University of Houston's Campaign For Tier 1 Status

[totheskies]

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.

[Bombero451]

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.

[TexasVines]

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

[LTAWACS]

This is good news for houston's academic landscape.

[Trae]

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.

[N Judah]

I thought "Tier 1" status was something real until I read that report.

[TexasVines]

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

[N Judah]

Isn't Dallas a little bit of an "older" city?

[TexasVines]

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

[N Judah]

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.

[roadrunner]

When is the decision made? I know the proposals were sent months ago.

[TexasVines]

When is the decision made? I know the proposals were sent months ago.

it will be hashed out during the legislative session

[Trae]

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).

[H-Town Man]

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.

[Trae]

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.

[Houston19514]

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

[TexasVines]

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

[N Judah]

I think this is a good list for U of H to ascend:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Th...ist-786337.html

I think it's only for the life sciences but should still be a worthwhile indicator of what researchers generally prefer.

[Trae]

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).

[texas911]

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.

[TexasVines]

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

[tierwestah]

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.

[citizen4rmptown]

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

[crunchtastic]

To some "The Harvard of the South"- Rice

I thought that was Ole Miss?

[N Judah]

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.)

[texas911]

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.

[BryanS]

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?

[TexasVines]

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

[texas911]

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?

[lockmat]

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?