What BYU needs to do is drop the $20k per student per year subsidy and put that money into the PEF. Then let students that need to apply for PEF loans. In fact, let LDS students going to Harvard (and anywhere else) apply for PEF loans.

Oh, and the only reason BYU will make it into the Pac 10 is so that the Pac 10 can get Utah as well. Like you say, it isn’t going to happen.

Clark, it’s a bit hard for me to figure out where you’re coming from on a couple of your points, and I really don’t know if we can characterize BYU admissions as a lottery–I’d be surprised–but the only point I specifically want to disagree on is shifting the focus to graduate education. Why would you expect that to help the education of the undergraduates? I suspect it would do the opposite. To help BYU’s reputation, a graduate program would have to be one of the 20 or so nationally that can plausibly think of themselves as top 10. If there is the possibility for such a program at BYU, it might be worth pursuing, but I don’t see right off hand where that would be.

If you want to raise BYU’s national ranking, hire more faculty, decrease class size, drop the course load to 3-2, and require more research for tenure and promotion. If you want to improve undergraduate teaching, omit the last step.

BYU does some things very well. For all the other things, people can always go to other universities. I’m not being scornful or condescending in saying that. I really mean to say that other universities have a LOT to offer. There’s no reason to think that BYU has to provide everything that LDS people would want.

Jonathan, BYU already has two nationally recognized graduate programs. Its MBA program and its accounting program. So it’s not as if it is completely ignoring it. But I think it undeniable that within the sciences and engineering departments undergraduate education would improve with better grad programs. That’s in part because it affects what resources are available to undergraduates. The includes materials in the library, labs, and most important providing some glimpse at how research works. It also would improve things by providing more research materials that would enable one to better attract professors.

So I don’t quite see the controversy over the advantage of grad schools. It wasn’t purely about reputation. I’d also note that having grad students teaching would help with class size.

Regarding the Church subsidy of the school, I’m open to decreasing subsidies and increasing scholarships, especially to people from low LDS areas. Although I wouldn’t want BYU to become the purview of the rich.

Good post. But the issue involves all Church owned higher education and extends well beyond Provo. There are two resonable courses of action. Either spin off or sell off the whole thing or expand the system to meet the needs of the 21st century church. I prefer the latter and see no reason we shouldn’t have 3 church schools on the west coast, another in Arizona, another in the midwest, south or east coast, one or two in Latin America, one in BC or Alberta, The Netherlands, Taiwan, etc. But, then again, the inaction on this subject is part of the reason we’ve lost most of a generation, and with a shrinking church, the present system may be fine.

I think the credit cap is one of the best decisions BYU did. Undergraduate work should NOT be an 8 year experience. Last I checked, the credit cap was 180, or 1 and half times the number needed to graduate. Most majors are in the 60 to 80 credit range (with some exception for engineering etc). So, you could get almost all the way done, change majors and still not be out of the cap.

I don’t think BYU has to provide everything that every LDS person could want. I think it only needs to provide things that can’t be met elsewhere, or can’t be met as well.

I didn’t go to BYU, but would love to have had the opportunity. The few times I visited there I went to the devotionals and it was always very good and something you can not get elsewhere (Not even BYU-I or BYU-H). I’d also say that BYU does have some graduate programs which do well, like their MBA program, or their Phylogenetics program.

I think BYU should (and I believe does) take into consideration whether someone serves a mission as part of the enrollment process.

As for UVSC, the sad fact seems to remain that teachers at UVSC are teachers who either couldn’t get a job at BYU or didn’t want to.

Also, while I loved my institute classes in Indiana, I don’t think you can honestly give an apples to apples comparison between a New Testament class by Richard Holzapfel and the retired farmer who volunteered to be a CES missionary.

It should be pointed out that BYU has put a great deal of effort (accompanied by a great deal of money) into increasing research opportunities for undergraduates–in many cases, research opportunities comparable to graduate student research at other institutions. (Anyone who gets fundraising appeals from the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences can confirm this.) In addition, being involved in research gives undergraduates interested in attending top graduate schools a significant advantage in the admissions process. This can perhaps be interpreted as BYU’s alternative to adding more graduate programs or to pouring resources into improving already-existing programs (imitating other schools, also trying to claw their way up the rankings).

What is this credit cap you keep speaking of? (Seriously.) I was at BYU back when they lowered the required credits to graduate to 120, and heard that, informally, you’d be pressured to graduate when you had too many credits, but myself graduated with 180 or 190 and never felt the pressure. Has some new policy been implemented?

Shrink it and spin it off–or at least the tithing subsidy.

Build up institutes of religion at selected universities–especially at public universities–so that an LDS youth can choose a nearby, subsidized, school with a critical mass of LDS students–and rotate the current religion faculty through those places.

Raise the tuition, and give loans. Have a generous loan forgiveness program for graduates who move away from the Mormon corridor.

Raising the tuition will get rid of the “overstay” problem. Who can afford to stick around at $25,000 a year?

