Reply With Quotelol it's obvious that SMU is the best school in DFW. I think he was confused about my bitterness. I don't enjoy being forced to subsidize public university students, especially when my local public university is in THE SUBURBS.
fo ril....as anyone that has read this thread knows the US News is the end all be all of rankings for matt......please let us know when UTD gets a #68 national ranking in your rankings of choiceOriginally Posted by Matt777
on down the list it looks like SMU schools UTD in business across the board from undergrad, to graduate, to your favorite EMBA
SMU has a well respected law school as well......UTD's law school belongs to unT.....dallas
so yes SMU it higher ranked and more respected in a much larger group of programs and as a university in general than UTD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souther...26_recognition
* U.S. News & World Report ranks SMU as 68th among "National Universities" in its 2010 edition.[18]
* The Cox School of Business is ranked among the nation's top schools by BusinessWeek, Financial Times, and Forbes.[citation needed]
Overall University Rankings
* 1st The University's 10 libraries house the largest private collection of research materials in the Southwest.
* 1st The Economist ranks the Cox School #1 in the United States for "Potential to Network".[19]
* 1st In the 2005-06 U.S. Sports Academy Directors' Cup Division I Final Standings, SMU is ranked as the top school in its conference for the eighth consecutive year.
* 1st In the 2003 BusinessWeek ranking of the top 25 Executive MBA programs in the world, SMU Cox was listed #1 for entrepreneurship course offerings.[20]
* 5th In 2005, Entrepreneur magazine ranked the Caruth Institute #5 among the top 100 entrepreneurship programs in the nation, as ranked by program directors, faculty & alumni.[20]
* 5th BusinessWeek ranks Cox #5 for Global Business as "Best Subjects" in the world, as surveyed by EMBA alumni.[17]
* Top 5 Five Cox School of Business departments were recognized among the nation's top business schools for research productivity based on more than 1.5 million scholarly citations. Only seven schools ranked in the top 30 in all five categories: SMU Cox, Harvard, Stanford, University of Chicago, MIT, NYU, and UCLA.[17]
* 6th BusinessWeek ranks SMU Cox #6 for highest SAT scores.[17]
* 6th BusinessWeek ranks Cox #6 for Marketing as "Best Subjects" in the world, as surveyed by EMBA alumni.[17]
* 7th The Economist ranks the Cox School #7 in the world for "Potential to Network".[19]
* 9th US News & World Report currently ranks The Cox Professional MBA program (PMBA) 9th in the nation [21]
* 9th The Princeton Review ranks Cox #9 for best professors, based on interest and accessibility.[17]
* 10th The Cox Professional MBA program (PMBA) is ranked is currently ranked #10 for return on investment by Forbes.
* 10th Forbes ranks Cox #10 in the nation for ROI, the only program in Texas and the South on the list.[17]
* Top 10 Financial Times also names Cox among the top 10 in the U.S. for enrolling the most experienced students and for highest salaries five years after graduation.[17]
* 12th U.S. News & World Report ranks Cox #12 in the nation, the highest ranked program in Texas named in the category.[17]
* 13th U.S. News & World Report ranks Cox #13 in the nation.[17]
* 13th BusinessWeek ranks Cox #13 in the U.S., praising faculty members for real-world experience brought to the classroom.[17]
* 15th Financial Times ranks Cox #15 in the U.S.[17]
* 16th BusinessWeek ranks Cox #16 worldwide praising faculty members for real-world experience brought to the classroom.[17]
* 20th BusinessWeek ranks SMU Cox #20 for sending the most undergraduates to top MBA programs.
* Top 25 Hispanic Trends names Cox one of the 25 best business schools for Hispanic MBAs.[17]
* 29th The Wall Street Journal ranks Cox #29 regional, and students are commended by recruiters for their ambition and people skills.[17]
* 30th The Cox faculty is ranked among the top 30 business schools in the world for research productivity in economics, finance, information systems, marketing, and strategy, according to a recent study by Academic Assessment Services (AAS). Only six other U.S. business schools rank in the top 30 in all five categories.
