and arguably #1 in Texas.

Should UT use more scholarship dollars for Natl Merit Scholars? Those probably leave the state.
Should SMU mostly focus on being like USC? Longer term, I think SMU could overtake USC.

Just perused the UH website. There's hardly any mention of Tier 1 status. Maybe they've deemphasized that. However, I noticed that the Honors College enrolled 600 new students with an average SAT of 1283. Not too shabby and close to SMU's 1400 new students' average.

BTW, I heard that a few years ago, SMU's main competition was TCU and Baylor. Now it's Northwestern, USC and Georgetown. Why? Cox, Lyle and Meadows' notoriety plus Bush Library?

while your relative is not really an example for UH because UH does not offer a nursing program what you are saying pretty much agrees with what I am saying to a degree

UH made a short "15 minutes in the spotlight" marketing decision for something that should have been treated with much more seriousness than that and people that are serious about a school even if they do not get into UT or A&M see it for exactly what it is.....nothing more than false hype and they still choose to go elsewhere......those that were just looking for a school may have seen the "tier 1" salesman pitch and bought into it slightly, but they were at little risk of going out of state anyway......just like your relative decided upon a JUCO even though pretty multiple other emerging research universities in Texas offer a nursing program

and keeping more Houston students from choosing HCC over UH is not a success story as well especially for keeping students in Texas instead of going elsewhere.....Dr. Khator marketed to the low hanging fruit period instead of going for something more substantial and having a longer lasting conversation about the changes taking place for Texas higher ed

even though 10 million dollars per UH and Texas Tech is still below the 50 to 70 it was said to be needed for elevating one emerging research university to AAU like metrics for schools with a 500 million dollar annual budget that is still a 2% increase in budget and at a time when many other states were cutting budgets 5% or more that additional 2% is meaningful along with the tens of millions of private dollars that UH and Texas Tech and others were able to pull in and have matched by the TRIP.....but UH when for "we have arrived meet UH "tier 1" the same as the old UH non-"tier 1"" and done for end of "success story"

and as for the CAPS program UTD does not participate in it

http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/cap/admission/schools

and the UTD business program has taken great strides and that was before the Jindal Donation and UT and A&M compete with anyone in business and TCU is ranked in some rankings higher than SMU as well

for undergrad Bloomberg has UT 9th TCU 28th and SMU 30th

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings#5

MBA SMU is higher

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings#0

if you break it down further by discipline I am sure it goes back and forth more...so again lots of rankings claims can be made, but I would imagine most view SMU as better simply because I would say it is better known

and actually business programs are expensive to run because business faculty are expensive to hire because it is one of the few disciplines outside of engineering were people have real world marketable skills that demand high dollar salaries plus even many top business programs do not offer PhDs or PhDs in all subject areas and many business majors stop at an MBA because while an MBA can be considered a terminal degree it is also a professional degree VS an MS degree that is a research based degree and to get a PhD even in business you will need to conduct research and to have had some research experience from a masters program and or take some prereqs to get up to the level of a PhD program and few people are willing to do so after they get an MBA and few people are willing to get an MS in a business field when an MBA is more marketable in the real world and some business programs do not offer MS degrees as well

and yes I know that physics and math PhDs can have real world marketable skills, but they are cranked out in much larger numbers than business PhDs and many of the are still not "personable" people that are capable of transferring their math abilities to a business world or any real world issue which is why they teach (and often teach poorly) and the same goes for many other life sciences and even more so liberal arts and humanities

so if you want a top business program with mostly PhDed faculty members you are going to pay up for that and compete with the business market as well as the academic market and business programs are large popular programs that always have "rankings" discussions so universities like to have those top business faculty....and thus they pay for them

even some engineers and CS professors have a hard time in the "real world", but the difficulty of those PhD programs and the fact that people with those skills and that knowledge usually bring enough to the table to ignore their other idiosyncrasies means that you will pay for them as well

UTSA does gain the largest number of students from the CAPS program, but both UT and UTSA have agreed to end the program for UTSA, but the UT System will not sign off on that......UTSA suffers in the "first and second year retention" numbers because of CAPS students because even if they transfer to UT successfully with the 30 hours with a 3.2 GPA they have still not been "retained" by UTSA.....in graduation rate UTSA does not suffer if "graduation for any university" is looked at, but they would suffer under the "graduation from same university" number and often both are calculated (the THECB list both numbers)

UT Austin (and a number of other state universities outside of Texas including the UC System) have actually stopped recruiting national merit scholars as heavily