Clark: what do you mean by “moved to a lottery for entry”? I am totally unfamiliar with that. I remember when Ricks did this for a couple years (the reason my wife-to-be did not get in, forcing her to move to Provo where she met me), but I have never heard of this at BYU.

I’m intrigued by your affirmative action for non-West LDS. I can see several reasons to support it: people growing up in Utah live the “BYU experience” from birth, so you’re not really making a big difference to them; Utahns could benefit from going to college outside Utah where they can experience different ideas/cultures; non-Utahns would benefit from feeling like they are really part of a community, rather than “that lone Mormon”; all parties would benefit from an increase in idea/culture exchange.

I second the motion to keep BYU primarily undergraduate. Students have tremendous opportunities to do research and publish that I think they would miss if you added more graduate students (and is something that BYU is recognized for, at least in NY where I am currently). You need a handful of graduate students to keep the research rolling, but keep the graduate:undergraduate ratio low.

In the spirit of the United Order, it would seem to me that the ability of parents to afford university tuition should play some part in the acceptance criteria. For example, parents who make $50k a year would receive an advantage in BYU admissions over parents who make $200k a year.

Mike, I have to state that I think your idea is horrible. How would you determine this? What is the basis for denying acceptance to those who are well off? and how does this support the united order? What about those individuals who recieve no parental support?

Charging additional tuition on a sliding scale also runs into these problems. And BYU is allready somewhat supported on a sliding scale through tithing.

I agree on keeping BYU a primarily undergraduate institution. I know that I had experiences doing research in political science I NEVER would have had at my first university. And while I am not a researcher now, these contributed to the valuable experience of my education way more that many of the classes I took. Doing research I felt like I was part of a university, not just High School Part II.

Also, dragging one’s feet in college is very costly , to the student and the university, so I think the Y is good in taking steps to hustle people through.

And BYU is already somewhat supported on a sliding scale through tithing.

Including, Jay S., by tithing from families who are not attending BYU, and who are themselves paying several times as much for education as those attending BYU. Talk about a regressive funding scheme!

I haven’t read all the comments–
But what is the big deal with people going to other schools? They do you know.
And I think hurrying them through is not so bad. They don’t kick them out if they are slow. (If I had gone to BYU–I am certain I would have been a slow one).

The salvation of BYU is religious scholasticism, after the manner of the much maligned Medievals, brought forward according to the truths revealed by the grace of God unto all nations between times. Save theology, the queen of the sciences, be a focus of everything done or said at BYU, the latter shall hardly be superior to any other, and we might as well close her doors, and bring the cottage meeting [1] in Provo to an end. Athens must be brought into communion with Jerusalem.

Otherwise there is no At-one-ment, and both Athens and Jerusalem will wither on the vine, as salt that has lost its savor [2], knowledge without understanding, good for nothing but to be trodden under foot of men [3]. As Joseph Smith said [4], a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge - knowledge of the Truth, which is of God - and incorporates it into his soul [5].

–
[1] Jeffrey R. Holland, “And if we can’t win that war–if Jerusalem really can’t find and fellowship Athens and seal her firmly into the family group sheet–then let’s stop holding all these cottage meetings in Provo.”, A School in Zion, BYU devotional, September 1988.
[2] Matt 5:13, 3 Ne 12:13.
[3] D&C 103:10, “For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.”
[4] Joseph Smith, April 10, 1842, DHC 4:588, TPJS p. 217.
[5] D&C 93:26-28

Footnotes in a comment. Wow. That’s pretty extreme.

Someone get this guy a plugin so that his scriptures will link up.

BYU needs to follow the example of Joseph Smith and bring back Men’s Wrestling. All else will follow.

Speaking from the perspective of a parent living in the mission field, I think it is important that BYU continue to provide a special educational environment for LDS students at an affordable cost. It is a scary thing for some of us parents to imagine having to send our kids to some of the intitutions of “higher learning” that exist today. So, from that perspective I see no reason for big changes as long as that continues to be one of the primary focuses of the university. I can’t really comment on some of Clark’s other suggestions, but he usually makes good ones.

Danithew,

I have been told more than once around these parts that footnotes in comments are appreciated more than in-line quotes, and that the result is more readable. Automated scripture reference linking like that which Mormons and Catholics has would be wonderful though.

Mark Butler, the Bruce R. personality appears to be seizing control of the mother ship, take corrective action…

Geoff B,

We’ve been over this before, but there are plenty of places that your kids could go and still choose to be faithful members of the church. Your alma mater happens to top my list… And I assume you know that there are ways of dealing with cost other than tithing subsidy.

Geoff,
Without some big changes, the odds are your kids won’t be going to a church owned school.

Just one note. Having a grad school wouldn’t imply that one stays at BYU for grad school. Indeed one could make that harder to do by how one plans acceptance. What it would do is offer an other alternative for people to get into BYU.

By “lottery” I simply meant that at a certain GPA and level of public service one gets in via the luck of the draw. Given how many are trying to get in this means it’s kind of a lottery.

