307-Acres Near NRG Stadium (Formerly UT Research Campus Proposal)

[KinkaidAlum]

UT is currently adding 40,000 square feet and two additional floors to their building on Fannin right now. Also, the largest (unless you are talking system) is A&M.

[H-Town Man]

58 minutes ago, KinkaidAlum said:

UT is currently adding 40,000 square feet and two additional floors to their building on Fannin right now. Also, the largest (unless you are talking system) is A&M.

 

That would be adding to an existing project, not starting a project. Clearly the system, since any project in Houston would not be part of their Austin school.

 

[Trae]

On 12/3/2018 at 8:05 AM, H-Town Man said:

The state's largest and wealthiest university will think twice before they try to start a project in Houston again, amirite?!

 

 

Yeah this will go down as an all time stupid decision by Houston leaders. And I'm a UH grad and would have liked having this school there. The difference between a UT-Houston vs a UTEP, UT-Tyler, etc., is that this would be in Houston, an international city with a top 8 population and economy in America. Houston is nothing like those other small cities with a UT campus. Look at where UT-Dallas is now versus 10-15 years ago. It's attracting high numbers of National Merit Scholars and the school's rankings have really improved. That's what a UT-Houston could have become. Houston is way too big to have just one large public university and A&M is too far to count as a legit second. DFW having three large public universities within it's metro is starting to really benefit it now and will help in the future. UT-Arlington and UNT may not be that high of ranked schools but they're higher than before. They've helped improve the cities they are located in (Arlington and Denton) because of services (often free) to the local community and have spurred development around them (UT-Dallas has too).

 

Houston has one of the highest birth rates of top ten metros in America and we're not going to be able to squeeze all of those kids into UH if they want to stay home. I hope somehow this can still happen even if it's somewhere else in the city. If not then hopefully A&M or Texas Tech opens up a public 4-year campus within Harris County.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Trae

[shasta]

7 hours ago, Trae said:

 

Yeah this will go down as an all time stupid decision by Houston leaders. And I'm a UH grad and would have liked having this school there. The difference between a UT-Houston vs a UTEP, UT-Tyler, etc., is that this would be in Houston, an international city with a top 8 population and economy in America. Houston is nothing like those other small cities with a UT campus. Look at where UT-Dallas is now versus 10-15 years ago. It's attracting high numbers of National Merit Scholars and the school's rankings have really improved. That's what a UT-Houston could have become. Houston is way too big to have just one large public university and A&M is too far to count as a legit second. DFW having three large public universities within it's metro is starting to really benefit it now and will help in the future. UT-Arlington and UNT may not be that high of ranked schools but they're higher than before. They've helped improve the cities they are located in (Arlington and Denton) because of services (often free) to the local community and have spurred development around them (UT-Dallas has too).

 

Houston has one of the highest birth rates of top ten metros in America and we're not going to be able to squeeze all of those kids into UH if they want to stay home. I hope somehow this can still happen even if it's somewhere else in the city. If not then hopefully A&M or Texas Tech opens up a public 4-year campus within Harris County.

 

Trrae, this is bigger issue that just not allowing a UT-Houston,  it revolves around HOW the State of Texas funds ITS public schools. Read up on the PUF (Permanent University Fund) and how the ONLY Public schools that have access to the HUGE pot of money is the UT system and TAMU system. Even among those two UT gets more of the share. Its written into the Texas State Constitution.

 

All other STATE schools were not allowed to get a penny from this fund...that includes UH, Texas Tech, Sam Houston, Texas State, North Texas, etc. so each year these schools would essentially beg for THEIR state to fund THEIR state schools. Eventually the state did create a secondary pot but that is a much smaller pot is divided among all the non- UT/TAMU system public schools in the state.

 

So, you can imagine UH's position....when a nearly hundred year old state school in the state of Texas that has to BEG for state funding each year found out that Texas was going to build a new campus for UH with the excess funds from a pot that the other state schools do not have access to ..they just had to put their foot down.

 

As for the State of Texas, there is ZERO reasons why the university of Houston should not be as prestigious as say a UCLA......this is a State government issue

 

This whole issue revolves around how the state of Texas manages their public institutions of higher learning. They CHOSE not to have a collaborative system as say the UC system in California....that was their decision. It was also their decision to leave certain institutions to fend for themselves instead of helping to build them up into the premiere State system in the United States... This a state issue..not a city Houston issue....

