BioBioProf had a great point that I discussed in another thread on this subject and that is the idea of losing economies of scale and losing continuity of education as you grow larger
there have been studies done years ago (UT cited some of them way back in the late 80s early 90s) and if I recall it was Minnesota that did some of them and they concluded that about 48,000 students was the top size before you had issues
those issues being either too many professors in a department and too many students to manage it properly or too many small departments and too many departments or schools in a college to manage and the small departments were too specialized and too high in overhead to be cost effective
some of you also seem to not grasp the numbers being discussed, the issue being discussed or how public university admissions with GUARANTEED ADMISSIONS standards work
A&M had 32,190 applicants in 2014-15 they did NOT have 11,500 applicants 11,500 applicants was the number of ADMITTED STUDENTS that went elsewhere in the year those above graphs are dealing with
but in 2014-15 A&M had 32,190 applicants and they admitted 71% of those applicants
so in 2014-15 A&M admitted 22,855 students.....those were ADMITTED STUDENTS so that means that if they wanted to 100% of those students could have enrolled at A&M and A&M would have had to take them
there is no such thing as "the next student took the spot".....there IS NO SPOT FOR THE "NEXT" STUDENT TO TAKE those students were admitted and eligible to enroll and if all 22,855 of those students had decided to enroll they would have been allowed to enroll
and unless one is brain dead they should be able to look at the DECLINING SAT scores and get an idea of "what students are choosing to enroll and what students are not choosing to enroll"
because when you have several years running of declining test scores that tells you one thing for sure and that is THE STUDENTS CHOOSING TO ENROLL HAVE WORSE METRICS THAN THE PRIOR YEAR
of the 22,855 students that WERE ADMITTED AND ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL A&M had the "yield" of 47% in 2014-15 so that means that of the 22,855 students that were ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL 10,742 of them actually enrolled so that means 12,112 students that WERE ADMITTED AND ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL DECIDED TO GO ELSEWHERE
and when you look at a several year trend of declining SAT scores as shown on page 36 of this thread clearly the students CHOOSING A&M are not getting better
and once again there is no "students replacing the ones that went elsewhere" garbage.....ALL OF THE STUDENTS GOING ELSEWHERE WERE ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL AT A&M
lets get one thing clear here the garbage coming out of john sharp's mouth is that "A&M needs to get bigger to offer more "tier 1" opportunity to more students"
OK that IS COMPLETE GARBAGE....Texas A&M is getting 32,190 applicants and they are ADMITTING 71% of those applicants and then of that 71% they ADMIT AND THAT CAN ENROLL the are watching a massive portion of them GO ELSEWHERE BY CHOICE and at the same time A&M is watching their SAT scores decline over a 4 year period
so what moron thinks that A&M is somehow missing out on "tier 1" students when A&M is getting 32,190 applicants in a year and ADMITTING 71% of them and then watching 12,112 of those ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL go ELSEWHERE BY CHOICE
it is not about stupid "yield numbers" or "who too the spot of the person that did not come here"
what is about is a moron up there telling people that A&M needs to grow to offer more "opportunity to "tier 1" students" while that same moron is ignoring the fact that A&M already gets a MASSIVE number of applications and ADMITS a very high % of those applicants and then watches 53% of them which is 12,112 of them CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
anyone that is not stupid needs to ask sharp a simple question.....how in the hell does growing larger make A&M more appealing to the 12,112 QUALIFIED AND ADMITTED STUDENTS THAT CHOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
anyone that is not stupid needs to ask sharp how in the hell does growing larger make A&M more appealing to students so that A&M will somehow get more than 32,190 applicants much less applicants that ARE QUALIFIED AND WILL CHOOSE A&M
in other words what in the hell is sharp doing to make A&M a more appealing university to "top tier students" that will make them want to apply and or enroll after being admitted
because as it is now A&M has 12,122 QUALIFIED AND ADMITTED students that ARE CHOOSING TO GO ELSEWHERE
and one more time there are no "students that took the others place".....there is simply STUDENTS THAT DECIDED TO GO ELSEWHERE and or STUDENTS THAT DICED TO NOT EVEN APPLY
john sharp is acting like there is this massive backlog of students that simply did not apply to A&M because they knew that A&M limits enrollment or there is some massive amount of ADMITTED STUDENTS that mysteriously were not actually admitted because A&M was limiting enrollment
A&M IS NOT LIMITING ENROLLMENT NOW....the only thing that makes A&M not be 60,000 students larger than it is today is the fact that 12,000+ students a year for the last 5 years that were QUALIFIED AND ADMITTED WENT ELSEWHERE BY THEIR CHOICE
