O'Connell's Off Topic

If you strongly support the NM program as it is now, I urge you to generously support the OU National Merit program. It's probably the OU President's Partner program. OU is kind of vague on how they fund the NM deal. For good reason. Such support will free up other money for - in my opinion - much better scholarship programs. For example, OU should offer say 90% or 95% tuition to NM students, and cut way back on the lavish frills. That is plenty. 90 or 100% tuition is plenty generous. The kids should have a skin in the academic game.

Fair enough. There are a relative handful of scholarships given by various OU Clubs. Say 100 or so at say $3 K. Maybe more, maybe less. They are tiny - compared to the lavish NM scholarhips. That's my point. Those kids that receive those scholarships (which are very small) are very worthy. Compare that to the kids who receive the lavish National Merit scholarships. And the recipients appreciate the relatively small amount very much. Our daughter received one. Notice how the OU Clubs - not OU - funds these small scholarships. That is an indication of how OU administration thinks.

And....if an OU person in our group of friends claims OU is clearly superior to any school, the eyes start rolling. Every school has lots of things they are proud of. Average ACT of incoming students means little. There are so many sharp kids out there. Spread out the money. If an OU person not in Oklahoma claims OU is superior, they would get laughed at. Not kidding. The books are pretty much the same. And there is a huge surplus of academic teachers. There's a million would be liberal arts profs out there.

OU should compete harder with OSU, Tech and Arkansas. OU is regarded as a very solid school - not superior or inferior to OSU, Tech, Arkansas. And that is pretty accurate. Those schools compete like hell in academic AND athletic areas. Do you think Boone Pickens is satisfied with OSU lagging behind OU in anything? Tech and Arkansas have similar situations.

I think OU does offer in state tuition rates to legacy students. For sure, OSU does. And they compete strongly for students. That's another reason to free up some of the NM money.

OU major donors are often very specific on how OU spends their gift. Mr. Headington's generous gift for construction is one recent example. In general the NM program - pretty much the OU president's baby - has in my opinion limited support from major donors. For good reason.

While I agree with your stance on NMs, saying that OU is not viewed as being stronger academically than OSU/Tech is off, regardless of your friend's eye rolling. Most rankings I've seen put Texas/aTm around 50/60, OU around 100, and OSU around 135/140. I think Tech is in the130s/140s range too. Saying OU/OSU are equivilant academically is pretty similar to an OU fan claiming OU and Texas/Texas a&m are pretty similar academically. Just because I SAY that does not make it right. The facts are Texas is recognized as being better than OU...40-50 spots or so higher. OU is recognized as being better than OSU, 35-40 spots or so.

That being said, you can obviously get a quality education anywhere, but OU has developed a stronger academic reputation. I'm not sure when we started to separate, but I would assume over the last 10-15 years. I think a trained monkey could have gotten into OU or OSU when I was a freshman. My dorm roommate (who was a high school buddy) was just a small step above trained monkey (Vince Youngish).

If any friend of OU strongly supports the NM program as it now is I urge them to find out how to best contribute to it. Call the OU Administration. Go ahead and endow a National Merit Scholarship. Or....part of a NM scholarship. They are expensive. That's what some OU alums have done for athletic scholarships, athletic facilities, and geology facuty. They wisely want a say in how OU spends their gift.

Endowing is a good deal. And the donor has a strong say in how OU uses the donation. I think OU is a very good in many areas. And not bad in any area. But, I don't go ranking OU 30 or 40 or 60 slots above any other given school That's a good way to look silly. I would say the same thing to a UT or A&M grad or to an Ivy Leaguer. And they would probably agree.

Regarding the lavish NM program:: It's a matter of return on investment. I don't think OU is getting a good return on concentrating so much money on a relatively small group of talented students. And OU does lose some good students to rival schools. I wonder if any of the NM students have contributed back some of all of their scholarship. Prabably a few have.

I am curious as to what these kids study at OU. How many pre med, engineers; geologists, political science, pre law and so on? They are all OK, but some fields turn out more productive grads than others. Rural Oklahoma needs doctors. Does the NM program contribute to that need? Or....instead of a $20 K NM scholarship, how about three or four $5 K scholarship to sharp kids from small towns?

90 - 100% tuition is plenty. I strongly support OU giving 90 - 100% tuition.to NM's But that's enough.

".... you can obviously get a quality education anywhere, but OU has developed a stronger academic reputation". Right you are. The books are pretty much the same. And there are good teachers at all schools. It's up to the student to try hard.

OU's edge is the petroleum engineering equpment and labs. Few schools (UT, A&M and LSU) can equal OU's well equipped facilities. That edge is due to generous donors who were specific with their gift to OU.

Go for it! Write a check! Just contribute to the National Merit program. Endow a scholarship or part of a scholarship.

Send you check to: OU President's Partners. Maybe urge OU to increase the already lavish scholarship amounts. Instruct OU how to spend your gift.

Here's an example of a donation from a smart and successful donor. In case you missed it. :

Chesapeake gives $2M to expand OSUIT training program
Chesapeake Energy Corp. is giving $2 million to the Oklahoma State University Institute of Technology to build a new natural gas compression training center.

Read more: http://newsok.com/chesapeake-gives-2m-to-expand-osuit-training-program/article/3608483#ixzz1ZTlt1wRE

"Recruitment

OU has an office, called National Scholars Programs, that's dedicated to recruiting and retaining National Merit Scholars. The office has four staff members, an administrative assistant and about four to six student employees, said Andy Roop, director of prospective student services.

