kdog08

You are taking my words out of context, as you didn't quote the entire paragraph. Maybe it was intentional or maybe I didn't make it clear... But here's the rest. I am talking about an option that should have been done and brought up how one of the world's most successful higher education system operates. DFW and Houston metro alone added ~ 5 mllion people in the last 25 years and how much state money has gone to these metros for higher education? If Texas was going to adopt a California based system, it should have been decades ago as it is virtually impossible to adopt one now. That shipped has long sailed to rebrand UH as a flagship school, UT-Houston. Now we are in a situation with a lopsided funding system that favors the entrenched interests and a bunch of poor planning for the explosive growth in population. Again, we are in a two tiered system that doesn't make much sense in 2016. Personally I would amend it so funding would be more based on where the population is and future growth.

Anyone can view all of your posts. I usually like your cute little images that accompany updates but it's pretty clear in taking just a mere few minutes to view your posts in the "view content" of your profile, you've constantly been on one side of the issue while doing little hit and run attacks. You say "many, many, many, many images of 'satire/humor'", but your last image a few posts above was taken down after I reported it. Maybe in the Middle East it is satire, but here it comes off as trolling. You're cute little images usually add some humor to the updates, but it's not cute in this thread. Take care and peace in the Middle East yo.

I would slightly care as I'm an alumni. However, I have no disillusions that Tx State could run with the big boys. I think people would be more supportive if UT didn't put the cart before the horse and had a bit more transparency.

I don't understand why so many people are for the status quo that was established a hundred years ago and that no other state with a significant investment in higher education follows. Does any one agree that higher education has kept up with our population?

First of all, the PUF was created in 1876 and the mineral rights on "UT's land" was established in 1901. Frankly, I don't much care about the context and history surrounding the PUF as it is outdated. Compared to California's system it is a joke and I don't think most of the country would mistake Texas's higher education for that of Mass/NE or the Research Triangle given our population size. The PUF doesn't allow flexibility and we have essentially this two tiered system with PUF being a much larger fund than HEAF. If you think this type of system is good for Texas than I don't know what to tell you if you want to base funding that was set a hundred years ago. It should have been decided to either adopt a California based system or to disperse the funds, but that sort of long term planning makes Texas legislatures allergic/upsets the good ole boys entrenched in UT and TAMU. You're the one is claiming UTHSC is mediocre, not me. As I said..... There is already land in the TMC set aside for an "innovation campus" and UT already has a presence in the TMC.... With as you pointed out is UTHSC and UT MD Anderson. Why not consolidate what UT already has onto the land within TMC's boundaries and work with the TMC to create a fantastic biotech/health care university? If UT is dead set on buying the land (as it clearly is) then why didn't it actually have a plan put forth? It just reeks of shadiness. I think it's dumb what UT did, but I would be much more supportive if they came out and said what they are doing. It makes perfect sense for UT to expand into Houston, especially with a focus on biotech, but the implementation has been p*ss poor. As I said, how much has Houston/Texas grown in the last 25 years? 15 years? The timing and implementation raises eyebrows. So... LULZ. Do the Mods seriously allow this poster to troll like this? There has been zero input from this individual, just a bunch of cowardly, snarky images.

Macho men!

Haven't we invested in UH cloud713? The PUF system is outdated and reeks of cronyism. Where was UT's large interest in Houston over the last 25 years when we added ~2.5 million to our metro? We shouldn't be in this balkanized higher education system. I'm a Tx State alumni for the record.

LULZ.... You forget about the UT health science center houston? More LULZ... Did you just gloss over my previous comment, the one above the one you replied to? Try and keep up before you get all bass ackwards....

Houston needs more higher education, as does the state of Texas, so why can't we build upon what we have already invested in?

When was it created again? What was the population of Texas then verses now? Where does most of the population reside now verses then? How much PUF money actually goes into the two largest metros population and economic wise? This whole present day system resembles a good ole boy system compared to the rest of the nation. UT could have created one of the best biotech and healthcare universities by partnering up with the TMC on it's innovation campus and consolidating it's UT-HSC on that land just SE of the TMC core. I doubt there would be much resistance to that sort of proposal. I usually don't think about the DFW metro too much, but they also are getting shafted here. I believe Kinkaid said, and I agree, why doesn't the UT system focus on improving the myriad of established satellites campuses throughout the state?

