You guys need to study the factors that make up the US News college rankings. About 80% of the metrics fall under how coddled the student is (e.g small class size, graduation rate). If that's what you want as a student, then great, use it for that. But it's a poor ranking for employment opportunities of a degree. If that's what's important to you, then A&M should be near the top of your list. Companies looking to hire know this. A&M's career day is like the Olympics of career days making most universities look high school. If you've never had the opportunity to compare and contrast those, you wouldn't know.

Because one of the metrics is classroom size to instructor ratio.

Doesn't take into account the actual instruction quality nor the salaries of itemized degrees offered and number of degrees.

Win At Life said:

---

You guys need to study the factors that make up the US News college rankings. About 80% of the metrics fall under how coddled the student is (e.g small class size, graduation rate). If that's what you want as a student, then great, use it for that. But it's a poor ranking for employment opportunities of a degree. If that's what's important to you, then A&M should be near the top of your list. Companies looking to hire know this. A&M's career day is like the Olympics of career days making most universities look high school. If you've never had the opportunity to compare and contrast those, you wouldn't know.

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

So you don't know the metrics used?

Surrender accepted.

---

Hah, you refuse to answer my question, then accuse me of surrendering. You should consider standup comedy.

Artorias said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Artorias said:

---

TAMU used to be better. Since it has become a diploma mill in recent years, not so much.

---

Amongst the dumbest **** that gets repeated here.

---

Then explain to me why TAMU rankings dropping just happens to coincide with massive increase in enrollment?

---

You explain how these very "objective" rankings, that are mostly based on liberal bull****, are done and then I'll address it.

---

Ahh yes, it is all a great conspiracy against TAMU

---

General political bias by many institutions against more conservative schools or institutions is hardly tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff.

Artorias said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

So you don't know the metrics used?

Surrender accepted.

---

Hah, you refuse to answer my question, then accuse me of surrendering. You should consider standup comedy.

---

You've been time stamped.

Quote:

---

massive increase in enrollment

---

Guess what else has had a massive increase? State population.

A&M was established to educated Texans. I'm happy that we're pumping out grads left and right. Anyone who looks to the US News rankings is an insecure chode. A&M is consistently the top school for new hires.

Bring on more students and former students!!

Of all the engineering schools that we visited during my kids Jr/Sr high school,
SMU and Texas A&M were the most impressive.

- Rice was Lame. Made no effort to recruit, most of the presentations centered around how you can get aid. It is however impressive how many of their students are Division 1 recruits (over 10%)
- tu was absolutely fos. Their presentation was centered around "you're lucky to be applying here". Again, made no effort to recruit, and we picked a session because of a specific major (aerospace). Only reps from 2 of the 7 majors that were supposed to be there showed up. F*** em. They had 1 chance to recruit and they ****ed it up.

SMU Engineering was impressive - it's great if you want a engineering school with smaller class sizes. They spent a lot of time showing labs. They also emphasized cross discipline projects (with ME, EE, CS majors all rolled into 1 project)

A&M Aggieland day kicked it out of the park for 2 of my kids. Their EE, Chemical, CS and BioMed groups were impressive.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Artorias said:

---

TAMU used to be better. Since it has become a diploma mill in recent years, not so much.

---

Amongst the dumbest **** that gets repeated here.

---

Then explain to me why TAMU rankings dropping just happens to coincide with massive increase in enrollment?

---

You explain how these very "objective" rankings, that are mostly based on liberal bull****, are done and then I'll address it.

---

Class size and acceptance rate aren't progressive BS. Those are two larger measures....or at least they used to be.

While the standards for acceptance have increased since our day, TAMU is accepting a lot of people who apply, as a percentage. This harms our ranking, and also helps leads to the diploma mill line.

tu's ranking stays higher than ours, in part, of their selectivity even though it is a large school.

There are numerous other rankings out there that show A&M near the top depending on your preferred metric.

For example, we have routinely scored near the top when it comes to salaries.