I should add that I think BYU’s efforts to expand Rick’s (nee BYU Idaho) are helpful as well. Although I think they ought harmonize the rules between campuses. Realistically BYUI had some pretty overburdening rules IMO.

As for the view of “why have BYU at all if it is primarily just an other college.” I have to admit I felt that way for a time. I, and probably a lot of idealists at BYU imagined some hypothetical combination of an extreme liberal arts school mixed with the school of the prophets. I don’t really think that’s a good idea anymore. For several reasons. For one I think there is a deep danger of theological hubris. i.e. I’m well educated in theology therefore I know better than the rest. For a religion that seems to elevate community and practical service well above theology I just don’t think what is a de facto theological school is a good idea. I also think it would lead to the promulgation of speculative theology as dogma rather than learning based upon the range of reasonable interpretations of scripture and history.

The second part of that critique is that if we can’t have this “ideal BYU” we shouldn’t have it at all. Send everyone to regular colleges. I understand the reasons for that view. But I think that there is a place for a faithful campus with lots of Mormons. For those who come from communities where there were lots of Mormons that might be hard to understand. Having grown up the only Mormon in my rather largish school, I tend to disagree. There really was an awakening and a feeling of freedom when I came to BYU and didn’t have to “hide” my views even in academic discussions. One could critique how well BYU brought in religion or analyzed it academically. But at least they were doing it to some level which was vastly better than the other college I went to.

It’s easy to ridicule there being a place for socializing with other members. But I think we neglect just how important that socializing is. Yes there is UVSC, but it still has a long ways to go before it is on par with BYU academically.

Clark,

I believe speculative theology is strictly speaking an oxymoron. Kind of like creative spelling or irrational engineering.

BYU does not need to become a liberal arts only school. The Lord knows more about biology than all the world put together. The life of the body is the creation of his own hand, designed according to his own purpose. The key is simply to know how to ask the right questions, rather than conceding the war without a fight, like babes surrendering to the concert of the illiterate, not knowing the first principles of the nature of the body, nor why it was formed as it is, temporally and spiritually.

One might get far more profound insights into the first principles of biology just by reading the Old Testament in the original Hebrew than from science the world world over, for example, at least if one has a modicum of inspiration, or leans on someone who has. And that is to say nothing of the writings of Paul.

Of course, there is not a lot of point to doing that, unless one proceeds to demonstrate the truth of those things to the degree they can be demonstrated to the mortal mind. The mechanics of the spirit would be a good start. So would re-visiting relativity, and of course the second most neglected field at BYU: analytical philosophy and metaphysics, considered in the light of the Restored Gospel of course. May the spirit of SMPT be adopted by BYU as the spirit of FARMS before it.

I agree though that any serious university needs graduate programs in all of the theoretical (if not applied) sciences. No need for multi-billion dollar research laboratories - Abraham certainly didn’t have any, and if anyone at BYU knew a fraction of what Abraham comprehended it would be an extraordinary thing, and if they could explain the plausibility of it with academic rigor they would truly be a light unto the world, even the secular world.

Clark Goble: forgive me for being obtuse, but does that mean that given two applicants with the same public service, the one with a 4.0 GPA might not get in while the one with a 3.8 might be accepted due to a sort of lottery? I always thought BYU just took the best it could.

ARJ, I’m actually torn on the tithing subsidy issue. I can see both sides of that argument. And there are probably other schools where my kids would be OK. But I don’t think we should underestimate Clark’s point in #24. It is a very, very tough for kids to be raised in an area where they are the only Mormons at their schools. A place like BYU could be very liberating for them. But you have made valid points that places like Stanford with an active student ward can be very good as well (thank goodness it has changed since the hippie days!!!). And, rest assured, that at the end of the day it will be their choice, not mine.

Disclosure: I have never attended BYU in any capacity. Any authority (however miniscule) I may have to speak about comes through the experiences of my wife as an undergrad, graduate student, and teacher at the Y.

I support the idea the BYU should give some kind of preference to those that did not grow up in Utah. I say this not so much for the sake of all the kids who come from these minority-LDS areas who might want an authentic “majority” experience. Rather, I say it for the sake of all the people who grew up in Utah or other majority or high-density Mormon areas such as Idaho or Arizona who just need to get out and see something else.

I will never cease to gag on the various self-congragulatory comments that get thrown around about the “Lord’s University.” I think that we, as members of the Church in the 20th and 21st centuries, can appreciate the fact that Zion is not a single place, rather it is where the righteous congregate. Is BYU a part of Zion? Of course, no argument there. But there are plenty of other locations with large and healthy LDS scenes for singles and families. The Boston area, D.C., Stanford, and others, including my own prestigious private college in the Southeast, come to mind. I’ve heard of families who are consoled by fellow members of their ward(not by invitation of course) for the fact that one or more of their children has actively chosen to attend some school other than BYU, because now they would surely go inactive (not get married, not go on a mission, etc.). At my own school, parents of potential matriculators have vocally fretted about the chance that their child would go inactive. Part of this comes from an inflated sense on the part of Church members about how good BYU actually is. Another sad but true anecdote: When I was on my mission and told fellow elders where I went to school, they would almost always ask, “So is X as good as BYU?” And that is a result of the fact that many Church members are not informed about the many opportunities that exist outside of Utah Valley.

