I think a lot of issues we have right now with quality could be solved in a big way by reducing our total student population. I know we seem to have this desire to have 50k+ like Austin does, but the truth is, we don't have the money to be able to support such a large student body and maintain quality at the same time.

I would like to see us reduce our total population to somehwere in the neighborhood of 35k with 25k undergrads and 10k postgrads (by comparison, we currently have 37k undergrads and 6k post grads.)

To me, it seems like this would solve a lot of our quality problems.

-Selectivity would jump up a lot since our incoming freshmen classes would almost be cut in half, resulting in higher SAT scores and a lower acceptance rate.

-Class sizes would be able to be much smaller and encourage a higher percentage of under 20 classes and a lower percentage of over 50

-Total per student spending would increase signifigantly and our endowment would go much further.

I know some will object and say we need to be accessible to more students but I say we are playing a losing numbers game trying to support UT-Austin like numbers because we cant fund it the way they can. A smaller population would allow for a much better academic climate for A&M.

Over 60% of our student are auto admits under the top 10% rule. Under the current system, I believe it would be impossible to "cut" the freshman class in 1/2. Average SAT scores probably would also go down because we would essentially be almost all auto admits who don't have to try on it.

[This message has been edited by Aston04 (edited 8/31/2008 4:32p).]

quote:

---

37k undergrads and 6k post grads.)

---

Don't we have just less than 48k right now?

WHY AR ALL THESE PEOPLE OUT HERR???

^

I WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL... FOR FREE!

To answer the proposed question...

Aston is right in his assessment. To reduce the number of freshmen admissions, you would have to get around the 10% rule, which is a state law, not just a univeristy policy.

You are correct that it would make the endowment go further, but it may also reduce the endowment in the future. Ultimately, the more students that graduate from the university, the more former students that are available to give back.

Also, we have an inherent advantage over Austin because we have the physical space to expand and continue to grow. They are landlocked with very few options for expansion.

Not saying that I'm for or against it (because I'm not sure what my opinion is), I'm just offering points of consideration.

I think the OP brings up a good point, since A&M maybe able to expand, but is CS or Bryan expanding to meet the growth of A&M? Also, I think that the A&M endowment would be able to support more kids, assuming that we don't keep up the same level of some services (buses, student activities, etc). Besides classrooms, one thing that has lacked on campus is on-campus housing. We haven't built a new dorm in how many years?

~egon

there is NO way the university would do such a thing. if you read the battalion today you saw all the expenses they are incurring to expand the university. heck the interdisciplinary life sciences building alone was $96 million. as much as i too would like to see the university downsize, they won't do it. i think gates made it a mission to make a&m friendly and accessible to everyone.

in the mid 80's the administration was going to cap enrollment at 35K undergraduates.

I don't think that happened.

We haven't built a dorm in several years largely because we weren't filling the dorms we had. Thus the big push for more modular, fewer single-gender dorms. Most underclassmen don't want to live in the tinier rooms (as long as Daddy's paying the bill).

they are tearing down the northside corridor dorms in the next couple years i think to build newer dorms. i say the university should build state of the art, 10 story tall dorms. we have pretty ****ty dorms on campus, i say we build something to stand out!

No, I like the variety of people. 35K would be too much like tceh for me (I think tceh is what, 20K)?

We just need to expand the resources of the university to accommodate our current students.

To answer the OP:

In many ways, yes, TAMU is too big. The faculty reinvestment push was supposed to reduce faculty:student ratio and help our overall rankings by the likes of US News. Unfortunately, the rapid growth in enrollment has eliminated many of those gains. Teaching loads have slowly increased again and this leaves less time for faculty to do research and write grants - things that help the reputation of the academics.

As of a few years ago, we received right at 50% of the freshman class from the top 10% rule, so there actually could be some wiggle-room there. In contrast, UT takes in 80% or more of their freshman class from the top 10% rule. A&M could be more selective with the remaining 50% admits but fewer students from big urban high schools would be admitted.

The university doesn't use the endowment for day-to-day operations, so that part of the discussion is irrelevant. The endowment is invested and the interest made on those investments can be spent for things like new buildings and attempts to steal high-profile faculty from other universities. It's not spent on keeping the lights on or to offset tuition. Much of the operating expense comes from state funding, tuition, and fees.

nm

[This message has been edited by Aston04 (edited 9/8/2008 1:05p).]

quote:

---

The faculty reinvestment push was supposed to reduce faculty:student ratio and help our overall rankings by the likes of US News. Unfortunately, the rapid growth in enrollment has eliminated many of those gains. Teaching loads have slowly increased again and this leaves less time for faculty to do research and write grants - things that help the reputation of the academics.

---

I think I disagree, actually. The stakeholders here are the students, not U.S. News. We have to have research opportunities for professors in order for them to come here, that's a given. Someone is not going to get a Ph.D. to teach 101 classes. That said, my main problem with A&M so far is that I've had professors that are so involved with academia that they are not very good teachers and they cannot relate well with the students.