What did tu do in the ranking during the same time and what was their enrollment increase over that time? Would be interesting to test out the theory of enrollment growth being the primary factor.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

What did tu do in the ranking during the same time and what was their enrollment increase over that time? Would be interesting to test out the theory of enrollment growth being the primary factor.

---

t.u is still around 50k, which is where TAMU used to be, and coincidentally their rankings have not fallen. TAMU is now 73k.

Yesterday said:

---

A&M was established to educated Texans. I'm happy that we're pumping out grads left and right. Anyone who looks to the US News rankings is an insecure chode. A&M is consistently the top school for new hires.

Bring on more students and former students!!

---

Would prefer if we were just pumping them out right

And fellas, please, let's separate rankings from employment opportunities here.

We do know that Aggie grads many times are great hires and have great opportunities. Those of us who have an issue with the ranking, or at least me, aren't arguing that. Some of us are merely lamenting our drop in visible prestige. Like it or not, outside of TX, people believe these rankings. It's a valid concern.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

She got wait-listed and rejected from the Air Force Academy and wait-listed and accepted at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis without prep school.

---

This is interesting. Many moons ago when I applied to the academies, West Point was available if you were decently smart, Air Force was highly competitive, and Navy might as well have been Yale. Has that changed?

---

My perception is based on a good high school friend going to USNA-- Navy is still Yale. Opportunities out of that school after your service for Wall Street are pretty much a formality for him and all his buds I keep up with who wanted to work in NYC.

When she applied to USNA and USAFA I told her to forget the Chair Force, but my stepdad was a zoomie so that was truly her first choice.

But A&M is more competitive for in-state Texans based on both my younger sisters' experiences. My sister had a 1400 SAT and a 3.9/4.0 GPA but went to a Catholic Private High School (St. Agnes in Houston). Her older sister/my second youngest sister had even better academic marks but also got wait listed for A&M and got a full ride at OU business--ended up going there despite getting into A&M later on after she had already practically moved to Norman.My other sister did not get any scholarships from A&M when she got in.

CDUB98 said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Artorias said:

---

TAMU used to be better. Since it has become a diploma mill in recent years, not so much.

---

Amongst the dumbest **** that gets repeated here.

---

Then explain to me why TAMU rankings dropping just happens to coincide with massive increase in enrollment?

---

You explain how these very "objective" rankings, that are mostly based on liberal bull****, are done and then I'll address it.

---

Class size and acceptance rate aren't progressive BS. Those are two larger measures....or at least they used to be.

While the standards for acceptance have increased since our day, TAMU is accepting a lot of people who apply, as a percentage. This harms our ranking, and also helps leads to the diploma mill line.

tu's ranking stays higher than ours, in part, of their selectivity even though it is a large school.

---

I'll tie this back to the post above yours commenting on A&M's mission to educate Texas kids. I'm glad we still follow that mission although we will all forever debate the enrollment numbers and if that's good or not.

tu has abandoned this mission in favor of their California strategy.

I'm seriously inclined to devalue colleges in general based on what's been going on over the last 20 or so years. Higher ed in general is a cesspool of corruption -- everything from sex scandals (profs/admins sleeping with everyone they can, including students for grades, etc.) to fake research to whatever it takes to make a buck, everything else be damned. These places are "non-profit" in name only (although that term is misnamed).

With that said, I'm afraid the old SWC bias is showing on here. SMU certainly holds its own as a quality university, especially in certain areas. I've known many SMU grads across several fields, grad and undergrad schools. There were very few that I wasn't impressed with. My sample size was admittedly small comparatively, but so is everyone else's here. And I believe I'm a bit more objective.

Would I send my kid to SMU undergrad? No way. Too expensive and not anywhere close to worth that. No reason to go to a larger private school (I don't really know how "big" they are, but it isn't a "small" school); if you want a "private college" type experience, get one at a smaller, possibly cheaper school, somewhere like California Baptist University or something like that. Pepperdine even (pardon the coincidence that both examples here are literally only minutes away from each other!!). My point is that SMU doesn't offer a strong enough educational and other experience to justify the cost. However, that doesn't mean it isn't a good school -- it is. If money is truly no object and one either doesn't want to go to A&M, wants to stay in DFW, go to a school with somewhat of a Greek presence, SMU is the place to go.

