quote:

---

quote:

---

2015 U.S. News Rankings:

53) UT- Austin
68) A&M
145) UT-Dallas
156) Texas Tech
189) UH

If A&M continues to fall in the rankings and UT-Dallas continues to rise, then sure, I could see UT-Dallas competing with A&M for students. I know a current UT-Dallas student who comes from an Aggie family and turned down A&M for a full ride at UT-Dallas.

---

I am a proud 3rd generation Aggie, but we could not turn down the full-ride scholarship my daughter was given by UT-Dallas. She wanted a smaller school in the end and that was true when she started with a 10-12K enrollment, now they have 20-30k. She still wears her Aggie maroon on football Saturdays and no one really cares. I'm just glad she did not go to Tech, who offered nearly as much. ;-)

---

I may know you then because my son got offered a full ride to UTD and a $2500 a year school to A&M. It was a no brainer as the program he wanted to go into was higher rated at UT-D as well.

Champ Bailey, you're using a pretty broad brush there.

You're contention as to the "value" of those liberal arts majors (and I do agree that some of them are "fuzzy")
is highly dependent upon the school. At the elite schools (Ivys, Stanford, Amherst, etc) those liberal arts majors are hired by Wall Street and large corporations into lucrative careers.

quote:

---

You want an engineer that doesn't know E=MC2?

---

I don't care whether they know it or not. Just please don't use it on the job!

In 1994 my freshman class was the largest class on record at Texas A&M.

In 1998 many top employers didn't care that I graduated from a diploma mill and offered me a job.

In 2015 my boss cares about the project I worked on last week, not my diploma on the wall.

There is a fundamental disconnect in the understanding of education vis training.

Both are needed and there is significant overlap at times, but they are fundamentally different things. Universities should be about education. The TSTIs of the world are about training. Hopefully both result in a job. However one is more likely to result in a career and a life with options and a broader understanding of the world.

If all that truly matters is a training for a job, then the school, the diploma, the football team, the Corps outfit, the Greek organization, the student oranization, the school song, the school ring - are all minor to inconsequential. However if the education is what matters, then all of those things (including that "worthless" philosophy course you had to take) enrich the experience, and by extension, the life lived afterward.

And what are they using from their education at these jobs? If I work for JP Morgan and I am having to choose between a finance major or an art history major, which one do you think I pick? Now there is nothing wrong with taking art history if that interests you, but if you don't have some solid backbone in training you in STEM field stuff, then there is really no point in spending the 120 grand at those institutions right? It's all about balance, and good candidates for jobs need STEM stuff first with liberal arts supplementing it. This accounts for 95% of the population. The rest are your painters, musicians, etc.

Edited to say that as a person who majored in the corps for a year or two, that didn't help me with anything.

quote:

---

There is a fundamental disconnect in the understanding of education vis training.

Both are needed and there is significant overlap at times, but they are fundamentally different things. Universities should be about education. The TSTIs of the world are about training. Hopefully both result in a job. However one is more likely to result in a career and a life with options and a broader understanding of the world.

If all that truly matters is a training for a job, then the school, the diploma, the football team, the Corps outfit, the Greek organization, the student oranization, the school song, the school ring - are all minor to inconsequential. However if the education is what matters, then all of those things (including that "worthless" philosophy course you had to take) enrich the experience, and by extension, the life lived afterward.

---

Please tell me that you are not a lib arts prof.

quote:

---

And what are they using from their education at these jobs? If I work for JP Morgan and I am having to choose between a finance major or an art history major, which one do you think I pick? Now there is nothing wrong with taking art history if that interests you, but if you don't have some solid backbone in training you in STEM field stuff, then there is really no point in spending the 120 grand at those institutions right? It's all about balance, and good candidates for jobs need STEM stuff first with liberal arts supplementing it. This accounts for 95% of the population. The rest are your painters, musicians, etc.