sharp would be a great McDonalds executive he can look out there and see all these burger places opening up selling $12 dollar burgers and he can look at all the places selling $5 dollar burgers with lines around the bloc and then he can look at all the people not going through McDonalds and his answer would be "we need to open more stores in places like gas stations and on vacant lots people can barely access because of the traffic flow"
and then he can sit and watch more and more people still CHOOSE to go get a burger at a higher price from somewhere else and wonder why and tell himself that maybe they need to lower the price and make the burger a little cheaper quality as well to keep the same profit level
UT Austin had 38,785 applicants and admitted 40% of them in 2014-15
Berkeley 73,782 and they admitted 16%
Davis 60,543 and admitted 40%
UCLA 86,537 and admitted 19%
UCSD 73,448 admitted 33%
Florida 28,662 admitted 46%
AU 32,723 75%
tOSU 36,788 53%
UM 49,776 32%
UMN 44,760 45%
UVA 31,021 29%
Wisconsin 25,438 57%
UW 31,611 55%
GaTech 25,884 33%
UNC 31,332 28%
ASU 22,581 84%
UCF 33,226 50%
USF 24,988 53%
there is a list of TOP public universities and a couple of MEGA universities tossed in as well......which group does A&M look a lot more like
look at the patterns schools that are much smaller than A&M and that have a higher reputation have either the same or a lot more APPLICANTS and in some cases a great deal more applicants
ALL of the top schools have a lower acceptance rate and with the exception of AU a much lower acceptance rate
so again the question to john sharp when he lies and says A&M needs to grow to "offer more top tier educational opportunities to QUALIFIED STUDENTS" is where in the hell does he think he is going to get more applicants from and what does A&M growing larger have to do with making the school more appealing to top tier students
the schools with the most APPLICANTS are the schools that are much higher in reputation not the schools that are larger
so it seems pretty clear that growing larger really does not make a school more appealing to TOP STUDENTS
then the next question to sharp is A&M is already admitting 22,855 students a year that ARE QUALIFIED AND ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL and A&M is watching 12,122 of them a year CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
how in the hell does "growing larger" make A&M more appealing to those students
it would seem to me (and I think anyone with common sense) that if you are already getting a VERY LARGE number of applicants and ADMITTING a very large % of them and you are watching 12,122 of those students CHOOSE to go elsewhere you would have to be an idiot to say that A&M is not offering "opportunity" to "top tier students" and you would have to be even more ignorant to think that A&M going larger would be more appealing to those students going elsewhere
it seems to me you would perhaps address the faculty to student ratio, the large class sizes, the number of classes taught by tenured or tenure track faculty and many other things that TOP TIER STUDENTS concern themselves with before you make the foolish and baseless assumption that A&M will somehow be more attractive and capture more top tier students by simply growing larger when you are already watching 12,112 students a year CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE from the very large pool of applicants that you accept a very large % of
that seems like the McDonalds way of solving an issue of why you are no longer appealing to many customers and why your business is not where you feel it should be
there is nothing that prevents A&M from having the number of applicants that UCLA or Berkeley have or even the number that UT has....other than the fact that students are CHOOSING NOT TO APPLY and I can guarantee none of them are choosing not to apply because "A&M is too small"
there is nothing that prevents a larger number of those 12,112 students from actually enrolling other than they MADE A CHOICE NOT TO and I doubt it was because "A&M is too small"
lastly I realize there are some making the argument that "my relations did not get into A&M".....well apparently THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED even if YOU think they were
and john sharp is (claiming) saying that A&M is looking for TOP TIER STUDENTS and he is PRETENDING that A&M is somehow denying them opportunity (while ignoring that 12,112 students admitted a year CHOOSE T GO ELSEWHERE)
OK we get it if you want A&M to lower admissions standards and admit your "relations" then simply STATE THE TRUTH.....if john sharp wants A&M to be easier to get into and A&M to let in more students with individual reviews and lower metrics then STATE THE TRUTH
STOP LYING TO INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THAT IT ABOUT LACK OF OPPORTUNITY or GIVING MORE OPPORTUNITY
because intelligent people know enough to ask what in the hell are you doing to get the 12,112 students that YOU HAVE ADMITTED AND CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE to find A&M more appealing and "growing larger" is a stupid answer and pretty clearly not an answer when you look at the top universities above
if you and john sharp think that A&M is too difficult to get in to or that A&M needs lower admissions standards SAY IT and stop LYING that there is some hidden pool of QUALIFIED applicants that WANTS TO APPLY AND ENROLL if only A&M was larger
because A&M could easily be larger if they did not watch a hell of a lot of CURRENTLY QUALIFIED AND ELIGIBLE STUDENTS CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
