This NYT op ed, The Fundamental Way That Universities Are an Illusion might be of interest. It even starts out with football (the UNC scandal)!

quote:

---

The Bible of academic research on how colleges affect students is a book titled, plainly enough, "How College Affects Students." It's an 848-page synthesis of many thousands of independent research studies over the decades. The latest edition was published in 2005 by Ernest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini, professors at the University of Iowa and Penn State.

The sections devoted to how colleges differ from one another are notable for how little they find. As Mr. Pascarella and Mr. Terenzini carefully document, studies have found that some colleges are indeed better than others in certain ways. Students tend to learn more in colleges where they have closer relationships with faculty and peers, for example, and earn a little more after graduating from more selective institutions.
But these findings are overwhelmed in both size and degree by the many instances in which researchers trying to detect differences between colleges found nothing.

---

and, related to selectivity and in support of those upthread who were disparaging the rankings

quote:

---

The whole apparatus of selective college admissions is designed to deliberately confuse things that exist with things that don't. Many of the most prestigious colleges are an order of magnitude wealthier and more selective than the typical university. These are the primary factors driving their annual rankings at or near the top of the U.S. News list of "best" colleges. The implication is that the differences in the quality of education they provide are of a similar size. There is no evidence to suggest that this is remotely true.

When college leaders talk about academic standards, they often mean admissions standards, not standards for what happens in classrooms themselves. Or they vaguely appeal to traditions and shared values without any hard evidence of their meaning. This is understandable, because the alternative is admitting that many selective institutions are not intrinsically excellent; they were just lucky enough to get into the business of selecting the best and brightest before everyone else.

---

I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

"Newsweek" had a cover story about that in 2006-ish. I remember it distinctly because my FIL brought it to our house to PROVE to my then 16 year old daughter that an Ivy League School wasn't "worth" it. Fifteen or so pages of how the educations don't differ. Then the last half page admitting that (even though it's shouldn't be this way) grads of prestigious universities do, on average, make more money and have more of the careers they want. Oh, and that then 16 year old is my Aggie that's going into her third year at Yale Law. And I gotta tell you the things she's doing, the people she's meeting, and the opportunities just would not exist at UT or Baylor Law.

My youngest is a Sr at Dartmouth College. 4,500 undergrad students. If you took the top 4,500 students at A&M, I've no doubt they would be every bit as bright as those kids at Dartmouth. But.... The access she has to people and relationships just wouldn't be available to her at A&M.

So. I absolutely do believe that the actual education presented at the prestigious schools doesn't differ that much from regular old "good" schools. But, IMO the learning and opportunities do.

And one last thought, the logic applies down as well as up. If we are "just as good as" the prestigious schools, logically it means that TTU and Texas State are "just as good as" us.

quote:

---

And one last thought, the logic applies down as well as up. If we are "just as good as" the prestigious schools, logically it means that TTU and Texas State are "just as good as" us.

---

Remember that Texas State has a POTUS among its alumni.

quote:

---

I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

---

People have to read the whole thing to understand the article. It is not saying it does not matter where you go to school.

quote:

---

As Mr. Pascarella and Mr. Terenzini explain, the real differences exist at the departmental level, or within the classrooms of individual professors, who teach with a great deal of autonomy under the principles of academic freedom. The illusory university pretends that all professors are guided by a shared sense of educational excellence specific to their institution. In truth, as the former University of California president Clark Kerr observed long ago, professors are "a series of individual faculty entrepreneurs held together by a common grievance over parking."

---

And I think part of any rebuttal would take that and argue the good departments or good professors tend to be found at particular locales around the country.

It looks like half of the group of eight of public universities that are to receive special funding are from the university of texas system. Separate funding is earmarked for Texas A&M and Texas-Austin. But UTEP, UT Dallas, UTSA, and I think UT Arlington are grouped in with Texas Tech, UH, Texas State, and I think UNT. Instead of A&M's flagship accepting more students, why not bolster the other schools in the system. Bring them up even more. Don't just let College Station burst at the seams. Let A&M be special and make the others better. A&M Corpus Christi, A&M Commerce, Prairie View, and A&M InInternational could possibly be some target schools. Maybe there is a different mix. Ideally you would want the entire system to get stronger. The state continues to grow. Let A&M be among the top tier of public universities in the country. Make the other schools better in order to serve the growing population.

On the front page of Texags
It pays to go to Texas A&M!

Yep. Sharp is a wizard at getting money from Austin!

I just hope he does his job and spends it on the SYSTEM as much as TAMU-CS.

quote:

---

On the front page of Texags
It pays to go to Texas A&M!

---

That video talks entirely about the Aggie network, the core values, and those kinds of things.

Is a huge campus, both in student population and acreage, the best way to continue to sustain, and hopefully, improve that close-knit network and core values?