---

If you want to hire an undergraduate from Harvard, you would not even be able to hire someone with a finance degree. The closest you can get is economics. And I'm guessing that they do hire people from Harvard, and probably many that aren't even economics.

quote:

---

Please tell me that you are not a lib arts prof.

---

B.S. and M.Eng in Nuclear Engineering from Texas A&M. Self employeed in IT most of my career. Was a professional trainer in the Nuke field for a couple of years.

quote:

---

And what are they using from their education at these jobs? If I work for JP Morgan and I am having to choose between a finance major or an art history major, which one do you think I pick? Now there is nothing wrong with taking art history if that interests you, but if you don't have some solid backbone in training you in STEM field stuff, then there is really no point in spending the 120 grand at those institutions right? It's all about balance, and good candidates for jobs need STEM stuff first with liberal arts supplementing it. This accounts for 95% of the population.

---

I agree with much of that, but it's incomplete. Not everyone can be, wants to be or needs to be a STEM major. And while like most engineers I'd look down my noses at Liberal Arts majors and Aritmetic majors (that's what we called business majors) as I've moved through live I've come to grow past those distinctions. And truth be told, even most engineering jobs are mostly learned on the job. The classroom learning can provide a framework and mindset, but the nuts and bolts aren't learned in a classroom. If you want training don't go to a university. If you want education then go to a university.

As to your contention about spending "120 grand", sadly it's more like 240 grand. However, since I'm paying for one of those right now I've learned a lot. It's a truism that Wall Street will hire a Dartmouth Medieval Literature grad with a 3.5 ahead of a Texas A&M Finance grad with a 4.0. Is that the way it should be? Probably not, but it's the way it is. that also holds true for the top law schools and even the top business schools (not literally a Midieval major). As to 95% of the population, heck 50% of the population probably shouldn't go to a University anyway, but should be pointed towards trades and vocations. Much of the problem right now is that a "college education" has become a badge of honor that too many pursue, so that training for a job becomes part of the university program when it really shouldn't be.

Some of that has to do with regionalism and familiarity though.

In the specific case of working in NYC, Texans (and Texas A&M grads) tend to get moderately discounted because there's a history of fresh graduates from our universities going to work in the city and then getting homesick and moving back in 2-5 years. When that happens you burn not only the company's impression of graduates from the school, but also whatever person vouched to get you in the door (which more often than not is an Ag already there).

That's why programs like Aggies on Wall Street are a big deal, they're getting our very competitive matriculates in the door at institutions that historically wouldn't have accepted someone outside of their proven circle.

I think we'll see more and more barriers like that fall as we gain visibility nationally, which was a major component of the SEC move. It's just going to take time (and sustained competitiveness, which arguably increasing enrollment 50-60% would work counter to, IMO).

I do agree with your statement that too many people are trying to go to college. The skilled trades are suffering and good blue collar workers are increasingly hard to find because we've degraded the idea of being an electrician or a plumber or a farmer, etc. to being beneath a degree holding white collar worker. Mike Rowe actually had a really great TED talk on the subject.

quote:

---

I think we'll see more and more barriers like that fall as we gain visibility nationally, which was a major component of the SEC move. It's just going to take time (and sustained competitiveness, which arguably increasing enrollment 50-60% would work counter to, IMO).

---

Yes! Things like "perception" and "reputation" are real and meaningful. To be competitive in those far away places WE are the ones who need to improve our reputation. It's odd, but I see so many Aggies with sort of a reverse snobbishness who look down their noses at elite schools. When my daughter decided on Dartmouth there was an weird thread ( think on Varsity at the time). Someone even predicted that her Ivy League Anthropology degree would only get her a job as a barista.

quote:

---

finance major or an art history major, which one do you think I pick? Now there is nothing wrong with taking art history if that interests you, but if you don't have some solid backbone in training you in STEM field stuff

---

Finance = STEM?

We should all be pushing for the improvement of all the state universities in Texas. How much money did Gov. Perry spend trying to lure tech businesses out other states while waging his war on education in Texas?