there have been studies done years ago (UT cited some of them way back in the late 80s early 90s) and if I recall it was Minnesota that did some of them and they concluded that about 48,000 students was the top size before you had issues
those issues being either too many professors in a department and too many students to manage it properly or too many small departments and too many departments or schools in a college to manage and the small departments were too specialized and too high in overhead to be cost effective
some of you also seem to not grasp the numbers being discussed, the issue being discussed or how public university admissions with GUARANTEED ADMISSIONS standards work
A&M had 32,190 applicants in 2014-15 they did NOT have 11,500 applicants 11,500 applicants was the number of ADMITTED STUDENTS that went elsewhere in the year those above graphs are dealing with
but in 2014-15 A&M had 32,190 applicants and they admitted 71% of those applicants
so in 2014-15 A&M admitted 22,855 students.....those were ADMITTED STUDENTS so that means that if they wanted to 100% of those students could have enrolled at A&M and A&M would have had to take them
there is no such thing as "the next student took the spot".....there IS NO SPOT FOR THE "NEXT" STUDENT TO TAKE those students were admitted and eligible to enroll and if all 22,855 of those students had decided to enroll they would have been allowed to enroll
and unless one is brain dead they should be able to look at the DECLINING SAT scores and get an idea of "what students are choosing to enroll and what students are not choosing to enroll"
because when you have several years running of declining test scores that tells you one thing for sure and that is THE STUDENTS CHOOSING TO ENROLL HAVE WORSE METRICS THAN THE PRIOR YEAR
of the 22,855 students that WERE ADMITTED AND ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL A&M had the "yield" of 47% in 2014-15 so that means that of the 22,855 students that were ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL 10,742 of them actually enrolled so that means 12,112 students that WERE ADMITTED AND ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL DECIDED TO GO ELSEWHERE
and when you look at a several year trend of declining SAT scores as shown on page 36 of this thread clearly the students CHOOSING A&M are not getting better
and once again there is no "students replacing the ones that went elsewhere" garbage.....ALL OF THE STUDENTS GOING ELSEWHERE WERE ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL AT A&M
lets get one thing clear here the garbage coming out of john sharp's mouth is that "A&M needs to get bigger to offer more "tier 1" opportunity to more students"
OK that IS COMPLETE GARBAGE....Texas A&M is getting 32,190 applicants and they are ADMITTING 71% of those applicants and then of that 71% they ADMIT AND THAT CAN ENROLL the are watching a massive portion of them GO ELSEWHERE BY CHOICE and at the same time A&M is watching their SAT scores decline over a 4 year period
so what moron thinks that A&M is somehow missing out on "tier 1" students when A&M is getting 32,190 applicants in a year and ADMITTING 71% of them and then watching 12,112 of those ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL go ELSEWHERE BY CHOICE
it is not about stupid "yield numbers" or "who too the spot of the person that did not come here"
what is about is a moron up there telling people that A&M needs to grow to offer more "opportunity to "tier 1" students" while that same moron is ignoring the fact that A&M already gets a MASSIVE number of applications and ADMITS a very high % of those applicants and then watches 53% of them which is 12,112 of them CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
anyone that is not stupid needs to ask sharp a simple question.....how in the hell does growing larger make A&M more appealing to the 12,112 QUALIFIED AND ADMITTED STUDENTS THAT CHOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
anyone that is not stupid needs to ask sharp how in the hell does growing larger make A&M more appealing to students so that A&M will somehow get more than 32,190 applicants much less applicants that ARE QUALIFIED AND WILL CHOOSE A&M
in other words what in the hell is sharp doing to make A&M a more appealing university to "top tier students" that will make them want to apply and or enroll after being admitted
because as it is now A&M has 12,122 QUALIFIED AND ADMITTED students that ARE CHOOSING TO GO ELSEWHERE
and one more time there are no "students that took the others place".....there is simply STUDENTS THAT DECIDED TO GO ELSEWHERE and or STUDENTS THAT DICED TO NOT EVEN APPLY
john sharp is acting like there is this massive backlog of students that simply did not apply to A&M because they knew that A&M limits enrollment or there is some massive amount of ADMITTED STUDENTS that mysteriously were not actually admitted because A&M was limiting enrollment
A&M IS NOT LIMITING ENROLLMENT NOW....the only thing that makes A&M not be 60,000 students larger than it is today is the fact that 12,000+ students a year for the last 5 years that were QUALIFIED AND ADMITTED WENT ELSEWHERE BY THEIR CHOICE
sharp would be a great McDonalds executive he can look out there and see all these burger places opening up selling $12 dollar burgers and he can look at all the places selling $5 dollar burgers with lines around the bloc and then he can look at all the people not going through McDonalds and his answer would be "we need to open more stores in places like gas stations and on vacant lots people can barely access because of the traffic flow"