* 46th The Dedman School of Law ranks No. 46 in the U.S. News & World Report guidebook America's Best Graduate Schools 2009.
lol it's obvious that SMU is the best school in DFW. I think he was confused about my bitterness. I don't enjoy being forced to subsidize public university students, especially when my local public university is in THE SUBURBS.
If SMU had a century head start on UTD and UTD, they wouldn't even be founded till next year...
SMU opened in 1911. UTA opened in Arlington College in 1895, 16 years before SMU. If you really want to get picky, UTA only picked up steam when it was part of TAMU, so really think of the UTA we know today as opening in 1917. Now UT Dallas, is about 60 years behind as it started its undergrad program in 1974, but that still isn't anywhere close to a century head start.
And as for UNT has all of them beat: 1890
Fair enough. I did not check the exact dates.If SMU had a century head start on UTD and UTD, they wouldn't even be founded till next year...
SMU opened in 1911. UTA opened in Arlington College in 1895, 16 years before SMU. If you really want to get picky, UTA only picked up steam when it was part of TAMU, so really think of the UTA we know today as opening in 1917. Now UT Dallas, is about 60 years behind as it started its undergrad program in 1974, but that still isn't anywhere close to a century head start.
And as for UNT has all of them beat: 1890
My point is, that SMU has a sizable head start on UTD (and UTA as a serious university). I'd be willing to bet that in 60 years, UTD will have lapped SMU on all accounts (with the exception of athletics).
I was only mentioning SMUs head start to begin with because of the statement that SMU is a better school because it is private. I believe that is a factor, but I don't think that's the only factor. UT and A&M are Texas examples of how state schools can achieve top tier performance if there is interest and desire. The problem has been that the focus has been on those two for too long.
I agree that SMU is the best school in the area. I never disputed that. I just disagreed with the premise that it was the best because it is a private school.
It might be the best school in the area, but it's not good enough.
I was more concerned with your anti public education sentiments. You're really something.
I never said UTD was better than SMU or that SMU was better than UTD. I have said that the gap is increasingly narrowing between the two. While this may be hard for you to swallow, the best universities in this state are public. Rice is the only exception.
----
Last edited by Matt777; 22 April 2010 at 11:36 PM.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...kings/state+TX
17) Rice
47) UT
61) TAMU
68) SMU
80) Baylor
110) TCU
Tier 3 TT, UT-D
Tier 4 TAMU-Comm, TWU, UH, UNT, UTA, UTEP
4 of the top 6 for undergrad are private, actually.
It is entirely within his rights to be opposed to subsidizing someone elses education because it is a free country and his opinion means just as much as yours. I'm not saying I agree with it-maybe I do, maybe I don't-but I respect it all the same.
Relevant Edit: Of the top 20 in the nation, a whopping ZERO are public. The best public school is UC-Berk at 21
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...ities-rankings
Last edited by Mark Lea; 23 April 2010 at 02:34 PM.
I think that it's more telling that CA has 6 state schools ranked ahead of ANY Texas school except for Rice.
21)UC- Berkeley
24)UCLA
35)UCSD
42)UC-Davis
42)UCSB
46)UC-Irvine
You may argue that their funding model is unsustainable, but you can't argue the results. There is only ONE school in all of Texas that ranks above these schools (public or private). That's the metric that we need to be looking at. Not this state school vs. private school nonsense. As a state, we need to focus on improving our higher education system. Like everything else here, there needs to be a good mix of private AND public funding to make this happen. The innovation and economic activity that this brings to the state makes the investment well worth it. I would much rather the state spend money on this than to give billions to a Spanish company to rape me at the toll booths everyday for a road that my taxes helped to build.
We have public colleges and universities because they benefit the state. Not to just subsidize someone's education. These educated folks go out, open businesses make money and SPEND money. It's an investment by the state, not a subsidy. Besides, it's not like private universities don't take public research grants. This entire argument about "subsidized education" is misinformed at best.
