»
Topic: Barker helps us get Knemdiche
Replies: 82   Last Post: Jun 21, 2012 8:35 AM by: armsb
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 82  

Barker helps us get Knemdiche

[8]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:20 AM
 

For all the Barker haters please take note of this quote in the AJC article:

“He loves Coach Richt and Georgia did a good job recruiting him, but the campus was too big. There were just too many people there, the campus was too big.”

Barker is responsible for Clemson being the size it is. When I went to Clemson we were about the same size as UGA. Since then UGA has increased annually to the point is it twice the size of Clemson and feels at least 3 times as large.

Almost every President since RC (except Barker) has tried to grow Clemson to the size of Georgia. Barker has steadfastly refused to let that happen - and that has not been easy. It would have been much easier to allow a creeping enrollment to remove pressure on tuition increases and make the legislators that think Clemson is being too exclusive happy.


Re: Barker helps us get Knemdiche

[1]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:22 AM
 

what? Clemson had more students in 2011 Acad year than any other year in History.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


But not that much more


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:25 AM
 

yes, Clemson has grown a little bit but nowhere near UGA and nowhere near what other Presidents tried to do. Once of the first things Barker did when he was made President was to reduce enrollment.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2008/02/09/352736/clemson-keeps-lid-on-freshman.html


False. Here are the official numbers ....


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:10 PM
 

http://www.clemson.edu/oirweb1/fb/factbook/Historical%20Enrollment/Enrollment1893topresent.htm


And size will continue to increase


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:27 AM
 

New dorms coming soon http://media.clemson.edu/facilities/campus_planning/ae_selections/h12-tbd/pre-submittal.pdf


Re: And size will continue to increase

[1]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:11 PM
 

A lot of that is because we already are too big to handle our current freshman class. There continues to be a growing percentage of freshmen living in broom closets and other overflow housing.

The new building is also to allow for old dorms to be replaced/renovated. The Union/Johnstone dorms are in horrible shape, but we can't demo those until we have a place to house the freshmen while the new Union is being built. They also want to renovate Clemson House.


to my knowledge, 2009-2010


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:06 PM
 

was the only year there were students living in study rooms, etc.

Clemson's enrollment will never get huge until freshmen are allowed to live off campus though, so I think it's safe to say we won't get too big for our own good any time soon.


Because they kicked the upperclassmen out of Clemson House***


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 6:38 PM
 



2020 student level member

Sorry for the mispelling- Nkemdiche - I will get this right

[2]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:22 AM
 

eventually!


So, now I suppose "Size Does Matter" in recruiting.***

[1]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:24 AM
 

I guess it depends on how you use the size of your campus.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: So, now I suppose "Size Does Matter" in recruiting.***

[1]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:26 AM
 

It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean...

2020 student level member

CLemson has never

[2]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:26 AM
 

been the same size as UGA, unless you go back, maybe 5 years ago.


meant to say 75 yrs ago..***


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:27 AM
 




You are right.***


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:38 AM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpg

I think the statement was more in regards to


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 11:40 AM
 

the town of Clemson versus the town of Athens. Athens is huge compared to Clemson, way more bars and other ways to get in trouble.


This is what gets people on tnet in trouble --- assumptions***


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:14 PM
 




Assumptions based on logic and facts are far better than

[4]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:17 PM
 

lies and vitriolic *untruths* based in nothing.


Re: Barker helps us get Knemdiche


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:08 PM
 

Yeah...budget crunch means we have been growing yearly since my freshman year (2009). The thing that is good about it, though, is that we aren't lowering our standards for admission; our average SAT score coming in is also on the rise.


That is complete garbage. Clemson has grown vey slowly and

[5]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:09 PM
 

in fact, it's under Barker that Clemson has gotten this bloated.

Clemson is limited to how big it can get by geography and infrastructure. But not only that, I've never known or heard of anyone at Clemson that wanted CU to some huge UGa or USC.

Total Enrollment - Based on numbers given to the SC Higher Education Commission and pulled from Clemson.edu

1989 - 10 years prior to Barker becoming president - 16,072
1999 - Barker's 1st year as President - 16, 982
2011 - 19,914

For 10 years prior to Barker becoming president '89 to '99 Clemson grew by only 910 students.