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/he ... harply.ece

a personal aside I went to my last 3 years of high school at Lee in San Antonio (first year was Houston Lee) which was 87% "hispanic" (although my friend used to laugh at announcements about "hispanic" things and say they were Mexican) and there were literally about 3 black students there....I am whiter than Rice.....when the PSAT was passed out I bubbled in all three bubbles for are you black, are you hispanic or are you black or hispanic just for fun not thinking much about it......later on after taking the SAT and doing OK on it I got a letter in the mail telling me congratulations I was a national african-American merit finalist......a couple of days later I got called down to the counselors office and he sat me down and ask me about being that finalist and I played dumb and said one of my friends must have filled in that bubble when we passed our PSATs forward (we took those in class).....he ham hawed around a bit and finally blurted out "well you are not black are you?" and I was like uh no haha....so he said he would write them and let them know

several days later I got a letter in the mail telling me congratulations I was a national hispanic merit semi-finalist and I thought well here it goes again......but of course the difference between a school of 3,200 with literally about 3 black students VS 87% hispanic is no one would think to question that I might not be hispanic as well.....until of course the morning announcements came on the next day and congratulated all of the national hispanic merit semi-finalist and my pretty Angelo sounding name was listed off with all the rest and the whole class turned and stared at me....and I stood up and told the teacher I needed to go talk to the counselor about not being hispanic and everyone got a great laugh (success haha)......the counselor about cried and ask me "no one in your family not even a grand parent or great grand parent?"

I was prepared to lie and take the cash, but my parents would have none of that....so I broke that poor counselors heart and cut his merit semi-finalist numbers by 1

so really the national merit program is a joke because my high school grades and GPA were far from great because I clearly blew off school and Texas had just forced through a change from an A being 90 and above to an A being 93 and above and that was what HISD was already using while NEISD was changing over to that and the teachers were grading easier as well....which for me meant skate by even more!....and I took COOP to get out early my senior year since I was already accepted to my university of choice based in SAT scores and I had all the needed credits that the school offered

(sorry for the personal drift)

as for competing with USC and others like Northwestern I had heard in the past it was a cost issue with cost of living as well as tuition cost.....top students either do not want to go to a UC school because they are so large, they are not in the top 7% of HS class (just like the UT issue) and they want to get away from home and when they look at the cost of living at USC or Pepperdine or Stanford (if you can't get into a UC school Stanford is probably out anyway) or even at Northwestern and they are out of there to out of state.....for those that do not mind a large public school AU or ASU here we come

in Illinois they have a shortage of top public universities and Florida has a shortage of top private universities and even top public universities and even their "tier 2" public schools are massive in size and thus not as appealing for some

SMU is still probably cheaper than most private schools especially in Illinois and California and they have generous financial aid and they are looking to break out of being Texas-centric and to elevate their freshman metrics.....so they recruit out of state and they have done well picking the proper target markets and it shows

as for SMU overtaking USC there is ALWAYS going to be a factor of "body of knowledge" and "body of faculty" in play and USC is MASSIVE for a private school with a large endowment, a name, in LA and with a reputation and alumni support.....so SMU that is under 1/3 in size will have a hard time overcoming those factors which is similar to comparing SMU to UT or Wisconsin or Minnesota

Good point about SC. I come in contact with their facilities mgnt people quite often & they say currently that their enrollment is well over 35K with an eventual goal of 45-50K in the next 5-10 years.

I believe their post graduate students outnumber their undergraduates, as well. That gigantic medical school & their joint medical projects (& sharing of buildings) with the county of Los Angeles have really made a big difference in fueling their growth.

TCU and Baylor are safety options.

