One Big Thing that Dallas Is Missing (Houston, Austin: house, best schools)

[skyao]

moderator: please close this thread. It has wandered off topic and its encouraging non sequitur and immature debate tactics.

[tycobb2522]

I can't help but laugh every time I see someone request a thread be closed; nobody is forcing you to read it. Now that you know it isn't what you are interested in, just stay away from it!

I find the thread very informative, with valid opinions on both sides. I also think the topic is absolutely relevant regarding the benefits of a top tier college to a city.

Therefore I will continue to enjoy this thread. The threads that I don't enjoy, I merely avoid, and don't whine about shutting them down...

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by aceplace

OK, Unexpected, R4Browns, your points about a student competing against a peer group is somewhat interesting. And all it would imply is that we should further compartmentalize a school into various peer groups so that each student could compete within his group. We would still be serving students at all levels of aptitude, and the college would still have a medium-level academic average.

Depending on the academic goals of the students, yes. Just as our society needs folks at different levels (CEO, VP, Middle Management, Secretary, Delivery Guy, etc.), higher ed should serve that purpose. This is not to imply that anyone is *better* than anyone else, it's just stating the obvious - not everyone is an intellectual, nor should they be

Originally Posted by aceplace

It does not imply that a college with all students from the top 1% of the community's intellectual range is inherently better than a more diverse one, or that it serves the community better.

Better is a highly subjective term. Is society better served by a school like Berkeley which in many ways is geared towards furthering theoretical and intellectual thought, or is society better served by a school like UT-Dallas which turns out highly skilled folks at the professional levels (accountants, mid-level business managers, etc.)

Originally Posted by aceplace

Let's assume we take a large state university with, say, 25,000 students and expel everyone except the top 10%. We now have a smaller college of 2,500, but with a much higher average scholastic performance. This would look like Rice university, actually. What have we really gained by such a step? How is Dallas better off? What about the 90% that were expelled, how are they better off?

Again I think the best way to look at is to understand what purpose each student is going to the University for. I think a community is well served by having a Berkeley/Harvard type of school, but mid tier universities are crucial for the economy and overall well being of a metro area. It would be nice to have a top-tier school here, and as we grow in the number of corporate HQ's it may be necessary (look at the innovations coming out of the SF Bay Area in tech or for example - this is due to the academic prowess of the top schools there and the talent they attract). But don't discount the importance of a UT-Dallas or UNT or SMU. Point taken about the economy of Boston, but that may be due to the over abundance of schools and not enough focus on provate enterprise.

Originally Posted by aceplace

I'm thinking about the specific case of Boston, with universities that specialize in high-ranking students from other regions of the US and the world. Well, Boston has a mediocre economy with little growth, and a below-average population gain. Essentially, the Boston area is unable to employ the many graduates it trains, and so they go elsewhere after graduation. Why would Dallas want this situation?

I agree.

Originally Posted by aceplace

This discussion about placing students into peer groups still obscures the issue... what is the college doing that is supposed to be beneficial to the students? Does the college assume they don't have to add value, since the students will succeed in life no matter what the college does?

Well, hopefully I answered that. College should be preparing students for their mission in life, whether that is as an intellectual thinker and visionary, a professional or a teacher. There are other missions in life of course but those are just examples.

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by aceplace

r4browns, if you start talking about an "average student", perhaps they don't teach statistics very well at UC Berkeley. There is no such thing as an average student. An average is just a number that may or may not have any relevance in the real world. And perhaps you really have no accurate data on the average IQ or motivation level in either Berkeley or SMU.

I don't claim to have statistics to back this up, I'm just sharing my observations based on my own experiences. YMMV.

Originally Posted by aceplace

The real issue is one of added value by the college. If you compare an SMU student to an identical UC Berkeley student, after adjusting for differences in aptitude, IQ, family wealth, etc., which one will receive a better education?

Better is a very subjective term, I guess I would ask you how you define "better" before I can respond to that.

Originally Posted by aceplace

Which one will have a higher lifetime earning (after adjusting for cost of living, of course), or which one will have a greater impact on the welfare of society? And to what extent is the performance of the school responsible for this?

The latter is impossible to measure empirically, the former depends not just on the school but the major and then a variety of other factors.

Originally Posted by aceplace

If the greatest benefit of a supposedly top-tier school is the peer interaction among students, then that calls the value of the school into question.

Quite possibly, yes.

Originally Posted by aceplace

The greatest benefit of going to college should be the teaching that you pay through the nose for, not the chance to drink beer and conduct drunken arguments with geniuses.

Most undergrad students at any university that offers PhD's are taught primarily by graduate students their first two years anyways, and many upper-division courses are also led by grad students with a Professor nominally in the picture while he/she focuses on research or getting published.