You do realize that if the Spanish company wasn't "raping" you at toll booths everyday, the government would be "raping" you with other taxes--or they would "rape" other taxpayers that DON'T actually use the new roads. A road is a road is a road-and any return that they build in would probably more than make up for the additional waste that would come from bureaucracy.
Also, lets not start talking about how great the public system is in Cali just yet. That entire state was unsustainable and those schools will be falling in upcoming rankings as other systems raid professors and students look elsewhere for better financial aid. If you do want to start talking about how the government affects schools though, I could start googling stats to show how public regulation has been a primary cause of higher education's ridiculous inflation rate (public and private).
Also, the subsidies effectiveness is debatable because higher education's benefits are debatable. Sure, a college grad produces more than a high school grad, but who is to say that if you get educated in California, you have to stay in California (or in my case, Georgia). Put another way, Cali has had the best schools in the nation for decades and we have regularly been bringing up the rear, but I don't know too many people that would trade our economy for theirs.
Once again, not saying I agree or disagree; just trying to present both sides of the argument.
Last edited by Mark Lea; 23 April 2010 at 11:13 AM.
I am using the rankings that were used to bolster the private vs. public argument. When the new ones come out, then we'll look at it again. If you are going to support a point using a source, then it is my right to use that source as well. Also, it's not like this is a one-year thing that has happened in California. While the state's situation may be bad, they are still the number one state in GDP in the country. (Although Texas is making huge strides...) This economy will turn eventually and I don't see California fading away as an economic powerhouse.
As we are pulling all of this talent from Cali, we need to set up the infrastructure to grow and sustain innovation so that they don't just leave Texas when the economy picks back up. My point is not to be a cheerleader for the government. However, I think that too much of one side of the argument dominates any conversation that we have in this state lately when it comes to government. It seems that instead of having reasoned conversations about government's role in society, hyperbole rules the debate. We won't get anywhere if we don't get past that.
Maybe our sub-par education system has something to do with this situation...
California has 11 Million more people than we do! If you want to go by GDP, look at a per capita basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._%28nominal%29
and you'll see that Wyoming, Alaska and Minnesota (among many others) all trump California (and this is BEFORE the recession), though not even this is a perfect measuring stick. I wasn't trying to take anything away from where Cali schools are ranked now or where they were, I'm just saying advocating their structure doesn't appeal to me because all of those are on the decline now-though yes, it is but one factor in a complex situation.
I think we are arguing in circles because we are both providing supplemental points to ensure this debate is well rounded. Personally, I believe we would agree on most points.
Last edited by Mark Lea; 23 April 2010 at 02:34 PM.
I think that you are right. I'm not good with "sound byte" arguments. It doesn't appear that you like them either.
I know that we are very close on our views here. Big picture, we want what's best for Texas.
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/...raduation-gap/Top 5: Six-Year Grad Rate 2007
Texas A&M University: 78%
The University of Texas at Austin: 78%
Texas Tech University: 56%
The University of Texas at Dallas: 56%
Texas State University: 55%
Bottom 5: Six-Year Grad Rate 2007
Texas Southern University: 12%
University of Houston-Downtown: 16%
The University of Texas at Brownsville: 16%
Sul Ross State University: 19%
The University of Texas at El Paso: 29%
Tighten the female dog!
UT-Dallas President Dr. David Daniel said in this weekend's commencement address that UT-Dallas is likely to graduate 200 PhD students this year, which is another one of the "suggested" tier one metrics:
....and he also mentioned the relatively large number of National Merit Scholars who have chosen to attend UT-Dallas in this and past years:
Full Commencement Address:For starters, let’s talk about our freshman class of the past year. It included 41 National Merit Scholars — more than Carnegie Mellon, Clemson, Penn State, UCLA or Virginia Tech. Caltech beat us by one, but wait til next year!
And, once again, the freshman class boasted one of the highest average SAT scores in the state. The tradition of excellence that started with our first freshman class and that has been upheld by those of you who were members of prior freshman classes is not only intact, but entrenched.
http://www.utdallas.edu/president/gr...pring2010.html
---
Who cares about "tier one metrics" when UTD like Tech and U of H has a problem with people graduating within 6 years.