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 12, 2019 by Timoric

[kbates2]

55 minutes ago, Timoric said:

Better to get the dollars, buildings, or whatever it is that makes things better than to complain that life is not fair. The ultimate good is for the City of Houston and I think most Coogs like me want Houston to do good and not just feel good stopping UT from doing good because we don't like that they are so well off (for example they have not one but three Gutenberg Bibles)

 

But the problem is if something makes things better at the cost of making something else worse.  UH cannot compete with UT due to an inequity in funding.  By putting a second university that close to UH, there would be a natural competition for students, professors, research grants, etc.  As UT is given so much more money due to the state's unequal funding, the UT branch would inevitably win the majority of those battles.  As UH vies to improve itself for the benefit of Houstonians, allowing another state funded public university directly into its backyard would effectively dilute the quality of those same students and professors.  

 

I love Houston and I also love UH.  I don't care to stop UT from doing good, I care to boost UH as a university for the benefit of Houston and welcome competition if that competition is on a level playing field.

[H-Town Man]

20 minutes ago, kbates2 said:

 

But the problem is if something makes things better at the cost of making something else worse.  UH cannot compete with UT due to an inequity in funding.  By putting a second university that close to UH, there would be a natural competition for students, professors, research grants, etc.  As UT is given so much more money due to the state's unequal funding, the UT branch would inevitably win the majority of those battles.  As UH vies to improve itself for the benefit of Houstonians, allowing another state funded public university directly into its backyard would effectively dilute the quality of those same students and professors.  

 

I love Houston and I also love UH.  I don't care to stop UT from doing good, I care to boost UH as a university for the benefit of Houston and welcome competition if that competition is on a level playing field.

 

I would agree if it came to the possibility of this being a full campus. But that was never likely what it was going to be (the land area was too small, among other reasons), and it shouldn't have been too difficult to get them to pledge that it wasn't going to be for that. It turned out the plan was for a data center. This was more about chasing away the UT brand and its footprint in Houston, which basically means chasing away UT money and its impact on Houston.

 

It also means we lose a rare chance to diversify our workforce and become a little more attractive to non-oil companies. Dallas owns the region on corporate relocations; they just pulled in McKesson last week, #6 on the Fortune 500. Not very big news up there though since it's only their third company in the Fortune top 10. 

 

[Trae]

6 hours ago, shasta said:

 

Trrae, this is bigger issue that just not allowing a UT-Houston,  it revolves around HOW the State of Texas funds ITS public schools. Read up on the PUF (Permanent University Fund) and how the ONLY Public schools that have access to the HUGE pot of money is the UT system and TAMU system. Even among those two UT gets more of the share. Its written into the Texas State Constitution.

 

All other STATE schools were not allowed to get a penny from this fund...that includes UH, Texas Tech, Sam Houston, Texas State, North Texas, etc. so each year these schools would essentially beg for THEIR state to fund THEIR state schools. Eventually the state did create a secondary pot but that is a much smaller pot is divided among all the non- UT/TAMU system public schools in the state.

 

So, you can imagine UH's position....when a nearly hundred year old state school in the state of Texas that has to BEG for state funding each year found out that Texas was going to build a new campus for UH with the excess funds from a pot that the other state schools do not have access to ..they just had to put their foot down.

 

As for the State of Texas, there is ZERO reasons why the university of Houston should not be as prestigious as say a UCLA......this is a State government issue

 

This whole issue revolves around how the state of Texas manages their public institutions of higher learning. They CHOSE not to have a collaborative system as say the UC system in California....that was their decision. It was also their decision to leave certain institutions to fend for themselves instead of helping to build them up into the premiere State system in the United States... This a state issue..not a city Houston issue....

 

I hear you but this is still a short-sighted position in my opinion. Yeah it's unfair that UT/A&M get most of the funds, but you let the school come first. The finances and how money is distributed across all state public universities can be decided on and worked out later. That will happen with or without UT putting a school in the middle of Houston. Let that money flow into the city. Instead that money will continue flowing to DFW, Austin, SA, etc., while Houston will be left behind. Other metros of similar size have multiple public universities that are gearing those cities towards the future economy. UH at worst would have remained the same with a UT-Houston coming on. With all the history UH has in this region, do you think it would have become a Paul Quinn College? I think having just one large university in such a fast growing metro area is not going to work. Trying to make UH into the one super college campus in Houston is going to be similar to Houston gobbling up so much unincorporated area. You're going to stretch things thin instead of sectioning off and letting different areas compete to bring out the best. That's what you see in DFW where the suburban cities have competed so much to where now they're seen as pristine and very attractive for relocating companies. Those companies move in and give funding to the multiple colleges in the area, hire people who move from out of state and then send kids to those colleges, and now those colleges are shooting up the ranking with giant tech departments. Not putting another 4-year school in town is just not preparing Houston for the future at all.