Rankings are important to an extent. Right now I feel satisfied enough with the reputation of A&M that my problem right now is with what I get out of it, not my employers.

quote:

---

The stakeholders here are the students, not U.S. News.

---

True enough. However, I never said US News was a stakeholder. The stated goal of Vision 2020 is to bring A&M into the Top 10 ranked public universities. Those rankings are based on several metrics, including student:faculty ratios, number of classes with under 20 students and number of classes with more than 50 students. By bringing in more faculty AND raising enrollment, all three of those metrics remain unchanged.

quote:

---

That said, my main problem with A&M so far is that I've had professors that are so involved with academia that they are not very good teachers and they cannot relate well with the students.

---

You are probably aware that most faculty are not trained to teach and have no formal experience in how to teach. Some will naturally be very good teachers and some will learn to become good teachers with some practice. Others just suck and will always suck. There is very little correlation between the ability to do scholarly research and the ability to teach, in my opinion. Some of the best teachers I have seen at multiple universities have been internationally renowned scientists and some of the worst teachers have been deadwood faculty that do no scholarly activity at all and teach all the time. Being involved in academic activities does not prevent someone from being a good teacher. My guess is your sample size is too limited at the moment.

quote:

---

Rankings are important to an extent. Right now I feel satisfied enough with the reputation of A&M that my problem right now is with what I get out of it, not my employers.

---

The Regents, President, and the Legislature of the State of Texas disagree and want the rankings to be improved - thus Vision 2020. The problem is that A&M keeps growing and it's difficult to raise sufficient funds to make badly needed improvements in current infrastructure, much less increase building space, slow the rise of tuition, hire more and better faculty, and provide the space/resources to offer innovative courses that prepare students for emerging technologies.

I like A&M as big as possible because it increases name recognition. So does having a good football team, but, I think it will be easier to just get more students.

quote:

---

True enough. However, I never said US News was a stakeholder. The stated goal of Vision 2020 is to bring A&M into the Top 10 ranked public universities.

---

The way I read that, you are considering US News to be a (indirect) stakeholder if you and the university are giving that much value to their rankings. Look at it this way, in order to rise in their rankings, you have to please their requirements, and sometimes those requirements are not quite the same as the student body as a whole when you consider every major.

quote:

---

Those rankings are based on several metrics, including student:faculty ratios, number of classes with under 20 students and number of classes with more than 50 students. By bringing in more faculty AND raising enrollment, all three of those metrics remain unchanged.

---

Yes but if A&M is able to satisfy those requirements and then get into the top 10 public ranking, that means one of the schools currently in the top 10 will have to drop out, and those are really, really good schools. There's also some really good schools in the top 15. I think realistically A&M can make the top 20. There's probably going to be factors out of A&M's control.

quote:

---

Some of the best teachers I have seen at multiple universities have been internationally renowned scientists and some of the worst teachers have been deadwood faculty that do no scholarly activity at all and teach all the time.

---

That doesn't disprove my point. I said that considering MY bad professors AT A&M, most of them were bad because they are so involved with academia or are so good in their fields that they don't really know how to relate on an undergraduate's level. I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement that internationally renown professors are always bad teachers because that's not true. I gave a reason for my own particular problem that doesn't apply to every situation. There's an infinite number of reasons why a professor will be bad at teaching.

I don't really care about what happens at other universities because I'm talking about my experience with A&M.

quote:

---

The Regents, President, and the Legislature of the State of Texas disagree and want the rankings to be improved - thus Vision 2020.

---

That doesn't mean that they are correct. If they take care of the problems that exist at A&M that we have all experienced, the rankings will eventually improve. I'd like for them to focus on the day-to-day problems that we all experience because through that, we can begin to tackle greater issues and then rise in the rankings. Personally, I didn't really look at the rankings before I came to A&M. To me, my reasons for coming here outweigh whether we are ranked in the top 10, top 20, top 30, etc. Rankings are great for people outside of our university to look at and to know what we're about, but for people who have already chosen to go to A&M, their needs are going to be a little different.

quote:

---

The problem is that A&M keeps growing and it's difficult to raise sufficient funds to make badly needed improvements in current infrastructure, much less increase building space, slow the rise of tuition, hire more and better faculty, and provide the space/resources to offer innovative courses that prepare students for emerging technologies.

---

I agree with you here.

quote:

---

I like A&M as big as possible because it increases name recognition.

---

I agree. The major advantage of having 46K students compared to 35K is the networking.

quote:

---

Look at it this way, in order to rise in their rankings, you have to please their requirements, and sometimes those requirements are not quite the same as the student body as a whole when you consider every major.