Are more online classes the way to develop that close-knit network?

Is filling that huge campus with more students who spent their first year or two of college at another college or a junior college the best way to instill the core values of the institution, and develop the personal connection and admiration for Texas A&M that keeps the Aggie Network going strong?

As I see it now, we're headed towards the point where students won't be able to get tickets to football games, students won't be able to find a place in the library to study, students will have to stand in line for 30 minutes to eat at the cafeteria, and we're building dorms that are going to require a bus ride to get to class. Is that kind of atmosphere that is best for furthering our Aggie Network and Core Values?

quote:

---

Are more online classes the way to develop that close-knit network?

---

Online classes will become more prevalent in future education. I'm in real estate and business brokerage and I'm seeing a lot more of our education offered online. This is a very cost effective way to learn for a lot of people, including me. Online education will allow the world's best educators the opportunity to educate more students then they can face-to-face. It will allow students access to the world's best educators instead of being stuck with poor professors.

All true. Sort of. Still not a one-for-one replacement for real live courses, with real live students around you.

But more to the point Online courses do minimize the "other education" aspects and weaken the Aggie Network. That is just undeniable.

But reading your posts, I think the starkest difference in our opinions is one of mission and scope.

You seem to want Texas A&M - CS to provide a quality education for as many students as possible. And Sharp, as evidenced by his "We don't want A&M to be a nerd school" comment agrees. BTW I find that comment to be embarrassing for a Chancellor to make.

My opinion is that TAMU-CS should be the flagship of a robust Texas A&M SYSTEM. As such only the best and brightest earn the privilege of attending the main campus in CS. Other good students should be able to get a quality education at our other schools.

quote:

---

You seem to want Texas A&M - CS to provide a quality education for as many QUALIFIED students as possible

---

fifm

I've made it clear that I don't want us to lower the bar to attract students. I've also made it clear that I would like to see all Aggies push on their state reps to get us similar relief to the top 10% rule that tu got. Because I see a growing top 10% that will crowd out everyone else in our future if we don't get the state to change. As for the non-top 10% and non-athletes (since they gets special admission due to their athletic ability), I don't have a problem admiting those who make at least a 1300 and are in the top 25%. Anyone else is a case by case basis and this last group should be limited in numbers. As far as transfers go, I'm not aware of other top schools transfer rules, so I'm not going to comment other than to say the individual colleges have to look at the transfers and determine if they are qualified or not.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are more online classes the way to develop that close-knit network?

---

Online classes will become more prevalent in future education. I'm in real estate and business brokerage and I'm seeing a lot more of our education offered online. This is a very cost effective way to learn for a lot of people, including me. Online education will allow the world's best educators the opportunity to educate more students then they can face-to-face. It will allow students access to the world's best educators instead of being stuck with poor professors.

---

I'm sure they will, they already are.

But that's not answering what I was asking. I asked if A&M relying more and more on online classes is going to be good for A&M remaining, and hopefully improving, its status as a particularly good place to get your education. (I've made it very clear I don't just want to sustain, but improve...but I know I'm not going to get anywhere with you on that.)

Somewhere, students are still going to in a school building, in a classroom listening and talking and interacting in a much more captive environment. Those students are going to get out of class and have conversations with each other in the cafeteria, they're going to go to office hours and have discussions with their professors, they're going to go study with each other over a cup of coffee, etc..., etc... and I'm personally pretty convinced that all makes for a better academic experience and leads to better graduates. I'm certainly convinced that all leads to a better "Network" of graduates and better installation of "Core Values" into students.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You seem to want Texas A&M - CS to provide a quality education for as many QUALIFIED students as possible

---

fifm

I've made it clear that I don't want us to lower the bar to attract students. I've also made it clear that I would like to see all Aggies push on their state reps to get us similar relief to the top 10% rule that tu got. Because I see a growing top 10% that will crowd out everyone else in our future if we don't get the state to change. As for the non-top 10% and non-athletes (since they gets special admission due to their athletic ability), I don't have a problem admiting those who make at least a 1300 and are in the top 25%. Anyone else is a case by case basis and this last group should be limited in numbers. As far as transfers go, I'm not aware of other top schools transfer rules, so I'm not going to comment other than to say the individual colleges have to look at the transfers and determine if they are qualified or not.

---

Fair enough, but A&M's strength isn't it admissions statistics. That's not what makes A&M a good place for an education. You have to address the other concerns.

I agree with most of that. And such an A&M would be, essentially, a "nerd school". However I also feel that there should be an upper limit on enrollment. Lots of room for discussion on precisely what that limit should be. My opinion is in the 45,000 range.