[Trae]

5 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I would agree if it came to the possibility of this being a full campus. But that was never likely what it was going to be (the land area was too small, among other reasons), and it shouldn't have been too difficult to get them to pledge that it wasn't going to be for that. It turned out the plan was for a data center. This was more about chasing away the UT brand and its footprint in Houston, which basically means chasing away UT money and its impact on Houston.

 

It also means we lose a rare chance to diversify our workforce and become a little more attractive to non-oil companies. Dallas owns the region on corporate relocations; they just pulled in McKesson last week, #6 on the Fortune 500. Not very big news up there though since it's only their third company in the Fortune top 10. 

 

 

I love my hometown and have defended Houston endlessly in the past, but there have been decisions made over the years that have accumulated and I think Houston may be at a crossroads. From all of the strip annexation that left vast amounts of unincorporated areas relying on a stretched thin county instead of allowing for more local incorporation. Then there's the weak flood control policies, failure at attracting non-energy companies, inadequate rail transit, no major amusement park=less outside tourism dollars, bad roadway planning (the arterial grid in Houston looks nice but the implementation of it leaves a lot to be desired --- the small things like dedicated turning lanes or right turn yield lanes can go a long way), very patchy sidewalk network, and arguably the worst of the bunch is not allowing the state's largest university system to build a school in town. If Houston just had a couple of those items (namely more incorporated suburbs and better flood control), then the future outlook would look brighter in my opinion.

 

There are other mid-size Southern cities that are starting to rise (Nashville, Raleigh, Orlando, Charlotte) who have become stronger competition than in the past. Like Nashville just landed Amazon's operational HQ that'll have up to 5,000 jobs. Houston would never be considering for something like that today. Houston is not even attracting medical companies. Those go to DFW. It's shouldn't be a mystery why the governor of the state who comes FROM the Houston area can't even get outside companies to relocate their HQ to it. The I-35 corridor has gotten all the love. Houston has made strides in many areas but there's a lot of work to do and I don't think residents want to be taxed to make these things happen.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Trae

[Mr.Clean19]

The PUF funds are a big deal. Some university is going to go in at Generation Park in the North East and pair with San Jac as a feeder school. That will be outside of the Houston city limits and there will be nothing UH can do about it. Sorry guys, as a Tech grad it sucks.

[kbates2]

18 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

I would agree if it came to the possibility of this being a full campus. But that was never likely what it was going to be (the land area was too small, among other reasons), and it shouldn't have been too difficult to get them to pledge that it wasn't going to be for that. It turned out the plan was for a data center. This was more about chasing away the UT brand and its footprint in Houston, which basically means chasing away UT money and its impact on Houston.

 

My understanding was that they asked UT to guarantee that it would not turn into a full time campus and they said that they didn't have all of the plans so wouldn't make that guarantee.  I may be wrong.  UT already has a great deal of money and impact in Houston, nobody was trying to chase out just general money for a data center.

 

14 minutes ago, Mr.Clean19 said:

The PUF funds are a big deal. Some university is going to go in at Generation Park in the North East and pair with San Jac as a feeder school. That will be outside of the Houston city limits and there will be nothing UH can do about it. Sorry guys, as a Tech grad it sucks.

 

I don't really have as much of an issue with this.  As said earlier, proximity was a huge part of it for me and at Generation Park they can't be UT-Houston, which I see as devaluing UH using unfair funding.

[iah77]

That's like saying you shouldn't build a new good highschool because there's a crappy one in the area that will lose students. Like who cares, education is about benefiting students, not a monopolizing rent seeking institution. Do you see University of Dallas or SMU complaining about another resource for their city?

[H-Town Man]

57 minutes ago, iah77 said:

That's like saying you shouldn't build a new good highschool because there's a crappy one in the area that will lose students. Like who cares, education is about benefiting students, not a monopolizing rent seeking institution. Do you see University of Dallas or SMU complaining about another resource for their city?