From '99 to '11 under Barker's leadership Clemson grew from 16,982 to 19,913 or by 2,931 new students.

Avg. number of new students per year for 10 year period before Barker = +91/year

Avg. number of new students per year for Barker's tenure as president = +244.25/year

244.25/91 = 2.684

Under Barker, the growth rate of the CU student body has jumped by a factor of 2.86 which is almost 3x as fast as the 10 period prior to Barker.

So tell me again, how has Barker kept Clemson smaller?

http://www.clemson.edu/oirweb1/fb/factbook/Historical%20Enrollment/Enrollment1893topresent.htm


Re: That is complete garbage. Clemson has grown vey slowly and


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:13 PM
 

Well heck Caddy you finally came up with something worth while!!!!!! Congrats


I post facts and numbers all the time, but pumpers prefer


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:24 PM
 

to think winning a lousy ACC gets more national respect than winning OOC and in bowl games despite the polls proving otherwise. They think simply by wining a pathetic ACC we're significantly better when under TB we're 1 play away from winning the ACC several years. People want to believe we have made significant improvement under Dabo, which is factually incorrect.

I will say this, Dabo has learned from his mistakes and made coaching improvements and the administration is clearly more committed to winning now than when they promoted Dabo. We have had and squandered a lot of talent, but Dabo has continued the great recruiting that TB started. So we have plenty of talent, the admin is now supporting the program, and we have better coaches in place.

The table is set. Now it's time for Dabo to produce. The proof will be on the field, not the deluded minds of folks on TNET. If there is not significant improvement the next 2 seasons there will only be 1 place to put the blame - Dabo.


No you don't.

[1]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:25 PM
 

And even when you do post *facts and numbers* they're easily shot down with more relevant facts and numbers.

You need help Ned.


Re: I post facts and numbers all the time, but pumpers prefer

[1]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:26 PM
 

groundhog day

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: That is complete garbage. Clemson has grown vey slowly and


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:17 PM
 

I think the idea is to keep Clemson a 'smaller big school' like it is, but budget pressures are forcing us to increase the size of our classes in order to curb the increase in tuition as state funding continues to be cut off.

Yes, the plan is to increase in size slightly, but we aren't really losing much in terms of atmosphere or anything by growing the student population. If anything, it is great for the city of Clemson because there are 2k more people roaming around buying stuff.

I agree that Clemson shouldn't grow too much more, but I don't think the growth that has taken place has harmed us at all either. If I had to guess, I'd say Barker doesn't want our student population to go over 25k. He may even want to keep it closer to 20k.


That's reasonable, but that's off topic and not what the OP


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:27 PM
 

was about. The OP was patently false. No one has ever wanted CU to be UGa and the growth rate jumped under Barker, not decreased as the OP would have you believe.


Do you also have


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:17 PM
 

total enrollment for those years and how it compared to other schools, in size and area?

2020 white level member

Clemson


No, I simply Googled CU to point out that the premise of the


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:38 PM
 

OP was false. The OP said other presidents, those prior to Barker, were trying to make CU a much bigger school. The numbers prove that is completely false. Growth was stable through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, except for a big jump during a 6 or 7 year period in the late 80s and early 90s, but we reduced enrollment and had slow and stable growth for almost 10 years until Barker took over. Then we started growing by a factor of almost 3x - 91 more students/year to 255/year.

If you want those numbers I'm sure you can find them on Google.


No, I don't really care


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 2:28 PM
 

I'm just thinking that all colleges are probably taking more student due to more applicants, bigger facilities, etc. So I didn't know if there was an expansion in the southeast due to this.

2020 white level member

Clemson


Each college has its own agenda and mission. Clemson is not


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 2:35 PM
 

required to increase enrollment relative to state population. The changes at CU are completely driven by Barker. Only he can attest to his motivations.


Yeah, we need to get rid of all that BMW research chit.


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:50 PM
 

Who need a major in automotive engineering, anyway?

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Yeah, we need to get rid of all that BMW research chit.


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 1:16 PM
 

No one has said that


Do you think that the increasing rate of population growth


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:53 PM
 

has something to do with that?

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

No. You think the population growth was stable for 10 years


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 2:32 PM
 

then suddenly exploded when Barker became president?

