Jump to content

University Debates: Sports, Fundings, And Developments


VicMan

Recommended Posts

 

-As it stands now the annual funds available from the PUF are split two ways 2/3 to the UT system and 1/3 to the Texas A&M system. Just so that everyone understands those are the SYSTEMS not UT Austin or A&M College Station. 

 

Unless something has changed in the past few years, this is not the case. The PUF only goes to the flagship schools and one or two others in each system. Most of the schools in each system receive from a different, smaller endowment, the same endowment that funds Texas Tech and UH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with competition--so long as schools are given an equal footing. Competition breeds ingenuity and excellence. The UT system has a Houston medical school, then the UH system should be granted the same by the state legislature. Additional state funding to a UT-Houston should be matched with additional matching funding to the UH system.

 

Edited by Sparrow
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are great posts. Much good information. Thought U of Chicago was public, turns out it's private. One comment, being a KU  man I have no dog in this fight. Nevertheless regardless of feelings the facts are if UT wants to build this campus they are going to do it. They have the muscle in all its permutations to pull this off. If UT puts their mind to it , it is a fait accompli. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless something has changed in the past few years, this is not the case. The PUF only goes to the flagship schools and one or two others in each system. Most of the schools in each system receive from a different, smaller endowment, the same endowment that funds Texas Tech and UH.

I wouldn't exactly say "one or two others in each system.  The following lists are straight out of the Texas Constitution:

 

A&M System Schools with access to interest from the PUF

(1) Texas A&M University, including its medical college which the legislature may authorize as a separate medical institution;

(2) Prairie View A&M University, including its nursing school in Houston;

(3) Tarleton State University;

(4) Texas A&M University at Galveston;

(5) Texas Forest Service;

(6) Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations;

(7) Texas Agricultural Extension Service;

(8) Texas Engineering Experiment Stations;

(9) Texas Transportation Institute; and

(10) Texas Engineering Extension Service.

 

 

UT System Schools with access to interest from the PUF

(1) The University of Texas at Arlington;

(2) The University of Texas at Austin;

(3) The University of Texas at Dallas;

(4) The University of Texas at El Paso;

(5) The University of Texas of the Permian Basin;

(6) The University of Texas at San Antonio;

(7) The University of Texas at Tyler;

(8) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas;

(9) The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston;

(10) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

(11) The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio;

(12) The University of Texas System Cancer Center;

(13) The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler; and

(14) The University of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures at San Antonio.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't exactly say "one or two others in each system.  The following lists are straight out of the Texas Constitution:

 

A&M System Schools with access to interest from the PUF

(1) Texas A&M University, including its medical college which the legislature may authorize as a separate medical institution;

(2) Prairie View A&M University, including its nursing school in Houston;

(3) Tarleton State University;

(4) Texas A&M University at Galveston;

(5) Texas Forest Service;

(6) Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations;

(7) Texas Agricultural Extension Service;

(8) Texas Engineering Experiment Stations;

(9) Texas Transportation Institute; and

(10) Texas Engineering Extension Service.

 

 

UT System Schools with access to interest from the PUF

(1) The University of Texas at Arlington;

(2) The University of Texas at Austin;

(3) The University of Texas at Dallas;

(4) The University of Texas at El Paso;

(5) The University of Texas of the Permian Basin;

(6) The University of Texas at San Antonio;

(7) The University of Texas at Tyler;

(8) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas;

(9) The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston;

(10) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston;

(11) The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio;

(12) The University of Texas System Cancer Center;

(13) The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler; and

(14) The University of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures at San Antonio.

 

Looks like several A&M schools are still not included, along with a couple of UT schools. But you are right, it is more than one or two others - I suspect due to adding more over the years from political pressure (I was also talking about schools, not all the various centers and ag experiment stations).

