I want to hear plans for decreasing class sizes and hiring more faculty to keep up with enrollment growth.

quote:

---

Wouldn't fewer scholarships help reduce enrollment?

---

Actually I agree with you Rebel.

Worked with my son.

These are the top public universities according to USN&WR. They didn't need large football stadiums to be megaphones for their university. Pretty sure a few of them don't even have football programs.

1) UC-Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) UVA
4) Michigan
5) UNC-Chapel Hill
6) College of William and Mary
7) Georgia Tech
8) UC-San Diego
9) UC-Davis
10) UC-Santa Barbara
11) UC-Irvine
12) Illinois

I don't know the man, and he's certainly dedicated much of his life to Texas A&M.

However, I am troubled by the "We don't want to be a snooty school... " quote. Assuming the quote is accurate.

Not because we want to be a "snooty school", but because it seems to imply the opinion that elite academics equate to being a "snooty school".

Like it or not, A&M is actually harder to get into. As a current student I observe this head on, and see people like my younger brother who had MUCH better grades in high school and a better SAT get offered NOTHING and had to go to Galveston. This is unfortunately the product of increased popularity. Having less than one year left I especially do not want my degree devalued. However I firmly believe the alumni will not let this happen. A&M is NOT a school like Arizona State that has 75,000 students and a degree that means diddly. Also I sort of think Sharp was talking out of his ass and president Young won't let his legacy be tainted by watching a major research university turn into a worthless degree mil if he can help it.

quote:

---

We have to get rid of these all these guys like Perry and Sharp who went to A&M in the late 60s/early 70s and want it to be just like when they went there, ie it was a cheap, open admission school where academics were not a thing at all and it was all about "the other education" (partying and football).

---

Pretty much sums it up.

quote:

---

president Young won't let his legacy be tainted by watching a major research university turn into a worthless degree mil if he can help it.

---

Useless news and world distort is the Ketch of college rankings.

quote:

---

Wow. Sounds like some of you clowns owe Mr Sharp a virtual apology for all your premature predictions of gloom/doom

---

Lol Sharp manipulated the research expenditures by bringing the med school under the university umbrella and you think he accomplished something? You're as simple as he is.

quote:

---

These are the top public universities according to USN&WR. They didn't need large football stadiums to be megaphones for their university. Pretty sure a few of them don't even have football programs.

1) UC-Berkeley
2) UCLA
3) UVA
4) Michigan
5) UNC-Chapel Hill
6) College of William and Mary
7) Georgia Tech
8) UC-San Diego
9) UC-Davis
10) UC-Santa Barbara
11) UC-Irvine
12) Illinois

---

And none of those 12 schools would have hired John Sharp to run their university.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We have to get rid of these all these guys like Perry and Sharp who went to A&M in the late 60s/early 70s and want it to be just like when they went there, ie it was a cheap, open admission school where academics were not a thing at all and it was all about "the other education" (partying and football).

---

Pretty much sums it up.

---

Speaking for old Ags, GFY. My education was not partying and football. If you think it was easy getting a Petroleum Engineering degree 1978-82 then you're dumber than I think you are. There are lots of successful old AGS that paved the way to make A&M a great university.

quote:

---

Useless news and world distort is the Ketch of college rankings.

---

The university disagrees. In fact, it's specifically written into vision 2020 as a metric for success.

Jeff, he wasn't talking about old Ags like you (or me). He mentions a specific type of old Ag, some of whom do exist. Not all old Ags.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We have become the society that believes that every kid should get a college education. So when all these kids graduate, they can have their expectations shattered by the reality that a liberal arts degree does not always get you a desk job.

---

The STEM fields are not a panacea.

Engineering is saturated as is. Technology fields are similar to the gold rush right now, and will level out the salary to becoming the new standard business major - which may or may not be a bad thing.

And science along with mathematics? Well, you pretty much need a Ph.D nowadays to be anything other than a research assistant or teacher.

