In recent years, anyone applying to SMU has heard the school referred to as “the Harvard of the South.” While that alias might be a symptom of larger delusions of grandeur, the administration is making a noble attempt to bring SMU into nationwide acclaim.
It has identified a number of prestigious universities as “benchmark schools” for SMU to emulate. The list includes ambitious models such as Duke, Northwestern, Brown and Emory.
And so far, the administration has combed the university, unpacked all the closets and aired out the mothballs in an attempt to evaluate every aspect of our school against our benchmarks. They have enacted plans to reshape the way recruitment and enrollment are handled to attract a better first-year class. They have evaluated the structure of our academic departments and faculty. They’ve even reevaluated the way student activities are structured in comparison to the other campuses.
All this change is good, but the truth lies in the dollars and cents. The one area where our priorities stand out is how we spend our money. SMU’s average faculty salary is only slightly less than those of most of our benchmark schools. The school even pays better on average than benchmarks Tulane and Brandeis.
The real differences lie in who receives the top shares. According to statistics compiled by The Chronicle of Higher Education, out of twelve benchmark schools, SMU is one of three universities to have a member of the athletic staff among the school’s top four salaries in the 2000-2001 academic year.
Former head football coach Mike Cavan cashed in with $400,000 that school year, as well as $58,434 in benefits. That’s $8,000 more than President R. Gerald Turner, who took home $450,362 in salary and benefits. Athletic Director Jim Copeland joins Cavan and Turner on that list with another $342,673 in combined benefits and salaries.
The only other athletic staff on the list are Duke’s basketball coach and two USC football coaches. Perhaps they’re worth the money. Their teams certainly earn it in their performance.
Granted, these numbers could have changed since the Chronicle’s survey, but the fact that the athletics department at SMU receives almost half the money paid to our four highest staff members is uncomfortably telling of where our priorities lie.
In order to raise our university to a higher tier, our emphasis must be correctly placed. Spending more money on attracting the all-star professors that fill the top-four lists of the other schools and shifting some of the money that we funnel year-after-year into a continually losing football team will position us to become a better university.
It’s time to reassess the emphasis we place on athletics. They have dollars, but what we really need is change.