Edited by H-Town Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still a little confused about what UH is worried about. If someone wants a UT degree today they currently leave Houston. Now, we'll just have more students stay in Houston. It will make for a more vibrant city and could enhance UH by encouraging more redevelopment in the third ward. They'd anchor a triangle (Rice, UT, UH) that could host thousands of students and encourage even more student life.

 

They're probably worried about politicians from other cities who don't want to see more of the state educational pie sliced towards Houston, and if there is a bigger UT presence in Houston, that could lessen their claim for more Tier One funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rice is only more prestigious at the undergraduate level. In terms of research power and the sigificance of who teaches there and what they publish, UT is known internationally, Rice isn't. I don't get any pleasure saying this, since I have always liked A&M over UT.

 

I suspect that a significant chunk of the perceived "research power" is due to sheer scale. Rice has less than 650 full-time faculty, as opposed to UT-Austin with just under 3100. Similarly, in terms of sponsored research, Rice pulls in roughly 20% of the money UT does (~$115MM vs. ~$540MM). 

 

A different metric of prestige: Rice's two Nobel Laureates were members of the Rice faculty at the time of the award, whereas UT has had several affiliated faculty that were Nobel Laureates, but I believe only one of them was on staff at the time of the award. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that a significant chunk of the perceived "research power" is due to sheer scale. Rice has less than 650 full-time faculty, as opposed to UT-Austin with just under 3100. Similarly, in terms of sponsored research, Rice pulls in roughly 20% of the money UT does (~$115MM vs. ~$540MM). 

 

A different metric of prestige: Rice's two Nobel Laureates were members of the Rice faculty at the time of the award, whereas UT has had several affiliated faculty that were Nobel Laureates, but I believe only one of them was on staff at the time of the award. 

 

Their Ph.D. programs don't get ranked in the top 20 in nearly every field just because they're big. Size doesn't hurt, but there are plenty of very large schools that don't have UT's academic standing.

 

I wish Rice would continue expanding its grad programs and aim to be a major university across a wide range of fields, but that kind of change takes a generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that a significant chunk of the perceived "research power" is due to sheer scale. Rice has less than 650 full-time faculty, as opposed to UT-Austin with just under 3100. Similarly, in terms of sponsored research, Rice pulls in roughly 20% of the money UT does (~$115MM vs. ~$540MM).

A different metric of prestige: Rice's two Nobel Laureates were members of the Rice faculty at the time of the award, whereas UT has had several affiliated faculty that were Nobel Laureates, but I believe only one of them was on staff at the time of the award.

UT poached Steven Weinberg from Harvard after he won his Nobel Prize for the electroweak force. Not sure about Nobel laureate faculty members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UT-Houston had Ferid Murad on staff at the time of his Nobel prize in medicine and physiology. He had done his "Noble" work elsewhere, at the moment I can't recall where.   I think all in  all the UT Research campus  is a big plus for Houston. Both the SF Bay area and Boston house more than one powerhouse university.  So can we. I for one, though being KU through and through  will look ill on attempts to weaken U o Houston.  It is the University of Houston after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but your list is missing quite a few public schools in our area. If you are including schools in Wisconsin for Chicago and Commerce for DFW, then A&M Galveston, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State and even Texas A&M should be on Houston's list. If you live in Cypress, you can drive to A&M more quickly than UH's main campus.

Not that it is happening or that there are any plans for it to happen, but I would love to see a full-fledged UT-Houston, plus a full-fledged Texas A&M-Houston, plus a continuing advancement of UH.  We hare fast becoming the next global city and it's time we started acting like it in all ways, including a wide variety of premier advanced educational opportunities.