Texas A&M's job is to be the FLAGSHIP institution that provides education to the public, accepting the best students while the others without the credentials or test scores can go to other non-flagship schools TAMU-CC, TAMU-Galveston, and such.

We should striving to be like or better than the other flagships: UVa, UT, UC-Berkeley, Wisc, UMich, UF, and so on. But they're currently outperforming us.

What metrics do we have other than ROI or US News? Both of which we seem to be slipping in (see above). I'm not saying we should be some elite school like Stanford, Cornell, Harvard, etc. That's dumb. But we should be at least equal to our peers.

Nowadays, due to the large amount of college educated students, your university seems to provide the initial filter for jobs. If we slip up, it does not bode well for future Ags.

---

TAMU-Galveston = TAMU

If one is a flagship, they both are.

I agree that the "back in the 60s and 70s it was all about partying and football" comment was pretty ignorant, it does seem like there is no shortage of sentiment about the way things were back in the good old days.

On any thread like this on TexAgs you can bank on a few things showing up. People will say that getting into A&M is much harder now than it used to be. People will also invoke the name of Rudder and say that people wanted to hang him when he let women in and made the Corps non-compulsory, and they'll imply that people who are opposed to growing the student population by very large numbers or 25x25 would have probably been opposed to women being let in back in '63.

The suggestion is that people who are opposed to the idea of A&M as a 70,000- or 80,000-student campus are resistant to change is actually the opposite of the truth, in my opinion. I think the Rudder-like step here would be to PREVENT this growth and help A&M take the next steps to joining the ranks of UNC, Georgia Tech, Michigan, etc.

In my opinion, whether or not a past graduate could get into school today isn't relevant. The fact that many former students wouldn't qualify today is actually a really good thing, in my opinion. It shows progress. Just like most people want their kids to be more successful than they were, I want A&M to be a better school than it was back when I was there. Saying that "it's already harder to get in today than it was 10 years ago so that's good enough" is missing the point.

Bagger05

quote:

---

Jeff, he wasn't talking about old Ags like you (or me). He mentions a specific type of old Ag, some of whom do exist. Not all old Ags.

---

Reread his quote

quote:

---

want it (A&M) to be just like when they went there, ie it was a cheap, open admission school where academics were not a thing at all and it was all about "the other education" (partying and football).

---

His quote isn't just disparaging Perry, but an entire school and everyone who attended back then.

Absolutely.

One thing though: a lot of people talking about it being harder to get into aren't talking about 40 years ago. They're talking about within the last ten years. Which is a good thing. But one thing it tells us is this travesty hasn't happened just yet. There's still people who can work to prevent it. The number one thing separating us from being a top 10 public university is professor:student ratio, IMO. And that is my concern with Sharp. He talks about admitting more people and keeping "overhead" low.

quote:

---

We have to get rid of these all these guys like Perry and Sharp who went to A&M in the late 60s/early 70s and want it to be just like when they went there, ie it was a cheap, open admission school where academics were not a thing at all and it was all about "the other education" (partying and football).

---

I don't read it the way you do. He's specifically speaking of Aggies "like Perry and Sharp" and then goes to describe the attributes he finds negative. His description of the academics and admissions was changing by the time you and I went, but the late sixites, early seventies were a time of transition. I am class of 77 and not at all offended. Why? Because I did take academics seriously, didn't have a "c" average, and didn't focus on partying and football.

quote:

---

Absolutely.

One thing though: a lot of people talking about it being harder to get into aren't talking about 40 years ago. They're talking about within the last ten years. Which is a good thing. But one thing it tells us is this travesty hasn't happened just yet. There's still people who can work to prevent it. The number one thing separating us from being a top 10 public university is professor:student ratio, IMO. And that is my concern with Sharp. He talks about admitting more people and keeping "overhead" low.