---

Regardless of major or field of study, lower class sizes and better student:faculty ratio will enhance the learning environment and offer better relationships between students and faculty. There is considerable data backing that up, thus almost every ranking system includes that kind of data when formulating the results.

quote:

---

Yes but if A&M is able to satisfy those requirements and then get into the top 10 public ranking, that means one of the schools currently in the top 10 will have to drop out, and those are really, really good schools. There's also some really good schools in the top 15. I think realistically A&M can make the top 20. There's probably going to be factors out of A&M's control.

---

You are correct. A&M has consistently been in the 25-30 and breaking into the top 10 would be difficult. Michigan, Berkeley, Virginia, UCLA, and North Carolina are all up there and want to stay there. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to at least move up and jump ahead of Georgia, Clemson, Rutgers, Maryland, Washington, and about 4 other California schools to be in the top 12-15.

quote:

---

That doesn't disprove my point. I said that considering MY bad professors AT A&M, most of them were bad because they are so involved with academia or are so good in their fields that they don't really know how to relate on an undergraduate's level. I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement that internationally renown professors are always bad teachers because that's not true. I gave a reason for my own particular problem that doesn't apply to every situation. There's an infinite number of reasons why a professor will be bad at teaching.

I don't really care about what happens at other universities because I'm talking about my experience with A&M.

---

I'm sorry your experience has been negative. There are plenty of very high quality profs here at A&M that are internationally known AND good teachers that can relate. It's unfortunate that you haven't had classes with them yet.

quote:

---

That doesn't mean that they are correct. If they take care of the problems that exist at A&M that we have all experienced, the rankings will eventually improve. I'd like for them to focus on the day-to-day problems that we all experience because through that, we can begin to tackle greater issues and then rise in the rankings.

---

I would disagree because I don't think it works like that. I'm not exactly sure what kind of day-to-day problems you have. Are you referring to "bad" teachers, poor classroom space, bad food, campus appearance? Addressing those probably likely wouldn't affect the rankings at all. Rankings are based on acceptance rate, endowment size, student:faculty ratio, average class size, graduation rates, and several other factors.

quote:

---

like A&M as big as possible because it increases name recognition.

---

This is just silly. The undergrad enrollment at A&M is roughly equivalent to the COMBINED undergrad enrollments of CalTech, Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Columbia, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and Cornell. They have just as much, and probably more, name recognition than A&M and they are tiny in size comparison. The University of Central Florida has had more students than A&M the last four years, but that doesn't mean they have better name recognition or that the school is any better.

I disagree. The only reason I know what UCF is is because it is one of the biggest colleges. And more people going to a college does increase name recognition. People tell other people where they went to college, therefore more people know about it. The people that went obviously also know about it so therefore they know what A&M is.

I honestly don't believe A&M can achieve the name recognition through the means that those smaller colleges do. Just my opinion.

For the good prof/good researcher, I think a lot of it has to do with connecting to the people they are teaching. Since I have been at A&M for 9 years, some of the profs that I thought were "bad" were actually really good, once you got out of the basic classes, in which they were forced to teach things they really did not want to teach or know. Give them the ability to go and teach what they want (in a given context) and I guarantee you that that class will be awesome. It only makes the class better because they are recognized in a larger setting.

That being said, there are some people who go into teaching not for teaching, but research. As a grad student, there are a few kids in our department that are hellbent on being a prof. They are great teachers. There are kids that are bent on being a lab rat; the idea of teaching is completely foreign to them. Also, as a kid sitting in the class listening to the prof, if he is not interested in the class, the kid will think that he is a "bad" prof, even though he could be very good (been guilty of that).

I know on the CHEN department, one of our challenges has been getting profs AND keeping them in order to reduce our ratios for the rankings. We would get 2 or 3 profs coming in, and then during the year, lose 2 or 3. So yes, we have new people, but we are now worse, since we have a larger class, but less profs. And going out and hiring people to teach at A&M is not always the easiest thing to do. Not every university has the same degrees, so you start fishing from a smaller pool (example AgLifeSci dept). Just thoughts from someone who has seen both sides and worked both sides (yes I did teach, no I don't want to as a career).

~egon

Walton

not only will having more students help name recognition, it will also help college station's economy to continue growing.

I see no problem with A&M getting even larger...we're a flagship state university. But our number one teaching priority right now has to be hiring more professors. And if we allow the student body population to rise, we need to add even more teachers to bring down the student-teacher ratio.

egonpyro made an excellent point about the "bad" professors who are forced to teach introductory level classes in their subject matter.

It would not surprise me to see the number of students in the Freshman and Sophomore classes reduced greatly as Blinn gets bigger and bigger. The day may come when TAMU is like University of Houston- Clear Lake in having only Juniors, Seniors, and graduate students.

Of course, we're discussing this while the University is about to get another 1,600 students from the Galveston campus just BOOM here they are.

Advantages of a large campus
* more specialized classes.
* more future "former students"
* less people going to tech and t.u.
* higher washington monthly rankings (a huge portion of that ranking comes from students who need pell grants)
* larger selection of people of the opposite sex
* more student organizations

in a nutshell, America is too big