Tighten the female dog!
Is that based on the academic calender August 2009-July 2010, or is it January 2010 to December 2010?
Texas' existing Tier One school's 6-year graduation rates:
- Rice - 91%
- Texas A&M - 75%
- UT Austin - 71%
The seven universities shooting for Tier One:
- UT Dallas - 57%
- Texas Tech - 54%
- U of H - 40%
- North Texas - 39%
- UT Arlington - 37%
- UTSA - 28%
- UTEP - 26%
DFW's other universities:
- SMU - 72%
- TCU - 65%
- UD - 59%
- DBU - 46%
- TAMU-Commerce - 36%
- TWU - 35%
With the exception of SMU, there's a pretty big gap in the grad rate between the Tier Ones, and the rest. Something that has to be addressed in this whole Tier One mess.
For UTD, it's probably a minor component of those who leave, but the lack of breadth in programs drives some people to other schools. It did for me.
Well, 6 year graduation rates are certainly an issue, but that doesn't mean that progress in other areas isn't important. The growth of PhD programs is really, really important, especially when it comes to research.
While a 57% 6 year graduation rate isn't stellar, it is the best among the tier one hopefuls, and I can definitely see it improving with the recent additions of new programs and an increased focus on campus student life (new res halls, dining hall, campus beautification, etc.). It is one of the focuses outlined in Dr. Daniels plan for the university, so hopefully we will see some progress in upcoming years.
---
US News & World Report released their 2011 university rankings and...
UT Dallas is the Metroplex's newest Tier 1 university and UNT & UT Arlington have moved up from Tier 4 to Tier 2!
Unfortunately, it doesn't really mean anything because USN&WR has changed their methodology from having Tier's 1, 3 and 4 to now just having Tier 1 universities and Tier 2 universities. This now puts UNT & UT Arlington in the same Tier as Texas A&M-Kingsville and UT El Paso
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...kings/state+TX
Texas Tech was the only other university in Texas to "move up" along with UT Dallas to the new Tier 1 status.
Your local public university was at the time of your post and is now in THE CITY OF DALLAS. Not sure if you're familiar with UNT-Dallas. (I didn't say GOOD local public university, did I?)
-Ryan
- - - - - - -
When you have given nothing, ask for nothing.
I think that's a great step forward. Hopefully this tier one ranking will give UTD some more clout in Texas political circles, and lead to greater support for the thriving institution. I hope this is just the beginning, and that the continued growth and commitment to research will push UTD into the top 100 national universities within the next decade.US News & World Report released their 2011 university rankings and...
UT Dallas is the Metroplex's newest Tier 1 university and UNT & UT Arlington have moved up from Tier 4 to Tier 2!
Unfortunately, it doesn't really mean anything because USN&WR has changed their methodology from having Tier's 1, 3 and 4 to now just having Tier 1 universities and Tier 2 universities. This now puts UNT & UT Arlington in the same Tier as Texas A&M-Kingsville and UT El Paso
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...kings/state+TX
Texas Tech was the only other university in Texas to "move up" along with UT Dallas to the new Tier 1 status.
Classes at UTD start tomorrow for the fall semester, and UTD has put up a nice video of move in day showcasing the new residence hall:
From- http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2010/8/...icle-wide.html
The accent on the girl from NY cracked me up. The school is also doing a great job of making the class of 2014 feel welcome. I am proud to say that my youngest brother is part of the class of 2014 in the pre-med program!
UTD F.Y.E (freshman year experience)- http://www.utdallas.edu/fye/
Also, here's a video (that seems like a TV commmercial) that UTD is probably using as a marketing tool in the quest for tier 1 (and tier 1 funding i'm sure):
Go Comets!
---
Last edited by Matt777; 19 August 2010 at 12:34 AM.