Besides, there is nothing in our charter, mission, or state law that dictates student body size reflect state population.

Bottom line ... the OP wants to paint Barker in a pretty light, but the reality is, Barker almost tripled the growth rate after a very stable 10 year period. The OP was patently false. The truth was the exact opposite of the OP.

People flamed me like crazy when I said Barker was limiting our athletic success. That has now been proven completely accurate with the money now been given to assistants.


If the general population of the state expands


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 2:55 PM
 

and the student population does not, the percentage of students enrolling at Clemson declines and Clemson gets harder to get into.

If that happens, fewer people will enter Clemson that Thomas G. Clemson established the university for.

They'll be a larger uproar.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


I agree in theory but a large part of the growrth of SC is


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:00 PM
 

due to retirees and empty nesters. That being said, the number of high school graduates is increasing, with it applications to Clemson. This allows Clemson to be more selective without having to rely on out of state applicants. The problem is, they want a certain percentage of OOS students b/c of the higher tuition. If the state population continues to rise and we maintain the same level of OOS admissions, then a smaller percentage of SC high school graduates will get into Clemson.

There are two solutions ... increase total student body size or keep enrollment stable but decrease the percentage of OOS students. I think smaller is better, we're already too big. But decreasing OOS admissions cuts revenues.

Frankly I don't buy this money shortage crap. Inflation in general in every sector of the economy is down or grew at a snails pace compared to higher education. There is absolutely no excuse for the skyrocketing increases in the costs of higher education the past 30 years. Where in gods name has all that money gone? Something stinks.

The only reason costs have skyrocketed is because colleges could push prices higher due to ever increasing government guaranteed funding via guaranteed student loans.

Econ 101, Inflation is tied to the money supply. If the money supply dramatically increases value will drop and inflation will skyrocket. The first big bubble was the tech stock bubble, the second was real estate, the third is higher education. All three sectors saw dramatic jumps in inflation due to low interest rates and a huge supply of liquidity.

Every study done has proved a direct correlation in college tuition inflation with increases in government student loan funding.

The government pushed home ownership by increasing the money while lowering the qualifications. Housing prices skyrocketed.

Government has been pushing college education increasingly since the 70s, but not everyone is college material. College degrees in many fields are now worthless and unemployment and underemployment for people with college degrees are at an all time high.

If 20 to 30% of the kids since the late 70s that received 4 year college degrees had instead learned a trade or skill our economy would be robust, unemployment low, and college tuition significantly lower.

Government interference and social engineering by way of pushing home ownership and college degrees, by way of cheap easy money is destroying this country.


Message was edited by: Lowcountry_Raconteur®



Re: No. You think the population growth was stable for 10 years


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 2:58 PM
 

People flamed me like crazy when I said Barker was limiting our athletic success. That has now been proven completely accurate with the money now been given to assistants.

So we don't have two of the highest paid assistant football coaches in the country?

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


Yes but we all know CU hired Dabo b/c he was cheap. B/c


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:10 PM
 

Barker was not supporting athletics. In steps Wilkins and a renewed emphasis on winning and suddenly there is an open checkbook. After the losing season in 2010, Wilkins, others on the BOT, and some wealthy donors said enough is enough.

I guarantee you, had we had this attitude at the top 3.5 years ago there would have been a real coaching search and Dabo would not be in Clemson now, unless as recruiting coordinator.


Two questions


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 2:23 PM
 

How much of the student population was in graduate school enrollment?

The state of SC's population increased 15.3% between 2000 and 2010.
How does Clemson's enrollment compare to that increase?

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


The link I provided breaks the numbers out by undergrad


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 3:33 PM
 

and grad school.

Clemson has no mandate to increase enrollment relative to state population. That is irrelevant.

According to the US Gov't census numbers, SC grew 15.1% from 1990 to 2000. If your numbers are correct, then the growth rate of SC from 1990 to 2010 was stable at 15%.

Therefore the enrollment growing from +91/yr. from '89 to '99 jumping to +255/yr. starting in '99 is primarily due to changes in undergraduate admissions under Barker.

In 1982 our grad school enrollment was 1,943. That jumped to a peak in 1992 of 4,361. Enrollment in 2011 was 4,217.

