John Sharp says renewing rivalry not a priority
12,982 Views |
67 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by greg.w.h
Maybe 20 by 20 wasn't a good idea
maybe he should focus more on the damnation that is the growing student population or the bull**** fees I have to pay
As I posted on the politics board, Sharp and the administration deserve blame for growing the student body by 33% (17,000) students without a guarantee from the legislature that they would pay for it.
However, I agree with his message that this is a much bigger issue than a football game. Solve the funding disparity first.
However, I agree with his message that this is a much bigger issue than a football game. Solve the funding disparity first.
Nice way to establish a path to the game: fund us equally. And expect for us to demand equal proceeds if we play again. Emphasis on if.
This is a long known gambit. Texas A&M trusted the funding formulas would continue. Because Texas is in Austin and has had a nationally recognized law school that produces lawmakers, they have enjoyed strategic advantages on funding. The 2/3rds of the PUF is another example.
Clearly Texas A&M would need to generate tremendous amounts of more donations to fund the gap. In theory it would make our university stronger to do that, but I'm fact it would likely cause more state money to shift to other schools essentially as the reward for success at soliciting donations.
I would have zero problem even with that if there were a meaningful route to secure both funding increases and productivity enhancements that could cause the campus to be run that much more efficiently.
But the truth is more complicated: better students are more likely to successfully graduate and contribute to growth of the Texas and national economy not more students. It is a tremendous risk challenge to admit more and still produce the same quality.
Perhaps we are truly committed to providing the investment that creates that efficient academic support result. Perhaps the secret is in doing that and continuing to grow the number of students. Maybe Sharp and company really do understand the state finances well enough to succesfully execute that gambit.
But to do that there must be an enormous focus on transforming less intellectually prepared students into equally capable graduates. It is possible to accomplish, but it goes against decades of evidence that appears to support the opposite result.
And what is Texas doing? Limiting enrollment and pushing the percentage of top students downward first from 10 percent to last year 7 percent. And they are being rewarded for that strategy. (In reality: they, too, take provisional admits into the university but also require them to earn admittance through competition to the in demand majors so the difference is solely in the benefit of the top students being higher performers intellectually.)
The PUF is NOT our greatest source of capital. The human capital we accrete in each student is. We do not want to limit enrollment of legacy students as sharply (no pun intended) as we used to or as Texas currently does. I've talked to length with one of our admission officials as to how difficult it is to deliver the message that the son or daughter of an Aggie graduate won't be admitted.
But those are the real challenges facing the school. And Texas' gambit to limit enrollment is easier to execute, plays off their traditional advantages with the Lege, and plays off a stereotype that they're, well, "Texas."
That's the fight we are in with our friends in Austin. Feel free to send mail, email, and phone calls to your representatives, senators, guv, lt. guv, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Tell them we are choosing the more difficult and more impactful path, but need their full support to blaze this trail and drive down education costs instead of up.
Sharp is correct regardless: this is more important than an annual football game for your school.
This is a long known gambit. Texas A&M trusted the funding formulas would continue. Because Texas is in Austin and has had a nationally recognized law school that produces lawmakers, they have enjoyed strategic advantages on funding. The 2/3rds of the PUF is another example.
Clearly Texas A&M would need to generate tremendous amounts of more donations to fund the gap. In theory it would make our university stronger to do that, but I'm fact it would likely cause more state money to shift to other schools essentially as the reward for success at soliciting donations.
I would have zero problem even with that if there were a meaningful route to secure both funding increases and productivity enhancements that could cause the campus to be run that much more efficiently.
But the truth is more complicated: better students are more likely to successfully graduate and contribute to growth of the Texas and national economy not more students. It is a tremendous risk challenge to admit more and still produce the same quality.
Perhaps we are truly committed to providing the investment that creates that efficient academic support result. Perhaps the secret is in doing that and continuing to grow the number of students. Maybe Sharp and company really do understand the state finances well enough to succesfully execute that gambit.