 

Those are private schools, not really competitive. It's kind of a bummer for Houston that we went and created are own large public university system, which just meant that we ended up not having any schools benefitting from the PUF, whereas Dallas showed up late to the game and ended up with two PUF schools (UT Dallas and UT Arlington).

 

One could draw an analogy to United's fight to keep Southwest Airlines from flying internationally. More competition is better, right? But education is different, of course.

 

[Vy65]

Beyond stupid tribalism going on here. Not wanting one of the largest university systems in the country to expand its footprint in the city so that a second-rate but local institution can benefit? All while saying that the use of public funds are anti-competitive? 

 

Education is about the students and the ancillary benefits that come from having educational institutions nearby. If UH suffered because a better educational product was offered, then that's a good overall result. Sentiments to the otherwise are aggressively pursuing mediocrity. 

[kbates2]

4 hours ago, iah77 said:

That's like saying you shouldn't build a new good highschool because there's a crappy one in the area that will lose students. Like who cares, education is about benefiting students, not a monopolizing rent seeking institution. Do you see University of Dallas or SMU complaining about another resource for their city?

 

Yes, this is exactly like that.  If you have a high school in a neighborhood that is underperforming because you don't fund it well, you take taxpayer money and allocate more evenly to fund well.  You don't take taxpayer money and use it to build a second high school a block away that you will fund well while also under-funding the previous high school.  That would be called a complete waste of money.  If the second high school then leads to worse performance at the first, you have effectively hurt the students instead of helping them.  You may have helped a few but you seriously hurt even more.  Your argument hurts taxpayers, students, and existing universities.

 

As mentioned, SMU is private - not the same.  UNT is in Denton.  I am fine with UT Woodlands.  

[intencity77]

I agree. What happened to Houstonian’s beloved and deeply cherished idea of competition??? If UH had suffered that means it would only strive to be an even better school. That’s what competition does! As mentioned, legislation could have been changed later for secondary state universities, like UH, to receive more funding. Completely pushing UT-Houston out was totally ridiculous and honesly Houston shooting itself in the foot once again. 

[H-Town Man]

I would agree that there should not be a UT-Houston. That would be pretty redundant with UH. Now then, isn't UH-Downtown a completely spun-off, separate university? Is there concern that they are competing with UH?

 

 

[bobruss]

2 hours ago, Vy65 said:

Beyond stupid tribalism going on here. Not wanting one of the largest university systems in the country to expand its footprint in the city so that a second-rate but local institution can benefit? All while saying that the use of public funds are anti-competitive? 

 

Education is about the students and the ancillary benefits that come from having educational institutions nearby. If UH suffered because a better educational product was offered, then that's a good overall result. Sentiments to the otherwise are aggressively pursuing mediocrity. 

I tried to stay out of this argument but calling the University of Houston, a Tier one school, second rate is a little childish. 

 

[KinkaidAlum]

UH has a great reputation outside of the region. It unfortunately still has work to overcome the years of racist/classist views that cloud the local reputation.

 

Case in point, the 2019 World University Rankings are out. UH ranks 5th in Texas behind UT, Rice, A&M, and UT-Dallas. These rankings are based on 13 factors like published works, R+D, international reach, and quality of instruction. UH is in a peer group with schools like UConn, Tulane, Denver, New Mexico, and Oregon State. Here's where the Texas schools fall;

 

39) Texas

86) Rice (size really hurst Rice but it punches way above its weight class)

171) Texas A&M

251-300) UT Dallas

301-350) Houston

501-600) UTSA

601-800) Baylor, UT Arlington, UTEP, Texas Tech

801-1000) Texas State

 

In the last few years, UH has steadily climbed the rankings. Adding programs in petroleum engineering, nursing, and industrial design have helped as has the conversion of the Schlumberger campus to the energy research center. The medical school will further elevate UH's status internationally. I'd also point out that UH ranks ahead of several UT branches included those with medical schools. 

 

Lastly, here's the number of top 100 programs (graduate level) that schools in Texas have according to USNWR. 

 

25 Texas

19 Texas A&M

18 UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON

14 Rice

11 Baylor

8 SMU

8 UT Dallas

7 Texas Tech

7 North Texas

4 UT Arlington

3 UTSA

3 UTEP

 

If you add up UTA, UTEP, UTD, and UTSA you get the same number as UH. I'm kinda glad we didn't wait around for a state branch all things considered. 