Therefore, at its peak in 1992, grad school enrollment was 24.7%. In 2011, that figure dropped to 21.2%. When Barker became president in 1999, grad school enrollment was 20.35% of total enrollment.

Undergraduate enrollment in 1999 was 13,526 with total enrollment of 16,982 or 79.65%.

Undergraduate enrollment in 2011 was 15,697 with total enrollment of 19,914 or 78.82%.

The relationship between undergrad & grad school enrollment has been very stable. Grad school enrollment actually declined many years as total enrollment continued to climb.

The growth in total student body from 1999 to 2011 was 2,932 or 14.7%. which is very similar to the population growth of SC over that period, but as I've already established, we were only averaging +91 from 1989 to 1999, but starting with Barker in 1999 that jumped to +255 or a growth rate almost 3x faster while population growth was stable the entire period.

Thus, state population nor grad school are factors. The real change was in undergraduate admissions under Barker.



http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf

http://www.clemson.edu/oirweb1/fb/factbook/Historical%20Enrollment/Enrollment1893topresent.htm


President Barker has also stated that enrollment increases


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 3:41 PM
 

to some extent are based on the need to fund the university through tuition and fees when the state funding to the university declined in the recent recession.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


Maybe but this whole cost of education thing is a scam. Look


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:25 PM
 

at private schools. They get no state funding, no tax money, there is no need for them to increase tuition but they do. If other schools increase tuition they see it as an opportunity to gouge students. And there is a false perception that the more you pay the better the education. Most will known private schools have foundations worth billions. They could easily drop tuition by half and not feel it. They are simply lining the mattress with money.

A foundation is suppose to provide money in emergencies or help fund projects and help keep tuition down. Yet all they do is horde money and keep pushing tuition higher, and the main reason they can do it is because the federal government is virtually giving the money out like candy and its increasing our debt federal debt, leading to too many kids going to college getting worthless degrees, pushing under and unemployment higher, pushing higher education costs higher and higher, straddling kids with insurmountable debt, destroying their credit, and destroying our economy.

Yet liberal social engineers like Obama want MORE money for education and student loans and he uses it to lobby for votes. Obama and Barney Frank were the main ones pushing Fannie and Freddie to loan more and lower standards to help more folks be able to own houses.

Liberal social engineering via free/cheap money is going to destroy this country. The more government touches the more it screws up and we pay for it in a lot of bad ways.


Re: That is complete garbage. Clemson has grown vey slowly and


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 6:06 PM
 

You don't like people blasting your opinion, but you constantly call others idiots, Mormons, stupid opinion or in this case garbage. Hey. Hypocrite you're not always right like you think you are. Actually according to most your opinion is the stupid one

military_donation.jpg

Re: Barker helps us get Knemdiche


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:11 PM
 

How many presidents has Clemson had since RC ?

Plus it was a heck of alot easier for instate students to get in vs now!!!!! And that is just not RIGHT


Re: Barker helps us get Knemdiche


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:24 PM
 

I think it's perfectly fine that Clemson is hard to get into; it should be. Clemson wants to be a top 20 school. Just like in football, "it all starts with recruiting;" both on the faculty side and the student side.

It's a very very good thing that the Clemson diploma is going up in value. I don't have my diploma yet, but when I graduate next year, my diploma is going to hold a lot more clout with employers than a diploma from South Carolina.

The problem is with the k-12 education in SC, not with the increasing competitiveness of Clemson admission.


Re: Barker helps us get Knemdiche


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:34 PM
 

Clemson is a land grant school!!!!!

In-state first- A Clemson diploma has always held alot of clout.

When I say it's harder to get into I mean Instate

You take a kid from SC with the same score as out of state who do you think they will take??? That's not right and that is not why Clemson was founded


$$$$$$$***


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:55 PM
 



2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: $$$$$$$***


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 1:15 PM
 

Yep that is my point


Re: Barker helps us get Knemdiche


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:35 PM
 

Heck if Barker had his way he would do away with the AG program all together


Wrong, Barker wants CU to be a top 20 school. Clemson

[2]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:43 PM
 

under Barker has become more elitist and is not sticking to its mission or the intent of it's founders.