The Institute program is more than adequate to bring the right kind of spiritual focus to a secular education outside of BYU. Unfortunately, students outside of BYU are not treated on equal footing by CES as are those who attend BYU. For example, students at colleges outside of BYU, are not allowed, as of this school year, to take the Religions of the World institute class. What, those of us who actually live amongst these people who are something other than LDS aren’t able to handle hearing some other kind of doctrine? It is rank paternalism and it reeks even more of the fact that the BYU faculty in the department of religion has constituted themselves as “quasi-General Authorities.” BYU has become a separate center of gravity for doctrine-making and framing religious discussion in the Church. BYU religion professors are probably more read than General Authorities themselves when it comes to doctrinal works. If GAs have the upperhand in this category, it is only because of the fact that GA talks at General Conference are published in the Ensign twice a year. My wife’s experience in the department of religion has further confirmed that many of those teaching in the department are not formally trained in their field. They are qualified by testimony and too often, family ties.

I could go on about my indifference, bordering on dislike, of BYU sports, less because of the actual players or teams, then of the expectation that because I am Mormon I am obligated to cheer for the Cougars.

I don’t consider criticizing BYU a criticism of the Church. The Church has a number of peripheral programs, outside of its particular religious mission, that could be administrated better, and I don’t think there is any harm in saying that.

Adam L.,

I do not think it is possible for an individual to make true doctrine, generally speaking. He may discover it, uncover it, be thwarted by it, have it revealed to him by the Author, but he generally cannot create it. Any individual who attempts to make doctrine without due consideration of the Spirit is likely to find his efforts overthrown if not outright ridiculed, hated, and despised, in the process of time. Certainly history provides adequate example of that.

Mark, I think you misunderstand Adam’s comment. I have to agree with him, that the BYU Religion faculty *have* set themselves up as “doctrine makers.” Lately, they have shown no hesitation in recharacterizing Mormon doctrine. For example, just over a year ago, they came out with a cd called “What Da Vinci Didn’t Know.” The cd was intended, as you might guess from the title, to be an LDS response to *The Da Vinci Code*. The format was a roundtable discussion between BYU religion professors.

A substantial portion of the discussion centered on arguing AGAINST the long-established Mormon teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was married. They briefly acknowledged that many earlier Mormon prophets and apostles taught such, but said that it should be simply “taken as a reflection of their time and circumstances,” not to be believed. In fact, the discussion very nearly *ridiculed* earlier leaders’ statements. One of the speakers, intoning in his best “spiritual-sounding voice,” went on about how since “we don’t hear our beloved prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley teaching that in general conference,” we should not believe that Jesus was married. Another piped in, saying that it was wrong to believe Jesus was married, because “He doesn’t imitate us–We imitate Him!!”

Mind you, these men were doing their very best to sound like they were giving “THE” LDS position on the matter, when they were actually contradicting decades of repeated teaching that Jesus not only was married, but *had to be married*. I can’t help but conclude, from this discussion and other materials coming out of BYU, that the BYU Religion Department is really quite intent on “remaking” LDS doctrine in a way that makes it more palatable to mainstream “christianity.” So far, they have yet to be exposed for the traitors and cowards they are.

Nick L.,

I do not think the Church has a binding doctrine on the subject either way. Too many want to canonize any idea that ever came out of a leader’s mouth, regardless of the contrary evidence. That is an abomination for exactly the same reason that the extensive creeds of other denominations are abominations: the legislation of limited understanding.

There is hardly no more effective way to shut down the work of the Spirit. Mandatory least common denominatorism, that is. The idea that only persons in positions of authority can receive inspiration, guidance, and revelation as to general principles is one of the cardinal heresies in the Church - an idea contradicted many times over throughout the scriptures, and a first class impediment to the At-one-ment of the body of Christ. And by all accounts the presiding authorities in the Church think so too, or they would put an end to that which you decry.

Adam L. -

you say:
students at colleges outside of BYU, are not allowed, as of this school year, to take the Religions of the World institute class

That’s very odd, since the Institute here in Austin, Texas is teaching that class right now. Where do you get your information?

Brian J: (#26), yes, that’s my understanding of the current admittance policy.

Mark: (#25) One might get far more profound insights into the first principles of biology just by reading the Old Testament in the original Hebrew than from science the world world over, for example, at least if one has a modicum of inspiration, or leans on someone who has. And that is to say nothing of the writings of Paul.

I don’t think God will reveal significant insights of biology by reading the OT myself. That’s not to dispute inspiration. But I think that inspiration will largely come by faithful biologists who, in the midsts of secular studies have subtle gleans of insight from the Holy Ghost. I think that it would be horrible to teach biology from the OT.

Adam:(#28) The Institute program is more than adequate to bring the right kind of spiritual focus to a secular education outside of BYU. Unfortunately, students outside of BYU are not treated on equal footing by CES as are those who attend BYU.