Why are we not investing in developing the best and brightest young minds from this and other states in this state? How many of those minds do we lose to California and other states at the university years and never get them back? How much of the innovation that comes out of California, and other tech hot spots, is from their investment in education at the university level? If you're running a tech company wouldn't you want to be located somewhere that is educating the highest level of the next generation of innovative minds? California has 6 public universities ranked in the top 50 and we Texans no longer have a single one. Why are we not fighting to improve all of our educational opportunities to keep the best and brightest innovating here instead of throwing millions and millions of incentive dollars at them to try to lure the companies they create to Texas? If we value the promise of the finished product so much why don't we value the raw materials, being the best and brightest innovative minds, in the same way?

When I walked onto campus as a first generation college student, I didn't have a clue what "being an Aggie" was all about. Fortunately, I figured it out pretty quick. I absolutely LOVE my university and the friendships I built there. I enjoy running into other Aggies and do double-takes to see if someone in the line next to me or across the table is wearing an Aggie ring.

However, I do know a few graduates who are somewhat indifferent to what seal is on their diploma. I don't fault them or think they are "bad people." However, I do think that we should work to protect what it means to be an Aggie. That will be harder and harder to do with the rapid enrollment increase (and the increase they are projecting is RAPID). With that kind of growth, it will be harder and harder to see the passing down of traditions and the Spirit of Aggieland.

It's one thing to step on campus and not recognize half the buildings. It's another to step on campus and not recognize what it means to be an Aggie. That is where we are heading.

As an '02 grad, I don't really care what it has to do with my diploma. I do care that a fellow first generation college student stepping on campus for the first time in the near future may not walk away recognizing the true spirit of Aggieland.

Great post longeryak!

quote:

---

California has 6 public universities ranked in the top 50 and we Texans no longer have a single one.

---

This should worry every Texan. And please spare me the "rankings mean nothing" BS. This is a shellacking. I don't care what metric you use, we lag far behind in public University education in Texas.

Thought this was a football forum.. well, then I can give you my $0.02...

1. If you are not growing/expanding - you are dying. It's true.
2. We are a PUBLIC university- spare me the "Rice U" attitude. BTW, my daughter went to Rice, so I have seen this crap before. Get off your horse!
3. Who cares what Bevo U is doing!!! It's about us and Aggieland!
4. Sharp is a good man, we are in good hands.
5. Can somebody get this back to football, dangit!

-GIG'EM!!!

quote:

---

He graduated number 10 in his class. He was accepted to UC Berkeley but is currently at UT in part because: 1) it is a better fit for him (loves Austin and our roots are in the Hill Country), 2) UT is more selective, 3) because of number 2 the PERCEPTION among the top 2% of students in his HS is that UT is more prestigious. NOTE: my son isn't majoring in engineering but in biology.

---

Where in the world are you getting the idea that UT is more selective than Berkeley? Hard to take the rest of your post seriously after that.

quote:

---

When I walked onto campus as a first generation college student, I didn't have a clue what "being an Aggie" was all about. Fortunately, I figured it out pretty quick. I absolutely LOVE my university and the friendships I built there. I enjoy running into other Aggies and do double-takes to see if someone in the line next to me or across the table is wearing an Aggie ring.

However, I do know a few graduates who are somewhat indifferent to what seal is on their diploma. I don't fault them or think they are "bad people." However, I do think that we should work to protect what it means to be an Aggie. That will be harder and harder to do with the rapid enrollment increase (and the increase they are projecting is RAPID). With that kind of growth, it will be harder and harder to see the passing down of traditions and the Spirit of Aggieland.

It's one thing to step on campus and not recognize half the buildings. It's another to step on campus and not recognize what it means to be an Aggie. That is where we are heading.

As an '02 grad, I don't really care what it has to do with my diploma. I do care that a fellow first generation college student stepping on campus for the first time in the near future may not walk away recognizing the true spirit of Aggieland.

---

quote:

---

Thought this was a football forum.. well, then I can give you my $0.02...