But to do that there must be an enormous focus on transforming less intellectually prepared students into equally capable graduates. It is possible to accomplish, but it goes against decades of evidence that appears to support the opposite result.
And what is Texas doing? Limiting enrollment and pushing the percentage of top students downward first from 10 percent to last year 7 percent. And they are being rewarded for that strategy. (In reality: they, too, take provisional admits into the university but also require them to earn admittance through competition to the in demand majors so the difference is solely in the benefit of the top students being higher performers intellectually.)
The PUF is NOT our greatest source of capital. The human capital we accrete in each student is. We do not want to limit enrollment of legacy students as sharply (no pun intended) as we used to or as Texas currently does. I've talked to length with one of our admission officials as to how difficult it is to deliver the message that the son or daughter of an Aggie graduate won't be admitted.
But those are the real challenges facing the school. And Texas' gambit to limit enrollment is easier to execute, plays off their traditional advantages with the Lege, and plays off a stereotype that they're, well, "Texas."
That's the fight we are in with our friends in Austin. Feel free to send mail, email, and phone calls to your representatives, senators, guv, lt. guv, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Tell them we are choosing the more difficult and more impactful path, but need their full support to blaze this trail and drive down education costs instead of up.
Sharp is correct regardless: this is more important than an annual football game for your school.
He led the effort to turn my school into a diploma mill. Don't blame Austin for that.Texas A & M said:
As I posted on the politics board, Sharp and the administration deserve blame for growing the student body by 33% (17,000) students without a guarantee from the legislature that they would pay for it.
However, I agree with his message that this is a much bigger issue than a football game. Solve the funding disparity first.
You lose me here. If we continue down this road, I am not sure that my sons or daughter will want to attend A&M. 100k+ students with a flipped classroom doesn't appeal to me. The UT system has grown UT-Dallas and UT-San Antonio into respectable institutions.Quote:
I've talked to length with one of our admission officials as to how difficult it is to deliver the message that the son or daughter of an Aggie graduate won't be admitted.
I'm pretty sure that was Sharp's ideaQuote:
maybe he should focus more on the damnation that is the growing student population
Noble07 said:You lose me here. If we continue down this road, I am not sure that my sons or daughter will want to attend A&M. 100k+ students with a flipped classroom doesn't appeal to me. The UT system has grown UT-Dallas and UT-San Antonio into respectable institutions.Quote:
I've talked to length with one of our admission officials as to how difficult it is to deliver the message that the son or daughter of an Aggie graduate won't be admitted.
This exactly. "Legacies" should not get in because their parents got in. Sharp has this philosophy that we are a university for all students in our great state. More = better. Which is why we are falling in academic rankings across almost every single discipline. Who is proud to go to a school that lets in over 70% of its applicants. That's a garbage way to run a school if you want the diploma to have any sort of prestige attached to it.
You guys are so superior. Don't try to pick off insignificant points of what I said. Read for content.
The framing I presented is not MY FRAMING. It's the problem that Sharp is solving for. He is threading a needle in a strategy that provides a significant increase in alumni base with the goal of producing exactly the same quality of former students, not less.
My daughter just graduated in December. It's just as competitive now as it has been to get into the more valuable degrees.
The framing I presented is not MY FRAMING. It's the problem that Sharp is solving for. He is threading a needle in a strategy that provides a significant increase in alumni base with the goal of producing exactly the same quality of former students, not less.
My daughter just graduated in December. It's just as competitive now as it has been to get into the more valuable degrees.
John Sharps tenure is bottom 5 things to ever happen to the University
greg.w.h said:
My daughter just graduated in December. It's just as competitive now as it has been to get into the more valuable degrees.
That's factually incorrect. Admissions accepts over 70% of applicants, which is more than it has been in decades. That is not okay.
Also to everyone who hasnt been paying attention to how politics work today you better be careful about opening the black box that is the PUF. If its changed there is a much better chance of the PUF Being extended to all the schools in the state (and quite possibly the public schools as a whole or even community colleges once the libs get involved) that it just being changed to 50 / 50 between the two systems. Basically a deal where A&M Ends up with fewer dollars after pandoras box is opened.