I think the problem goes beyond unequal treatment by CES. Rather the problem is fundamentally that religion is taught byCES. I’ve been assured by some friends on campus that the situation is far better now than in the 90’s, but I was extremely unimpressed with CES based teachers at BYU. I think the folks with actual degrees in ANE studies or history were vastly superior. (i.e. many of the folks who write for FARMS)

This, to me, is one of the very, very big benefits of BYU. However realistically most of those who value BYU don’t value it for those reasons.

Nick: (#30), while I’m pretty critical of CES and their “doctrine creating” I think your example is actually the opposite. For way too long CES didn’t clearly distinguish between tradition, formal doctrine and GA thoughts. That they are doing so now, i.e. distinguishing history from doctrine, is to my mind an extremely positive not negative development. The fact is that there are lots of things in our history, such as the belief Jesus was married, that don’t clearly have a revelatory basis and certainly were never submitted to the Church as doctrine.

One can’t consistently reject racist speculations in the 19th century as just speculation while simultaneously say other non-canonized theories are doctrine. If one is going to adopt a hermeneutic towards historical traditions one hopefully ought be consistent.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m bothered by large discounting of 19th century Utah theology and even revisionist workings of Nauvoo theology. But I do think we have to distinguish these secondary sources from primary sources.

Additional comments

The restriction on that class may be a regional thing depending on the regional CES coordinators. I know because my wife is an institute teacher here and tried to get permission to teach that class but was denied. That is what she was told. We are now trying to get special permission through a petition to CES to teach that class.

As far as my comments about the BYU religion faculty being doctrine makers, I think that Nick got the gist of my comment. BYU faculty have no greater ecclesiatical authority to declare the true doctrine of the Church than do the professors at my university’s divinity school. They have the spirit of course (or at least I hope so) but its more the effect that the pervasive presence of their publication and the prestige (approaching reverence) that attaches to their position gives them some kind of de facto authority. To declare the doctrine of the Church is purely the portfolio of the First Presidency. Whether or not the faculty think that the doctrine they are making is authoritative is really beside the point, because thousands of members of the Church will grow up under the influence of the ideas that these people are promulgating. This stuff creeps into institute and seminary manuals and lines the shelves of LDS bookstores. But my point was meant to show that there are these people with no Priesthood endorsement who are putting ideas out into the LDS market which will be accepted as the truth by many, if not most, of those who read them. In many cases, such as that of the Da Vinci Code, there will be no officially declared doctrine on the subject, and if so, so much easier to fill the void.

This is to say nothing about what qualifications they may possess that allows them to wield this influence. I may have spoken too hastily about this in my previous post, because the situation is improving. The days when someone could get a Ph.D. or Masters in an unrelated field (Educational Psychology - Susan Easton Black, Professor of Church History and Doctrine is an example of the full-time faculty; don’t get me started about some of the part-timers that they stick with teaching BOM to freshmen) are numbered. Granted, some of the laxity in the requirements were due to a need for diversity in the department, which I am not opposed to. On the other hand, I think it sends the wrong message to women that you don’t need the same qualifications as men to teach the same stuff. The generational turnover in the faculty will hopefully bring some welcome change. The BYU faculty should be more willing and capable to engage in the production of regular, peer-reviewed scholarship with their colleagues at secular schools, attending conferences, etc. We don’t need them to make doctrine.

Dump football.

Seriously.

And anyone who thinks that the Brethren would hesitate to do that, if they saw fit, doesn’t remember that Ricks had the better football program. I’m just think that BYU should drop football now.

Clark,

I certainly would not suggest that biology be taught from a higher level understanding of the Old Testament alone. All that other “secular” stuff, beyond an insistence on hard core naturalism (denial of the Spirit, denial of free will) is good to one degree or another.

I am saying that the biology professors at BYU should actually consider the most basic theological and metaphysical principles when deriving their theories, and furthermore that the inspired among them might learn quite a bit about the nature of the body if they just read their scriptures.

The proper way to do science is to prepare to understand, then inquire as to the answer, and then once knowing the answer to set about to demonstrate it to others not so inspired. Much easier than wandering in the dark.

And by preparing to understand, I mean anticipating what the answer is, according to the light one has been blessed with already, which light is of God. Once one lays the appropriate foundation, and is righteous, the Lord is bound to enlighten him further. But methodological atheism is the end of enlightenment. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I’m graduating in December with 170-something credits. if i had superseded 180, then my pell-grant would have been dropped and i would have been charged graduate tuition. That’s the only cap they have–they don’t kick you out but they do give you an incentive to hurry up with it. Either way BYU has treated me very nicely.

While we’re at it, why drop football? I don’t know how many airplanes i’ve been on when i tell the guy sitting next to me that i’m from BYU and he says, “oh yeah, Steve Young” and then we end up talking about the church. Football is to many people the only thing they know about BYU. Additionally, football brings in money for BYU (not vice-versa).