Speaking of good universities...Your local public university was at the time of your post and is now in THE CITY OF DALLAS. Not sure if you're familiar with UNT-Dallas. (I didn't say GOOD local public university, did I?
http://www.smu.edu/News/2010/ranking-17aug2010.aspx
SMU achieves its highest national ranking
in U.S. News & World Report's 'Best Colleges' Guide
August 17, 2010
DALLAS (SMU) — SMU advanced today to its highest ranking ever among national universities in the 2011 edition of U.S. News & World Report's Best Colleges.
SMU's ranking increased 12 points — from 68 in 2010 to 56 in 2011 — among 260 institutions listed as national universities. SMU's ranking of 56 puts it in the first tier of institutions included in the "best national universities" category.
The only universities in Texas ranked ahead of SMU in the 2011 guide are Rice University and the University of Texas-Austin. Among the factors weighed in determining the rankings, the key measures of quality are peer assessment, including high school counselor evaluations; graduation and retention rates; faculty resources; student selectivity; financial resources; and alumni giving.
“Although ranking universities is a controversial venture at best, the recognition given our outstanding students and faculty, small classes, strong graduation rates and committed alumni is gratifying,” said SMU President R. Gerald Turner. “The timing is particularly relevant as we prepare to celebrate the University’s centennial, beginning next year, and as we remain committed to achievement at the highest levels.”
Last edited by F4shionablecHa0s; 19 August 2010 at 01:14 AM.
I thought this was a pretty good overview article about the emerging research universities:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-ed...er-one-status/
Emerging Research Universities Vie for Tier One Status
by Reeve Hamilton
August 19, 2010
...
The joint hearing of the House and Senate higher education committees will mark their first chance to assure lawmakers ... that the state's money will not go to waste.
... The University of Texas at San Antonio, for example, estimates that a metamorphosis into a national research university could mean more than $2.5 billion added to the city’s economy and 41,000 additional jobs.
... [Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, the chair of the House Committee on Higher Education and the author of HB 51] says. “We’ve got to get through a short-term trough without losing our momentum in higher ed. That’s going to be the challenge of the session.”
Endowment (millionsPh.D.s (2008) Research (millions) Mid-Range SAT Scores Freshmen in Top 10 %
School..........endowment........Ph.Ds.........Res earch...........SAT..........Frewhman top10%
Tech............$410.................184.......... ......$35.............990-1200...............21%
Houston..........$419..............208............ .....$50..............970-1190...........24%
Dallas.............$224..............111.......... .........$37............1080-1350...........36%
El Paso..............$135..............31............ ......$30.............800-1020..............20%
North TX...........$91.................146.............. .$11................980-1190.............24%
Arlington.............$64..............153........ .......$27..................950-190..............24%
San Antonio..........$48..............48.............. .......$26................920-1190................10%
[Above, selected data that may prove crucial to the tier-one race are provided for the sake of comparison. Spending more than $45 million on restricted research is absolutely required to get state funding for research campuses. Two consecutive years of conferring more than 200 Ph.D.s, an endowment of more than $400 million, and an incoming class with "high academic achievement" are optional benchmarks.]
I know SMU and TCU and UTSW are not vying for any of the matching funds, but I would really like to know where they tally under those measures. Doesn't SMU have, like, a billion dollar endowment?
It appears so:
(Source: http://www.smu.edu/SecondCentury/Sup...Endowment.aspx)Established in 1914 with a gift of $111,540 from the General Education Board of the Methodist Church, SMU’s endowment now represents more than $1 billion in assets invested in a diversified portfolio designed to ensure current support as well as growth for the future.
SMU has something that no other Texas schools have, and that is a tight and well-connected alumni base. Yea, UT has some rich donors the place is so damn huge, and so many people graduate, you go to a alumni function it's not really anything special. That and UT gets plenty of oil money. So why cut more checks to UT?
Tighten the female dog!
SMU may have a $1 billion dollar endowment, but they spend a lot less on research than UTD, UofH, and TT. I couldn't find exact numbers, but in 2008 it was something like $10-15 million annually. The target for the aspiring Tier One public universities is $100 million annually. Hopefully that provides some perspective.