I'll take John Sharp's vision for Texas A&M over TexAgs group think for $100 Alex...
Make A&M Great Again
MAGA!
MAGA!
They can be dealt with simultaneously. And John Sharp should only be involved in addressing one of them.Quote:
However, I agree with his message that this is a much bigger issue than a football game. Solve the funding disparity first.
No sarcasm here at all - I need to understand something.
Isn't it hard as heck to get into our school as a freshman?
Isn't it hard as heck to get into our school as a freshman?
Ian Neff said:
No sarcasm here at all - I need to understand something.
Isn't it hard as heck to get into our school as a freshman?
Uh. No.
No, it's not really all that hard.Ian Neff said:
No sarcasm here at all - I need to understand something.
Isn't it hard as heck to get into our school as a freshman?
But either way, Blinn Team, etc. isn't exactly going through an academic crucible.
As far as the PUF goes, sip lawyers will never let it become "redistributed wealth".
You can be sure of that.
As far as the funding gap.....it's simple.....quit believing that if you admit more students the state will pay you more...that was Sharp's first mistake.
Second...B/CS has now become this mass of snarled traffic, crowded restaurants, lines at the grocery stores, and all because Sharp thought it was a great idea to allow 50 bazillion students into A&M and turn it into a t.u. lookalike diploma mill.
Raise the minimum test scores to gain admission and the problem will take care of itself.
You can be sure of that.
As far as the funding gap.....it's simple.....quit believing that if you admit more students the state will pay you more...that was Sharp's first mistake.
Second...B/CS has now become this mass of snarled traffic, crowded restaurants, lines at the grocery stores, and all because Sharp thought it was a great idea to allow 50 bazillion students into A&M and turn it into a t.u. lookalike diploma mill.
Raise the minimum test scores to gain admission and the problem will take care of itself.
We've left t.u. in the dust to the extent they've ever been a "diploma mill." We have about 14,000 more undergraduates this year.Quote:
Sharp thought it was a great idea to allow 50 bazillion students into A&M and turn it into a t.u. lookalike diploma mill
levypantsEOY said:greg.w.h said:
My daughter just graduated in December. It's just as competitive now as it has been to get into the more valuable degrees.
That's factually incorrect. Admissions accepts over 70% of applicants, which is more than it has been in decades. That is not okay.
Do you even understand what he said? Admissions into the school as a whole may be 70%, but to get into the more valuable degree plans is still MUCH harder than that.
I'm not sure it follows its as hard as ever.Sarduakar said:levypantsEOY said:greg.w.h said:
My daughter just graduated in December. It's just as competitive now as it has been to get into the more valuable degrees.
That's factually incorrect. Admissions accepts over 70% of applicants, which is more than it has been in decades. That is not okay.
Do you even understand what he said? Admissions into the school as a whole may be 70%, but to get into the more valuable degree plans is still MUCH harder than that.
The percentage of students graduating from engineering, for example, is higher now than it was back when I was at school. Those "valuable" degree programs have been growing in size and while there may still be a lot of students getting rejected from them, they're letting in record numbers of students.
Did i say it was as hard as ever? No i said it was harder than than the 70%.
And realize that the college of engineering is still considered top 15 in the U.S. which is basically where it has been for the last 20-30 years.
And realize that the college of engineering is still considered top 15 in the U.S. which is basically where it has been for the last 20-30 years.
But you were being a smartass about what greg.h. said. Don't make this all about you.
I was being a smartass about what levy said......
Unless someone has evidence that a degree from A&M is not worth as much as it used to, y'all should quit saying as much. So more people graduate with an engineering degree? What's the issue? They aren't getting jobs? Is there evidence of that? The OP posts a lot of divisive articles. I'm pretty sure he's not even an Ag.