---

I agree that it hasn't happened yet but I fear that it is currently happening right now. Yes, it is harder to get in now, but even so we are sliding relative to other schools of similar stature like Baylor, SMU, and Texas. Basically if it's 10% harder to get into A&M today it is 20% harder to get into Baylor. Those other schools are on a steeper trajectory and it won't take long before some schools we are currently "ahead of" pass us by.

quote:

---

Basically if it's 10% harder to get into A&M today it is 20% harder to get into Baylor. Those other schools are on a steeper trajectory and it won't take long before some schools we are currently "ahead of" pass us by.

---

I call BS. The implication is that there are a crapload more smart kids today then there was 10 years ago. I've been hearing this same thing since I was a kid, 50 years ago. If people are so much smarter today then they sure have a great way of hiding it in real life.

My kids are 23 and 26, so I'm around lots of people age 18-33 due to their social circles and my enjoyment being around younger people. My observations of young people is their "intelligence" seems based upon their ability to parrot answers, but they show a lack of ability to understand why those are the correct answers.

If America is producing an army of super genusies then I feel better already. But I doubt it. 99% of them can tell me who Caitlyn Jenner is, but can't name the Secretary of Defense or Treasury or Chief of Staff. And I mean every bit of 99%. The boob tube has done its job.

As for rankings, focus on rankings that get their input from employers, not from high school guidance counselors. I remember my hs counselor and she was a nice lady, but I would put zero stock in her advice on which colleges were the best in the country. She wasn't that bright. If she was smart, she wouldn't have been stuck being a hs guidance counselor.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Basically if it's 10% harder to get into A&M today it is 20% harder to get into Baylor. Those other schools are on a steeper trajectory and it won't take long before some schools we are currently "ahead of" pass us by.

---

I call BS. The implication is that there are a crapload more smart kids today then there was 10 years ago. I've been hearing this same thing since I was a kid, 50 years ago. If people are so much smarter today then they sure have a great way of hiding it in real life.

My kids are 23 and 26, so I'm around lots of people age 18-33 due to their social circles and my enjoyment being around younger people. My observations of young people is their "intelligence" seems based upon their ability to parrot answers, but they show a lack of ability to understand why those are the correct answers.

If America is producing an army of super genusies then I feel better already. But I doubt it. 99% of them can tell me who Caitlyn Jenner is, but can't name the Secretary of Defense or Treasury or Chief of Staff. And I mean every bit of 99%. The boob tube has done its job.

As for rankings, focus on rankings that get their input from employers, not from high school guidance counselors. I remember my hs counselor and she was a nice lady, but I would put zero stock in her advice on which colleges were the best in the country. She wasn't that bright. If she was smart, she wouldn't have been stuck being a hs guidance counselor.

---

What are you calling BS on? That is a long post but I don't see it refuting anything that I posted. Are you saying that it is NOT harder to get into A&M or Baylor today than it was 10 years ago?

There's more kids now. (period) Texas' population has grown from 11,000,000 to 27,000,000 in just 45 years. Also, the percentage of kids going to college is much higher now. (In the 60's the paper text book covers exhorted kids to get the HS diploma and touted the the increased lifetime earnings from a HS Diploma)
So yes, there is a much greater number of "smart kids" in Texas today. It's not even close.

As to disparaging HS counselors and their influence on USNWR rankings. Counselors have significant input to the schools students choose. Not only that, but HS counselors are in a position to assess what the students think. Those things make their perception of value. Honestly, how is saying that HS counselors have a valuable perception any different from asserting that a half billion dollar football stadium improves our school?

quote:

---

quote:

---

We have to get rid of these all these guys like Perry and Sharp who went to A&M in the late 60s/early 70s and want it to be just like when they went there, ie it was a cheap, open admission school where academics were not a thing at all and it was all about "the other education" (partying and football).

---

I don't read it the way you do. He's specifically speaking of Aggies "like Perry and Sharp" and then goes to describe the attributes he finds negative. His description of the academics and admissions was changing by the time you and I went, but the late sixites, early seventies were a time of transition. I am class of 77 and not at all offended. Why? Because I did take academics seriously, didn't have a "c" average, and didn't focus on partying and football.