 

For comparison, here is a (probably incomplete) listing of public universities in some of our peer metro areas:

 

Chicago

Chicago State University

University of Illinois @ Chicago

Indiana University Northwest

Northeastern Illinois University

Purdue University Calumet

University of Wisconsin Parkside

 

D-FW

Texas A&M University-Commerce

University of North Texas

University of North Texas @ Dallas

University of Texas @ Arlington

University of Texas @ Dallas

Weatherford College

 

Houston

University of Houston

University of Houston-Clear Lake

University of Houston-Downtown

Texas Southern University

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but your list is missing quite a few public schools in our area. If you are including schools in Wisconsin for Chicago and Commerce for DFW, then A&M Galveston, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State and even Texas A&M should be on Houston's list. If you live in Cypress, you can drive to A&M more quickly than UH's main campus.

That's...a good point. Why am I driving to UH from there? Damn...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple thoughts:

1. Let's face it, Houston is Texas's premiere city and I always thought it silly that there wasn't a full fledged UT campus here.

2. Lots of people here are stating that we could do with a prestigious UT campus, but who says the thing will be prestigious. UTD, and UTSA are big public schools but not more prestigious than UH.

3. Having two UH caliber schools here is better than 1, but having a full fledged Tier 1 public university is even better.

4. You guys know I won't leave this out but I love more urban campuses so I wish this was more closer in. I love the campus vibe and energy and this being on a site like post office, court house area, even KBR or Hardy would do wonders for the downtown area.

5. Why are we comparing public schools and leaving out private schools. Yes, we could do with more public schools but overall in the education department Houston blows away DFW. Rice blows away SMU; UH handles UTD, our combination of Medical And Law Schools are better, plus we have St Thomas, Houston Baptist etc. We have two Carnegie Tier 1 schools in the metro and 1 in the backyard, they have 0.

6. I would have been more overjoyed by a rice/Baylor/ South Texas college of law merger and UH gaining a med School. But some say 4 med schools is overkill.

7. Still concerned about how this will affect Future UT growth in the Med Center.

8. How is A&M reacting to this?

9. Would be funny if this turns out to be a double plus for Houston in that the competition made UH Stronger instead of weaker and at the same time the two Houston schools (UH and UTH) diminish UT prominence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even thought I've been a haifer for many, many years, I seldom post. But I feel compelled to jump into the fray. I'm not going to pretend to know what the future will look like years from now, if UT establishes a campus here or not. Being a UH alum makes me biased in favor of UH. So naturally, any competition for UH makes me squeamish, especially given the fact that UH has had to claw and fight for its current status, not being able to benefit from the PUF like many other Texas schools. But lets be clear about one thing, for those making the argument that other cities have more variety than Houston, and Houston should be comparable, are forgetting that none of those situations can come close to what UH would face.

 

UT is only one of the most influential and wealthiest publicly funded schools. UT Austin's budget for instance is $2.8 billion, compared to UH's $1.1 billion. And unlike what Urbanize713 said, the state isn't always looking to cut their budget. The budget was cut in 1991 by about a quarter due to a decrease in the PUF's oil revenue from $262 million in 1981 to $57 million in 1995. However, the PUF's distribution to the AUF has increased beyond its initial cuts, since its oil revenues has led to growth of about 10% annually. The PUF is worth about $15 billion.

 

UH's struggles may very well worsen if and when access to UT is made easier. UH does not draw its students in large numbers like UT from around the globe, getting most of its students from Houston's own diverse population. Students are not going to choose "UT Houston" over UT Austin because the drive is shorter. "UT Houston" will get its students from UH's pool. If a provision is made to offer degrees not currently offered by UH, then "UT Houston" will get its students from UHD or TSU. Understand that I am always for more development, so this is very conflicting for me. However, those of you who try to paint a rosy picture of any potential coexistence, seem to be ignoring the history of the schools. The possibility is there for potential deleterious effects to UH's ambitions. Don't get me wrong, UH isn't going anywhere and will survive. It may just have to take two steps back before being able to take one step forward.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a really good point, and my reasoning for the "rosy picture of coexistence" is because I'm seeing first hand how much UH is growing and what kind of institution it is today than it was when my father went almost 30 years ago.