and then he can sit and watch more and more people still CHOOSE to go get a burger at a higher price from somewhere else and wonder why and tell himself that maybe they need to lower the price and make the burger a little cheaper quality as well to keep the same profit level
UT Austin had 38,785 applicants and admitted 40% of them in 2014-15
Berkeley 73,782 and they admitted 16%
Davis 60,543 and admitted 40%
UCLA 86,537 and admitted 19%
UCSD 73,448 admitted 33%
Florida 28,662 admitted 46%
AU 32,723 75%
tOSU 36,788 53%
UM 49,776 32%
UMN 44,760 45%
UVA 31,021 29%
Wisconsin 25,438 57%
UW 31,611 55%
GaTech 25,884 33%
UNC 31,332 28%
ASU 22,581 84%
UCF 33,226 50%
USF 24,988 53%
there is a list of TOP public universities and a couple of MEGA universities tossed in as well......which group does A&M look a lot more like
look at the patterns schools that are much smaller than A&M and that have a higher reputation have either the same or a lot more APPLICANTS and in some cases a great deal more applicants
ALL of the top schools have a lower acceptance rate and with the exception of AU a much lower acceptance rate
so again the question to john sharp when he lies and says A&M needs to grow to "offer more top tier educational opportunities to QUALIFIED STUDENTS" is where in the hell does he think he is going to get more applicants from and what does A&M growing larger have to do with making the school more appealing to top tier students
the schools with the most APPLICANTS are the schools that are much higher in reputation not the schools that are larger
so it seems pretty clear that growing larger really does not make a school more appealing to TOP STUDENTS
then the next question to sharp is A&M is already admitting 22,855 students a year that ARE QUALIFIED AND ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL and A&M is watching 12,122 of them a year CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
how in the hell does "growing larger" make A&M more appealing to those students
it would seem to me (and I think anyone with common sense) that if you are already getting a VERY LARGE number of applicants and ADMITTING a very large % of them and you are watching 12,122 of those students CHOOSE to go elsewhere you would have to be an idiot to say that A&M is not offering "opportunity" to "top tier students" and you would have to be even more ignorant to think that A&M going larger would be more appealing to those students going elsewhere
it seems to me you would perhaps address the faculty to student ratio, the large class sizes, the number of classes taught by tenured or tenure track faculty and many other things that TOP TIER STUDENTS concern themselves with before you make the foolish and baseless assumption that A&M will somehow be more attractive and capture more top tier students by simply growing larger when you are already watching 12,112 students a year CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE from the very large pool of applicants that you accept a very large % of
that seems like the McDonalds way of solving an issue of why you are no longer appealing to many customers and why your business is not where you feel it should be
there is nothing that prevents A&M from having the number of applicants that UCLA or Berkeley have or even the number that UT has....other than the fact that students are CHOOSING NOT TO APPLY and I can guarantee none of them are choosing not to apply because "A&M is too small"
there is nothing that prevents a larger number of those 12,112 students from actually enrolling other than they MADE A CHOICE NOT TO and I doubt it was because "A&M is too small"
lastly I realize there are some making the argument that "my relations did not get into A&M".....well apparently THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED even if YOU think they were
and john sharp is (claiming) saying that A&M is looking for TOP TIER STUDENTS and he is PRETENDING that A&M is somehow denying them opportunity (while ignoring that 12,112 students admitted a year CHOOSE T GO ELSEWHERE)
OK we get it if you want A&M to lower admissions standards and admit your "relations" then simply STATE THE TRUTH.....if john sharp wants A&M to be easier to get into and A&M to let in more students with individual reviews and lower metrics then STATE THE TRUTH
STOP LYING TO INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THAT IT ABOUT LACK OF OPPORTUNITY or GIVING MORE OPPORTUNITY
because intelligent people know enough to ask what in the hell are you doing to get the 12,112 students that YOU HAVE ADMITTED AND CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE to find A&M more appealing and "growing larger" is a stupid answer and pretty clearly not an answer when you look at the top universities above
if you and john sharp think that A&M is too difficult to get in to or that A&M needs lower admissions standards SAY IT and stop LYING that there is some hidden pool of QUALIFIED applicants that WANTS TO APPLY AND ENROLL if only A&M was larger
because A&M could easily be larger if they did not watch a hell of a lot of CURRENTLY QUALIFIED AND ELIGIBLE STUDENTS CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
quote:
Average SAT scores for incoming students:
2010 - 1207
2011 - 1207
2012 - 1197
2013 - 1192
2014 - 1189
http://dars.tamu.edu/Data-and-Reports/Student#AdmissionsandPlacement
The quality of students is getting worse, not better.