* rodrod, did you go to SMU?
* I'm glad UH seized its 15 minutes of fame with the Tier 1 thing. I don't think people who go to OK State, Alabama, Arkansas and LSU are worried about those schools being Tier 1. In fact, they're probably all Tier 3 in Bloomberg's rankings (old US News rankings).
* Good point about nursing programs. My niece says Angelina College is a more rigorous program than SFA. So some work went into which commuting option was best.
National Merit Scholars are a bit different than National Hispanic or Achievement Scholars but all are noteworthy. I recruited both NMS and NM Achievements at UH. Very different student profiles. UT has never offered NMs a lot of money but A&M does and OU/Alabama/UH are even more aggressive about it. OU or Bama have more than any other public school in the nation.
* My old Fortune 50 employer got BBAs in Finance from SMU and UT. TCU's BBA is fine but they weren't as good as SMU or UT and the program is smaller. TCU's MBA is too small and has a lot of international students. A&M's MBA program doesn't focus enough on prior experience. Wharton's BBA program should be #1 in any ranking. Their students are talented, aggressive and have lots of options.
* Should SMU spend less money funding athletics like Rice does? $18 million or so cash infusion every year. Or keep trying to fund it, like TCU did, until it hits the P5 payday?
* I'm pretty sure b-schools and law schools are huge profit centers for universities. Yes, the b-school faculties are highly paid relative to liberal arts but the students tend to have higher SATs and maybe pay more. For example, I understand that SMU's one year finance masters doesn't give scholarships. How many doctoral students are funded in Cox as a percentage of the majors? As percent of budget? Engineering and science programs, with lab space, tend to have the lowest margins.

tristatecoog wrote:* rodrod, did you go to SMU?
* I'm glad UH seized its 15 minutes of fame with the Tier 1 thing. I don't think people who go to OK State, Alabama, Arkansas and LSU are worried about those schools being Tier 1. In fact, they're probably all Tier 3 in Bloomberg's rankings (old US News rankings).
* Good point about nursing programs. My niece says Angelina College is a more rigorous program than SFA. So some work went into which commuting option was best.
National Merit Scholars are a bit different than National Hispanic or Achievement Scholars but all are noteworthy. I recruited both NMS and NM Achievements at UH. Very different student profiles. UT has never offered NMs a lot of money but A&M does and OU/Alabama/UH are even more aggressive about it. OU or Bama have more than any other public school in the nation.
* My old Fortune 50 employer got BBAs in Finance from SMU and UT. TCU's BBA is fine but they weren't as good as SMU or UT and the program is smaller. TCU's MBA is too small and has a lot of international students. A&M's MBA program doesn't focus enough on prior experience. Wharton's BBA program should be #1 in any ranking. Their students are talented, aggressive and have lots of options.
* Should SMU spend less money funding athletics like Rice does? $18 million or so cash infusion every year. Or keep trying to fund it, like TCU did, until it hits the P5 payday?
* I'm pretty sure b-schools and law schools are huge profit centers for universities. Yes, the b-school faculties are highly paid relative to liberal arts but the students tend to have higher SATs and maybe pay more. For example, I understand that SMU's one year finance masters doesn't give scholarships. How many doctoral students are funded in Cox as a percentage of the majors? As percent of budget? Engineering and science programs, with lab space, tend to have the lowest margins.

1. no

2. it was still a mistake and the shine has already worn off and all of the schools you listed have a significantly higher numerical ranking from US News (and Bloomberg only ranks business programs) and since the US News rankings as flawed as they are are much better known than the Carnegie Foundation Classifications (and much easier to find and "understand") the concept of "tier 1' will fall on deaf ears once anyone that would be sold on "tier 1" looks and sees that other schools they are considering are ranked much higher in the much better known and much more discussed US News rankings

3. I can assure you that SFA has a much better nursing program because it is a BSN/RN program VS an LVN program and BSN/RNs have a much higher upward mobility, nursing programs are highly regulated for accreditation (so none are slouches) and SFA has a well funded program with nice new facilities and small class sizes.......if she wants an BSB/RN she will have to transfer somewhere anyway after the LVN and most Angelina students would transfer to SFA

4. the letters were national merit finalist and national merit semi-finalist.....I should have saved it and it may be in some box somewhere in my parents attic, but who knows after all these years and them moving some......and as the article I linked to says UT used to have a ton of national merit scholars and was one of the highest universities in number of them recruited until they and others decided to look beyond that slim metric for a more broad student

5. as for the rankings it was just a discussion that TCU can make claims as can UT and A&M and others.....it is like law schools.....Baylor prepares you for trial, UT is too big, UH has three specializations they plow money into, SMU is about connections and all the other arguments people want to make