 

[iah77]

1 hour ago, kbates2 said:

 

Yes, this is exactly like that.  If you have a high school in a neighborhood that is underperforming because you don't fund it well, you take taxpayer money and allocate more evenly to fund well.  You don't take taxpayer money and use it to build a second high school a block away that you will fund well while also under-funding the previous high school.  That would be called a complete waste of money.  If the second high school then leads to worse performance at the first, you have effectively hurt the students instead of helping them.  You may have helped a few but you seriously hurt even more.  Your argument hurts taxpayers, students, and existing universities.

 

As mentioned, SMU is private - not the same.  UNT is in Denton.  I am fine with UT Woodlands.  

UH is not undefunded, and if you don't think that's exactly what people do with bad schools then what are all these charter schools doing in the carcasses of bad HISD schools that couldn't compete? 

 

People don't seems to understand this is about creating more slots and capacity for students. A city of 7 million can't have one "ok"  public option. Seriously who would  turn away a free state level gift. 

 

FYI, it's also a dropout factory with less than 50% of students ever graduating and we are talking about the main campus. UT Dallas for example has a graduation rate of 60%.

 

"Overall, 49.4% of U of H Undergrads Finish Within Six Years" 

 

[KinkaidAlum]

Graduation rates are rising quickly at UH, largely due to better incoming students as well as the UHin4 program. The incoming class of 2014 was the first class to have the option to join UHin4 and that class' 4 year graduate rate is on track to be 50%. The best news is 4 years later, over 70% of incoming students are joining UHin4. 

 

[Vy65]

3 hours ago, bobruss said:

I tried to stay out of this argument but calling the University of Houston, a Tier one school, second rate is a little childish. 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s absolutely second rate compared to UT. Being a part of a list of 115 schools doesn’t impress.

[kbates2]

Competition does not make better when both institutions are taxpayer funded at inequitable levels.

 

 

[jmitch94]

Wow what an insanely toxic thread for a local architecture forum. I personally cant wait for the mods to lock it again. 

 

Edit: IDK how to change my signature or whatever it is, I graduated a year and a half ago. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by jmitch94

[KinkaidAlum]

3 hours ago, Vy65 said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s absolutely second rate compared to UT. Being a part of a list of 115 schools doesn’t impress.

 

Duh. Everything is second rate in this state compared to UT outside of tiny/private Rice. 

 

 

[TBooze]

We always seem to return to these stupid conversations centered around the question "what're you scared of a little competition", when UT sympathizers try to justify the idea of a UT Houston. If "more competition" is so great when referring to tertiary education, then everyone should be ok with an announcement by A&M to build a campus in Austin. Of course, you would all say "no big deal" to that notion, knowing full well it would never be seriously considered nor tolerated, in addition to the enormous pushback by UT. UH is a large public school system. UH shouldn't have to "face competition" and be forced to persevere in order to survive. Most cities do not have two large school systems. Notice I used the word Most. Instead it should be well funded so it could realize its true potential. Having two state funded schools in a city does not improve the level of education, since each school sets its admissions standards independently, based on specific targets. A UT Houston will never be comparable to UT Austin in prestige. If that were the case then a degree from UT Dallas, UT Arlington or UTSA, etc, would be worth the same as that of UT Austin. Not every student is accepted into UT Austin, hence the alternatives in parts of Texas that are underserved by tertiary institutions.  Houston is not underserved. The Houston area has more undergrad students than any other metro area in Texas, plus UH is growing tremendously, as are the other schools in Houston. A UT Houston will only target the same students as UH and then there would be two publicly funded schools cannibalizing each other. That is not the best use of public funds. UH is not and may never be on the same tier as UT Austin, but a UT Houston will also be "second rate" in comparison.

[Houston19514]

Enough with the straw man arguments.  There was NEVER a plan to create a UT Houston.  They really could not have been more clear on that point.

[nyc_tex]

On 12/12/2018 at 1:05 AM, Houston19514 said:

Enough with the straw man arguments.  There was NEVER a plan to create a UT Houston.  They really could not have been more clear on that point.

 

That's based on the assumption they were being truthful - which evidence suggests quite the opposite given the top brass didn't disclose the intent for any campus and land purchases until after the fact. Data centers also don't have massive sports and athletic complexes that were clearly demarcated in the architectural plans/design. 