I'd probably recommend SMU over Baylor, and I went to Baylor (one year) and know far more people that went there. None of the Baylor people are bad by any stretch, but the quality of their education, to me, isn't on par with those from SMU.

Artorias said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

What did tu do in the ranking during the same time and what was their enrollment increase over that time? Would be interesting to test out the theory of enrollment growth being the primary factor.

---

t.u is still around 50k, which is where TAMU used to be, and coincidentally their rankings have not fallen. TAMU is now 73k.

---

So was it 50k 20 years ago as well? Because if their rankings haven't changed, but enrollment has increased, then the theory is worth questioning.

Artorias said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

What did tu do in the ranking during the same time and what was their enrollment increase over that time? Would be interesting to test out the theory of enrollment growth being the primary factor.

---

t.u is still around 50k, which is where TAMU used to be, and coincidentally their rankings have not fallen. TAMU is now 73k.

---

tu is also a leftist indoctrination camp. Few adults give a damn about US News rankings other than when their kids are seniors in high school.

I would be much more concerned about sending my kid to a leftist cesspool like tu than them going to a school where there freshman classes will be larger than tu's.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Artorias said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

What did tu do in the ranking during the same time and what was their enrollment increase over that time? Would be interesting to test out the theory of enrollment growth being the primary factor.

---

t.u is still around 50k, which is where TAMU used to be, and coincidentally their rankings have not fallen. TAMU is now 73k.

---

So was it 50k 20 years ago as well? Because if their rankings haven't changed, but enrollment has increased, then the theory is worth questioning.

---

Yes

91AggieLawyer said:

---

I'm seriously inclined to devalue colleges in general based on what's been going on over the last 20 or so years. Higher ed in general is a cesspool of corruption -- everything from sex scandals (profs/admins sleeping with everyone they can, including students for grades, etc.) to fake research to whatever it takes to make a buck, everything else be damned. These places are "non-profit" in name only (although that term is misnamed).

With that said, I'm afraid the old SWC bias is showing on here. SMU certainly holds its own as a quality university, especially in certain areas. I've known many SMU grads across several fields, grad and undergrad schools. There were very few that I wasn't impressed with. My sample size was admittedly small comparatively, but so is everyone else's here. And I believe I'm a bit more objective.

Would I send my kid to SMU undergrad? No way. Too expensive and not anywhere close to worth that. No reason to go to a larger private school (I don't really know how "big" they are, but it isn't a "small" school); if you want a "private college" type experience, get one at a smaller, possibly cheaper school, somewhere like California Baptist University or something like that. Pepperdine even (pardon the coincidence that both examples here are literally only minutes away from each other!!). My point is that SMU doesn't offer a strong enough educational and other experience to justify the cost. However, that doesn't mean it isn't a good school -- it is. If money is truly no object and one either doesn't want to go to A&M, wants to stay in DFW, go to a school with somewhat of a Greek presence, SMU is the place to go.

I'd probably recommend SMU over Baylor, and I went to Baylor (one year) and know far more people that went there. None of the Baylor people are bad by any stretch, but the quality of their education, to me, isn't on par with those from SMU.

---

Definitely agree with all of this. SMU's cost is so exorbitantly high its bafflingly. It's as expensive as almost any elite school in the country last time I looked.

YouBet said:

---

Artorias said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

What did tu do in the ranking during the same time and what was their enrollment increase over that time? Would be interesting to test out the theory of enrollment growth being the primary factor.

---

t.u is still around 50k, which is where TAMU used to be, and coincidentally their rankings have not fallen. TAMU is now 73k.

---

tu is also a leftist indoctrination camp. Few adults give a damn about US News rankings other than when their kids are seniors in high school.

I would be much more concerned about sending my kid to a leftist cesspool like tu than them going to a school where there freshman classes will be larger than tu's.