I'm scared how difficult navigating Texas Ave or other major streets and highways will be with 20k more students, all who will likely have a car. The time to invest in smarter development and transit is now. Northgate development is definitely a start, but students will need to begin living closer to campus to prevent every road becoming a bottleneck, like a Houston or Dallas freeway. Many of the top/largest schools in the United States are very urban, while College Station still feels very suburban as a community. This mindset must change as well before reaching 80,000 students, and growth must go up, and not out.

It is just disgusting that Sharp is being given free rein to do this. Does this clown's service have a time limit or is it indefinite?

Has the new governor said anything on the matter

quote:

---

However I also feel that there should be an upper limit on enrollment. Lots of room for discussion on precisely what that limit should be. My opinion is in the 45,000 range.

---

Is 45,000, undergrads only or are you including graduate students?


I know there are about 30,000 students who graduated last May that are top 10% autoqualifiers. This number is expected to be closer to 70,000 in 50 years and about 45,000 in 25 years. Currently A&M enrolls about 20% of these autoqualifiers, so appx 6,000 this fall. And the 20% figure has been steadily rising for over a decade now.

So whatever figure you want for enrollment, keep these numbers in mind. Another number, if you are including grad students in your 45,000, is we currently have around 12,000 grad students and that number is also increasing.

Undergrad.

I personally don't care if only top 5% HS students can get in, or if the minimum ( 2 score) SAT is 1400. If we can get 45,000 of those type of kids on campus, so much the better!

quote:

---

Undergrad.

I personally don't care if only top 5% HS students can get in, or if the minimum ( 2 score) SAT is 1400. If we can get 45,000 of those type of kids on campus, so much the better!

---

So basically the enrollment we had recently. So appx 10,000 fish. And you seem to understand that will require raising the bar every year until only the top 5% and a SAT of 1400 will get in about 50 years from now. And 100 years from now only the Valedictorian and anyone scoring 1600 on their SAT. OK, that last one is a slight exaggeration.

Keep in mind while you stick your nose in the air because you are too good to look at anyone who is not top 5% or 1400 SAT, that a lot of talented kids will be going to Tech and other rival schools and those kids will own companies and they will not be friendly voters towards Aggies' interests. Your grandkids, if they become Aggies, might even find it more difficult to do business because the Aggie network won't be as strong because the percentage of people who are Aggies has decreased significantly.

The fallacy here is that you all think the powers controlling such things for A&M value the quality of the education to the student. All they value is the checkbook and the bottom line impact.

1) Extrapolating that far in the future is problematic.


2) An 80,000 campus will, IMO weaken the Aggie Network to the point that it won't exist in 50 years.

3) There are always subjective decisions. A few years ago MIT had 16,000 applicants. 5,000 of them had a perfect SAT. They accepted around 1,600. And nowhere near all applicants had a perfect SAT.

I know you're being hyperbolic, but there's just no way to justify 80,000 kids on one campus and expect those Aggie things we value (evidenced by the Aggie Network) to endure, much less thrive. They are already diluted some over the past 40 years. Give it 40 more and they just won't exist in a form we recognize.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Undergrad.

I personally don't care if only top 5% HS students can get in, or if the minimum ( 2 score) SAT is 1400. If we can get 45,000 of those type of kids on campus, so much the better!

---

So basically the enrollment we had recently. So appx 10,000 fish. And you seem to understand that will require raising the bar every year until only the top 5% and a SAT of 1400 will get in about 50 years from now. And 100 years from now only the Valedictorian and anyone scoring 1600 on their SAT. OK, that last one is a slight exaggeration.

Keep in mind while you stick your nose in the air because you are too good to look at anyone who is not top 5% or 1400 SAT, that a lot of talented kids will be going to Tech and other rival schools and those kids will own companies and they will not be friendly voters towards Aggies' interests. Your grandkids, if they become Aggies, might even find it more difficult to do business because the Aggie network won't be as strong because the percentage of people who are Aggies has decreased significantly.

---

We CANNOT continue to allow the growth of this university to match the growth of the state. It is better for the state as a whole to raise the value of a degree from tech and unt and the like. To think otherwise is not only short sided but asinine

quote:

---

Keep in mind while you stick your nose in the air because you are too good to look at anyone who is not top 5% or 1400 SAT, that a lot of talented kids will be going to Tech and other rival schools and those kids will own companies and they will not be friendly voters towards Aggies' interests. Your grandkids, if they become Aggies, might even find it more difficult to do business because the Aggie network won't be as strong because the percentage of people who are Aggies has decreased significantly.

---

If A&M becomes a school full of "Valedictorians with perfect SATs", our graduates probably won't have any problem finding a job. I don't know of any widespread correlation between employment opportunities and alumni base. If Texas Tech graduates don't want to hire them, then fine, their loss.

quote:

---

I don't know of any widespread correlation between employment opportunities and alumni base.