BYU football is great. Plus it brings in a lot of donations and besides being great advertisement for BYU and the Church is also a key aspect of the college experience. (IMO) Ricks (nee BYUI) dropped the football team because they weren’t a div I school. It just wasn’t a significant part of the school the way it is at BYU. Although I do agree that I wish wrestling and men’s gymnastics were still at BYU. But that has more to do with funding equities between the sexes mandated by federal law.

Mark, I just don’t see any practical application of the OT to modern biology. Certainly faithful scientists benefit from reading the scriptures, but I just don’t see the connections you appear to be alluding to. But that’s neither here nor there.

Clark, I think you’re wrong on the admissions lottery. From the admissions FAQ (http://saas.byu.edu/depts/admissions/faq.aspx):

6. Is there a quota system at BYU?
Admission is not determined by any type of quota, nor are there geographical allocations. Nevertheless, the university does have to work within the realities of its established ceiling of 30,000 full-time day students, graduate and undergraduate. Ecclesiastical endorsements, academic and spiritual preparation, national test scores, essays, volunteer service, leadership, and talent all bear major weight in the admission decision.

18. Is a four-point GPA required for admission?
No, but good grades are important. The average GPA of students admitted to fall was 3.75. But it’s well to remember that the word average means midpoint–and that the high school grade point average is only one factor of many considered in the admission decision. Other important considerations include the ACT composite score and other subjective information provided in the application. Entering freshmen have been averaging about 27 on the ACT. We recommend a B+ high school GPA and an ACT score in the mid-20’s for serious consideration.

What this describes is a system for ranking applications by weighing various criteria. That means that a student with a 4.0 GPA but crummy ACT scores and other applications-relevant criteria can end up as a lower-ranked applicant than a student with a 3.8. It looks to me like the only time a lottery system would come into effect would be for equally-ranked students at the lowest level of admissibility competing for the remaining slots after all better-qualified (according to BYU’s criteria) students had been admitted. Throwing all qualified students into a pot and accepting them based on random draw would mean rejecting some students who were perfect for BYU in favor of others who were borderline acceptable, and that would be totally insane.

Jonathan, I don’t quite see the difference between what I said and what you said. The problem is that after one includes GPAs, SATs and so forth (i.e. academics) and then community service it’s a kind of lottery.

Clark, I think Jonathan may actually have a point, and this point is interesting from the perspective of a parent looking for his kids to attend (eventually, if they want to).

What you wrote was, “Rather than continuing to increase standards BYU more or less capped the entry requirement and moved to a lottery for entry.”

What this seemed to imply to me is, you put all candidates in a pot and pick out people at random. In #40, you said that the lottery may take place after some requirements are met. I can tell you how it works at Stanford, which is that the admissions department first throws out about three-quarters of the applications from people who don’t meet standard criteria based on GPA, ACT and SAT scores. And then with the remaining one-quarter, they go through one by one looking carefully at the applications considering GPA, ACT and SAT and community service and other factors. This is pretty standard procedure for selective universities. I would imagine BYU would have the same procedure, of course adding in the spiritual element.

I went to the BYU web page and found the following:

“6. Is there a quota system at BYU?
Answer: Admission is not determined by any type of quota, nor are there geographical allocations. Nevertheless, the university does have to work within the realities of its established ceiling of 30,000 full-time day students, graduate and undergraduate. Ecclesiastical endorsements, academic and spiritual preparation, national test scores, essays, volunteer service, leadership, and talent all bear major weight in the admission decision.”

I find it fascinating that “ecclesiastical endorsements” and “spiritual preparation” are among the first two factors mentioned. Do BYU students get endorsed by the bishop or stake president? What an interesting process.

To sum up, I don’t see any evidence that applying to BYU is a lottery, unless I am missing something. It seems like the process is pretty similar to applying to any selective school with the added dimension of Church involvement and endorsement.

I answered the question on ecclesiastical endorsements myself by visiting this page:

http://honorcode.byu.edu/Ecclesiastical_Endorsement.htm

Yes, it involves the bishop.

Nobody has mentioned the open-acceptance summer program at BYU, which is certainly a way to “extend the BYU experience” to many more students, by allowing students in good standing from other universities to transfer out to BYU for the summer with minimal paperwork. I’m not sure if this is still in place, but my older children went out in 1999 and 2000. These were kids who adamantly did not want to go to BYU, but were willing to try it for a summer. But I’m sure those who wanted to go to BYU and didn’t get accepted would also find it worthwhile.

For my daughter, her summer was amazing. She lived in the French house, and it was a profound experience. Volunteering at the MTC inspired her to serve a misison, and she is now a certified translator-interpretor and works in a field that uses her language skills.

One of our concerns was that she might be starving. I had a conference on the West Coast in May and had stopped by Utah and bought her some staples, but she did not ask for any food money the rest of the summer. The cost of the dorm included one group meal a day, and apparently she was not shy about offering to take leftovers. But the key was something I didn’t understand on my visit.