> Goes to state school
> Upset that school educates state population
> Upset that school educates state population
A lot of you "diploma mill" folks should go over to the academic board and read the admissions thread to see what kind of kids are being rejected for full admission.
I have a feeling many of you wouldn't get full admission today.
I have a feeling many of you wouldn't get full admission today.
Sharp finally got something right.
Bo Darville said:
A lot of you "diploma mill" folks should go over to the academic board and read the admissions thread to see what kind of kids are being rejected for full admission.
I have a feeling many of you wouldn't get full admission today.
The admissions process is largely formulaic and we get to see all sorts of data.
I do think "diploma mill" is dramatic but A&M is certainly fighting to "maintain" while other schools around the country are making clear movement towards being more selective and difficult. (There's a philosophical argument in there about what our university should aim to be.)
But no doubt some great stories don't get admitted. Those were almost certainly always around in most of A&M's modern era but you get to read them now.
Quote:
For each year between 2010 and 2016, Texas has had the nation's largest annual population growth. During this period, the state added about 211,000 people per year through natural increase.
As for migration, Texas is a primary destination for both domestic and international migrants. Average annual net domestic migration between 2010 and 2016 was close to 140,000 while net international migration averaged around 82,000. The state's major metropolitan statistical areas (Austin-Round Rock, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, and San Antonio-New Braunfels) are leading areas of population growth in Texas.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/texas-population-trends.html
My Aggie math tells me that from 2010 to 2016 state population increased by almost 2.6mil. I believe Sharp simply wants that money to stay in the state. OU, OSU, Arkie, Auburn, Ole Miss and many others routinely recruit and offer scholarships and in-state tuition. They are targeting large HS's in the burbs.
TAMU system needs a model like Penn State has had for many years. You can be accepted to Penn State, but not admitted to State College campus as a fish. Only the top qualifiers are admitted as freshman. The rest go to one of many regional campuses around the state and compete for admission to Happy Valley as juniors.
This may already be happening in a sense, but.the application process is separate for system schools. Instead of flatly denying admission, applicants have a choice of going to another TAMU System school.
Well the other thing the diploma mill haters don't seem to comprehend is other schools grow too. We are competing to stay on top of UH, tceh, etc. I understand that seems laughable but if we slow our roll and those campuses grow to 75k students they will crank out more alumni than us. More alumni = more power. I'm not saying that's the only factor Sharp should consider but it's a big one.
The population growth note is an important one: the state is growing in population. TAMU must, by definition, grow with it, too.
The issue of a degree's quality is separate from that of campus growth. If a degree isn't of as high a quality as it used to be then teach the material better.
Honestly, if students are failing a class then either the kids are lazy or the teacher isn't doing their job right; the point is to teach kids, not fail them. A class with a high failure rate is a failure in itself,in my eyes, 'cause the professor is either ineffective or vindictive, both of which are sorry things to be.
The issue of a degree's quality is separate from that of campus growth. If a degree isn't of as high a quality as it used to be then teach the material better.
Honestly, if students are failing a class then either the kids are lazy or the teacher isn't doing their job right; the point is to teach kids, not fail them. A class with a high failure rate is a failure in itself,in my eyes, 'cause the professor is either ineffective or vindictive, both of which are sorry things to be.
Sharp caused the disparity problem. He knows that there is a two year lag in formula funding from the State for adding additional students. Now he is acting like it is the State's fault. Truly a disingenuous front to a problem he created.
Featured Stories
See All
2025 Prosper offensive lineman Connor Carty commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
37:35
5h ago
3.3k
The Loochador Podcast: Maroon & White Game storylines abound
by Billy Liucci
6:33
4h ago
1.7k
In-Home Visit: Carty provides more Metroplex muscle for Maroon Goons
by TexAgs Recruiting
7:40
4h ago
18k
2025 OL Connor Carty calls committing to A&M a 'dream come true'
by Jason Howell
0:00
9h ago
4.4k
Struggle and Strifer
2025 Prosper offensive lineman Connor Carty commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
71