---

You're young, but there is an old saying that goes, "it's not what you know, it is who you know". A lot of doors are opened by alumni. Graduate last in your class from Yale and see if you don't have different doors open for you then graduating first from Texas Tech or even Texas. I'm not the only Aggie who puts extra effort into helping other Aggies. And I'm sure other school alumnus operate similarly.

The key to this debate is where does A&M draw the line. We know where the line has been each year for the last 100 plus years of A&M's history and we know where the line is this year. With Texas exploding in population (adding almost 500,000 per year), if we are going to hold the line at 60,000 students then we are going to be raising the bar every year higher and higher. Which means the first thing you gripers need to do is get the state to change the top 10% rule for A&M. Which I'm guessing none of you have put 2 minutes into.

I have my degree so I'm fine if you guys win and no one but 1600 SATs and Valedictorians get in. My advice is be careful what you wish for. I've pointed out things that will occur in the future. You may not care because you will be dead by then. I'm fine either way. As long as we don't lower the bar!!

The "nerd school" comment makes me think of the former Abercrombie CEO who made the news for talking about how he only wanted cool kids wearing his company's clothes. It's sort of sad

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't know of any widespread correlation between employment opportunities and alumni base.

---

You're young, but there is an old saying that goes, "it's not what you know, it is who you know". A lot of doors are opened by alumni. Graduate last in your class from Yale and see if you don't have different doors open for you then graduating first from Texas Tech or even Texas. I'm not the only Aggie who puts extra effort into helping other Aggies. And I'm sure other school alumnus operate similarly.

The key to this debate is where does A&M draw the line. We know where the line has been each year for the last 100 plus years of A&M's history and we know where the line is this year. With Texas exploding in population (adding almost 500,000 per year), if we are going to hold the line at 60,000 students then we are going to be raising the bar every year higher and higher. Which means the first thing you gripers need to do is get the state to change the top 10% rule for A&M. Which I'm guessing none of you have put 2 minutes into.

I have my degree so I'm fine if you guys win and no one but 1600 SATs and Valedictorians get in. My advice is be careful what you wish for. I've pointed out things that will occur in the future. You may not care because you will be dead by then. I'm fine either way. As long as we don't lower the bar!!

---

The key to this debate is not where does A&M draw the line, but does A&M draw a line at all. That's what everyone has been discussing. Up to this point in time, it does not seem like A&M has any interest in drawing that line, which is what most of this discussion has been about. That many of us think that A&M NEEDS to draw the line and we are frustrated that A&M seems content to simply keep on growing the school at a rate that will lead to something like an 80,000 student campus in another 10-15 years.

So when you say that the first thing that needs to be done is convince the state to change the top 10% rule, I say that you're wrong. The first thing that needs to be done is convince A&M leadership that the growing enrollment is a problem. All signs right now point to them believing that it's no problem at all. 25x25, the comment from whatever regent about how more students equals more revenue, the simple truth in the number of incoming freshman growing at a pretty healthy clip every single year...

A&M has an auto-admit policy in addition to the top 10% rule that isn't mandated by the state at all... that doesn't sound like a school admissions plan that has any concern about auto-admits taking up too much of the freshman class.

It is a fact that A&M is going to continue to change as time goes on. The question is how is A&M going to change. Whether the school stays at 60,000 and raises the bar for admissions or it grows to 80,000 and beyond, it's going to be different years down the road. Personally I think that slowing or stopping the population growth is the better alternative for A&M and the state of Texas.

I'm not from Texas but the system school southwest of Fort Worth, I think tarleton..............that close to the metroplex and it can't be built into a decent university?

Sure it would take time and money but is there another system school with a better location in terms of being close to a major population center?

quote:

---

I'm not from Texas but the system school southwest of Fort Worth, I think tarleton..............that close to the metroplex and it can't be built into a decent university?

Sure it would take time and money but is there another system school with a better location in terms of being close to a major population center?

---

Four universities in the TAMU system are classified as Doctoral/Research universities - College Station, Commerce, Kingsville, and Laredo.

The pick for the next tier 1 would probably be Commerce. It's the biggest and it's an hour from Dallas.

Has anyone received feedback from President Young on this?

I feel that he can be the agent of change that we need on this issue.

I want to be an elite public university as much as any athletic success.

West Texas A&M should receive more funding. It competes with the tech tards. WT had about 8000 undergrad last year and enrollment is increasing every year.

I have not gotten a response from Michael Young but I did get one from Sharp.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are more online classes the way to develop that close-knit network?

---

Online classes will become more prevalent in future education. I'm in real estate and business brokerage and I'm seeing a lot more of our education offered online. This is a very cost effective way to learn for a lot of people, including me. Online education will allow the world's best educators the opportunity to educate more students then they can face-to-face. It will allow students access to the world's best educators instead of being stuck with poor professors.

---

Totally. Maybe we should just merge with University of Phoenix and call it a day.