UH is fastly becoming a "serious" school in the same way that high school grads view UT, A&m, Baylor, and Tech. Most of the grads that want to go to UT or A&M want to go to the Austin and CStat campuses, respectively. The satellite campuses are the last resort, so to speak. UTSA, A&M Galveston, etc. are not the go-to campuses for these guys, and that's how I imagine UT Houston will turn out.

Essentially, I see the growth and success of UH trumping a satellite campus for UT. Which isn't to say that UH shouldn't be cautious; they have every right to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name branding is hard to fix.

Slapping a UT in front of something doesn't make it comparable to the reAL thing. UTD and UTSA are not comparable to UT Austin. UHD is not UH.

That's why I said i would rather see UH become a full fledged Tier one school, than another dime a dozen UT School That won't have any sort of name brand for the next 20 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even thought I've been a haifer for many, many years, I seldom post. But I feel compelled to jump into the fray. I'm not going to pretend to know what the future will look like years from now, if UT establishes a campus here or not. Being a UH alum makes me biased in favor of UH. So naturally, any competition for UH makes me squeamish, especially given the fact that UH has had to claw and fight for its current status, not being able to benefit from the PUF like many other Texas schools. But lets be clear about one thing, for those making the argument that other cities have more variety than Houston, and Houston should be comparable, are forgetting that none of those situations can come close to what UH would face.

 

UT is only one of the most influential and wealthiest publicly funded schools. UT Austin's budget for instance is $2.8 billion, compared to UH's $1.1 billion. And unlike what Urbanize713 said, the state isn't always looking to cut their budget. The budget was cut in 1991 by about a quarter due to a decrease in the PUF's oil revenue from $262 million in 1981 to $57 million in 1995. However, the PUF's distribution to the AUF has increased beyond its initial cuts, since its oil revenues has led to growth of about 10% annually. The PUF is worth about $15 billion.

 

UH's struggles may very well worsen if and when access to UT is made easier. UH does not draw its students in large numbers like UT from around the globe, getting most of its students from Houston's own diverse population. Students are not going to choose "UT Houston" over UT Austin because the drive is shorter. "UT Houston" will get its students from UH's pool. If a provision is made to offer degrees not currently offered by UH, then "UT Houston" will get its students from UHD or TSU. Understand that I am always for more development, so this is very conflicting for me. However, those of you who try to paint a rosy picture of any potential coexistence, seem to be ignoring the history of the schools. The possibility is there for potential deleterious effects to UH's ambitions. Don't get me wrong, UH isn't going anywhere and will survive. It may just have to take two steps back before being able to take one step forward.

 

Good thoughts. I think as long as this is a research campus and not a full UT satellite school, it won't hurt UH too much. Cornell is developing a tech research/advanced degree campus in NYC (Cornell Tech) but it is not considered a threat to CUNY's bread-and-butter, broad range programs for both grad and undergrad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about applying that line of thinking to the students themselves?  Do they have enough freedom from competitive pressures?  I mean, even in high school there's this feeling that the admissions verdict from a competitive college is, in Frank Bruni's words, "the great, brutal culling" between the upwardly mobile and the hoi polloi.

 

He continues, "the nature of a student’s college experience — the work that he or she puts into it, the self-examination that’s undertaken, the resourcefulness that’s honed — matters more than the name of the institution attended. In fact students at institutions with less hallowed names sometimes demand more of those places and of themselves. Freed from a focus on the packaging of their education, they get to the meat of it."

 

This kind of painstaking personal filtering is more - much more - important than the talent filtering that our colleges pretend to perform.  And I would argue that our current academic draft system does not lead high schoolers in the right direction to undertake any of this.  Colleges are happy to up the hype, even as the majority of parents in American families basically just want their kids to be able to afford training for a decent line of work.

 
"...Yet there’s a frenzy to get into the Stanfords of the world, and it seems to grow ever crazier and more corrosive. It’s fed by many factors, including contemporary America’s exaltation of brands and an economic pessimism that has parents determined to find and give their kids any and every possible leg up.
 