I'm not sure when you went to college, but the teaching today is for the most part a secondary aspect of the university experience at a school like Berkeley. Perhaps at a UTD where the focus is more vocational your point holds true. But again, I point back to my question about why is a student at the university in the first place? The answer to that question will probably lead to your point about defining the greatest benefit of said university experience.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

Depending on the academic goals of the students, yes. Just as our society needs folks at different levels (CEO, VP, Middle Management, Secretary, Delivery Guy, etc.), higher ed should serve that purpose. This is not to imply that anyone is *better* than anyone else, it's just stating the obvious - not everyone is an intellectual, nor should they be

Thanks for rejoining the discussion, rb4browns. Sorry if I was a bit sharp about your "average student" comment.

No disrespect intended to UC Berkeley, but I don't think it had anywhere the impact on the Northern California economy that Stanford University has had. When I look at Stanford, I see the Silicon Valley, but the East Bay areas around Berkeley are in no way a hotbed of technical innovation. I have a theory regarding this, that the old Mason-Dixon line, if extended through the continent to California, would seperate the Silicon Valley from the rest of the Bay Area. Everything south of that line is innovative, dynamic, and wealthy, whereas anything north of it is somewhat moribund.

I seriously doubt that people go to college in order to become well-read intellectuals. The go in order to enhance their career prospects and to benefit their economic futures. The question is this... how are we going to evaluate and measure the ability of a college to serve this need.

We have other questions as well. Does Dallas need a separate institution to cater to the most academically advanced students? Do we need to improve mid-level colleges that cater to mid-level students? How do we measure the quality of teaching in a college?

I'm sure that Dallas would benefit if the quality of the teaching process were improved across the board, in every college, from the junior colleges that cater to vocational training, to the large state universities like UTD, UNT and UTA. I'm not so sure, however, that we need to establish a separate institution to cater exclusively to the top 10% of the IQ range.

[WillysB]

Originally Posted by padcrasher

A World Class University like Rice University in Houston.

NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, SFO, Washington DC have them but not Dallas.

I'm jealous.

Unfortunately for SMU, Rice whooped up on them in football last nite, winning something like 56-20. Seems like the announcer said it was something like the 83rd meeting of the two teams.

Not that the game has anything to do with SMU's academic recognition, just thought I'd throw it in.

[zatires]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

SMU is not considered a world class university by any standard. Definitely not on par with Rice or even UT for that matter.

You gotta be joking me, and hundreds and millions of people in DFW area.

On top of that millions of people in the world who know about US colleges would laugh at you when they hear you saying SMU is not on par with UH or Rice.

I have to like find a smile that is a big LOL, like those that is laughing and banging his head to the floor or something.

Over the years I have read these forums, the above quote I have seen was the most useless and most unreal.

I came to another age.

[By~Tor]

SMU had a chance to become a major player, right before it received the NCAA "Death Sentence".... you all remember that one, right?... SMU's first winning season in a billion years, ruined by recruiting violations, and the University lost out on several years' worth of exposure and potential recruits as a result....

SMU has a fine Law and Medicine program, and if they can ever start bringing national attention to themselves thru their sports programs (no, soccer does NOT count...), then they may be able to start bringing in higher and higher calibers of students.... shedding that "Local" image, and helping serve Dallas' need for a World-Class University...

Also, I think bringing back "WORLD CLASS CHAMPIONSHIP WRESTLING at the Sportatorium would help too.... but alas, the ol' barn is no more....


God Bless the Von Erichs!!!!!

[aceplace]

One thing we've overlooked is a good definition of the issue. Exactly what is the difference between a world-class university and a not-so-world-class one? If SMU or UTD does not cut the mustard according to some criteria, well, what are these criteria? What is it about UTD that has to change?

In a perfect world, the public reputation of a school would be an indicator of its quality. In the real world, however, that's not necessarily the case. So we have to discount the value of public recognition as a measuring tool.

On the other hand, if you disagree, if you think the most well-known schools are the best ones, then all we have to do to have a top-tier school in the DFW area is just fund a national advertising campaign.

[aceplace]

Actually, schools such as UT Arlington or UT Dallas are better than Harvard. You have to be a near-genius to get a Harvard education, but it is easier and simpler to be educated at UT Arlington, and far cheaper. Something that is less expensive and easier to use is better than something that is higher in cost and difficult to use.

If you did find the money, manage to get admitted, and somehow survived the grueling Harvard experience, would you be better off than if you had gone to UT Arlington? No, the mind is like a sponge that absorbs only so much. And the knowledge of the world they have at Harvard is also available in Arlington.