6. if SMU thinks that spending money will guarantee them a major conference invite that is probably a poor decision since as of now I believe that conference expansion is probably not happening again for a while specifically with the 5 majors and the only real concern SMU needs to look at is winning in football, transitioning to a different coach in basketball sometime in the future and the possibility (though slim) that only 64-65 teams break away from the rest of D1-A.....I think it would be a min of 80 teams that do so for a number of reasons.....mainly because 65 teams is hard to work around especially since there is no chance of ND still being allowed to float around doing whatever they want (even more so since they suck most years) and there is no chance that any program is going to get kicked out of their current conference and I see little chance that any of the current conferences blow up in favor of all 16 team conferences or 20 team conferences.......those numbers are just stupid and limit your ability to schedule teams you want to schedule while tying you to too much crap

what in the hell would UT want to dump Baylor, ISU, KSU and others for in order to get tied in with WSU, Oregon State and Utah....UT can schedule games with the desirable teams in the PAC 12 any season they wish without tying themselves to the multitude of undesirable programs in the PAC that are 2 time zones and thousands of miles away from where UT fans are located and where UT is located and where UT recruits

and again even if the Big 12 folded who is the ACC or whoever going to add to get to 16.....are they really going to look past the former members of the Big 12 to add teams from the other conferences like the AAC, Sunbelt, CUSA, MAC and MWC......hey guys we did not add KSU and ISU or Baylor because north Texas state is a "sleeping giant"in a "huge potential market".......Boise only has "upside" those former Big 12 teams are "down and out now" (no disrespect to what Boise has actually done on the field of play, but academics matter too and while Boise is working on those as well......well do more work and call back please)

is the Big 10 and SEC just going to add scraps or are they going to try and get an ACC team or two as well......and really it all falls on the Maryland lawsuit (and not even necessarily then) because that is still la lawsuit about an exit clause penalty contract not the newer GOR contracts that the ACC and Big 12 have now so even if Maryland was to totally beat that contract it is not a GOR contract like others would have to beat now

and with 64-65 teams really who is going to be the whipping boy every year.....remember in a 16-20 team conference that means without a doubt you will have 8-10 teams that probably suck because for every in conference game that is a win it is automatically a LOSS for your conference as well.......you will NEVER get past a ratio of 50% wins and 50% losses for your conference with in conference games the only way you can bring real strength to a conference year in and year out is to play OOC games and win them because an OOC game offers the 50/50 chance of a win OR a loss to your conference not the guarantee of both....and if you win you hurt the conference win loss ratio of another conference you don't just a corresponding loss to some other team in your own conference

80 teams or even 96 teams just makes it so much less messy as well.......and look at the PAC 12 who are they going to grab to go to 16-20 teams.....if the Big 12 really folds UT is going to the Big 10 or even the ACC before the PAC 12 that is just how it will happen and they would even go to the SEC before the PAC 12 and same with OU......they looked at the PAC 12, they saw the reality, they moved on that is why they are not in the PAC 12 now

so if SMU wanted to spend money wisely they would make sure they are in the upper 50% of things and either win on the field and court in the conference they are in now and if things shake up make sure they are in the position to be one of the 80 or 96.....I stand by the idea that academics are going to matter more and more anyway specifically because of the pay for play that morons are pushing and because schools are tired of having to coddle mush mouths that can't read and the only way to get away from that is to make sure that some other academically bankrupt school can't access that player either if you pass on them and the way to do that is to make rigorous academic requirements and standards for the PRIVILEGE of NCAA participation and all those that are concerned about "getting paid" while ignoring that programs even in the CUSA spend an average of $90,000 damn dollars per NCAA athlete and 100% of the CUSA programs LOSE MONEY and require university support can "get paid" elsewhere (probably at the drive thru or in prison for many of them once university athletic programs are no longer dumping grounds for them) .......the "get paid' types have always been too stupid to understand the difference between revenues and profits and what is spent on something VS what is in their stupid greedy ignorant pocket which is why 90% of them will be broke a few years after they stop "getting paid" if they are one of the very small % that actually goes pro in a sport

Rice is actually the one that should be more concerned with getting into that 80-96 team mix, but if academics matter like I think they will in the future then Rice is in somehow some way

7. law schools USE TO BE profit centers for universities to some degree, but of course universities rode that horse into a deep grave they might never get it back out of

as for business schools VS engineering it has always been said that law and business bring in the private donations that is why having those programs especially highly ranked ones have been important, but it is engineering, medicine, and the natural and hard sciences that bring in the grants

lets look at some numbers

http://giving.utexas.edu/why-give/why-w ... r-support/

the above is a break down of where the 2 billion+ dollar UT budget comes from

22% state money and AUF (PUF) money

24% tuition and fees

44% grants and other areas.....that includes intellectual property which I think brings in about $12 million per year to UT (can't remember off the top of my head too lazy to search it up) and we know that athletics brings in $165 million (so that is about 6.7% of the total budget) and then dorms and housing is included in that as well and UT has a small % of students that actually live on campus for a university that large (7941 in 2013) .....if a dorm and meal plan is 18,000 per year (too lazy to look up the number) that is another $143 million or about 5.8% of the total budget.....so knock off dorms and athletics and that 44% is down to 31.5% of the total UT budget

so in other words using quick math 31.5% of the UT budget comes from grants, contracts and intellectual property and only 24% comes from tuition and fees for actual classes......and that of course includes business and law classes and when you right a grant (or often when you get a donation for research an donations were in a different category on the above chart) a university takes at least 20% right off the top for "overhead" so 31.5% of a $2.48 billion dollar budget is $781 million and 20% of that for "overhead" is $156 million