Talk to anyone that went to Clemson before the late 80s and they will tell you Clemson has lost its way, that Clemson has changed tremendously, and not in a good way.


Re: Wrong, Barker wants CU to be a top 20 school. Clemson


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:45 PM
 

Dang that's 2 in the same thread

You are correct


Re: Wrong, Barker wants CU to be a top 20 school. Clemson


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 3:44 PM
 

So you want to restrict enrollment but allow in students with lower academic qualifications although the general population has increased?

Not possible.

Actually the Bridge Program is an attempt at just that.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


We should limit enrollment but let in far less OOS students


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:30 PM
 

and focus on SC kids. The money thing is a red herring and another government created debacle.


Re: We should limit enrollment but let in far less OOS students


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:41 PM
 

Clemson loses money on in-state students and makes it up with out of state tuition.

I agree that more in state students would probably be better, but it won't happen. More in state students would require raising in state tuition and making Clemson more elitist.

By the way, I have enjoyed our debate on this. We won't agree, but it has been civil.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


College tution is up because of cheap governmennt money


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:06 PM
 

over the past 30 years. In many sectors of the economy there has been deflation. Technology, overseas labor, increased competition, and other factors have done wonders for America, but social engineering by government, by pushing kids to go to college that should not, and by giving out government loans like candy, has cause terrible harm to our economy and caused outrageous inflation in higher education. Had it not been for all the guaranteed student loans college tuition would still be very reasonable.

http://www.chistocks.com/the-student-loan-bubble-is-the-next-subprime.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sherylnancenash/2012/05/17/is-higher-education-a-giant-pyramid-scheme/

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2012/04/30/u-s-mortgage-lessons-lost-in-student-debt-policy/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/student_loans/index.html


Message was edited by: Lowcountry_Raconteur®


Re: We should limit enrollment but let in far less OOS students


Posted: Jun 21, 2012 8:35 AM
 

USC has taken our place with instate students and that's sad. No wonder the student sections are half empty.

Clemson was founded for SC students it's call land grant.

How does Clemson lose money on in state? Not buying that if that was true they would have shut the doors years ago


Clemson is the perfect size....


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:24 PM
 

and that is one reason the kids like it. I talked to a UGA Grad recently and he said he never really felt at home there... impersonal, institutional.....

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Clemson was the right size in the mid to late 80s. It's too

[1]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:46 PM
 

big now. It has grown bigger than campus and town infrastructure can comfortably handle.


So you post that enrollment is up by roughly 3,000 students

[2]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:57 PM
 

and that's too big?

As a current student I don't feel that the campus and/or student body size is too large.

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Clemson had a negative growth from 1991 to 2002, Barker...

[1]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 1:48 PM
 

arrived in April of 2000. He did continue the no growth policy for 2 more years. The stats indicate it. In fact, I remember when my boys applied in 2002 and 2004 that the Admissions office mentioned that they were holding the freshmen class to 2,800 students to keep the class sizes small and increase the quality of the student education.

Clemson then grew slowly for the next 3 years until the Great Recession seriously impacted Clemson's ability to meet a budget. Do any of you remember the cuts that the S.C. legislature made in 2008/2009? Clemson had to grow to survive. More students means more revenue with a very small increase in overhead since they let class sizes grow and didn't add a lot of professors.


Thanks for adding some common sense to the argument here.


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 2:23 PM
 

And I suspect that some of this “terrible” growth under Barker is accounted for with the new campuses in the Greenville area. If research initiatives (like CUICAR) are increasing our size, I think that’s a wonderful thing.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Off campus enrollment is minimal. It's not driving much of


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:09 PM
 

the growth. And how can you say my comments aren't rational, I'm posting the precise numbers from CU off CU.edu and provided the link.


Re: Off campus enrollment is minimal. It's not driving much of


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:15 PM
 

Off campus enrolling/housing is fueling the growth.

The number of dorm rooms has not changed near to the proportion of the student increase.

We have added Calhoun Courts and Lightsey Bridge, but the demolition of the Cans and building of Honors Dorms actually decreased dorm rooms on West Campus.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


no no no i'm talking about off campus enrollment, programs


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:19 PM
 

in other locations. read the post i was responding to.

i already wrote about how off campus housing is increasing when i responded to someone in school now acting like a 3,000 student increase over 10 years was no big deal, when in fact it has a huge impact on the town and the area.


