In evaluation, Smatresk gets good marks from Jackson

[Army of Dad]

13 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Honestly,   I would take 1-11 football and 12-20 basketball every year if Smatresk continues the academic track we're on.  Reaching the Carnegie Tier 1 research plateau is a bigger win for our University as a whole than any conference championship.  If he can raise the endowment and keep us moving closer to the "Tier 1" designation by the Texas Higher Education Board for those PUF dollars, they'll need to rename the Hurley Building.

Remember folks, there is more to rating the performance of the University president than what's going on in athletics.

I was unaware that succes in the classroom and on the field are mutually exclusive.

[MeanGreenTexan]

29 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

I was unaware that succes in the classroom and on the field are mutually exclusive.

Never said that.  Of course it's not.

But listening to alot of dudes on here, you would think Smatresk's overall performance review should focus ~90% on his dealings with Rick Villareal.   I get that this is an athletics fan message board, so the focus here is on athletics...   I'm just trying to provide a bigger picture in this thread.

[Cerebus]

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Honestly,   I would take 1-11 football and 12-20 basketball every year if Smatresk continues the academic track we're on.  

The Carnegie classification didn't happen because of Smatresk.  That took over a decade of work.  The research clusters, the large increase in startup monies, the HPSC, the research labs, the programs to increase federal grant spending all started and happened well before he stepped on campus.  He was simply here when the institute took a look and reclassified us.  The real credit goes to previous administrators and faculty.

We really don't know how any of Smatresk's big ideas are going to work out yet because so few of them are completed yet.  The university is a very large ship and it takes a long time for course corrections to actually occur.  We'll know more in a few years.  

There is also no reason we can't be competitive IN CUSA and have good academics.  

[EagleMBA]

56 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Never said that.  Of course it's not.

But listening to alot of dudes on here, you would think Smatresk's overall performance review should focus ~90% on his dealings with Rick Villareal.   I get that this is an athletics fan message board, so the focus here is on athletics...   I'm just trying to provide a bigger picture in this thread.

Based on Smatty's total silence over several months, it begs the question "Is he dealing with Rick Villarreal at all?". I have gone from supportive/optimistic to fail on my evaluation of him regarding athletics. Rick Villarreal is becoming a rogue elephant.

Regarding the academic track, I appreciate that but it means a helluva lot more to members of "the Academy" and not so much to the company out there hiring its next CFO. They are more interested in what you've achieved by the sweat of your brow in previous positions than the Carnegie status of your Alma Mater. JMO.

[untjim1995]

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Never said that.  Of course it's not.

But listening to alot of dudes on here, you would think Smatresk's overall performance review should focus ~90% on his dealings with Rick Villareal.   I get that this is an athletics fan message board, so the focus here is on athletics...   I'm just trying to provide a bigger picture in this thread.

Those who think Smatresk's main area of interest should be with athletics or getting rid of RV are seeing just how fruitless that expectation is. He doesn't have that power here, even if he wanted it, which nobody really knows. The BOR asks Smatresk to lead the university under their guidelines and protocol, just as they do Lee Jackson. Presumably, the BOR is influenced by two things: staying in budget and keeping their job. It would greatly appear that the overwhelming number of UNT students, alumni, faculty, and other members of the administration won't rock the boat to get rid of BOR members as long as the leadership continues to lead the university in a way that fits their views of what they want from our school. And the great majority, almost unanimously, don't want athletics to take a primary window here--therefore, we get what we get. And now, we have 17 people who like athletics and have basically bought it from the school as their own toy.

[Aldo]

Just now, untjim1995 said:

as long as the leadership continues to lead the university in a way that fits their views of what they want from our school. 

Being fairly mediocre school?

Music school and Carnegie accolades aside, if you look us up on US N&WR, Forbes, etc. we are ranked very, very, very low.

[EagleMBA]

2 minutes ago, Aldo said:

Being fairly mediocre school?

Music school and Carnegie accolades aside, if you look us up on US N&WR, Forbes, etc. we are ranked very, very, very low.

I think that is right, without doing the current research. From doing that some time ago, I think one of the weighted factors is endowment and alumni giving. If so, how do you get people in the frame of mind to contribute? Positive media attention and national exposure through winning athletic programs is one proven way to fire up the alumni and get them into a giving mood.

[untjim1995]

20 minutes ago, Aldo said:

Being fairly mediocre school?

Music school and Carnegie accolades aside, if you look us up on US N&WR, Forbes, etc. we are ranked very, very, very low.

They want quantity overall--that increases paychecks. For certain colleges within the university, of course, those preferred areas get special treatment. But for the entire university, its all about increasing enrollment--i.e., creating "value"...

Its basically a community college approach at a university level in a fast growing metro area. It literally takes the smallest of efforts to keep enrollment going upward here, with the location we have and the standards for admission we keep. But those numbers are your lifeblood to keeping a job when you make so very little effort at fundraising, as evidenced by the woeful level of our endowment for a university of our size and age.

[Cerebus]

28 minutes ago, Aldo said:

Being fairly mediocre school?

Music school and Carnegie accolades aside, if you look us up on US N&WR, Forbes, etc. we are ranked very, very, very low.

Carnegie accolades aside?  There are 4,726 Title IV Degree Granting Institutions in the US, only 115 of them are Doctoral University: Highest Research Activity (R1), one of them is us.

That is the CFB equivalent of being in the Top 3, It would get us into the CFB Playoff!  

