IMO, it's not worth going to an expensive undergraduate college unless it's a guaranteed in somewhere else, and you can pretty much count those places on one hand -- harvard, yale, princeton, MIT, Stanford, and that's pretty much it -- and even then there's no true guarantees. (not to say that Duke, Cornell, etc aren't fine schools, they are, absolutely, and a great education as well) I went on to a fairly prestigious institution post-college, and I ended up in the same place I probably would have had I opted for the more expensive undergrad option - which, when I was in high school, was my dream school. I didn't go there, but if I was going to stay in Texas, other than Rice, I'd go to UT, easily; you just get too much value for the $ to pass it up, and its national academic reputation probably outdoes any place in Texas save Rice.
ooooh burn... Listen Fatboy, DrewP posted this thread looking for legitimate information to make one of the most important decisions in his life and all you had to contribute was "stupid smu". It may have been funny the first time, but 5 times every other post screams "I need attention! This is the song I sing when I need attention!!!" so don't get pissed when someone called you on it. Back to the topic. DrewP my dad went to SMU and loved it. Even though he lives in Houston, he still keeps in contact with other alums. He said it really helped him when he was looking for work later also.
Riiiiggghhhttt. First, Why is the "rolleyes" smilie used so often recently? Might be time to come up with a new reaction to things. Second, nice reference to Todd Glass, but not an original statement...... again. Might be time to use your brain instead of parroting others. Third, I don't like Smu. I went to Texas Tech, Smu was caught cheating in their heyday in the 80's, it is a school full of cliqueish people from Dallas, which I also hate. The fact that I was humorous at all in my opinion of the school was generous, not "whorish". Fourth, I have 1600 posts. You have what? 3400? Who's the attention w****, again?
I'm sorry you feel limited by smilies, how about this instead: Gimme a freaking break. You average 1.32 posts a day, I average 1.77 posts a day. So I crave attention on average .45 more posts than you a day. I have more posts because I have been here longer than you. Did they not teach you math at Texas Tech? Oh, and FYI I have 3040 posts not 3400. Dyslexia? mmmm could be... I'm sorry, I didn't know I couldn't post what funny people say when it fits you so well. Wah wah I don't like SMU, they're rich a-hole cheaters cheaters. Get over it. You really feel you need to derail by posting the comment 5 times. Once is stating an opinion 5 times is a cry for help. So, tell you what the next time you see me derail a thread with multiple posts saying the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over again, call me on it. Just don't hold your breath. You might turn SMU blue....
Uh, yeah. I graduated with a finance degree. I was guessing on the post counts for both of us. Sorry I got the estimate wrong. Also, I've been here at least as long as you. Remember a contest a few years back? I'm not sure what exactly I'm crying about. Someone asked for people's thoughts on a school. I don't like the school. I stated it repeatedly. Please show me other posts where I've spewed multiple posts. You've seen me around here long enough to know that is not my style. That is why your response was rude and inappropriate. Period. Also, I love the irony that your "attention w****" statement is more noticeable than any of the posts I wrote. "He in glass houses"...... I'm done talking about this. Mind your manners next time.