I’m not saying your comments are irrational...


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:18 PM
 

I’m just disagreeing with them.

There may be some negative consequences of increased enrollment, but I happen to think that, on net, it’s been a positive thing and that the quality of the university is growing.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

when did you graduate? when did you first go to clemson and


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:22 PM
 

attend games, etc?


Re: when did you graduate? when did you first go to clemson and


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:28 PM
 

Graduated in 89, first enrolled in 83... don’t do the math there ;)

My first Clemson game was in 80.

Look, I understand what you are saying. Not all change is good, but it’s a fact of life – whether a college campus or a small town. In the case of Clemson, I like most of the change I’ve seen and pound of the academic reputation it has now.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

*proud [not pound] of the academic reputation...***


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:29 PM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpg

It always had a great reputation. Barker has not done one


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 6:04 PM
 

thing to increase the quality or value of a clemson education, all he has done is improve our ranking in the us news poll. As one college administrator said at the conference when it was revealed what we did to move up in the polls, "you already had a perfectly good institution before".


Not true. Enrollment was stable for years before Barker and


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:52 PM
 

in fluctuated, but the differences you are talking about were largely due to decreases in grad school enrollment, not undergrad, which has a far greater impact. You're playing with the numbers.

Undergrad enrollment increased from 91 to 92 then slightly dropped and leveled off with minor yearly fluctuations then started climbing again in 1999 for several years with another leveling off period before growth started again in 2005.


B/c as a current student you can't see the negative impact


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:39 PM
 

increased enrollment has had. 3,000 doesn't sound like a lot but when you realize how many more houses, apartments, cars, etc. it takes to house and move those people around town you then realize what a huge impact it has on a town as small as Clemson. Older alumni see the way it has changed Clemson and it hasn't been positive.


Speak for yourself


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:56 PM
 

I’m an older alumni (89) and I really don’t see all these negative impacts of increased enrollment you are talking about. Every time I come back to Clemson, it gets more and more beautiful.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

lol that's called nostalgia and yea they have made some


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:16 PM
 

things look prettier, as has the town, but that doesn't make for a better student experience or make Clemson a better place. I graduated in 88, but was going to games and football camp in the 70s. Clemson has changed, and not for the better, and IMO and many many others that knew it in the 70s and early to mid 80s agree. I know you can't stop progress, but we are losing a lot of our culture and family atmosphere. Clemson is not nearly the "close family" it once was. And that's a shame.


And I’m not sure why you automatically discount the opinion


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 6:25 PM
 

of a current student. True, he can’t compare the student experience to that of students back in the 80’s, but neither can we. We can compare game day experiences and the campus in general, but why not listen to what currents students have to say about their experience?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Deer cu1981fans.......

[4]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 12:55 PM
 

In the future, please expect any complimentary observation about Jim Barker (his honorary Ph.d can correctly and appropriately be used if you'd prefer to call him Dr. Barker--and if you don't believe me blue_coot, look it up #####) to be blindly and psychopathically attacked by the big bad lurker blue_cootie. Just anticipate it.

Your point, that Clemson has not grown nearly as fast or as large as surrounding Div1 public universities even though Clemson has increased its student population ever so slightly in comparison to UGa, usuck, unc, NCSt, UTenn---is valid. Yet during all this, Clemson has risen to the periphery of the goal of being a Top20 public university---and lets face it, academics is the business Clemson University is in.

Clemson has managed to make significant academic strides without near the budgets of all those surrounding schools--and has really forged its future via technological partnerships with the corporate world. Despite blue_cooties juvenile hard-on for Barker (I mean, he is a chicken after all), its obvious Clemson's International Center for Automotive Research is and will be a gargantuan feather in the university's research reputation.

And on the day last week when Clemson announced plans for a new Educational Center in N.Charleston which will partner with private industry to further create highly-qualified professionals (and be located close-by Clemson's Wind Turbine Drive Research Center), usuck announced the opening of a university tee-shirt store in downtown Charleston.


Message was edited by: tigrjm76®


2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg


Thank you - I am sick of people wanting to diminish

[3]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:06 PM
 

what good people have done for Clemson, whether it be Barker or Dabo.