Yes, I saw bouquets of flowers all over the apartment, but I figured, six girls, lots of admirers. I did not think to ask whose they were, which a friend of mine did ask when she visited later in the summer. Turned out they were all my daughters, and the roomies were in amazement–”What does she DO to attract guys like that?” At the end of the summer, on the way home from the airport, she was talking about her various dating experiences, and I started to quantify it…and it turned out that she averaged 1.5 dates per day, for which the guys generally paid for food. Saved us money:)

The secret to my daughter is that she is very comfortable to be with and the spirit glows from within her…she’s also very interesting, a writer of poetry and into fantasy and gaming and stuff. And being from not-Utah, many found her fascinatingly different. At the time, both the guy she had a crush on and the friend she eventually married were on their missions, so she was not feeling any spouse-shopping pressure, but just having a good time.

My son’s experience was bitersweet. He had a great experience working as a counselor in one of the summer camp programs, and teaching in that field eventually became his career. But he also met his wife, a wonderful person. That fall, she came out to visit his school, and they tried to see about her transferring and what financial aid was possible. But in the end, BYU offered the better package for them. So he reluctantly had to give up the school he loved for the woman he loved, and they were married the following summer and he graduated from BYU.

But overall, the summer thing was positive for us, and I hope they are still doing it. And I think students and parents should keep that in mind as they weigh the options.

Adam L. -

Here’s a question: What qualifications does your wife have to teach a World Religions class? I know that the teachers here in Austin are required to have actual first hand experience with other religions, or something like that. Perhaps CES is reluctant to allow it to be taught in your area because no one there has actually studied with a Muslim or a Bhuddist?

Maybe your wife does have those qualifications, I don’t know. But I can see what CES might be more careful, since having a teacher whose only info comes from the BYU textbook could be a lot less than helpful.

Ivan,

How do you define experience or qualifications? Do you have to be a convert from one of the religions listed in the manual? (I have that.) What about being a missionary amongst people of these other religions? (My wife has that.) What about generally going to graduate school in a religious setting where the dominant faith influence is Protestant Christianity with a smattering of other non-Christian graduate students? (That one too) I think one of the interesting possibilities of teaching this class at “not-BYU” University in a minority-LDS setting is that you could actually get some people representing other religions to come to class and engage in a dialogue about similarities and differences. Think of it as missionary work or some kind of cross-pollination of ideas. If you tried that at BYU, the non-LDS people would be too busy with football practice.

I was a 19 year old convert of only six months when I went out to BYU from the Northeast for my college education. BYU was the best experience I could have hoped for to strengthen my testimony, give me a great undergraduate education and inspire me to serve a mission (which I did at the ripe old age of 22).

The church schools are very successful in doing what they are meant to do, that is, provide a strong secular education as well as a spiritual foundation that will carry you throughout your life. While there are many LDS raised in strong, pioneer-stock families that don’t necessarily need that foundation, there are over half of the church membership that are first generation members and definitely get a benefit from BYU, BYU-I, and BYU-Hawaii plus all the other educational institutions the church has around the world. Institute classed in small college towns are not the same (with slight exceptions for Boston, D.C., L.A. or S.F.).

I could not think of a better way to spend sacred tithing money than to make the BYU experience available to as many young men and women as possible.

It is my strong opinion (based upon my interpretation of the Brethren’s public statements) that the church is planning on opening another university in Nauvoo. Think about it. The Nauvoo temple is the only one located in such a rural location away from any significant population center. The church is not going to let it sit out there all alone without seeking to spur development of the town. It bought the old Catholic school and will most likely tear it down in 2007 (it is too expensive to get up to code). Fulfilling the dream of the original Nauvoo University would go hand in hand with the restoration of the Nauvoo Temple. It would be a perfect location, fill the pent-up demand for another school, AND ensure the town will have a sustainable economic structure to keep the temple area acceptable.

It just makes too much sense. Given how much a residential lot with temple frontage sells for in most of the US (especially the mountain west) now is the time to invest in Nauvoo real estate.

Don’t say you have not be warned!

I used to think that the experience of being in the majority was important for people who grew up in places where the church was relatively small. Seeing my children’s experiences makes me think that need for that experience is far from universal.

I have two daughters who graduated in the past 18 months from a small women’s college (Bryn Mawr) and a large university (McGill), neither of which (duh!) has more than a handful of Mormon students. And this after graduating from a high school where they were the only Mormon students (for the one year they overlapped there were two Mormons in the school). Having grown up in a small minority, they’re accustomed to speaking with others about their faith, and their roommates acquired a bit of Mormon vocabulary because they simply spoke normally, without apology, about their Church activities.

And if we’re concerned about social opportunities for the Mormon students, the establishment of “central” Institutes of Religion at selected campuses of public universities, or in cities with large numbers of colleges and universities (Boston and New York, for example) can provide both those social opportunities as well as religious instruction.

Adam L. -

You seem to have taken my questions and statements rather the wrong way. My guess would be that many CES teachers have little actual, in-depth experience with non-Christian religions (I did missionary work among Buddhists, but I doubt that qualifies me to teach about Buddhism).

I was merely asking a question. For all I knew, your wife has a Ph.D in Muslim and Buddhist studies. I was just trying to provide a possible rationale for what might be a new CES policy (if it even is a CES policy), not making attacks on you or your wife.