22% (tuition and fees) of $2.48 billion is $595 million and $156/$595 = 26.2%

so at UT just the 20% OVERHEAD collected off the top from research grants and contracts is equal to 26.2% of what the TOTAL tuition and fees brings in for UT.......and again that is excluding the other 80% of those grants and contracts that pay grad students and post docs, often cover grad students tuition and fees (that then is included in that 22% tuition and fee number), sometimes even pay part of a professors salary exclusive of the 20% overhead, outfit labs and lab spaces that then can be leveraged to bring in more grants and on and on......so while tuition and fees brings in $595 million to UT grants and contracts brings in $781 million and UT (and ALL universities) take a nice chunk right off the top of that for overhead as well

so while business school tuition is nice and that might be sprinkles on the top of the icing of the cupcake....grants and contracts are the cupcake and some of the frosting as well

here are some different numbers

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... KBkQiB1xlQ

the important aspect of this powerpoint is the THECB weighting matrix which is near the end....and while the powerpoint is from TAMU-CC the formula is the same for all Texas PUBLIC universities in Texas (even UT and Texas A&M)

so what that is showing is the weighted number used to calculate state formula funding that goes for instruction and operations (one of two formulas to fund public universities in Texas)......and instruction and operations is "faculty pay and staff pay" for the most part

Liberal Arts is normalized to a 1

so for lower division undergrad classes business is weighted at a 1.11 which is at the lower end of the scale......but when you get to upper division classes business moves to a 1.78 which starts to be at the higher end of the weighted scale especially relative to things besides engineering and the hard sciences

when you get to masters level classes business is a 3.42 which is higher than some, but still lower than science and engineering of course....but when you get to a doctoral program business is a 24.27 which is the highest weighted average of all programs of any level except for pharmacy

and so it goes back to what I said about many universities not even offering PhDs in business because it cost so much to recruit the faculty that can teach those degrees.....and you also have to keep in mind that these are STATE weighted averages and they are in the context of the state funding a "business program" and that includes at Sul Ross, Angelo State, Sam Houston, Texas A&M-CC and on and on and the state is not going to fund those programs to be highly ranked (the state funds NO degree programs to be highly ranked) they fund them on a weighted average basis of what it cost to generally have that program as a degree program just like any other degree program in any other subject field

and business programs can get away with having MBAs (especially ones with real world experience) teach classes especially lower division ones and that is still a faculty member with a "terminal degree", but when you get into upper division classes you generally have to move towards faculty members with a PhD in that field and even the state recognizes this and then of course to have a PhD program you 100% have to have a faculty member (or members of course) with PhDs and the state has to recognize the cost of hiring a PhDed business professor and what that cost entails because of the rarity of PhD business programs, the rarity of people that get a PhD in a business field and the fact that industry will pay them a great deal of money

so when you look at the jump that even the state recognizes it takes to have a PhDes business professor, you take into account that the weighted average graph posted is to fund a "business program at some random state university not a highly ranked business program, you add in that highly ranked business programs are going to have to hire mostly faculty with PhDs VS MBAs because that will matter in the rankings and you look at the cost of what it takes to get them and especially the highly ranked ones......and lastly you know that business programs generally do not bring in large grants and contracts and the importance of the grants and contracts to a university budget and shown above and it all shows that to run a mid level to top level business program with any type of rankings and recognition you are going to pay and pay dearly for faculty members