---

That is a different argument. I would not send my kid to t.u. either. But in the discussion of college rankings, whether we like them or not, there is a direct correlation between enrollment increase and rankings dropping.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Industry self-ranking is a shaping play. What's the "right" metric, anyhow? Mean salary 5 years after grad? % of attendees who get a $60k+ job withing a year of departure? Student debt : income ratio 5 years after final class attendance? Do you include those who got their MRS degrees and didn't enter the workforce? Do you include those who flunked out? What about # of workable (conservative) world views produced?

Or... is it largely metric of party affiliation with some prejudices and bribes sprinkled in?

---

In 2014 Florida set performance metrics for some of their state university funding. They set 3 basic metrics initially. The first year this was in effect, the best performing schools by the metrics they set were USF and UCF. The metrics were:

- Metric 1: The percent of students who graduated with a bachelor's degree that are either employed or continuing their education after one year of graduation.

- Metric 2: The median average full-time salary of undergraduates employed in Florida one year after graduation.

- Metric 3: Average cost per undergraduate to the institution.

In year 1 of this program, there were only two schools that qualified for the highest funding amount. The top two were USF and UCF, and they got a higher payout than UF and FSU, who qualified for the second tier amount.

It created a **** storm because the legislature, a bunch of FSU and UF grads, didn't want to accept USF or UCF in their club or give them the same level of funding. It was immediately obvious they set it up as a way to try and justify giving more funds to only FSU and UF, that's why they had to change the rules so only those two qualified even though their first year they expected FSU and UF to be the best performing by those 3 metrics.

So the legislature changed the rules, and expanded the number of metrics from 3 to 10, and tailored them so that to nobody's surprise, only FSU and UF met the standard for the highest funding level, and everyone else received less.

This change knocked USF and UCF out of the top and moved FSU and UF ahead, but by 2020, USF became the overall leader by the states own 10 metrics. They are not academic measures but more economic based. They involve number of degrees awarded in areas of strategic interest, and cost of attendance as well as other value metrics and graduate success metrics like the original 3.

But it's a clear example of academic prestige not necessarily translating to post graduation success as much as perceived. Some of this may be UF and FSU are more expensive and graduate more liberal arts with on average lower salary. So their average degree cost vs average new grad salary isn't as good as expected when compared to UCF and USF.

Artorias said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Artorias said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

What did tu do in the ranking during the same time and what was their enrollment increase over that time? Would be interesting to test out the theory of enrollment growth being the primary factor.

---

t.u is still around 50k, which is where TAMU used to be, and coincidentally their rankings have not fallen. TAMU is now 73k.

---

tu is also a leftist indoctrination camp. Few adults give a damn about US News rankings other than when their kids are seniors in high school.

I would be much more concerned about sending my kid to a leftist cesspool like tu than them going to a school where there freshman classes will be larger than tu's.

---

That is a different argument. I would not send my kid to t.u. either. But in the discussion of college rankings, whether we like them or not, there is a direct correlation between enrollment increase and rankings dropping.

---

Yeah, I'm not arguing US News criteria here. It's why we've gone down in their ranking.

I just think their rankings are crap and irrelevant from an individual scoring perspective.

Artorias said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Artorias said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

What did tu do in the ranking during the same time and what was their enrollment increase over that time? Would be interesting to test out the theory of enrollment growth being the primary factor.

---

t.u is still around 50k, which is where TAMU used to be, and coincidentally their rankings have not fallen. TAMU is now 73k.

---

tu is also a leftist indoctrination camp. Few adults give a damn about US News rankings other than when their kids are seniors in high school.

I would be much more concerned about sending my kid to a leftist cesspool like tu than them going to a school where there freshman classes will be larger than tu's.

---

That is a different argument. I would not send my kid to t.u. either. But in the discussion of college rankings, whether we like them or not, there is a direct correlation between enrollment increase and rankings dropping.

---

US News is a for profit that caters to Private schools that use their rankings to get people to spend $75k per year to send their little snowflakes off to college. US News sells advertising and information which Private schools need, large Publics like A&M don't. Thus they put their value on things that favor small private schools such as Class Size, Graduation Rate, etc. US News also doesn't really audit data and they accept what they are given, Private schools will often pay top students to re-take SAT's for instance to boost their scores and they will use the most selective possible number for acceptance whereas A&M includes all their Blinn Team and their conditional admits. If A&M used Private school numbers (only full admits for Freshman) the number would be in the low 20s instead of the 60s but they simply don't care, it's not their mission.