Also, those research spending numbers are from 2008. I am pretty sure UofH, UTD, and TT have all increased their research spending dramatically. I know UTD is above $50 million/year already.
---
both TCU and SMU are mainly undergrad and masters universities with few PhDs offered
SMU especially has a pretty large business and law enrollment both of which are not that high in research production at any university
latest endowment numbers
http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/rese...ket_Values.pdf
it is restricted research that is counted not total research
Tier 1 is not the be all end all for every good or great school. It's about doing big, complex, and very expensive research that has nothing to do with 99%+ of the students. Consequently of course our taxpayer funded schools are all over it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...mod=yahoo_free
Recruiter Rankings
18. Texas Tech
Texas Tech is located in Lubbock in the South Plains of West Texas. It boasts students from every county in Texas -- about 95% of students are in-state. The school offers 150 undergraduate degree programs within 11 academic colleges. The school, founded in 1923, is in the Big 12 conference.
* Engineering (25)
Upcoming Application Deadline: May 1
Tuition (2010-2011): In-state $8,260; Out-of-state $17,560
Undergraduate Enrollment: 24,236
Admissions Phone: 806-742-1480
Admissions Email: admissions@ttu.edu
^ You forgot to mention
2. Texas A&M University
“We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”
TAMU is already "tier 1"
this thread was about the 7 emerging research universities
UH gets good news, but work remains
By JEANNIE KEVER - HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 18, 2011, 9:29AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7386162.html
UT-Dallas Researchers' Potential Tinnitus Cure Rings Loudly in Scientific Community's Ears
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfa...s_potentia.php
Purely to play devil's advocate; what about Atlanta? Georgia Tech and Emory are both members of the Association of American Universities. GT is shows up at or near the top of every ranking discussed here. Emory is much like we would hope SMU to be. Yet, most here also seem to believe Atlanta is not competitive with DFW as a center for business and industry. Have other forces held Atlanta back or would Dallas be that much further ahead given two comparable universities?
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...kings/state+GA
Rank 20 Emory University Atlanta, GA
Rank 35 Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA
Tier 2 Georgia State University Atlanta, GA
vs.
Rank 56 Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX
Rank 99 Texas Christian University Fort Worth, TX
Rank 143 University of Texas--Dallas Richardson, TX
Tier 2 Texas A&M University--Commerce Commerce, TX
Tier 2 Texas Woman's University Denton, TX
Tier 2 University of North Texas Denton, TX
Tier 2 University of Texas--Arlington Arlington, TX
As an Emory grad (Goizueta '09), I would argue that its other factors holding Atlanta back (transportation, water, a lack of decent Mexican food, more difficult to do business), but I was surprised that on paper DFW holds its own against Atlanta (not necessarily in quality, but certainly in quantity). Atlanta just doesn't seem to do a great job of retaining the talent (after all, they paid me to go there and I came running back to Dallas as soon as possible). Still, Boston schools kick everyone's butts and we are still growing a lot more (though their incomes are much higher).
Last edited by Mark Lea; 31 January 2011 at 10:21 AM.
I'd guess the whole idea of living near the alma mater may have been a transitional phase after the wealth effect of talented graduiates started and before advanced networking started to make its influence felt. Boston generated and still generates hordes of top notch talented graduates. Since we did not have the tools, we had to physically group them to exploit and leverage talent. Now with every day, that co-location need decreases and other lifestyle factors will dominate. Areas like Boston can compete in those lifestyle areas at the price of much higher wages. At some point, except for the elite of the elite, those wages become unsupportable and companies must disperse good and almost outstanding talent from high cost areas to survive financially.
Keep the taxes and home prices down and we'll have to guard both the north and south borders. Atlanta has all the bad things of TX plus higher taxes and cost of living. It is the equivalent in tennis of playing between the net and baseline. TX may not get the Rhodes scholars, but we'll settle for most of the A minus students.
Even though it's 75 miles / 1.5 hours away in Athens, Univ of Georgia also gets considered an Atlanta University frequently....
