■
’eaking
^ Noj
11 re cor(js
’t taking t,
3d to pan
;y in g SIC.;
her inforr;
9 79-45J,
art
i i
id.
oducers^,
ing onlint
Ms ingyt*.
lor
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Monday, August 9, 2004
NOHE OP THEIR BUSINESS
Mly Texan’s investigative stories on business school rankings ignored problem
orts.co m
GfiTpalT
eeded. k,_
WeiibomB^V espite accusations
against A&M’s
nytowaTl^ Lowry Mays Busi-
^sharev ness School by The Daily
srencesoiu’cxan, the student news
paper at The University of
-r—Jexas, it has been uncov-
oo/mctr, eirtd that not only are the
3r allegations unfounded, but
-Hlrs McCombs Business
School had bigger problems
at home.
i. Apply® The battle between business school rankings
i;I^ *gan in April, when U.S. News and World
■eport issued its rankings tor MBA programs
bused on the Class of 2003. Mays climbed 28
i. andspaces from the previous year, which resulted
ensues: i t j e ^ or 23 r( j pj ace w i t | 1 McCombs, which
pd dropped six spots.
I According to U.S. News, the rankings are
t on assessments by peers and recruiters,
/oposit:«MAT scores, average GPAs and data regard-
Jig how many graduates received jobs after
snsofCBraduation and what their salaries were. These
statistics were printed in the April 12 edition
istbesJfU.S. News.
UT ranked 49th out of the top 50 schools
ar post-graduate employment, with only 50.1
ercent of graduates reporting employment
t graduation and 67.3 percent three months
fterward. Beginning with the June 16 article
hd continuing in a series of editorials and let-
frs to the editor. The Daily Texan instigated
n effort to insinuate that the statistics U.S.
Jews printed were false and to discredit in-
ormation reported by Mays Business School
led. U
i MWF
ly in pem
Jominik
ist 23fd
us tips, tt
list neede:
. S2M»
,S. Grads!
ayS. Fte
construe::
s guarartg
immedialr long the way.
On June 16, The Daily Texan ran a story
.(tempting to investigate why A&M’s rank
ter ad increased so dramatically. Had The
Coral ) a iiy Texan stuck to this, quite a different
tory would have been printed that may have
hiftaJ° cuse d 011 t * ie s 'g n 'f' cant changes that Mays
onsAva:Jbad implemented to improve its career posi-
ir r2! onin g serv * ces ant ^ perhaps investigated the
ise and reasons behind UT’s feeble numbers. Instead,
nsfieetts he story focused on A&M business school
6 necesx . ^
more* .dministrators’ refusal to turn over docu-
Coiie^s nen ^ s w jth the Class of 2003’s names and
i-empioft mployment placement data, implying that
,1 oppoitu i s i n g ra nkings combined with a lack of
ace ' locument turnover indicated lying on the
OfficeT lartofA&M.
ifavaii!! article said A&M officials first re-
ifinte« used to release the documents to The Daily
leedMdn exan ^ t j ien | ater to | c | reporter that the
- ocuments didn’t exist. The miscommunica-
Hirin3tl ion regarding which documents existed and
khich simply weren’t released lies in the type
i is com 1 f records that are kept at A&M versus the
mes The Daily Texan requested. Post-gradu-
6386. te employment information is reported by the
jaduates, deposited in a database and veri-
dayainT fied, and then Mays administrators remove the
ipt. Drop’
Mays MBA administrator who asked not to be
identified. Mays administrators did have docu
ments backing up the same numbers published
in U.S. News, but the Mays administrator said
the school refused the Daily Texan specific in
formation she requested about the identities of
graduates and their employers for the privacy
of the graduates.
In an interview with The Battalion, Lomi Kriel,
the writer who wrote the June 16 story, said she
was “looking to call those people to see if those
rankings hold true.”
Employment information that students give
administrators is voluntarily given in confidence,
and is not released for their privacy said the Mays
business administrator.
The Daily Texan also implied in the article
that other schools cooperated with the report
er. Kriel said in an interview with The Bat
talion that she did not ask for this information
from any other schools.
Kriel said she called “most of the schools in
the top 10” and found that “they all said that
they keep the records and that (they) would
be available, but most of them had confirmed
fact privacy, which is an understandable argu
ment ... I didn’t go through their open records
department.”
The fact that Kriel didn’t request documents
from other universities backing up the statis
tics or names of graduates for any other school
besides A&M indicates that this wasn’t respon
sible investigative reporting, but an effort to
smear A&M. Other universities performed
as well as A&M and rose in the rankings be
cause of it, but were not asked for their data
so reporters could contact their graduates and
verify their employment.