1. If you are not growing/expanding - you are dying. It's true.

---

What a great attitude towards running a business. Higher Ed is not and should not be run like a business.

quote:

---

2. We are a PUBLIC university- spare me the "Rice U" attitude. BTW, my daughter went to Rice, so I have seen this crap before. Get off your horse!

---

Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, and UVA are also public. And wanting a quality education is not riding a high horse, and that's a perfect example of what's wrong with our attitude towards the whole issue.

quote:

---

3. Who cares what Bevo U is doing!!! It's about us and Aggieland!

---

Well since we compete with them for good students, faculty, resources, funding, and jobs in Texas and around the world, we should absolutely be concerned with what they are doing. You know who doesn't care about what their competition is doing? Failures and those that sell cheap, low quality goods. As someone who seems to have some business sense, this is a surprising sentiment.

quote:

---

4. Sharp is a good man, we are in good hands.

---

Sharp personifies the old Ag mentality. The younger generation, however, knows what 50% unemployment for new grads looks like. Pumping more kids through the system is not the answer.

quote:

---

5. Can somebody get this back to football, dangit!

-GIG'EM!!!

---

I would love to. What do you think our record will be this year?

quote:

---

On the current path of some of the emerging schools in the University of Texas system, combined with our own board's clear desire for expansion of enrollment, it is clear where we are headed, and it is away from what had been the model with dual flagship Universities. We are now headed toward what will be more like a hybrid of the old system with something like California's system with the A&M school's becoming the Cal State equivalent. The college station campus is in no danger of falling back to the rest of the A&M system, but as this happens, we will play right into this if we try to be a "University everyone can attend." We will also likely harm the A&M brand and reinforce the notion that we are the Cal State system of Texas compared to UT's UC. This also wont be helped by the fact that we've standardized the Texas A&M name amongst all the lesser system schools.

---

Need to keep in mind that the people affecting these changes are the ones that we largely voted in to lower taxes and keep those detached tenured professors accountable.

The legislature largely views higher education as a public good for the citizens of the state, and as such want to keep downward pressure on tuition and increase the number of enrolled. The quality of the education and rankings versus peers are a distant second to constituents complaining about the escalating price of education for those in Austin. I've seen first hand the effects of restricting funding on college programs (specifically graduate courses), and the mentality that tuition must not be allowed to increase will absolutely blow up some well regarded departments & programs at A&M if they can't secure alternative funding streams.

I'm not really sure who advocates for necessary tuition increases and increased state spending on higher ed other than the universities themselves. I've certainly never heard someone campaign on the idea that we need to elevate the stature of our public universities.

Can someone point exactly to the source of this? I haven't seen any quotes from Sharp in regards to expanding enrollment to 80k. Where/when did he supposedly say this?

quote:

---

This is completely false. I haven't seen any numbers for this year's class yet, but our new freshman last year was the LARGEST class ever and had the HIGHEST GPAs and SAT scores if any class admitted before. Just because you let in more kids doesn't mean that standards are falling. Size of enrollment is easily the dumbest thing to ever judge a school by. Rejecting people for the sake of rejecting people is idiotic.

---

This is true, but the problem is that our incoming freshmen are improving but the incoming freshmen at Texas, SMU, and Baylor are improving FASTER. If you look at the GPAs and SAT scores for our incoming students versus our peers/competitors, we are losing ground.

Vision 2020, was adopted in 1998. When Loftin took over in about 2008, some changes/modifications were made. A few years later, Sharp/Perry decided other modifications were needed and Loftin had to go.

I wonder how many now discredited da's from the 50's/60's still alive today are willing to admit they opposed opening the university to non-regs, women...worried it would irrevocably change the school for the worse?

How many of you are willing to second guess Rudder for ramping up enrollment back in the day?

Some people just have a blind spot re: the future

The students all kind of hated rudder at the time. At least that has what my grandpa c/o 59 has told me. Now they realize it was the right decision. On the plus side, more people means more hot chicks.