 

The USN&WR are no where near as highly regarded academically:

On 2/2/2016 at 6:31 PM, Cerebus said:

One of the big knocks on USN&WR gets is they use some weird ass metrics.  Why is acceptance rate important?  Since NT has a lower rate than Texas A&M does that make us a better school?  Why are HS Guidance Councillor opinions in the rankings?  How many of them are actually experts on judging quality of universities?   Top 10 percent acceptance rate is pretty quirky too, not all HSs are equal, someone in the top 20 of particular school might much more accomplished than someone in the Top 5 of another school.  Alumni giving rate?  Why does how effective a school is at getting donations from students a reflection on the quality of education?

 

[MeanGreenTexan]

10 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

The Carnegie classification didn't happen because of Smatresk.  That took over a decade of work.  The research clusters, the large increase in startup monies, the HPSC, the research labs, the programs to increase federal grant spending all started and happened well before he stepped on campus.  He was simply here when the institute took a look and reclassified us.  The real credit goes to previous administrators and faculty.

We really don't know how any of Smatresk's big ideas are going to work out yet because so few of them are completed yet.  The university is a very large ship and it takes a long time for course corrections to actually occur.  We'll know more in a few years.  

There is also no reason we can't be competitive IN CUSA and have good academics.  

Also understood.  If he were able to take us from "commuter school" to Tier 1 Research University in 2.5yrs, then he would be a miracle worker.   But, I doubt he just sat on his hands while Rawlins' plans were executed.  His vision is already underway, and it's not like he took the most talented team ever and drove them to a 12-20 record in year 1...  

[Aldo]

1 hour ago, untjim1995 said:

Its basically a community college approach at a university level in a fast growing metro area. It literally takes the smallest of efforts to keep enrollment going upward here, with the location we have and the standards for admission we keep. 

@Cerebus what's being pointed out here is also my criticism. There are select programs that are recognized nationally/globally. As a whole it feels as the focus has been trying to increase enrollment (top 20% in certain ISDs) and pumping them out quickly (15 credit hours/semester=discount). And that we're the best university to do that inexpensively. Is that the best we can tout?

But as a research university overall, there hasn't been enough leadership at the very top to give direction. In federal research $, we're not top 200. In total research expenditures, we're not top 200. In endowment we're not top 200. In annual giving we're 196 (2012).

We've got all these students and infrastructure in place, just need leaders from administrators to faculty and staff (in the different institutes) to make a push.

[Rudy]

5 hours ago, GMG24 said:

Pardon my ignorance but how exactly does that happen?

 

He'd have to die to leave.

[Army of Dad]

2 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Also understood.  If he were able to take us from "commuter school" to Tier 1 Research University in 2.5yrs, then he would be a miracle worker.   But, I doubt he just sat on his hands while Rawlins' plans were executed.  His vision is already underway, and it's not like he took the most talented team ever and drove them to a 12-20 record in year 1...  

Nah, he'd get another 3-4 ears to produce the same results...

 

 

 

...THEN he would still be retained!

[GrandGreen]

8 hours ago, Aldo said:

@Cerebus what's being pointed out here is also my criticism. There are select programs that are recognized nationally/globally. As a whole it feels as the focus has been trying to increase enrollment (top 20% in certain ISDs) and pumping them out quickly (15 credit hours/semester=discount). And that we're the best university to do that inexpensively. Is that the best we can tout?

But as a research university overall, there hasn't been enough leadership at the very top to give direction. In federal research $, we're not top 200. In total research expenditures, we're not top 200. In endowment we're not top 200. In annual giving we're 196 (2012).

We've got all these students and infrastructure in place, just need leaders from administrators to faculty and staff (in the different institutes) to make a push.

Not true, NT attendance has grown very little in the last decade.  Also, I know it is a myth perpetuated by past administrations but NT is not the cheapest state school and there are little differences in the cost of most large state schools.  Entrance requirements also are not that difference among major state schools other than the very pampered UT-Austin and UTD with their emphasis on STEM students and high academic scholarship levels.  

Yes, NT is way way behind in endowments and research because they were very late relative to their peers in developing these factors.   Progress is being made but NT has never been good at marketing their achievements.  

[UNT90]

On March 22, 2016 at 1:32 PM, untjim1995 said:

Those who think Smatresk's main area of interest should be with athletics or getting rid of RV are seeing just how fruitless that expectation is. He doesn't have that power here, even if he wanted it, which nobody really knows. The BOR asks Smatresk to lead the university under their guidelines and protocol, just as they do Lee Jackson. Presumably, the BOR is influenced by two things: staying in budget and keeping their job. It would greatly appear that the overwhelming number of UNT students, alumni, faculty, and other members of the administration won't rock the boat to get rid of BOR members as long as the leadership continues to lead the university in a way that fits their views of what they want from our school. And the great majority, almost unanimously, don't want athletics to take a primary window here--therefore, we get what we get. And now, we have 17 people who like athletics and have basically bought it from the school as their own toy.

And are running it completely into the ground. What will they do when they break their toy?

[Mike Jackson]

On March 22, 2016 at 9:03 AM, UNTLifer said:

The headline tells me all I need to know about how our esteemed Chancellor feels about our university.  Time to show him the door.

I guess they are taking cues from the Athletic Program:  Aspiring to be Mediocre

Can't get to uppity UT and TAMU government cadre will get upset.  Let just try to pass them up academically on down low maybe?  Is that their strategy?

[UNT90]

The only view I have of Neal Smatresk is how he deals with athletics. If he treats other departments the way he treats athletics (doesn't deal with problems, lets a woefully underperforming administrator run the department into the ground, stands by as enrollment-read attendance, bottoms out), I don't want him as President of this university.

Why would anyone think he treats any other department differently?

Status quo at UNT, as always.

EDIT: He also allowed a dean to publicly lie about an interaction with a police officer, implying that the officer was a racist, which was a complete lie, without doing one thing about it.

It appears Neal Smatresk is inaction in action.

Edited March 29, 2016 by UNT90