They just want a share of the pie and rightfully so.

It looks more recreational to me, more than likely intramural sports.

I disagree it is meaningless as UTD clearly puts a higher emphasis on graduates. I'm really not trying to get into a "my school is bigger than this school" argument, from your link it shows UTD has the highest average SAT score and 2nd highest "smart rating", whatever that maybe, Clearly I looked at data that was a few years old as UH seems to have risen quite recently in their acceptance rate but UTD is still in the top tier. My point was that UTD isn't like your traditional satellite school or mid-tier state school like UT-Arlington or Texas State University, it seems to serve a higher purpose for the UT system. If UT wants to make Houston its "research hub" then we should have a clear plan. Lastly my only comparison to Rice was that it was a school that punches above it's weight.

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about academia, but UTD has ~24000 students with an undergrad to grad ratio ~2:1 while UH has ~43000 students with a ratio ~4:1. Everything I glance at seems to suggest UTD is one of the most selective public schools in Texas so I imagine it's a step above UH in pure academic quality. So to answer your question, they are but they aren't necessarily equal. Not that I necessarily think UTD is better than UH but it clearly punches above its weight, much like how Rice punches above its weight for a small school.

I think I had too much eggnog... I guess my point was that UTD was a research driven university in a major metro area, which is how it seems this campus is being billed in Houston. You're absolutely right, UTD is a full degree-granting campus, they just have a large percentage of grad students.

It's not just about athletics, but it's pretty clear that UH is investing in athletics. College football is somewhat of a big deal not only in the state of Texas, but nationally, in terms of interest and revenue. I'm not sure if you are an Aggie or Longhorn but their athletics have an impact on their institutions from an image standpoint, recruiting students, having a strong alumni base, etc.. It is big business and people want to be part of a campus with that sort of "it" factor. However, the Big 12 is just part of the several issues that need to be clarified from UT, which I don't think is unreasonable.

You're right. It seems, as I mentioned earlier, they are building a UT-Dallas type of campus. I'd recommend folks reading up on UTD as that is something that would be very beneficial. However, it does beg the question as how the state views UH and it's goals. Does UT support UH in the Big 12? What role will UH play in research? It would certainly be smart of the UT system and the state of Texas to explicitly state the goals and plans for a UT expansion and UH's place in the future.

Westheimer corridor is an interesting one.

UH has the vast head start in the Houston region and as long as it keeps building on success from academics and athletics then it should over time become a flagship Texas university with the research status and athletic status that comes along with it. I'm not particularly concerned about a UT expansion if it's a research campus or other specialized campus (biomedical/biotechnology). I would welcome this UT expansion if it was going to be more like the UT Dallas campus which also is research campus. UT Dallas has 23000 students of which 8700 are postgrads to give one an idea of the long term potential as a public research institute calling Houston home. UH needs to focus on becoming a more complete campus, especially in terms of residential living in and around the area, while increasing the quality of education and beefing up it's research institutions. Lastly, whether one wants to admit it or not, but athletics plays a large in shaping perception. UH reaching the big 12 or similarly tiered conference will only elevate its status so hopefully UH football will continue to grow, along with basketball and baseball.

Technically that's right, but that wasn't very central to my point.

As far this project, I think this is a great idea. We need to keep building infrastructure to keep up with population demand and this way it pays for itself and gets off the ground quicker. I wish P&R services can somehow take advantage of these lanes as Pearland has a good amount of commuters the TMC. Optimistically, a TOD could be centered around park & ride in Pearland if there can be collaboration, but I wouldn't be surprised if none of this happens.

I think the issue here is that mass transit infrastructure and automobile infrastructure hasn't been funded and promoted remotely balanced and don't offer and apples to apples comparison. Just like how a freeway can't operate without feeders, and roads of varying capacities; mass transit needs sidewalks, decent bus stop accommodations, buses, light rail, and commuter/regional rail. There really isn't a good political process or funding process that accomplishes these things at the regional level. It seems, because sun belt cities have to rob Peter to Pay to get rail built, they get worse results. By that I mean, sun belt cities usually fund rail at the expense of the varying methods of connecting to rail.

Perhaps they are trying to coordinate it with the TMC boom.

Wow, over 2 1/2 years and still not done... Perhaps people have moved into the building on the left.

Both new buildings look pretty good in my opinion.