so perhaps I was a bit incorrect in saying that "a business program" is expensive to operate what I should have said is a respected and ranked and known business program is expensive to run because of the lack of grants and contracts and the cost of faculty that are needed to bring that prestige because even as a state weighted average for 'generic business program" shows once you get to a level of offering a PhD it is extremely expensive to hire those faculty and even though the weighted average for lower division, upper division, and masters level programs shows that business is only in the middle to perhaps even lower than the middle weighted average.....again that is for 'generic state university business program" and to elevate yourself beyond that you are going to need those PhDed faculty members (even if your program does not itself offer a PhD in business fields) because those will be the faculty with the highest stature and in academia terminal degrees (even if awarded to an idiot) matter in all things ranking and prestige related so while you can have some "brilliant real world highly respected MBAs" teaching your undergrads at the end of the day to have a well respected business program you need a hell of a lot more PhD holders around and they also can't be the ones that happen to also be idiots with a PhD they have to also be the respected ones with real world value as well

and so to get all of that going you have to charge higher tuition and fees for business programs, sometimes you might even cheat some dollars from some other programs, you need large donations to your business programs and unfortunately what you will not often have available is large grants and contracts for research and intellectual property

so I should say that highly ranked business programs are expensive to run even at the undergrad level while generic university business programs are in the mid range and still without the benefit of grants and contracts

you might also notice a few other things as well.....the infrastructure formula funding is talked about....and while "generic business program" needs classrooms and chalkboards highly ranked business programs need nice buildings with advanced AV tools in the classroom, they need large circulations of periodicals, they need nice offices for highly paid faculty members and other toys that attract students and faculty on a competitive basis and the state does not fund all of that they fund "generic space"....so again to a school looking for a ranked business program or even a well above "average" business program that is respected even in the state or region it is an expensive proposition to keep up with the Whartons and UTs and SMUs of the world (and of course SMU and TCU and Baylor ect. fund all of theirs strictly on tuition and endowment)

and you also might notice how some schools even of the same size or some even of smaller size get the same overall % of the state total higher ed funding (and UT and A&M while not 100% larger than others get 100% more of that %) this goes back to those weighted averages and the fact that UT and A&M have pretty much ALL the most expensive programs out there from undergrad to PhD level and they have large enrollments in those high weight programs as well relative to others and then with the universities of similar size you can see who concentrates on the low weighted average degrees and who concentrates on the higher weighted average ones.......and then of course rankings, endowment dollars, research funding and academic reputation tend to fall right in line with that as well

so when some take "state funding" and divide by "number of students" without regard for what majors are offered, the level of the student from undergrad to masters to professional to PhD it is easy to see why some cry (wrongly) about "more money per student to X university vs Y)

and also they ignore that all of that is based on FTE or full time equivalent students which s 15 hours for undergrads and 9 hours for graduates so it also shows a bit which schools are for part timers and commuters.....so hey complainer from large generic state U with no programs of merit, no endowment, low research funding, and poor quality graduate programs stop offering crap McDegrees, stop catering to part timers, and actually crack a book every once in a while and get a decent degree instead of holding out the begging bowl for more money to fund up degree programs no one wants to hire from!

friarwolf wrote:

SoCal_Pony wrote:You know, I posted this in hopes that someone, Friarwolf, SMT, MexMustang....somebody, would give insights into the progress we are making towards gaining more research $$$.

Still waiting

Sorry, got nothing on this. As of 2 years ago, RGT was saying gaining AAU status was not a high priority. Last I heard, I think we were around $22MM in sponsored research funding and this was in 2010/2011. However, building the computing center, Ford's gift for the research center, and Deason's gift sounds like we are getting pretty serious regarding research from a science and engineering perspective. How long before these things start delivering more research $$$, don't know. I'll check and see if I can get an updated figure.

Turner said in his founders day speech that we had $22MM in research dollars last year so we have stagnated over the past 3-4 years in $$$$

StallionsModelT wrote:TCU and Baylor are safety options.

This. tcu now thinks they are comparable to us because the bloomberg business school undergrad rankings ranked them 1 point or two higher than SMU. Historically, we havealways been higher, and this year, we were ranked higher again (#21). This ranking is the closest they have ever been to us in anything, and it takes into account a lot of the student feedback, which admittedly is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's why you see schools like Penn not ranked as #1 since it can be easily manipulated. Both baylor and tc are far behind in student quality to SMU.

The Bschool at SMU is very good, and its students shoudl only compete against UT-Austin business school and against Rice (non-business) in Texas.

the research pie is shrinking, so making ground up is going to be heading into a big head wind. We are pretty committed to it though and there are some big things a-foot, so i think you can expect some news in this area in the next few months. Also our next Dedman college dean is likely to come from the sciences vs the letters, so i would say that is a big clue where the emphasis is going.

also - early word is our avg SAT moves up a couple more points. Wont know for sure until end of summer, but if we track as we did last year it will move up a couple more.