I honestly don't think you can "get it" much more than I do.

* I grew up in Clemson from the time I was 2 years old
* I graduated from Clemson
* I have two children that graduated from Clemson
* I live near Columbia and despise USuC with every fiber of my being

I have seen every President and Football coach from RC Edwards to Barker and Frank Howard to Dabo.

I have not agreed with everything Barker and Dabo have done but I know this, BOTH have Clemson's best interests at heart and BOTH when their time comes will leave Clemson University better than they found it.

If you don't believe that you should find yourself another school to support.


You have no idea if they have Clemson's best interests at


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:45 PM
 

heart. They have their own agendas and Clemson is the vehicle to achieve those goals and promote that agenda. Dabo promoting Napier was for Dabo's benefit, not Clemson. You have no idea who these people are and what they think and why they think it. You hope they act with Clemson's best interests at heart, but there are things you can point at and easily question the motives.


You are blowing smoke. You are simply kissing the OPs read


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:35 PM
 

end and insulting me b/c you don't like me. The facts are Clemson was not growing like crazy before Barker, in fact, it was growing slowly. The biggest increase in size over the past 30 years has been under Barker.

No president at CU has ever wanted to be UGa or grow like UGa. And I was at Clemson 84-88 and partied in Athens numerous times and UGa and Athens were much larger than Clemson back in the mid 80s.


And FWIW I was not writing to put Barker down, but to 1 ..


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 5:40 PM
 

correct what was posted, and 2, good god, every day I read nonsense on TNET giving Barker and Dabo credit for things they didn't do or were not responsible for. Dumpers might spend less time arguing with pumpers if pumpers stopped grasping at straws and being so desperate to constantly find reasons to pump Dabo and Barker. If Dabo and Barker were so great they wouldn't need such silly support and tactics because their records would shine for them.


Facts and Figures for Lowcountry, etc

[2]
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 4:06 PM
 

Go to Clemson's website:

http://www.clemson.edu/oirweb1/fb/factbook/Historical%20Enrollment/Enrollment1893topresent.htm

Here are the results. This doesn't even calculate compound growth, which would make the differences even much greater (make Barker look even better):
President Beg End # years Growth Avg. AnnualGrowth
Lennon 10,360 12,290 8 18.63% 2.33%
Prince 12,290 12,542 1 2.05% 2.05%
Curris 12,542 13,526 4 7.85% 1.96%
Barker 13,526 15,697 12 16.05% 1.34%

I sure hope none of you naysayers majored in Finance or Math - you should know you need to factor in the time period.


As usual Lowcountry just wants to be negative


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 6:51 PM
 

You assert my #s were wrong so I gave you the facts.
You don't like the facts do you change the subject.
PLEASE find another team to "pull" for. It must suck to be you.


Are you sure? I don't think UGA & Clemson were ever the


Posted: Jun 20, 2012 8:55 PM
 

same size. Even way back when Malliciah and Hay-Seus had the pet dinosaurs.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

I would advise young guys nowadays to marry anti-vaxxers... only 5 years of child support vs 18.


They weren't when I was at CU in the mid-80s but not only


Posted: Jun 21, 2012 12:23 AM
 

that, his whole thesis is incredibly flawed. No CU president has ever wanted Clemson to be Georgia and our growth has been slow and stable with periods of no growth for over 30 years regardless of who was president. You can't even compare CU and UGa. Georgia grew for the same reason USC did, they're the main state school.


No correlation


Posted: Jun 21, 2012 8:33 AM
 

Sorry, Barker gets very little/no credit for landing recruits.

I have read a few of the posts in this thread and it strikes me as odd that we are arguing "size" vs. "elite". The number of students applying to Clemson today (much greater than 10 years ago) makes it very difficult to remain small without becoming somewhat "elite" (at least in comparison to years past). I'm not saying I agree with all admissions policies (I don't...my kids will have a much tougher time than I did!), but keeping our size "small" is a very difficult task while also providing an education opportunity for SC students.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg2005_cws_champ.jpg

Replies: 82  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: Two for sale lower south sec:H row:II seats 13,15(about 18 yard line) about 10 steps below the porta...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
4793 people have read this post