“I really don’t think it’s fair to say that we
have some kind of anti-A&M agenda. I think
we are kind of above that here. I know we are
above that here,” said Daily Texan Editor in
Chief Ben Heath.
In fact, although the article said an open
records request at UT yielded results to back up
their rankings, had The Daily Texan requested
the same type of information it requested from
A&M the result would have been the same.
Daniel Garza, assistant dean MBA at McCombs,
told The Battalion that UT does not give out
students’ personal information.
“We keep internal records, where the gradu
ate has gone on to work. We can give out certain
aspects of that data (to the public) but cannot re
lease certain information, such as salary amounts
or contact information,” Garza said.
The Daily Texan has overlooked the real
problem: McCombs’ failure to effectively
place its graduates in positions three months
after graduation.
McCombs’ failure is traceable to the un-
derstaffing of a much larger group of MBAs.
McCombs had 795 students in 2003 but only
one faculty member assigned to assist all of the
MBA students in finding jobs. A&M had 172
students in 2003 and three faculty members
committed to doing just that. UT MBAs are pay
ing $6,000 more than A&M students for tuition
alone, receive less service and are not find
ing jobs as a result. Why didn’t The Daily
Texan examine these statistics? Moreover,
only 54 percent of McCombs MBAs
reported their post-graduate employment
information, compared with 97 percent of Mays
MBAs. If there is any fault in the record keep
ing, it is at McCombs.
The Daily Texan has acted as though it has
unfolded the investigative report of the cen
tury by releasing dramatic editorials saying,
“We stand by our story,” when in reality, the
reporter asked for information that no MBA
with any concern for his privacy would want
to be public information and that UT doesn’t
release either.
The Daily Texan has generated a buzz with
its reporting, but failed to recognize the real
story. Instead of investigating A&M’s numbers,
The Daily Texan should have examined internal
problems at McCombs.
Sara Foley is a senior
journalism major.
Graphic by Rylie Deyoe
Harvey W
ersonal identifiers from the database, said a
MAIL CALL
ear
79-412-$
Stakes too high to vote
tader in November
r Block,
lecializii*)
lights/sm#
early!! ®
j.com
In 2000,1 wrote in to Mail Call urging students
o look at third-party candidates and specifically
onsider Ralph Nader for president. I subse-
luently voted for Nader in that election and,
jnfortunately, he didn’t break the 3 percent goal
:o get federal funding. Approximately four years
The®ater, I am proud to say that my opinion has
lipped, and I am voting for George W. Bush.
Specifically, it is my informed opinion that
are safer as Americans in this post-Sad-
u lam world. I believe I’ve seen an abundance
)f evidence proving the Iraq-AI Qaeda con-
lection. The report that Russia warned about
he threat Iraq posed to the US only cements
Jny convictions. While we still need to keep in
'Si# issue °f t* 16 purported stockpiles of
rem# weapons of mass destruction, I confidently
relieve Bush made the right decision with the
nformation he had available.
I believe the stakes are too high to elect any-
ody but Bush, I encourage the president to feel
strengthened in his resolve to fight against ter-
orism, and I am an Aggie betting on Bush.
:esting,
, dad
black, i ,!
ibth,#
js area,*
■229-28-
Colin Gibson
Class of 2002
iate
townl® r !
el 254-'
[Students should support
A&M’s administration
iatem
me, fun®’
+bills,a^
48-:
In response to a Aug. 5 mail call:
home
In his letter to the administration, Mr. McCaig
long with other students in my eyes have failed
to act in a proper fashion. Where does any stu-
)-846-3$ dent in their right mind have the audacity to
tell our University Officials and Administration
•96*61® ^ 0W t0 ^ e ' r res P ecte d j°b? Granted, we are
’ Ttudents at this University, and we all have the
i/2 hod 5
’3util.
•3564.
btiT#
right to voice our opinion, but incessantly bad-
igering administration officials doesn’t solve any
problems. It doesn't matter if you are a member
,ed 8 ®$ of any social club, community service organiza
tion or political organization. You are here for
F 'one purpose: to receive an education from one
of the greatest universities in the state. How can
any student, including myself, have any expe
rience or knowledge to tell the administration
how to do their job? We students have been in
college for 1, 2, 3 or 4 years now and I know for
a fact that we don't know what it takes to run a
major university like Texas A&M. Decisions are
made for reasons that are in our best interest
and are seen in a bigger picture. I believe that
all students need to take one step back and
focus on their primary reason for being here,
which is to receive an education and let this Uni
versity do what it needs to do.