US News literally puts zero value on Endowment or Research Spend or Average Salary for Graduates which are both much harder for a school to obtain and are far more relevant in terms of quality of education. They also don't value ROI in terms of tuition to quality or certainly future salary. They put zero value on AAU Membership which is the classic definition of a Tier 1 School.

It has some level of value but anyone that looks to US News as the end all is showing they don't understand quality of education. It's a nice marketing thing and has some good info to compare like school with like school but you really can't look at SMU and A&M in the same category.

Is A&M too big? That's really a Texas population issue. A&M and Texas both have insane levels of Texas kids compared to other state public schools outside of Texas, both are over 90%. That tells you something about how much kids in Texas want to go there and how little the schools have to work to market to get applicants. When I got accepted to A&M in 1989 the school had 43k students and Texas had 48k. A&M has exploded, Texas has stayed the same and built up their System schools in the UC Model with them being Berkeley while UTSA, UTD, etc are now solid Tier 2 schools bordering on Tier 1. Anyone who seriously thinks A&M is a diploma mill though should go tour the Engineering Building and compare it to any other building on any campus in the country.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

Artorias said:

---

TAMU used to be better. Since it has become a diploma mill in recent years, not so much.

---

Amongst the dumbest **** that gets repeated here.

---

Especially when you realize most of the people posting it couldn't get in now

redcrayon said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

No, they are not on our level. Tons of kids there who couldn't get into our school. Also silly that we are ranked #68. The rankings are complete horsesh**.

---

Not being able to get into A&M means nothing. Tons of smart, talented kids are not admitted due to admissions policies.

---

Yea, that's bs, it means something .

I'm still damned pissed they took away the legacy bump. Kids who love the school because they were raised Ags are the exact kind of kids you want to continue the legacy.

But, noooooo, the guilt ridden progressives don't want any more good ol' boy, white honkey crackas in College Station.

ocling said:

---

Most of their grads view it as Harvard of the south. Not joking

---

I'm married to one and know plenty, and I don't think this is true. They believe it's a great place to get an education and no doubt it is, but I don't know any that think they've gone to Harvard of the South.

Maybe some of their Cox business school grads think they're real hot **** but isn't that grads from most good, not great business school grads?

CDUB98 said:

---

I'm still damned pissed they took away the legacy bump. Kids who love the school because they were raised Ags are the exact kind of kids you want to continue the legacy.

But, noooooo, the guilt ridden progressives don't want any more good ol' boy, white honkey crackas in College Station.

---

Agreed. They're also the kind that gives back to the University.

There's a bunch of other college campuses around the state that have room for growth and can accommodate a growing population.

We don't have to accommodate that all in College Station but the A&M system sure has tried to. And that's not generally how most renowned systems around the nation do it.

I've poked around our campus on a few school days and it's hard for me to see, at least, how the student experience is enhanced by the size of and number of people packed into that campus these days

There's something to be said about having access to your professors and assistants, access to facilities, manageable class sizes (in both sense of the word), etc.

And I can't imagine the time wasted trying to get to campus and get around campus. It was bad enough 15 years ago

I'm a strong believer that STATE schools should serve the interests of the state. Things that are valued are profitable. Thus economic success of those who attended is definitely a metric for state school success.

And that includes drop-outs. Those left with debt and no credential matter too, to an overall value assessment.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

ocling said:

---

Most of their grads view it as Harvard of the south. Not joking

---

I'm married to one and know plenty, and I don't think this is true. They believe it's a great place to get an education and no doubt it is, but I don't know any that think they've gone to Harvard of the South.

Maybe some of their Cox business school grads think they're real hot **** but isn't that grads from most good, not great business school grads?

---

This is specifically who I'm referring to. I work with a number of them - I heard the Harvard statement last week.

SMU's B-school isn't bad, but it sure ain't Rice.