---

I can see why JeffHamilton is offended. The i.e. part characterizes the school as a whole, not just a subset of Ags and mischaracterizes the "other education". I didn't go here, but my understanding is that the "other education" is about service and civic duty, not partying and football. And there is no shortage of students who focus on partying and football at schools that are more selective in admissions.

I was also wondering: was A&M ever really "open admissions"? What does that even mean? It wasn't open to women before Rudder. Was any white male who was willing to be in the Corps admitted regardless of HS record?

quote:

---

My kids are 23 and 26, so I'm around lots of people age 18-33 due to their social circles and my enjoyment being around younger people. My observations of young people is their "intelligence" seems based upon their ability to parrot answers, but they show a lack of ability to understand why those are the correct answers.

If America is producing an army of super genusies then I feel better already. But I doubt it. 99% of them can tell me who Caitlyn Jenner is, but can't name the Secretary of Defense or Treasury or Chief of Staff. And I mean every bit of 99%. The boob tube has done its job.

---

OK, having just agreed with you above, I have to tweak you on this. Naming members of the Administration would be classified as a recall/parroting skill, not a "understand why those are correct answers" skill. And I will admit that I had to look up who the current answers are.

quote:

---

Counselors have significant input to the schools students choose.

---

Message to HS students - your hs guidance counselor isn't the person to advise you on the best colleges. Ask the most successful people in your community. And you don't have to limit yourself to doctors and lawyers, though most of these are very bright people and could give you great advice, there are plenty of smart and successful people in other fields who graduated from college that are great resources.

OK. That's good advice. But HS counselors (and teachers and coaches and administrators) will ALWAYS have input as well.

quote:

---

I am troubled by the "We don't want to be a snooty school... " quote.

---

You can't say stuff like this and be taken seriously as a chancellor. It was a poor choice of words.

quote:

---

OK, having just agreed with you above, I have to tweak you on this. Naming members of the Administration would be classified as a recall/parroting skill, not a "understand why those are correct answers" skill. And I will admit that I had to look up who the current answers are.

---

You're missing my point. Those cabinet people are important people that we should know a lot more about than an attention seeking nobody. You should know not only their names but a lot about them because they affect the country we live in.

Do we want A&M to be as successful as possible in the world we live in or the world we wished we lived in? Maybe guidance counselors shouldn't have any influence over kids picking a college, but they do. Maybe the USNWR rankings shouldn't be considered important by anyone but they are.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am troubled by the "We don't want to be a snooty school... " quote.

---

You can't say stuff like this and be taken seriously as a chancellor.

---

I haven't read all the context for this, but I agree.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am troubled by the "We don't want to be a snooty school... " quote.

---

You can't say stuff like this and be taken seriously as a chancellor.

---

I haven't read all the context for this, but I agree.

---

Unclear antecedent. Do you agree with Richardson Zone or with Sharp?

I don't know the context either, but I might not have a problem with it, because I don't think serious about academics = snooty. In my mind "snooty school" = a school that is associated with social class over other metrics, and/or a school whose alums have an inflated and unearned sense of their self-worth. If we can produce students who are achievers with appropriate humility, that works for me.

If an Ag can laugh along at the "dumb Aggie" jokes and just smile at the smack talk from their t-sip coworkers while passing them in the promotion ladder then we're doing OK. I thought it was a good thing that there were plenty of those Aggie joke books in local bookstores when I got here.

I an agreeing in the sense that no chancellor or academician should state that they don't want their institution to be viewed as snooty.

It is still difficult to stomach the path we've decided to go down.

I've never been down with Aggie jokes.

quote:

---

Do we want A&M to be as successful as possible in the world we live in or the world we wished we lived in? Maybe guidance counselors shouldn't have any influence over kids picking a college, but they do. Maybe the USNWR rankings shouldn't be considered important by anyone but they are.

---

If you want A&M to be successful then you are approaching it wrong.

If you started a tech company and wanted it to be the most successful in the world, would you hire only high school dropouts who found your job posting on craigslist and look to the national inquirer for how to run your company? That's what you're getting with high school counselors and useless news and world distort magazine.