The lack of decent Mexican food is a major stumbling block in Atlanta, and despite a growing presence of small grocery store delis with decent Mexican food, most people in Georgia simply do not understand what they're missing.
I have to add political corruption to the list of things holding Atlanta back. The recent convictions of South County politicians in Dallas is appalling, and the persistent pay-to-play attitude faced by so many entities hoping to operate South of the Trinity is commonplace to Atlanta area municipal politics. Remember Terrell Bolton - fired from the Dallas Police Dept - he was welcomed to the east side of ATL; Bolton and the politicians who recruited him all found themselves fleeing from the public's attention. Before that, a former mayor of Atlanta was convicted and put in the pokie. It seems to happen all the time.
As bad as politics in South Dallas County are, I have the impression the situation is not nearly as problematic as in most of the Atlanta area.
SMU will not likely achieve the same reputation/status as Emory because of two things.
1. The name "Southern Methodist University" will always have a hard time drawing people from other parts of the country, in particular the North, Northeast, and West Coast. Even though Emory used to be a Methodist school, it hasn't been for a long time (it's now 30% Jewish), and it also hasn't been saddled with a religious/Christian name for a long time. As long as SMU is still thought of as a Christian school, its enrollment will be greatly limited to mostly Texans rather than attracting the out-of-state students that Emory has.
2. SMU is a school with a conservative student body. Most elite universities have largely liberal student bodies. Therefore, SMU cannot attract very many elite students if its reputation as a conservative school persists. And with the George W. Bush Presidential Library opening on campus, this will become even more of a barrier. Students from the wealthy Northeast cities are not afraid of Atlanta, despite it being in the South, but they are rather wary of anything having to do with Texas. (My freshman roommate at Washington University in St. Louis, who was a wealthy gay Jewish elite-private-schooled New Yorker from Manhattan, told me that much.) Even Rice is 50% in-state students (Texans), which is very high for an elite university like that.
Re: #1; Is SMU trying to build a nation-wide brand? You can't blame them for failling at something they aren't trying to do. You can question why they haven't tried.
Re: #2; It's true some people do still consider Texas both "out west" and part of the old south. Neither are exactly true but I don't think those are less powerful than west coaster's prejudices about Georgia. All of that has to be a very subjective interpretation of personal experience.
I think the corruption and tax issues might be closer to the mark overall.
Tam, I didn't include UGA because that would require including Baylor, Tech, and any other schools in close cities that gravitate towards Big D. You do make a great point on the corruption too.
Phillip, Emory IS still Methodist, but it's presence isn't as strong as at SMU I'm sure.
You are extrapolating way too much from a limited data point. Though I dispute the characterization of NE elite universities as almost all liberals from personal experience (big secret: the professors are, not the students), it's not relevant. You are leaping to the majority of people that could attend elite NE universities are liberals and that's hogwash.
Anyone that thinks SMU is mostly a Christian school probably thinks Notre Dame/Boston College are mostly Catholic schools or Trinity College is Episcopalian. That would mark them as someone that does not do very much research, a characteristic that excludes them from the target population.
I don't think SMU advertises itself as a national university and is fine as now structured. In twenty to thirty years after all the players and pundits are dead, I'm sure the Bush Library/Institute will just be another building where famous people of all types give seminars and SMU students and alumni will be glad they have it.
Polls from various elite universities show that around 75% of students at those universities are politically liberal; I'm not extrapolating from just a limited data point. Additionally, it's not just the professors who are liberal, as you say, although that is certainly the case at SMU, where the professors are mostly liberal but the students mostly conservative. Also, I'm not leaping to any conclusion that the majority of people who COULD attend elite universities are liberals. Rather, I'm saying that the people who DO end up attending those universities are mostly liberals. It's okay that SMU doesn't advertise itself as a national university; if it's their strategy to stay local, more power to them. My original point was simply that if people would like SMU to be like Emory, there are big things to address to get the school to achieve Emory's level of reputation.