The office has an annual budget of $266,475 for salaries and operating expenses. That does not include money for scholarships".

Read more: http://newsok.com/university-of-oklahoma-offers-support-scholarships-for-national-merit-scholars/article/3609787#ixzz1ZqAFferO

Go Sooners.

Of course I have an agenda. Just to express my opinion. My opinion is that OU is putting too much money in big lavish scholarships to NM students. I would like to see OU address the shortage of physicians in small cities. On football game spots, I would like to see the OU describing that action on TV spots - rather than the OU president talking about his pet NM program. I am not aware of other university presidents doing face time on football spots.

I favor 90 - 100% tuition for NM students. That's enough. Do you favor increasing the NM scholarship amount?

OU could get a much better return on OU's investment by spreading out the money. That is what our rival schools are doing. OU could give 3 or 4 $5K scholarships to good students instead of 1 large scholarship to a NM student. That IMO would be a better use of scholarship money. That type of program would maybe help Oklahoma's shortage of physicians in small towns. OSU recently started a very aggressive scholarship program to recruit good students from small towns. Boone Pickens funded much of that program. He is one smart dude.

And yes, donating to a training center to develop productive employees in in my opinion a much better investment than NM scholarships. That's why Chesapeake made their donation. They are smart.

I have no problem with OU spending my contributions or state funding on trying to attract the best students they can. I think it is highly likely that these high achieving students and personalities will give back to the university in the future. I also think that if you really believe that Tech and OSU are the academic equivalent of OU, there's no possibility of you agreeing that it is in the best interests of OU to attract the highest quality student possible with a free education. Free educations happen all the time for people who are talented. You might as well be saying that football player scholarships are a lavish waste of money because it is the same principle.

Try telling your associates from OSU and Tech that OU is above their schools.

I work with UT and OSU and Tech grads. I do believe Tech and OSU are as good as OU in most areas, maybe better in a few areas, maybe not as good in a few areas. There's nothing wrong with that. The books are the same. Schools have good labs, good profs. OU can only control how good OU is. If OSU and Tech choose to be real strong in an area, they can do that. And they can be as good or better than any other school. Universities and colleges in Texas have lots of money available to them. And they spend it mostly in smart ways. OSU has some money from Oklahoma - and some real smart donors. OU has some generous and smart major donors.

OSU and Tech have chosen to be excellent in their college of business.. Surprise. You and I and OU have no control over that. We can only urge OU to use available resources in a smart way. We differ on the best way for OU to do that.

OU's petroleum engineering labs are super. A big edge. Due largely to dedicated gifts from major companies.

In accounting and finance, you don't need a degree from OU to be very proficient. Solid academics at a directional school in Oklahoma produces good accountants and auditors. OU can't control how good the accounting courses are at Tahlequah or Durant. And they are good. Same thing with school teachers.

And, if you think OU is clearly better in academic areas than Tech and OSU, why would OU need to pay students to attend? .

It's just a matter of who is competing and just a matter of opinion. The books are the same. There are good teachers at all schools.

I too have worked with employees from directional schools. Some of them are very sharp. They definitely compare favorably with OU grads. Repeat: The books are pretty much the same. The CPA coaching courses are the same.

"OSU and Tech's business colleges are nothing compared to OU's." That's classic. Try that out at happy hour.

You might consider changing your name to dogmatic. I am an employer and I participate in hiring decisions at a 1,500 person firm. I think it makes a big difference where people went to college and graduate school. For competitive, high paying jobs there is no doubt that a directional, Tech or OSU business school graduate is at a distinct disadvantage in larger cities outside Payne county or the Lubbock city limits. I want to hire people that rise to the highest levels of competition, and that is often indicated by the level of academic competition at the college they attended. There is no doubt that there are quality, intelligent people at smaller or less prestigious schools, and it doesn't mean they are less of a person or less intelligent. It does mean that many employers, including myself, are less likely to hire them over a graduate from a more highly regarded school, particularly if they have little practical experience at the time they are seeking full time employment. It is only one predictive indicator of success, but it is a darned significant one in my experience, as are SAT and many other standardized test scores.

I have seen first hand people who have degrees from Harvard and other truly elite schools who have zero personality, no client skills, no common sense, no excel skills, etc. - but quite often, those people are so bright they are able to more than compensate for shortcomings in other ways or they are encouraged to seek excellence elsewhere as soon as possible.

Are you anti-SAT as well?

This is not first hand info. But it is reasonable and from a very reliable source: Comment on my comment on the Sacred Cow: "I agree. The junior at ou across the street (in OKC) got a 31 on act and only gets $1000 from ou. Studying chemical engineering".

Don't know about the gender. Source is reliable. Here's some info about OU's administration of National Merit scholarships:

"Recruitment

OU has an office, called National Scholars Programs, that's dedicated to recruiting and retaining National Merit Scholars. The office has four staff members, an administrative assistant and about four to six student employees, said Andy Roop, director of prospective student services.

The office has an annual budget of $266,475 for salaries and operating expenses. That does not include money for scholarships".

Read more: http://newsok.com/university-of-oklahoma-offers-support-scholarships-for-national-merit-scholars/article/3609787#ixzz1ZqAFferO

I assume you've read the article pointing out OU has a top 10 national business school. Regardless, the fact is OU's business school is vastly superior, in terms of peer rankings, to OSU and Tech.

Regarding your comments about "they all use the same books," that is true, but irrelevent. When I got my MBA at OU many years ago we used teh same books as Harvard, and in fact studied Harvard Business Review cases. That doesn't mean my OU MBA is in the same stratosphere as a Harvard MBA.