The professor at BYU who do teach the World Religions class have, in my experience (I’ve met three of them) a lot of varied and widespread experience with other religions (one, for example, actually spent several weeks living in a Buddhist wat/temple and learning about the Monks there).

My guess (and that’s all it is is a guess) is that CES doesn’t want teachers who don’t “get” the other religions and might accidentally, through no fault of their own, teach some rather damaging falsehoods. I cringe every time in church some teacher says “this is what Catholics/Muslims/Buddhists really believe” and I know it’s a patently false but rather widespread sterotype. I can only imagine what it would be like if it happened in a CES setting, where there’s (imagined or not) more “authority” behind the teachers.

Adn your snarky comments about non-LDS at BYU are not very helpful, nor do they help your ethos in this area. I took World Religions at BYU and there were quite a few non-LDS students not in football who took the class and presented in it (BYU even had a practicing Sikh teach the class a few times - he did write some of the sections in the BYU textbook for the class).

Mark (#47), I agree one can achieve some of this. However there really is a huge difference between BYU and what you describe. (Before I went to BYU I went to Dalhousie so I have experience with both) I’m definitely not saying everyone ought go to BYU. Far from it. But I do think it offers some unique experiences that are well worth maintaining.

Naismith (#43), I didn’t know about that summer program. That’s a great idea by BYU. However I suspect it would be more helpful for people like your daughter who are already kind of outgoing. For those who perhaps take a little longer to socially integrate something more might be in order.

Geoff (#41), I think it’s just a semantics point. I agree most universities have a bunch of criteria. So long as you are “good enough” beyond that it tends to be luck of the draw. So I think we’re saying the same thing. Perhaps my word choice was simply confusing people.

“While we’re at it, why drop football? I don’t know how many airplanes i’ve been on when i tell the guy sitting next to me that i’m from BYU and he says, “oh yeah, Steve Young” and then we end up talking about the church. Football is to many people the only thing they know about BYU. Additionally, football brings in money for BYU (not vice-versa).”

I’m not sure this benefit outweighs its obvious corollary: BYU football has gotten a lot of bad press lately that the everyday member has to find someway to explain. From an alleged rape (or racist rape allegation–you decide) to players complaining they’re being kicked out for loving their girlfriends after allegedly being lied to about the honor code, I find myself having to be an apologist for what’s happening to a football team I don’t follow in a city I never liked. And what do I say to the guy on the plane when it turns out I don’t follow BYU football anyway?

Clark,

I would very much have liked to have gone to BYU, and agree that it has many advantages, and is worth preserving. I am just saying that as of yet BYU does not take one of its primary missions as serious as the medieval scholastics, not even close.

Establishing capital intensive research labs of the sort they have at the U. or USU is not an effective use of the resources of what ought to be a religious institution. But there are a great many things that could be pursued with the resources they have now, that as far as I can tell are not even touched upon.

I very often get the impression that LDS scholars, including some from BYU, want to change Jerusalem in the image of Athens rather than the other way around. Of course there is much to be learned from Athens, but there is enormous corruption as well, and it takes some serious pondering to tell the difference.

BYU is not an institution to align the Church with the demands of the world, but rather persuade the world of the merits of the Church, which is organized after the manner of the kingdom of heaven, an order which shall be revealed and a glory which shall be manifest in the eyes of all the nations at His coming.

BYU should be the School of the Prophets, teaching things pertaining to nations, and kingdoms, and languages, and science with an eye to the gospel and theology of the kingdom of heaven, and how God’s will is manifest on earth, which is by no means magical or mystical, except to the degree that any sufficiently advanced technology cannot be distinguished from mysticism.

And all things spiritual are done by the most subtle technology ever developed. The first thing that should be obvious of course is that Einstein is only half right. If I were more mathematically adept, that is what I would research - the relation of the Spirit to relativity and quantum mechanics. Why do so many LDS scholars seemingly set their horizons so narrow? Why not find a fundamental issue like that and start digging, thus benefiting both science and theology?

About the summer program…”However I suspect it would be more helpful for people like your daughter who are already kind of outgoing.”

My daughter would fall down laughing if she was described as outgoing. She’s actually quite introverted. That was one reason why her roommates were so perplexed about what guys saw in her.

I do think that it helped that my young people that both had some “focus” beyond simply taking classes at BYU. For the one, the possibility of working at the camp was a draw; for the other, living in the rather unique environment of the language houses–which was fun for many reasons, e.g., at the laundry, she would meet kids from other languages, and found that her portuguese and latin was enough to help her understand Italian. The nightly dinners, social events, and required volunteer work provided more built-in social contacts than a more typical BYU experience, perhaps.

I wouldn’t count on it much for college credits that will transfer back–one took two religion classes–but in our case since they had great scholarships in their real university, the expense of that summer did not seem too outrageous to us, the goal was mostly to enjoy the BYU experience. And since someone claimed they had revelation that my daughter should marry them, I guess she really did:)