Not that I'm aware of. We weren't placed on probation for anything. (Same can't be said about my fraternity, however)
Wednesday, August 5, 1998 Last modified at 1:01 a.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 1998 NCAA Texas Tech case timeline A look at key events leading up to and surrounding the NCAA Committee on Infractions' findings regarding Texas Tech on Tuesday: July 2, 1995: Former Tech men's basketball player Nate Jackson says that in 1991 he received a passing grade in a Howard College Spanish course without ever leaving his California home. According to Jackson, he obtained credit for the course by answering five or six questions over the telephone. July 7, 1995: Tech announces that the school has completed its investigation and found no evidence of NCAA violations or improprieties on the part of head men's basketball coach James Dickey or his staff. Feb. 28, 1996: The NCAA sends Tech a letter of preliminary inquiry into possible men's basketball and football violations beginning in 1991. March 8, 1997: Tech announces that because of the use of two ineligible players during the season, the men's basketball team will forfeit all of its Big 12 wins and withdraw from consideration for an at-large berth in the NCAA Tournament. Oct. 2, 1997: Tech announces that an internal audit has uncovered 76 athletes in eight sports who competed while academically ineligible. The bulk of the athletes resulted from Tech officials' misapplying NCAA "satisfactory progress" rules that were altered in 1992. The school forwards a copy of its findings to the NCAA. Nov. 3, 1997: Tech releases the contents of a letter of inquiry from the NCAA. The letter outlines a total of 18 allegations of NCAA violations. Nov. 6, 1997: Tech chooses to withdraw the football team from consideration for a bowl game. April 14, 1998: Tech makes public the university's response to the NCAA as well as numerous self-imposed sanctions, including scholarship cuts in six sports and a three-year probation for the athletic department. April 24, 1998: The NCAA Committee on Infractions begins hearing Tech's case in Cleveland. The first eight hours of the proceeding are highlighted by testimony from former assistant football coach Rhudy Maskew. April 25, 1998: After another eight hours of discussion, the infractions committee adjourns. The school expects to hear from the committee within four to eight weeks. Aug. 4, 1998: The NCAA Committee on Infractions places Tech on probation for four years and recommends that the school repay up to 90 percent of revenue generated from the school's 1996 NCAA men's basketball tournament appearance. In addition, the committee takes away additional scholarships in football, men's basketball, baseball and women's basketball. April 2000: Scholarship reductions for women's basketball program end, meaning Tech can have 15 scholarship players. February 2001: Scholarship reductions for football program end, meaning Tech can sign full class for first time since 1997. April 2001: Scholarship reductions for men's basketball program end, meaning Tech can have 13 scholarship players. April 2002: Scholarship reductions for baseball end, meaning Raiders can sign full complement of players for first time since 1998. April 24, 2002: Tech athletic department's four-year probation from the NCAA ends. April 24, 2003: Five-year window for NCAA repeat offenders expires. http://www.redraiders.com/news/98/08/05/ncaa_texas_tech_case_timeline.htm
If you get into UT, then go there instead of SMU. You'll have alot more opportunities coming out of school, as just about every major corporation in the country comes to Austin to recruit UT grads. The alumni base is huge.
Actually, I have heard that Tech can be an even worse social scene than SMU. Even though it is not a very good school there is a lot of money there, so many are snobbish. I've never been so i can't comment, just passing along what I have heard from others. Did I mention that SMU has the state's (and one of the nation's, really) best arts schools? Of course, it is almost like a separate school, due to the social differences.
Even though Tech isn't a very good school? What the hell is your problem? Ignorance is never a good excuse. The business school was in the top 25% of all colleges in the 90's. Do your research before you speak.
Go where you feel most comfortable. Where you think you'll be happiest. Refused to be defined by the school you went to. You're an individual, and education is what you make of it. You can piss it away at a great school...or you can seize it at a school that others judge to be poor. There are excellent people in all walks of life who are graduates from all schools throughout the nation.
My wife got a few degrees at Baylor, a few degrees at Tech, and a degree at SMU. She said they're all good schools, and they can all be a bit clique-ish. Rich Baptists at Baylor, rich West Texas oil kids at tech, and Rich Dallasites at SMU. I doubt this argument is necessary.....but then again, it is the offseason.
I think Tech is a fine school. It just doesn't have the reputation of several other schools in the state. If you're not planning on staying in the area, you can have some more trouble getting jobs than those who went to a UTexas and some other schools. The last stats I saw showed lower placement rates and lower starting salaries from Tech grads than from many other schools in the state. I liked the school, though, and I feel like I got a very good education there. If they weren't so far away, I'd certainly rather be doing graduate work there than a lot of other places.
