smu vs. ut

Have you even been anywhere but Texas? Totally out of touch. Not surprised!

Agree with haha above.

LOL!should REALLY check your facts!

OMG

This little "debate" is funny.

I'll start off by saying i'm a Texas native and I'm an aggie fan, though I never applied because it was never my intention to stay in Tx (was gonna go to UofArk).

Reputation wise, UT DOES have a better reputation. However, it's not comparable to Princeton, Yale or Harvard. The only schools I've ever seen compared are Rice and Vandy, mostly because they try hard to be labeled the Harvards and Princetons of the south.

Money wise, SMU is a private schools funded by very wealthy and prominent alumni.

Football wise, well duh, UT>SMU. There's no debate there. But it's Texas, therefore, it is a part of the debate

I would say SMU is more elitist because of the people who go here. You have heirs and heiresses of corporations/companies, sons/daughters of politicians and old money. Money runs SMU. And as someone who was a GDI their first year, it IS virtually impossible to enjoy school or have a social life unless you're greek. You find out who your real friends are after recruitment, because they all vanish.

In terms of Greek life, I'd say they're about the same. Both are competitive, but you're comparing a private school(with less students) to a state school (with many students).

I also want to add, that, if it weren't for money, certain houses here would be gone. but the alumni also tend to fund our school.

Obviously in college you're gonna have people from money and people who are poor. But the majority of students at SMU are wealthy.

agree except for the UT fans being fans win or lose. Did you catch the picture above the cotton bowl stadium when they played Oklahoma? Half the stadium was crimson and half the stadium was GONE!!

With your premise.

Houston > Dallas

The two schools are too different to really compare, but if I had to I'd say that money is obviously a bigger deal at SMU on average than it is at UT. That is because SMU is a private school rich in history especially with old Texas and Dallas families. Therefore in one way, it's more "elitist." But, if you look at the the top 4 fraternities and PKT at UT, especially Fiji SAE and now KSig, these houses are filled with some of the most prominent and wealthy families in the state of Texas. These houses are much more elite than any group that SMU has to offer. So that being said, SMU is on average more old money, but if you look at the top of the top at both schools, UT has got SMU beat.

I don’t understand this meaningless debate. I’m a graduate student at SMU because they offered me a great opportunity to work with one of the best professors in my field and a great package. I come from a poor country, and I’m not rich. I know that I have the credentials to apply and be admitted to UT and other top institutions. In fact professors gave me interviews at UT and they lamented not having an specialty in my field. And even if I had the chance of studying at UT, I would still choose SMU. So there you go, not everything or everybody fit into your narrative.

Undergraduates (the one's interested in fraternities and sororities) that attend SMU and UT Austin are pretty different. SMU has higher percentage of students from private schools. UT undergrads are dominated by automatic admits (top 6% freshman applicants from Texas high schools). Getting very base here - "rich kids" dominate at SMU. But "rich kids" do not dominate UT Austin.

As far as connections go. Employers do not care if you were in a fraternity or sorority. And other than someone applying for their first job, I've never seen such affiliation on a resume for a professional position, though you must disclose such affiliation for federal employment requiring a security clearance.