I know one current freshman who came to A&M, in his own words, "even though Baylor has a better engineering school, and is a better school in general." That is our perception right now. This isn't about expanding at acceptable rates 50 years ago, this is about expanding too fast in the face of diminishing quality TODAY.

quote:

---

I know one current freshman who came to A&M, in his own words, "even though Baylor has a better engineering school, and is a better school in general." That is our perception right now. This isn't about expanding at acceptable rates 50 years ago, this is about expanding too fast in the face of diminishing quality TODAY.

---

I'd say this dude as a distorted view of the truth. I don't know what metric you would be using to determine that Baylor is an overall better school and CERTAINLY don't know where the idea that "Baylor has a better engineering school" comes from. But even now Baylor is catching us and expanding this much this quickly will only make it happen faster.

If increases in enrollment are well funded in regards to classroom,lab space, professors to teach more sections, infrastructure and the like, then
it isn't necessarily a bad thing. But from the headlines in the past few years, it appears that the thinking is, "we
are short money, lets just admit more kids". The problem with this is that historically state schools have watched taxpayer support continue to fall as costs naturally go up while leadership wants
tuition to remain the same. TAMUs tuition has in general gone up as state support fell per student. With someone holding their foot on the gas with regards to tuition while state funding declines on a per student basis you
don't help yourself long term by increasing enrollment. Each new student theoretically represents some level of unfunded cost. Now some of this is clearly being taken care of elsewhere as the cost of dorms and food for
my daughter are super high and all she does is complain about the food. But at some point if they don't raise tuition to handle the needs on the academic side, there is no way on earth that quality
won't take a hit. The idea that there is so much savings out there when the private sector models offer much less while costing
two or three times more, simply does not hold water. I would guess that if Aggies had to pay what an SMU or Baylor student does, there would be no funding issues. And that is your private sector example

quote:

---

I know one current freshman who came to A&M, in his own words, "even though Baylor has a better engineering school, and is a better school in general." That is our perception right now. This isn't about expanding at acceptable rates 50 years ago, this is about expanding too fast in the face of diminishing quality TODAY.

---

One of my buddies went to Baylor from 94 - 98. Graduated with the same major I have. Paid at least twice as much for the degree. Had a harder time getting a job. Still doesn't make as much money as I do by about $40K a year.

He told me that graduating from Baylor was more prestigious. I will have to take his word for that.

Baylor = greater prestige
Baylor = greater debt
Baylor = less income

My buddy can keep the prestige. I will continue to smile when I look at my bank account.

quote:

---

I wonder how many now discredited da's from the 50's/60's still alive today are willing to admit they opposed opening the university to non-regs, women...worried it would irrevocably change the school for the worse?

How many of you are willing to second guess Rudder for ramping up enrollment back in the day?

Some people just have a blind spot re: the future

---

This is a red herring and has a trivial place in this discussion. By this logic ALL change is good. ANY opposition to ANY change is just lack being against non-regs and women. Well, no. It's not.

If you think increasing enrollment devalues your degree, go back and get a Masters. That's what I did.

quote:

---

I wonder how many now discredited da's from the 50's/60's still alive today are willing to admit they opposed opening the university to non-regs, women...worried it would irrevocably change the school for the worse?

How many of you are willing to second guess Rudder for ramping up enrollment back in the day?

Some people just have a blind spot re: the future

---

Ah yes, the "those who oppose us will be on the wrong side of history" argument.

In the 60s, someone decided that "we don't want A&M to be like VMI or the CItadel--we want to be a serious educational and research institution." Any comparison someone were to make back then was "we need to make these changes if we ever want to be on par with Michigan, Penn State, or UNC." Today, if we make these changes who are we trying to emulate? Central Florida and Arizona State?

These situations would be analogous if Georgia Tech and Purdue were doubling the size of their engineering program in the next ten years (I don't keep up with those schools... maybe they are but I doubt it).

The opposition to the rapid growth is not because people want things to stay the same as they are. It's because we want to continue the type of changes and growth that were going on for a while before all this Seven Solutions, let's become an undergrad-focused school and get enormous talk started up.