 

Not one major city in the U.S. has multiple 4 year major state university system campuses from different systems. If you want another college in Houston, open up a private college or set up your new UT campus in the Woodlands or Sugar Land. Otherwise, you are cannibalizing the existing state institutional system in Houston created to service Houston. It is clear UT's intent is to continue to remain king of public schools in Texas and that includes preventing others from garnering greater academic stature because their view of colleges is provincially analogous to sports. That childish perspective is what is holding Texas and Houston back. 

 

Finally, given the progressive decline of UT's academic credentials in recent years, I think they need to focus on cleaning up their own house before buying new homes. With their prodigious endowment (by and far the largest public school endowment in the country) and almost limitless trust fund, they should be nothing less than a top 3 public school and they're not even close. As taxpayers in the state, our so-called state flagship and investment in UT is being poorly managed and we deserve better. Talk about a third rate investment by taxpayers. And that has NOTHING to do with UH. 

 

Major public universities with a higher ranking in US News & World Report:

 

UCLA (shares endowment that is slightly more than  1/3rd the size of the UT system) 

UC - Berkeley (shares endowment that is slightly more than 1/3rd the size of UT system) 

U of Virginia 

U of Mich

UC - Santa Barbara (shares endowment...) 

UNC - Chapel Hill

UC - Irvine (shares endowment...) 

U of Florida

William & Mary

UC - Davis (shares endowment...) 

UC - San Diego (shares endowment...) 

U of Georgia

U of Illinois 

U of Texas - Austin (#49 in national universities)

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by nyc_tex

[TBooze]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 0:05 AM, Houston19514 said:

Enough with the straw man arguments.  There was NEVER a plan to create a UT Houston.  They really could not have been more clear on that point.

 

If you believe that, then I have  some swamp land to sell you. 

 

I couldn't say it any better than nyc_tex. However, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe New York City has both the City University of New York (CUNY), and State University of New York (SUNY), which are both public university systems. Both have campuses in Brooklyn.

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, nyc_tex said:

 

That's based on the assumption they were being truthful - which evidence suggests quite the opposite given the top brass didn't disclose the intent for any campus and land purchases until after the fact. Data centers also don't have massive sports and athletic complexes that were clearly demarcated in the architectural plans/design. 

 

Not one major city in the U.S. has multiple 4 year major state university system campuses from different systems. If you want another college in Houston, open up a private college or set up your new UT campus in the Woodlands or Sugar Land. Otherwise, you are cannibalizing the existing state institutional system in Houston created to service Houston. It is clear UT's intent is to continue to remain king of public schools in Texas and that includes preventing others from garnering greater academic stature because their view of colleges is provincially analogous to sports. That childish perspective is what is holding Texas and Houston back. 

 

Finally, given the progressive decline of UT's academic credentials in recent years, I think they need to focus on cleaning up their own house before buying new homes. With their prodigious endowment (by and far the largest public school endowment in the country) and almost limitless trust fund, they should be nothing less than a top 3 public school and they're not even close. As taxpayers in the state, our so-called state flagship and investment in UT is being poorly managed and we deserve better. Talk about a third rate investment by taxpayers. And that has NOTHING to do with UH. 

 

Major public universities with a higher ranking in US News & World Report:

 

UCLA (shares endowment that is slightly more than  1/3rd the size of the UT system) 

UC - Berkeley (shares endowment that is slightly more than 1/3rd the size of UT system) 

U of Virginia 

U of Mich

UC - Santa Barbara (shares endowment...) 

UNC - Chapel Hill

UC - Irvine (shares endowment...) 

U of Florida

William & Mary

UC - Davis (shares endowment...) 

UC - San Diego (shares endowment...) 

U of Georgia

U of Illinois 

U of Texas - Austin (#49 in national universities)

 

 

 

 

 

The endowment supplies only a fraction, I think around 20%, of the annual budget, the rest of which comes from other sources. So there's a lot more that goes into your list. The California schools are highly ranked because in the 60's they developed a rigid 3 tier system whereby only the top students went to the UC schools, then the next level students went to CSU schools and the bottom level to community colleges. Whereas Texas never developed any such system and you have, to put it delicately, quite a range of students at both UT and A&M, our presumed flagships. If you cut those schools down to the top 10,000 students and kept nearly the same research funding you would have something like a UC school. Of course it would destroy the whole culture of both places.

Edited December 14, 2018 by H-Town Man