To me, you'd have to show that Emory's student body and/or faculty is significantly more liberal than SMU, that this is widely known outside of both school's home regions and that a liberal student body and/or faculty is generally seen as an advantage to students in those same areas that are qualified for and seeking admission to selective universities. All of that to prove that SMU is inherently handicapped in comparison to Emory due to one dimension of cultural values.
The question was why Emory's excellence doesn't seem to have the predicted affect on Atlanta's performance as a metro area.
As the article posted above states (not sure how many people read it), UofH has now been awarded the Carnegie Foundation's highest distinction for research univerisities, which by most in agreement, is one of the main indicators of a "Tier 1 institution". And btw, UH's graduation rate had a very impressive 6.7% increase for the 2009-2010 school year, so we're now up to 46.7%. Still abysmal when compared to other Tier 1 institutions, but heading in the right direction.
But as I've stated before, all of this impressive growth may be stunted by the upcoming state budget.
vist my blog at http://texasleftist.blogspot.com/
Anecdotally, many people in the area know that Emory is a good school, but don't seems to really understand how good. The medical school has an impact on just about every hospital in the area, but even with that I get the sense that Emory is kinda forgotten about... the university does not have a popular athletic team, so people don't pay it any mind. Unless you live on that very nice side of town, Emory could a university anywhere that rarely makes the local news.
It's weird.
[QUOTE=totheskies]And btw, UH's graduation rate had a very impressive 6.7% increase for the 2009-2010 school year, so we're now up to 46.7%. Still abysmal when compared to other Tier 1 institutions, but heading in the right direction.
QUOTE]
How does the graduation rate indicate a Tier 1 University or even a better university? My alma mater, fairly highly ranked with a long history of achievement, had its alumni question if the program was getting too easy when the rate nosed over 70%. They love that story about look to the left and right on the first day; one of the three of you won't be there at graduation. It was real life for them and me.
Links regarding Emory's liberalism:
- http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-01/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS
- http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/er...s.of.high.html
- http://emory.campusreform.org/group/...ory-university
- http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=28601
- http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...px?ARTID=28643
- http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...ral-emory.html
- http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...-berkeley.html
- http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...eputation.html
Links regarding SMU's conservatism (which is common knowledge, so I'm not going to post a lot of links):
- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ed=0CBsQrQIwAA
- http://www.princetonreview.com/South...niversity.aspx
- http://www.dallasvoice.com/2-north-t...es-106123.html
- http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...375&topic=8414
- http://smu.campusreform.org/group/bl...ist-university
Again, I never said that it was an advantage to students applying to elite universities to be liberal. What I am saying, however, is that most of the students who do apply to and attend elite private universities are liberal (I think most people like to go to places where they feel like they'll fit in). Another important thing to note is that elite universities like Emory typically have a high Jewish student body (~30%, ordinarily), and Jews tend to vote for the Democratic party at a much higher rate than the rest of the population. 78% of Jews voted for Obama in 2008, and around 75% of them identify as more liberal than conservative. Jewish Americans also tend to be well-off in terms of income and education and thus often have the money to attend elite private universities. At many of the elite private universities, at least half of the white students are Jewish.
Last edited by Phillip; 31 January 2011 at 07:00 PM.
According to the SMU website, 52% of the undergrads are from Texas. It is a majority but probably not quite what you were expecting. The next highest state is California. But they do lack students from the North and Northeast.
As for the Christian name, I can see how people would think it is a religious school. But there are no requirements to take any religious classes unlike Baylor for example. But I agree the name leads to this perception.
I'm still just a little surprised, and a little disappointed in myself that I never really had an idea how much research goes UTSW, more than the seven universities trying to become "Tier One...."
thread: http://dallasmetropolis.com/forum/sh...rch#post447915
DMN: link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...n1.36cecdc.html
Notably, the work does not involve UT Southwestern Medical Center, which has been the undisputed biotech and biopharma powerhouse in North Texas. The school has 3,500 research projects under way, with more than $400 million in annual funding.
So, $400 million in annual research funding... that's more than the combined funding from the area's three Tier 1 hopefuls UTA, UTD and UNT.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks