Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
totheskies

Hopefully WAY up... UH's campaign for Tier 1 status

Recommended Posts

It should be clear to everyone in Houston by now... the University of Houston is seeking to elevate itself to Tier 1 status. UH is the largest institution in the state behind UT and A&M (both designated as Tier 1 institutions). UH is also third place in terms of economic impact (for the respective metro area) and current research funding. But there are several other qualified universities in the running for Tier 1, most notably Texas Tech, UTD and UTSA. Do you think UH has a chance at achieving this illustrious prize?

Here is the recent report on the Campaign for Tier 1 universities, submitted by Dr. David Daniel (president-- UTD)

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/c...ties_Report.pdf

To the mods...

This is probably not the correct place for the thread topic, but I wasn't sure where to put it. My sincere apologies... please direct it to the proper forum area.

Edited by totheskies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It should be clear to everyone in Houston by now... the University of Houston is seeking to elevate itself to Tier 1 status. UH is the largest institution in the state behind UT and A&M (both designated as Tier 1 institutions). UH is also third place in terms of economic impact (for the respective metro area) and current research funding. But there are several other qualified universities in the running for Tier 1, most notably Texas Tech, UTD and UTSA. Do you think UH has a chance at achieving this illustrious prize?

I hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UH should be #1 in the competition with Tech a very close second because they do the highest amount of externally funded research at about 78 million a year for UH and close to that for Tech if you include their Lubbock Med School, they have the second highest endowment of the 7 considered, right behind Texas Tech, and they have a real possibility of gaining a med school and they currently have a strong engineering program....UH also currently has a very high % of grad students vs undergrads

Ag, Engineering, and Medicine are what brings in the most grants......of the seven schools in consideration only Texas Tech has Ag and will ever have Ag and Tech is also currently the only one with a med school (two actually with one in El Paso but that should not count).....if you add in the amount of research Techs med school does it puts Tech very close to the amount of externally funded research that UH does......UTD and UTA both have UT Southwestern that they work with and UTSA has UTHSC-SA but the Tech med school is basically on the very same campus as the university...UH would probably locate their med school in TMC

UH has low enrollment requirements and a low graduation % working against them when compared to UTD and Tech especially.....but IMO that is the least expensive thing to solve and the only thing holding UH back from increasing the enrollment requirements (and the graduation rate along with that) is the fact that Texas currently funds all, but UT Austin, TAMU, and PVAMU based on enrollment....but with increased funding for "tier 1" UH would not have that concern and could raise their admissions standards with less concern about funding and would have funding to recruit higher quality students and not lose much total enrollment to start and if they were to elevate their reputation then students would be drawn there in greater numbers

UH also has a respected Law school, and College of Business which do not bring in grants, but do bring in a large % of alumni giving and UH has a pharmacy program that only Tech currently offers of the 7 being considered (but Techs is located in Amarillo) and none of the other schools have law or any other professional programs with the exception of Tech

Tech has Ag, Engineering, Med, Nursing, and a well funded College of Business, and Law so Tech currently has all the major grant getting programs and all the major donation programs.....but Tech is way out in Lubbock, but their alumni giving is very good which is why they have the largest endowment of the 7 (UTD in 3rd)

Tech has a small % of grad students though, but is working to address this

working against UH is Rice being located in Houston and TAMU being located so close to Houston because people cry that dallas is the largest city in the USA without a school in the AAU or a "tier 1" school.....I attribute this to dallas ignorance and the fact that "dallas" opened UTD (even though UTD is in Richardson) instead of working with UTA which if you put UTA and UTDs programs and endowment together they would already be very close to "tier 1" and you would not have two UT System schools both trying to work with UT Southwestern(which they both do) dallas also has unt, TWU, and now the failed ignorant waste that is unt-dallas that was started as a pork barrel money grab for south dallas by the idiot royce west....dallas was in a prime position years ago to elevate UTA because unt and TWU were already there along with the UCD (which is in downtown dallas and is similar to Lonestar College where several schools share space and offer degree programs though it is not nearly as successful as Lonestar) and unt and TWU, and UCD could have been the "catch all" schools....but instead they left UTA as another catch all school and created UTD as graduate and upper level only....and now because of political ignorance they have wasted yet more state money on the highly unsuccessful unt-dallas

Houston only ever had UH and TSU for the longest time and TSU was not going to abandon the "minority mission" and had no desire to be a "catch all" for everyone else and so that left UH to do it all....now with UHD/HMU, and Lonestar College the students of Houston have other options if UH elevates admissions requirements

currently UTSA is way too far back in externally funded research and endowment, and admissions to compete with UTD, UH, and Tech and the same with UTA and UTEP though all 3 are catching up fast in externally funded research.....unt is actually losing in externally funded research and has the lowest % of grad students vs undergrads, an extremely small endowment, very small college of engineering, and no professional programs other than a DO school in Fort Worth and DO schools are generally not research oriented and there is very poor collaboration between the DO and the main campus

if Texas was smart they would elevate UH, Tech, and UTD, and then in the next round UTSA, UTA, and UTEP....but the idea that is gaining ground is put forth by the president of UTD and that is to toss money in a pool and let all 7 emerging research universities compete for it which IMO is chicken s**t and will probably result in the status quo which is 7 universities not standing out in the USA as "tier 1"......I believe he feels as a part of the UT System and with UT Southwestern there that UTD can get it done which they possibly can......I feel UH and Tech can get it done as well especially since UH and Tech are both currently in the silent phase of plans to raise a billion dollars each over the next 5-7 years....I have not seen any plan of this sort from UTD to date, but I am sure they are working on it or their president would not put forward this proposal...the plan would involve the funds in the pool being used to match grants and large alumni donations...UH has very productive faculty on a per faculty member basis of grant funding and so do UTEP, and UTD....Tech is lower than they need to be (and working to address that) and UTSA and UTA are doing pretty well for their situation....unt is 50% lower than the lowest of the other 6 and doing next to nothing to address that in any real way and unt will never have the programs in place to really make up the ground...and even if they do it will be a duplication and a waste

while I feel it will be nice to stimulate community support for UH, TTU, UTD, UTA, UTSA, UTA, and UTEP which is what the money in the pool proposal is about I am concerned that UTA, UTSA, and UTEP will gain just enough community support to gain enough money to shrink the available funds to the point that UH, UTD, and TTU will not be able to elevate themselves to true "tier 1" or AAU membership........while all 6 of those schools being aggressive is GREAT IMO my concern is that Texas will not step up in the future and grwo that pool to recognize that six (maybe even seven) schools are actually aggressively getting grants and alumni support and it will leave 6 schools better, but not good enough to meet the real goals of this "tier1" talk

I also have a concern that under this plan there will be a lack of coordination between schools that will result in some schools (especially unt) rushing to start programs that are not a good match with the current offerings of their school, and that they are really not prepared or qualified to run, and it will result in waste, duplication, and poor quality

Really Texas needs to cut through the BS and elevate UH (because they earned it and TAMU is not in Houston and Houston should not be penalized for having a strongly supported private school in Rice), Texas Tech (because they have earned it with their broad offering of professional and grant gaining programs and their endowment and alumni support), and UTD (because while dallas has made huge stupid mistakes in their higher education planning UTD is well respected and highly productive in research)......and then in 6 years Texas should elevate UTSA, UTEP, and UTA because by then TAMUK-SA should be a bigger school for a catch all for San Antonio and UTSA is growing their engineering offerings and their collaboration with UTHSC-SA and raising admissions and if you make the argument about dallas deserving a "tier 1" school then I see no reason to exclude San Antonio, UTEP and that area of Texas deserve a top school and UTEP does have highly productive faculty for gaining grants and UTEP can collaborate with TTUHSC-EP, and UTA has done well with what they offer and they are a much broader school than UTD and they have a large and growing engineering program

Edited by TexasVines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Houston only ever had UH and TSU for the longest time and TSU was not going to abandon the "minority mission" and had no desire to be a "catch all" for everyone else and so that left UH to do it all....now with UHD/HMU, and Lonestar College the students of Houston have other options if UH elevates admissions requirements

I've always wondered that. Why does Houston not have as many universities/colleges as DFW? I wonder where Houston ranks in the number of college students in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always wondered that. Why does Houston not have as many universities/colleges as DFW? I wonder where Houston ranks in the number of college students in the US.

I am not sure why myself....I think the number of schools in the dfw metromess is a detriment to them overall with UTA, UTD, UNT, TWU, UNT-Dallas and the UCD

VS Houston with UH, TSU, and Lonestar College

I speculate that for a long time when A&M still had a large amount of room for student growth Houston just accepted them as suiting the needs of Houston and then TAMU-Galveston, Lamar, SHSU, and PVAMU were close with SFA not too far away

Dallas would have TAMU-Commerce and Tarleton if you looked out that far......really though UH was a Houston creation at the start by HISD and was not a state school until the 70s while UNT, TWU and UTA are all very old by those standards

as for number of college grads the metromess is above Houston by about 11,000 undergrads and Houston was pretty close in grad students.....there is a chart out on the web with Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Boston, NY and several other places and I can't find it.......Dallas and Houston were pretty far down the list of big cities in number of college students enrolled....basically for Houston to compete with the cities they want to compare to Houston would need to add a university just a bit smaller than UH to have the same number of college students and some other US cities

Edited by TexasVines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought "Tier 1" status was something real until I read that report.

it was back before the Carnegie Foundation changed their ranking system....but AAU membership is something real.....but it is much broader than what the goals Texas is shooting for when they discuss "tier 1"

and in terms of Texas and university establishment Houston and Dallas were both well along and similar in size before either had a state school

Edited by TexasVines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good! If $70m/yr is all it takes to get AAU/First Tier/whatever then I guess this is something we should have done a long time ago.

Edited by N Judah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure why myself....I think the number of schools in the dfw metromess is a detriment to them overall with UTA, UTD, UNT, TWU, UNT-Dallas and the UCD

VS Houston with UH, TSU, and Lonestar College

I speculate that for a long time when A&M still had a large amount of room for student growth Houston just accepted them as suiting the needs of Houston and then TAMU-Galveston, Lamar, SHSU, and PVAMU were close with SFA not too far away

Dallas would have TAMU-Commerce and Tarleton if you looked out that far......really though UH was a Houston creation at the start by HISD and was not a state school until the 70s while UNT, TWU and UTA are all very old by those standards

as for number of college grads the metromess is above Houston by about 11,000 undergrads and Houston was pretty close in grad students.....there is a chart out on the web with Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Boston, NY and several other places and I can't find it.......Dallas and Houston were pretty far down the list of big cities in number of college students enrolled....basically for Houston to compete with the cities they want to compare to Houston would need to add a university just a bit smaller than UH to have the same number of college students and some other US cities

It's too bad A&M, SHSU, and SFA are not included into the totals for Houston. A&M really isn't that far away from the far NW Houston suburbs. But I wish Houston had a real UT-branch out here (not just medical school). Something down near Pearland would have worked. I remember there being some "plans" for one near Shadow Creek Ranch. Houston is the only major metro area in Texas not to have a normal UT-branch school (San Antonio, DFW, El Paso, Midland-Odessa, and the Rio Grande Valley all have one).

Edited by Trae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure why myself....I think the number of schools in the dfw metromess is a detriment to them overall with UTA, UTD, UNT, TWU, UNT-Dallas and the UCD

VS Houston with UH, TSU, and Lonestar College

I speculate that for a long time when A&M still had a large amount of room for student growth Houston just accepted them as suiting the needs of Houston and then TAMU-Galveston, Lamar, SHSU, and PVAMU were close with SFA not too far away

Dallas would have TAMU-Commerce and Tarleton if you looked out that far......really though UH was a Houston creation at the start by HISD and was not a state school until the 70s while UNT, TWU and UTA are all very old by those standards

as for number of college grads the metromess is above Houston by about 11,000 undergrads and Houston was pretty close in grad students.....there is a chart out on the web with Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Boston, NY and several other places and I can't find it.......Dallas and Houston were pretty far down the list of big cities in number of college students enrolled....basically for Houston to compete with the cities they want to compare to Houston would need to add a university just a bit smaller than UH to have the same number of college students and some other US cities

Good post... I think A&M and UT are such easy funnels to Houston that the city didn't need its own crop of schools the way Dallas did, which isn't that much further from Austin distance-wise but still feels a lot further away from both those schools than Houston. In North Texas you're kind of in your own world, whereas in Houston you're connected to the San Antonio/Austin world.

Personally I think it's better that Houston send their kids out to a different city and then they come back... I see a lot of decently smart kids in Dallas whose aspirations don't extend beyond SMU or TCU, and I think "Are you serious? Do you want to be in the Metroplex your whole life?"

Of course there are obvious advantages to having universities in your city, particular schools that can draw people from outside the city and not just be commuter schools. I don't see Houston changing too much in this respect though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you go out to another school in a different city, you may not return back to Houston. You never know... Plus, having more college/universities in Houston would attract people from outside the metro area and state more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always wondered that. Why does Houston not have as many universities/colleges as DFW? I wonder where Houston ranks in the number of college students in the US.

According to the Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau website, there are more than 300,000 college students in the metro area. Don't know how that would rank, but I think it's higher than DFW's

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau website, there are more than 300,000 college students in the metro area. Don't know how that would rank, but I think it's higher than DFW's

Damn I FINALLY found the reports I was looking for

in 2005 Houston had 124,565 college students enrolled just barely ahead of Dallas.......Houston has moved slightly ahead, but not enough to keep up with places we should strive to compete with

http://www.atlantahighered.org/default.asp...=4&xmid=558

older study with Dallas ahead of Houston and Houston 59th out of 60

http://www.advancement.uh.edu/impact/study/challenges.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn I FINALLY found the reports I was looking for

in 2005 Houston had 124,565 college students enrolled just barely ahead of Dallas.......Houston has moved slightly ahead, but not enough to keep up with places we should strive to compete with

http://www.atlantahighered.org/default.asp...=4&xmid=558

older study with Dallas ahead of Houston and Houston 59th out of 60

http://www.advancement.uh.edu/impact/study/challenges.html

The first link doesn't include Fort Worth-Arlington though (which has UTA, and UNT also I believe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you hate UH, for whatever reason, if you live in Houston, supporting UH's Teir 1 status will benefit you. The more students UH graduates the better the workforce Houston gets. And the bigger the economic impact they make too.

What's a shame is that Texas only has 2 tier 1 institutions for such a large population. California has 7! And those contribute to its economy greatly. What's sucks is that UT and ATM are just greedy and don't want to share their funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first link doesn't include Fort Worth-Arlington though (which has UTA, and UNT also I believe).

UNT and TWU are in Denton

Even if you hate UH, for whatever reason, if you live in Houston, supporting UH's Teir 1 status will benefit you. The more students UH graduates the better the workforce Houston gets. And the bigger the economic impact they make too.

What's a shame is that Texas only has 2 tier 1 institutions for such a large population. California has 7! And those contribute to its economy greatly. What's sucks is that UT and ATM are just greedy and don't want to share their funding.

Texas has 3 "tier 1" universities if you include Rice

the part in bold is a very common and extremely false misconception......The PUF paid out 400 million in 2007 and not all of that goes to UT Austin or TAMU College Station......some of it goes to pay off bonds that cover specific types of infrastructure and equipment at most, but not all of the UT System and TAMU System institutions.....what is left from that goes to UT Austin, TAMU College Station, and PVAMU for "excellence"

and in addition when judged against peer schools like those in the UC System or other "tier 1" public universities UT Austin and TAMU College Station are underfunded based on state funding and on a tuition basis so overall they are well underfunded when compared to peer schools

If the PUF was shared more than it is the results would be one of three things or possibly two of three.....Texas would have one very low ranked "tier 1" public university being UT, Texas would have no "tier 1" public universities, or UT Austin and TAMU College Station would have to raise their tuition dramatically to both maintain "tier1" status

the PUF pays out just under 5% of a three year average of the funds which if that 400 million went to JUST UT Austin would only equal 1/3 of their yearly budget

the PUF is not some endless source of wealth that two schools hog all for themselves.....it is just a way to keep political idiots hands off of a fraction of higher education funding and it is the only reason Texas even has two public "tier 1" universities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure why myself....I think the number of schools in the dfw metromess is a detriment to them overall with UTA, UTD, UNT, TWU, UNT-Dallas and the UCD

VS Houston with UH, TSU, and Lonestar College

Maybe i'm missing something but what do you guys call Rice?

UNIV ST THOMAS, as miniscule as it is could also be included right? Even though Prarie View is not inside Houston, it's only an hour outside. The way the metro has grown out that way, i'd say that Prarie View is beginning to belong to Houston more and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe i'm missing something but what do you guys call Rice?

UNIV ST THOMAS, as miniscule as it is could also be included right? Even though Prarie View is not inside Houston, it's only an hour outside. The way the metro has grown out that way, i'd say that Prarie View is beginning to belong to Houston more and more.

To some "The Harvard of the South"- Rice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, the battle for undergrad prestige is simply unwinnable for U of H because it is so far behind in that respect.

As such it should not bother making admissions more stringent. In fact I think it should return to its open admissions policy.

This would not affect its ability to obtain "Tier 1" status which really has more to do with obtaining research funding than anything else. (Undergrad prestige does not bring in the venture capital, but well-funded research at the grad level probably could.)

Edited by N Judah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UNT and TWU are in Denton

Texas has 3 "tier 1" universities if you include Rice

the part in bold is a very common and extremely false misconception......The PUF paid out 400 million in 2007 and not all of that goes to UT Austin or TAMU College Station......some of it goes to pay off bonds that cover specific types of infrastructure and equipment at most, but not all of the UT System and TAMU System institutions.....what is left from that goes to UT Austin, TAMU College Station, and PVAMU for "excellence"

and in addition when judged against peer schools like those in the UC System or other "tier 1" public universities UT Austin and TAMU College Station are underfunded based on state funding and on a tuition basis so overall they are well underfunded when compared to peer schools

If the PUF was shared more than it is the results would be one of three things or possibly two of three.....Texas would have one very low ranked "tier 1" public university being UT, Texas would have no "tier 1" public universities, or UT Austin and TAMU College Station would have to raise their tuition dramatically to both maintain "tier1" status

the PUF pays out just under 5% of a three year average of the funds which if that 400 million went to JUST UT Austin would only equal 1/3 of their yearly budget

the PUF is not some endless source of wealth that two schools hog all for themselves.....it is just a way to keep political idiots hands off of a fraction of higher education funding and it is the only reason Texas even has two public "tier 1" universities

BS. You conveniently forgot to include UT's and ATM's huge endowments into the equation. Rice isn't considered a Tier 1 because it gets no funding from the state. Tier 1 only means it gets Tier 1 State funding. The only thing holding back UH's funding is all political. Go read about how Gov Perry castrated UH and Tech's funding. Its all BS, and UT and ATM are the ones keeping UH down.

Anyway, the battle for undergrad prestige is simply unwinnable for U of H because it is so far behind in that respect.

As such it should not bother making admissions more stringent. In fact I think it should return to its open admissions policy.

This would not affect its ability to obtain "Tier 1" status which really has more to do with obtaining research funding than anything else. (Undergrad prestige does not bring in the venture capital, but well-funded research at the grad level probably could.)

UH never had an open admission policy. That's UH downtown and TSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post... I think A&M and UT are such easy funnels to Houston that the city didn't need its own crop of schools the way Dallas did, which isn't that much further from Austin distance-wise but still feels a lot further away from both those schools than Houston. In North Texas you're kind of in your own world, whereas in Houston you're connected to the San Antonio/Austin world.

Personally I think it's better that Houston send their kids out to a different city and then they come back... I see a lot of decently smart kids in Dallas whose aspirations don't extend beyond SMU or TCU, and I think "Are you serious? Do you want to be in the Metroplex your whole life?"

Of course there are obvious advantages to having universities in your city, particular schools that can draw people from outside the city and not just be commuter schools. I don't see Houston changing too much in this respect though.

Isn't that what UH pretty much is? as compared to UT and A&M?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first St Thomas is a small liberal arts university and does not concentrate on research which is what "tier 1" is about and it does not offer any of the programs that receive large external grant funding like Ag, engineering, or medicine which is why it is not included

Rice does a huge amount of external research especially for its size and it is a member of the AAU which is why in this discussion and around the USA Rice would be considered "tier 1"

as for the respect of UH....UH does far and away more externally funded research of the 7 emerging research universities in Texas (UH, TTU, UTA, UTD, UTSA, UTEP, and UNT).....UH has the largest % of grad students of any of the 7, UH has the second largest and broadest engineering college of the seven (TTU is be first), UH has the second largest endowment of the seven right behind TTU and a couple of hundred million above UTD, UH has 150+ endowed faculty positions which is ahead of Tech and UTD by a good deal, UH does lag behind UTD in faculty holding a Nobel Prize or on the national academies, UH offers and graduates the most masters and PhDs of the seven and UH has a large, well respected, and well funded college of business and a large and respected law school, neither of which bring in large grants, but they do bring in large donations

raising the admissions and graduation rate of UH would be one of the least expensive ways to raise the stature of any of the seven emerging research universities as long as you held total UH funding steady (if enrollment drops at first) you would only be on the hook for additional formula funding to the schools that picked up the students UH did not admit

with the exception if TTU which has Ag, Engineering, Medicine (in Lubbock and El Paso), Pharmacy, Nursing, and a well funded college of business and a law school (for the donations) none of the other seven emerging research universities in Texas have any professional programs on campus and the others only offer smaller engineering programs of the programs listed that bring in large external research funding.....and UH is building relationships in TMC and is looking at starting a full med school....so UH is at the front of the pack for "tier 1" status by almost any of the measures

as for the BS comments....please learn basic math, learn how endowments work, and learn basic % mathematics before you call BS

first you mentioned the false argument that UT and TAMU hog funds or have funds to share with other schools......it is a known fact that when compared to all their peer schools (the UC system), Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and on down the list....UT and TAMU when all revenue sources are counted (tuition, state formula funding, PUF (state) funding, and private endowment funds) UT and TAMu are funded on a smaller per student basis than almost any of their peer schools by a large amount

I mentioned the PUF specifically because that is the only endowment that UT and TAMU could or legally can share....it is not the responsibility of UT or TAMU to share privately raised endowment funds with other system schools or with other public universities in Texas.....and in a vast majority of cases if not all it would not be legal for them to share those funds since they were donated with the idea in mind and often with legal requirements that they fund specific programs or the specific school......TAMU and UT both have PRIVATE endowments that are in the range of 3.5 to 4 billion......when most people see the "massive" endowment of the two it includes the PUF and the % that each receive

the PUF is the only part of that total endowment that can legally or could possibly be shared because that is the only part that is "state" funding and in any way under the control of the state.....the other PRIVATELY raised donations are no different than the privately raised endowments of any other school in Texas or the USA

http://www.utimco.org/funds/allfunds/2008annual/index.asp

the latest numbers are above for all to CLEARLY see....the last numbers I know off the top of my head UTIMCO took just at 400 million from the PUF and placed that into the AUF which is the money that can be spent by the participating members of the UT and TAMU Systems....and from that 400 million bonds for infrastructure, equipment, and a few other narrowly defined things are paid for participating members of the UT and TAMU Systems and the remaining funds after those bond cost are split by formula with UT Austin, TMAU College Station, and PVAMU for "excellence"

and UT Austin had a 1.2 billion dollar budget so again even if all that 400 million went to UT Austin it would only be 1/3 of their budget

when people see the 23 billion in the UTIMCO report and the large endowment listings for TAMU College Station and UT Austin......the UTIMCO listings include all the public PUF money for all the participating UT System and TAMU System schools, all the PRIVATELY RAISED money for ALL the UT System Schools, all the UT Medical Schools, ALL the TAMU System schools, all the TAMU Medical schools, The Ag and Engineering Experiment and Extension Services at TAMU, the Texas Transportation Institute at TAMU, and the Texas Forest service

so that 23 billion includes PUF funds and private endowment funds for ALL the system institutions......would you want money donated to UT MD Anderson by private individuals for specific programs suddenly taken and handed to WTAMU because that is "fair".....I am sure there is some fool that would answer yes, but that would not be legal and at best it would totally kill private endowment fund raising of state schools and at worst it would be legally challenged and possibly result in those funds being removed from state management entirely and returned to te donor or sent elsewhere

the PUF funds are the ONLY money that the state legislators have any control of at all and they total much less than the 23 billion total under UTIMCO management and in 2007 the PUF placed the previously mentioned 400 million into the AUF to cover the previously mentioned expenses....the PUF by law is tied by what % of the funds (just under 5%) on a rotating average of previous years performances that it can place in the AUF

the private funds in UTIMCO for UT Austin, TAMU College Station, and all the other UT and TAMU system schools and components are tied by a similar rule and those funds are PRIVATE and not subject to legislative control

but again when ALL sources of revenue are counted (PUF endowment, private endowment, tuition, and state formula funding) UT Austin and TAMU College Station are under funded on a per student basis by several thousand dollars per student when compared to nearly all the other public "tier 1" universities

THAT IS A FACT.....PERIOD.....so get clue, learn the difference between private endowment funds and their use and restrictions, PUF funds, the total money managed by UTIMCO, and where that money goes and who it serves, and what the state of Texas has any control of at all, basic % math, and long term investment management for income and growth......because you are the one shoveling BS based on half truths, ignorance of the facts and the law, and the truth

with recent dorm completions UH has a pretty high % of students that live on campus and with dorms in the planning stages UH will have a very high % of students living on campus.....by SOME measures UT is actually called a commuter school because it actually does not have a large % of students actually living on campus, but UT foes have a number of private dorms right off campus like Dobie, the Woo, and Castilian along with several smaller ones

Edited by TexasVines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically you said PUF is a small pool from which UT and ATM get their money. And they are underfunded, but the giant endowments they both have also figure into how they are funded? And you can't see why they can't share PUF? UT and ATM aren't hurting in terms of funding. Heck UT is turing away freshmen because they have no room for them. How is that doing the State of Texas a service?

As for the per student funding compared to other schools, well Texas also has the lowest cost of living index. So comparing a California funded student to one that lives in College Station, well that's not good comparison is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the PUF is not some endless source of wealth that two schools hog all for themselves.....it is just a way to keep political idiots hands off of a fraction of higher education funding and it is the only reason Texas even has two public "tier 1" universities

I know I don't fully understand how all this works. but if California can be in debt, Texas can have a surplus, how can they afford to have 7 tier 1 universities and we can't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically you said PUF is a small pool from which UT and ATM get their money. And they are underfunded, but the giant endowments they both have also figure into how they are funded? And you can't see why they can't share PUF? UT and ATM aren't hurting in terms of funding. Heck UT is turing away freshmen because they have no room for them. How is that doing the State of Texas a service?

As for the per student funding compared to other schools, well Texas also has the lowest cost of living index. So comparing a California funded student to one that lives in College Station, well that's not good comparison is it?

if you look at the UTIMCO website it list that they have 23 billion dollars in their management......part of that 23 billion represents the PUF funds and part of it represents the private endowment funds raised by UT Austin (about 3.5 billion) and part of it represents the private endowment funds of TAMU College Station (about 3 billion) and part of it represents the private endowments of all the UT and TAMU system schools, agencies, and medical schools.......the remainder of that 23 billion (after the private endowment funds of all the UT and TAMU system entities) is about 13 billion which represents the PUF funds....so UTIMCO has about 13 billion of PUF funds and 10 billion of private endowment funds......all of the 23 billion is managed on the basis that about 4.7% of the five year average is made available to the schools so it can grow with inflation and not take a massive hit in principle during down market times like now

the private parts of those funds paid out yearly go directly to the individual university and more than likely the individual college, school, department, program, or scholarship that was specified when the donor made the donation

the PUF part of those funds paid out yearly are placed into what is called the AUF....the Available University Fund.....from the AUF many but not all members of the UT System, the TAMU System, and their agencies and medical schools are able to have bonds paid off that cover very specific types of spending mainly related to bricks and mortar and some types of equipment......the part of that money that is left after the AUF covers those system school bond obligations is then made available to UT Austin, TAMU College Station, and PVAMU on a split that is defined by law....basically about 2/3rds to UT and 1/3 to TAMU College Station and PVAMU (most going to TAMU)....and these funds have a mandate to be used for "excellence" which means bricks and mortar, scholarships, faculty salaries, new faculty start up packages, a much broader range of equipment and other things that are still defined by law

in the 2007 funding the PUF made just at 400 million available to the AUF.....then out of that AUF the system bond obligations were paid off for those specific projects (mainly buildings and specific equipment) of the participating UT and TAMU system schools and agencies (not all members of those systems participate in the PUF/AUF)......so out of 400 million there are a large number of UT schools, TAMU schools, UTand TAMU medical schools, The Engineering and Ag. research and extension services, the Forestry Service, and the Texas Transportation Institute that draw from that 400 million for those specific allowed bond obligations.....so then there is a lot less than 400 million left over to split by the previously mentioned 2/3-1/3 that goes to TAMU College Station, UT Austin, and PVAMU

on the private side 4.7% of three billion is ~165,000,000 which is what UT Austin would receive for their specific campus from their PRIVATELY RAISED ENDOWMENT FUNDS.....UT Dallas has about 300 million of that 23 billion in private endowment funds so they would get about 14,000,000 from their private funds.....TAMU College Station would get about 141 million from their private endowment funds....and on and on through all the system schools and agencies that have private endowment funds managed by UTIMCO (like UTA, UT Southwestern and UT MD Anderson)

the budget of UT Austin was 1.7 billion according to this site

http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/facts/enrollment.php

so even if UT was to receive the ENTIRE 400 million made available by UTIMCO to the AUF it would only cover less than 25% of their budget....and when you add in the 165 million UT Austin receives from their PRIVATE endowment funds managed by UTIMCO it is still less than half of their entire budget.......also from the above site UT received 411 million in research funding from private, international, federal, and state research competitive research grants and paid private research

so if you add up 411 million in research funding, 165 million in private endowment payouts you get to 576 million.....again from the above site the estimated annual tuition of UT including housing is 18,400.....UT has 50,000+ students.....but not all live on campus so not all of that estimate would be revenue for UT

http://www.utexas.edu/tuition/costs.html

from the above site the per semester tuition alone for UT is about 4,300 per semester for resident tuition and about (we will average) 12,000 for the two classes of non-residents

http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut/profil...state/index.htm

this link says UT has only 434 out of state students

so (8,600 (.991) + 12,000 (.009)) * 50,000 = (8522.6 + 108) * 50,000 = 431,530,000

I believe something like 1/3 of the students stay and go to summer school so (8630.6) *.33 * 50,000 = 144 million

so 431.5 Million + 144 million + 576 million (from research and private endowments) = 1.135 billion in private endowment, tuition, and research funding for UT (still have not included any of the 400 million from the AUF)

so there is 549 million to make up......we have housing revenue for on campus students

http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/whyut/basics...nces/index.html

from the above link UT dorm spaces START at 7,585 per year

http://www.citytowninfo.com/school-profile...texas-at-austin

from the above link UT has 6827 dorm spaces on campus......so 7,585 * 6,827 = 52 million

so now we have 1,187,000,000 in total revenue for UT ( taking very low estimates) which leaves 513 million to make up without any of the PUF/AUF funds yet counted

UT also receives formula funding annually from the state just like every state university does.....it is based on a formula that counts total enrollment and the types of degrees enrolled in by the students......arts and liberal arts is the lowest in the formula on up to engineering, pharmacy and other types of degrees that cost more for hiring faculty......this is the same formula that is used for all state schools across the board

http://www.cppp.org/files/6/House%20Senate...20Education.pdf

these numbers show UT funding based on formula (or mostly formula) at 500 million for 2006-2007

If you look at Texas Tech with 28,000 students VS the 50,000+ students at UT Austin you can see that Texas Tech received about half of the formula funding that UT Austin did....the difference can be made up with UT having a larger college of engineering, a larger % of grad students VS Tech (grad students are higher formula funding) and UT has a larger nursing program than Tech and Techs nursing program is actually under the TTUHSC which is a different budget than the main campus, and UT has a large pharmacy program as a part of the main university while Techs pharmacy program is a part of the HSC as well and is in Amarillo....engineering, pharmacy, nursing, and other similar "expensive to run" programs receive a higher formula funding....you can also see UH with 33,000 students and a bit smaller engineering program than UT receives similar formula type funding.....you can also take in faculty rank and longevity in to that equation as well which a larger school with more research oriented faculty will usually have faculty of a higher rank in the tenure track

so now when you add in all the sources of revenue for UT Austin WITHOUT anything from the PUF/AUF

you get to 431.5 million in long semester tuition + 144 million in summer tuition + 52 million in housing revenue + 411 million in research and grant revenue and 500 million in formula funding = 1,538,500,000 in total revenue for UT Austin out of a 1.7 billion TOTAL BUDGET and we still have not included the PUF/AUF excellence funds

so there is a 161,500,000 million dollar difference between revenue and budget expenses WITHOUT including the PUF/AUF funds going to UT Austin

now if you count the 165 million in funds from the private endowment we can see that UT Austin is actually over 1.7 billion.......there is a chance a large portion of this goes to scholarships which would be "double dipping" as tuition revenue and there is a chance that not all the 50,000 students go to school full time so there is probably less tuition revenue than I counted

so we can see that the UT Austin portion of the PUF/AUF funds is somewhere between 0 and 161.5 million....there are 32 public universities in Texas.....if the entire 161.5 was UTs portion and we were to do what some THINK is "fair" and divide that all equally then we would have an extra 5.5 million per school (you need to remember some of those 32 schools already participate in the PUF/AUF).....so for a school like Texas Tech or UH with a 500 million dollar budget this would be a WHOPPING 1% increase in funding ......yes that is right.......by any of the wildest stretch of the imagination if UT Austin was to have to divide their share of the PUF it would give many of the larger schools in Texas about a 1-2% increase in budget

and again I do not believe UT gets near that 161.5 million difference from the PUF/AUF....because UT gets at least 100 million a year in donations and not near all of that goes directly into the endowment.....I believe UT Austin gets somewhere around 80-90 million from their split of the PUF after all other UT and TAMU system bonds are covered

if we just take the 400 million that went into the AUF and split it by 32 universities that would equal 12,500,000 a year for every school in the state....so that would be a WHOPPING 2.5% increase in budget for UH or Tech

if you were to do it on a per student basis then we might get UH and Tech up to a 4% increase in budget

now if you have been keeping up with the "tier1" discussion you would know that it has been estimated the THECB and the Texas Senate that it would take about 70 million PER SCHOOL in increased yearly funding to elevate each school to "tier 1"......and again NONE of the 7 emerging research universities mentioned are near UT Austins 50,000 students....UH is the closest with 33,000 students.....and again this is the BARE MINIMUM needed to get these schools to 100-150 million in external research while UT Austin and TAMU College Station are doing 400 million +

so PLEASE READ THESE NUMBERS AND THINK ABOUT THEM......we KNOW from the State that 70 million is needed PER SCHOOL ANNUALLY to elevate each school......and when we do the simple math we can see for a LARGE school like UT Austin them receiving an extra 0 - 161.5 million annually over and above the per student formula funding that all schools in Texas receive equally we can surely see that UT Austins share of the PUF/AUF funds is nowhere near out of line for what it takes to have them as a "tier 1" university.....and we can see with even 3rd grade math that splitting the PUF/AUF funds on a per university or a per student basis would not even be 20% of the additional funding it would take to elevate Tech or UH or any other school....and at what cost.....the cost of UT Austin surely falling way down in national and international reputation and falling further behind peer schools in funding and research

I know I don't fully understand how all this works. but if California can be in debt, Texas can have a surplus, how can they afford to have 7 tier 1 universities and we can't?

good question....first California pays a HELL of a lot more in taxes than Texas does.....second California has TWO university systems and that is it and I believe none of their universities have "system centers"

third in California with the exception of CS Northridge and maybe CS San Diego and (maybe one or two others) none of the CSU universities offer PhDs and the few that were mentioned that do offer them offer about three PhDs max and one of then will be an EdD. so this greatly limits the amount of duplication and expenses that goes into the vast majority of their universities and it channels a great deal of funding into those select 9 UC System schools

this two system approach cuts way down on overhead and "one upmanship"

the UC System schools are only required to take the top 4% or 5% of students so again there is a limit to how many undergrads are taking up space at their top research universities

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses/welcome.html

9 universities

http://www.calstate.edu/search_find/campus.shtml

23 universities

Lets look at Texas with

the UT System

http://www.utsystem.edu/

9 universities (no system centers)

TAMU System

10 universities (plus one system center in south San Antonio associated with TAMUK that will be a full university, and a Tarleton campus in Killeen)

http://www.tamus.edu/overview/

The Texas Tech System

http://www.texastech.edu/

two universities (with very small system centers in Fredericksburg, Marble Falls, Abilene and a very few classes at the Junction (of the TAMU Junction boys fame) "campus")

the UH System

http://www.uhsa.uh.edu/

4 universities and 2 system centers

The Texas State System

http://www.tsus.edu/

4 universities and 6 system centers (Sul Ross Rio Grande is two separate campuses and the Tx State System Center in Round Rock is not listed)

the FAKE UNT system

http://untsystem.unt.edu/

one crappy university (and one totally unneeded pork system center that will be a full university one day in sunny south dallas)

TWU

http://www.twu.edu/

one girls college and a campus in Dallas and Houston

Texas Southern as an independent crappy university

http://www.tsu.edu/pages/1.asp

Stephen F. Austin

http://www.sfasu.edu/

Midwestern State

http://www.mwsu.edu/

so Texas has 34 full universities and 15 system centers not counting the Lone Star College setup and the UCD (downtown dallas) setup and not counting ALL the campuses that offer a few courses like one of Techs and one of TWU and Texas has 6 university systems and 3 independent universities ....I am not positive, but I do not believe ANY of the US or CSU schools have any system centers and if they do they are probably not a full campus, but just a place that offers some courses in already available space (I could be wrong on this)

so with a larger population than Texas California has 2 less full universities and the crappy UNT dallas will soon be a full (joke of a) university and TAMUK-System Center in south San Antonio will soon be a full university (though I think this IS needed for that region)

so soon Texas will have 36 universities and around 13+ system centers (with buildings and campuses specifically for them)

then you add in that UT Austin, UTA, UTD, UTSA, UTEP, TAMU, TAMUK, UH, TTU, TWU, PVAMU, TSU, UNT offer a number of PhDs and several others offer at least a couple and you can see that Texas has let "my area" pork projects get way out of control in an effort to make wasteful fools happy and at the expense of having more top universities

Edited by TexasVines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey vine, could you do a 1 or 2 line synopsis? Thanks.

I didn't have the patience to read all of it either, but I think his point is that UT-Austin "only" gets an extra $161.5 million per year over and above the enrollment formula funding, and that's not really a lot of money.

Paraphrasing and embellishing a little, but I think that was the point.

TV may consider it small potatoes, but UH sure could have done a lot of good things with a sum of extra cash like that EVERY YEAR for the LAST 100+ YEARS!!!

As I recall, UH fought, scratched and clawed for years to get a one-time excellence boost of $13 million from the State Legislature. It was finally approved by the Lege, but Gov. Perry vetoed it.

But I'm not bitter...nah. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the point was

A. UT only gets something much less than 161.5 million a year probably more around 90

B. if you divide up the public part of the funds UTIMCO puts into the AUF (from the PUF) between all the universities in Texas it would be about 5 million a year more per school which for UH and Tech would be a 1% increase in budget and it would be at the expense of further underfunding UT Austin and TAMU College Station and PVAMU

C. if you divide up the public part of the funds UTIMCO puts into the AUF (from the PUF) on a per student basis it would still probably be only a 2% increase in funding for Tech or UH and still at the expense of UT Austin and TAMU College Station and PVAMU

D. The state senate and THECB and the university presidents have said it will take at least 70 million per year per school to elevate each school and that would be to the bare min of "tier 1"

E. so UT Austin as a very large university getting something under 161.5 million to be well above average "tier 1" is not unfair at all unless people prefer "fair" to be Texas having a bunch of less than "tier 1" universities so they can all be mediocre together

F. Texas has concerned themselves too much with trying to put a university in every fool like royce idiot west area instead of having top universities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the point was

F. Texas has concerned themselves too much with trying to put a university in every fool like royce idiot west area instead of having top universities

This just proves you're crazy! This whole debate is making MORE top universities! And gee, that's mighty elitist of you to say Texas is trying to give EVERY one of its citizen access to higher education. Go back to Austin and make sure to give Rick Perry a nice wet one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This just proves you're crazy! This whole debate is making MORE top universities! And gee, that's mighty elitist of you to say Texas is trying to give EVERY one of its citizen access to higher education. Go back to Austin and make sure to give Rick Perry a nice wet one!

pull your head out of royces big butt

you don't need to put a university in every last area of the state especially in south dallas when the dallas metro area already has UTD and UTA and UNT just north in Denton and TWU in Denton as well and at the time unt-dallas was started UTA was actually losing enrollemnt

Texas has 33 or 34 universities not including any system centers or unt-dallas which has failed to meet enrollment projections and even failed to meet reduced enrollment projections for 5+ years

making more universities when there are a number of small universities with plenty of available space and room to grow and still not be all that large is what is crazy....Lamar, Sul Ross, UT Tyler, TAMU Texarkana, Tarleton, Angelo State, Stephen F. Austin, TAMU Corpus, TAMU Kingsville, UTD, UHV, TAMU Commerce, TAMU International, West Texas A&M and others could all take several thousand if not more and still be smaller universities and some could take well over that and not be big....building more buildings and creating more administrative overhead is not the answer....give royces big pork filled butt a big kiss for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have a bunch of schools each with their own specialties instead of just several schools that are across-the-board great followed by a steep dropoff (which seems to be the case in California).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I don't fully understand how all this works. but if California can be in debt, Texas can have a surplus, how can they afford to have 7 tier 1 universities and we can't?

California also has more established private universities than Texas does. I also would not be surprised if the private schools are the real economic engines that bring in all of the venture capital, etc but of course I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas has the second largest population in the US and needs more than 2 Tier I institutions. To argue otherwise is cheap and stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas really isn't an R+D type of state, like California is. We are more likely to follow the Alabama model as our economic engine: heavily incentivize a "sure thing" (for Alabama, this was the auto industry) as a means of luring companies here to generate tax revenue for us.

The report on "Tier 1 institutions" kept referring to "our share" of federal research dollars. So if we got our fair share of research dollars (that is, more research dollars than we are getting now) that means some other states' research dollar percentages are going to have to go down. Do people here really think they can suddenly out-compete states like California simply by throwing $90 million a year at one of our universities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Texas really isn't an R+D type of state, like California is. We are more likely to follow the Alabama model as our economic engine: heavily incentivize a "sure thing" (for Alabama, this was the auto industry) as a means of luring companies here to generate tax revenue for us.

The report on "Tier 1 institutions" kept referring to "our share" of federal research dollars. So if we got our fair share of research dollars (that is, more research dollars than we are getting now) that means some other states' research dollar percentages are going to have to go down. Do people here really think they can suddenly out-compete states like California simply by throwing $90 million a year at one of our universities?

well at one time Austin was just a sleepy college town with a state capital, 500K people and a good, but not great university

then they became serious about being a world class university and now they have Sematech, several other wafer and Tech companies and the largest venture capital pool in the state of Texas and direct flights to San Jose...so YES I think we can compete in Texas

Houston has the largest medical center in the USA and we do not capitalize on that in the form of patents and research ventures and employment from it....same with dallas and telcom

and federal research spending increases usually faster than inflation so some other state does not have to go down for Texas to increase and if some state that has been getting a larger share than the share of federal taxes they pay does go down slightly then that is just how it is

at one time TAMU was a small school in a smaller town and only allowed men in....then they became serious about being a top university and now they are a leader in all facets of Ag and many in Life Sciences and a leader in engineering with a well respected business college....but we have still not made hay from that in the form of venture capital and business growth, but it is being worked on

so yes Texas can compete with three of the largest metro areas in the USA and a huge number of fortume 500 companies and world class transportation infrastructure......we just need to be more serious about taking what is in the universities and turning it into real world products and we need more universities to be in a position to do that

at one time even recently Atlanta was just a charming Southern city with a state capital and some decent universities and a big airport.....then Emory became more serious about being a world class university and even more so Georgia Tech did.....now Atlanta rivals dallas and Houston in job growth, beats them in college graduates, and is a respected city making a scene on the world scale....so it has worked other places as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atlanta... is a respected city making a scene on the world scale....

I wouldn't go THAT far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legislation intended to increase the number of top-tier research universities in Texas enjoys wide support among state lawmakers and appears likely to pass this session. Whether it will achieve the goal is another question.

To hear some lawmakers discuss the matter, the increases in funding currently envisioned should propel some of the state's public universities onto the national stage in five or 10 years. Higher education leaders say the reality is more sobering.

"I think it's going to take any of those institutions 20 years to get there and some considerably longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7386162.html

The school announced this morning that the latest rankings from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching moved UH to its list of Tier One schools, for "very high research activity."

Much more details at the article.

UH is raising their acceptance standards which I think is good. There are plenty of other schools around town that people can attend in which they can improve their grades and come to UH after a year or two; I think that should help the graduation rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chron.com...an/7386162.html

Much more details at the article.

UH is raising their acceptance standards which I think is good. There are plenty of other schools around town that people can attend in which they can improve their grades and come to UH after a year or two; I think that should help the graduation rate.

CultureMap included a video of UH students, professors and alum (Jim Nantz, CBS sports broadcaster).

Anyone have the inside scoop of the specifics they plan to do to get to tier 1?

http://www.culturemap.com/newsdetail/01-28-11-university-of-houston-celebrates-tier-one-status-with-big-campus-pep-rally/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have the inside scoop of the specifics they plan to do to get to tier 1?

define "tier 1"

the only organization that uses that term for rankings is US News....for UH to get to one of the top 160 (or whatever the cutoff is next time for the top universities that get a numerical ranking) UH will need to increase the profile of their incoming freshman, increase the % of alumni that donate to the university, decrease the % of applicants that are accepted (bogus metric), and increase the perception of their peers

the Carnegie Foundation does not use the term "tier 1" and they specifically do not rank universities they classify various aspects of universities and say clearly those classifications in no way reflect on the quality of a university or any aspect of it

the poorly termed "tier 1" that The State of Texas talks about to reach additional funding has metrics that UH has met enough of to mostly qualify for additional funding once the money is available

those metrics start with #1 45 million in restricted research that must be met for two years running each time to get the funding and this first criteria needs to be met before any others matter

the next criteria is 4 of the 6

1. 400 million+ in endowment....UH meets this

2. member of Phi Beta Kappa and or the National Research Libraries.....UH is NRL

3. a freshman class of high quality.....this has yet to be defined by the THECB

4. high quality graduate education....again yet to be fully defined, but UH does the most total research, has the highest % of grad students VS undergrads, and graduates the most PhDs per year of the 7 emerging research universities

5. graduate more than 200 PhDs per year for 2 years running each time before additional funding.....UH meets this requirement

6. high quality faculty.....this has yet to be defined by the THECB, but UH has 7 members of the National Academies of Science and or Nobel Laureates or similarly honored faculty on staff which is 4 more than the next closest of the seven emerging research universities which is UTD

Texas Tech meets the 45 million in restricted research, the PBK and NRL, the 200 PhDs, the endowment and will probably meet number 3 and 4 as well since Tech is doing near the same dollar amount in research, has higher freshman entrance requirements, and has more post doc positions than UH

but those that have yet to be defined obviously can't be known until the THECB acts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From President Khator on twitter:

First time ever, UH freshmen average SAT crosses 1100 mark (it is 1114)...freshmen to sophomore retention is 81%...building a Tier1 UH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

define "tier 1"

the only organization that uses that term for rankings is US News....for UH to get to one of the top 160 (or whatever the cutoff is next time for the top universities that get a numerical ranking) UH will need to increase the profile of their incoming freshman, increase the % of alumni that donate to the university, decrease the % of applicants that are accepted (bogus metric), and increase the perception of their peers

the Carnegie Foundation does not use the term "tier 1" and they specifically do not rank universities they classify various aspects of universities and say clearly those classifications in no way reflect on the quality of a university or any aspect of it

the poorly termed "tier 1" that The State of Texas talks about to reach additional funding has metrics that UH has met enough of to mostly qualify for additional funding once the money is available

those metrics start with #1 45 million in restricted research that must be met for two years running each time to get the funding and this first criteria needs to be met before any others matter

the next criteria is 4 of the 6

1. 400 million+ in endowment....UH meets this

2. member of Phi Beta Kappa and or the National Research Libraries.....UH is NRL

3. a freshman class of high quality.....this has yet to be defined by the THECB

4. high quality graduate education....again yet to be fully defined, but UH does the most total research, has the highest % of grad students VS undergrads, and graduates the most PhDs per year of the 7 emerging research universities

5. graduate more than 200 PhDs per year for 2 years running each time before additional funding.....UH meets this requirement

6. high quality faculty.....this has yet to be defined by the THECB, but UH has 7 members of the National Academies of Science and or Nobel Laureates or similarly honored faculty on staff which is 4 more than the next closest of the seven emerging research universities which is UTD

Texas Tech meets the 45 million in restricted research, the PBK and NRL, the 200 PhDs, the endowment and will probably meet number 3 and 4 as well since Tech is doing near the same dollar amount in research, has higher freshman entrance requirements, and has more post doc positions than UH

but those that have yet to be defined obviously can't be known until the THECB acts

I really appreciate this information. Thanks for posting it. Please feel free to use more proper punctuation next time. It really help make this more readable. Thank you. Kind regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...