I am a strong supporter of what President
Gates and his colleagues are doing for our Uni
versity and I hope one day that everyone will be
on the same page as our president. I, among
many other students, support the University in
the direction it's going and feel that it is impera
tive that others jump aboard, sit back and relax.
Robert Wolf
Class of 2005
Bush campaign uses
poor tactics
In response to Mike Walters' Aug. 3 column:
When I think of a president who tries to scare
people into his re-election it make me sick to my
stomach. If President Bush’s “homeland secu
rity” is really working like he says it is, why is he
trying to scare the American public into taking
shelter. I want a president who is going to tell
me everything is all right and it is under control.
The war on terror has spread further thanks to
Bush. No, we did not need to go to Iraq. It was
not the last resort. Condeleeza Rice and Colin
Powell stated in 2000 that Saddam had no ca
pabilities of trying to take over another country,
especially the U.S.
I did not like Saddam either, but it wasn’t our
country and it wasn't our place to try anything.
If the Iraqi people are so happy we are there,
why are they killing our troops?
Jordan Chambers
Class of 2003
Fashion in the classroom
By Romney Leader
THE DIAMONDBACK
(U-WIRE) COLLEGE PARK, Md. — What is
one of the great things about being a college student?
For a few glorious years, we are allowed to wear just
about anything (even if it’s dirty). In a typical class,
no one bats an eye to see a student in a suit and tie
sitting next to someone who looks like the survivor of
a minor natural disaster. The notion of a dress code,
even on an informal level, simply doesn’t exist for
the majority of students.
But we’re college students — real world mores
don’t apply. It’s far more fascinating to examine the
fashion of our professors.
The social reforms of the 1960s had an enormous
effect on academia in the United States. As the stu
dents of this turbulent era become the tenured pillars
of academic institutions, the subject matter we study
today becomes increasingly diverse and multi
cultural. Back then, fashion played a major role in
distinguishing between the buttoned-up conserva
tive old guard and the hippie new generation. Over
the years, the rebellion died down but the college
campus remains a curious amalgamation of radi
cally varying styles of dress as the older generation
makes way for the new.
I had one professor who wore three-piece suits
every day. I had another professor (from the same
department) who wore the same gray slacks and
green boiled-wool sweater to every class. One
day he showed up in a blue sweater and we got
excited, but it turned out he was just wearing it
over the green sweater. It is interesting to see how
each professor interprets the dress code of his or
her position. Part of this interpretation is rooted
in their status — assistant professors, lecturers
and instructors are much more likely to dress up
because their future is not guaranteed and they
must do what they can to improve their chances
of tenure.
Studies consistently show that attire affects the
way a person is perceived. In his book “Class: A
Guide Through the American Status System,” Paul
Fussell hires a man to solicit bus fares from strang
ers at a busy station first clothed in a suit, then while
wearing tattered clothing. Unsurprisingly, he gets
much more money when he is dressed nicely. Fus
sell concludes that people garner more respect when
they dress up.
But what about tenured professors? With such
a high level of job security and laid-back working
environment, it’s easy to see why they dress how
ever they want. Some dress mainly with respect
to personal taste, though it seems many choose
their clothing as a reflection of their ideals or
those of their discipline. I had an environmental
science professor who lived in flannel shirts,
dirty jeans and hiking boots as well as a Medieval
literature professor who favored Gothic silver
jewelry and clothing with simple, clean lines.
When people have been studying a very specific
subject for years, it is not surprising that they
come to adopt some of that subject’s aesthetic
into their own lives.
Nevertheless, I also had many liberal arts
professors who were run-of-the-mill casual, oc
casionally even verging on sloppiness. This self-
conscious quasi-grunginess has an almost post
modern feel: Nothing you wear has any meaning,
nothing is special and nothing is worth adorning
yourself for.
“Take nothing seriously,” I hear them shouting
at me, “least of all what I am wearing!” While I
can respect this perspective, I worry about the ef
fect on young, apathetic minds. These professors
are the ones who fought and lived passionately
when they were our age, yet through their appear
ances they are encouraging quite the opposite in
their students.
Perhaps it’s simply the case that the fashionable
way of dressing in academia is forever rooted in the
scruffiness of the rebellious ‘60s. That argument
aside, it is impossible to do away with our tendency
to associate external and internal form — we judge
our professors by their appearance. Does that affect
anyone? Does it even matter?
Romney Leader is a columnist
at U. Maryland