And it yields some bitter fruits, among them a perversion of higher education’s purpose and potential. College is a singular opportunity to rummage through and luxuriate in ideas, to realize how very large the world is and to contemplate your desired place in it. And that’s lost in the [admissions filtering] mania."

 

Edited by strickn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This feels just like when Southwest Airlines announced their intention to open up a second international gateway at Hobby and United got all bent out of shape saying that it would destroy their international hub at IAH. It hasn't. It has just made Houston a better, more accessible and affordable travel city.

It may not be a perfect analogy. But, it is how it feels.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This feels just like when Southwest Airlines announced their intention to open up a second international gateway at Hobby and United got all bent out of shape saying that it would destroy their international hub at IAH. It hasn't. It has just made Houston a better, more accessible and affordable travel city.

It may not be a perfect analogy. But, it is how it feels.

That's exactly how I feel. UH has a lot going for it. UT plans will take decades to come into furition. UH can hopefully use this to get more funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This feels just like when Southwest Airlines announced their intention to open up a second international gateway at Hobby and United got all bent out of shape saying that it would destroy their international hub at IAH. It hasn't. It has just made Houston a better, more accessible and affordable travel city.

It may not be a perfect analogy. But, it is how it feels.

But in your scenario, united is one of the top 4 biggest airlines in the industry while SW is just small fry nibbling on crumbs.

In this case UH is already scrambling for crumbs and UT, one of the biggest schools in the country with one of the top endowments is moving in.

So things are not really analogous. Kinda opposite it you ask me

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alarmists on this thread make it sound like UH is a crappy school with poor funding who can't compete against UT. If UH is in that bad of shape then your arguments are wanting me to get UT even more. Houston needs top universities and if UH is in that bad of shape then we need UT in this city.

 

 

This isn't like United vs. Southwest. This would be like GE creating 2 subsidiaries that operate in the exact same industry and then locating both subsidiaries' headquarters in the same city. And then giving one subsidiary a 5 times larger budget.

 

UH and UT are essentially owned by the same parent company, i.e., the state. And both institutions' funding comes from the same pie.

 

Instead of "wanting to get UT even more" because they have better funding, the solution is much more simple, just have the state give UH better funding.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't like United vs. Southwest. This would be like GE creating 2 subsidiaries that operate in the exact same industry and then locating both subsidiaries' headquarters in the same city. And then giving one subsidiary a 5 times larger budget.

UH and UT are essentially owned by the same parent company, i.e., the state. And both institutions' funding comes from the same pie.

Instead of "wanting to get UT even more" because they have better funding, the solution is much more simple, just have the state give UH better funding.

Thanks. This is a better ELI5 since I'm not familiar with state funding. Is money that's appropriated for various institutions proportional to the nearby tax base? In other words, is the pie size fixed for each part of the state?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't like United vs. Southwest. This would be like GE creating 2 subsidiaries that operate in the exact same industry and then locating both subsidiaries' headquarters in the same city. And then giving one subsidiary a 5 times larger budget.

 

UH and UT are essentially owned by the same parent company, i.e., the state. And both institutions' funding comes from the same pie.

 

Instead of "wanting to get UT even more" because they have better funding, the solution is much more simple, just have the state give UH better funding.

 

Perhaps it's more like GM's brand differentiation, where one is clearly supposed to be a prestige brand that appeals to higher-end customers, while the other is a more mid-market brand serving a wider audience at lower operating costs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk about state funding. There are how many UH alumni? Does no one ever donate to UH..? What kind of fundraising campaigns does UH have and how successful are they at reaching those goals?

 

UH has raised over $100 million per year in private donations for the last 5 or so years in a row. Most likely less than UT/TAMU, but more than almost every other school in the state except perhaps TTU, who probably raises a similar amount. The total budget of UH is ~$1 billion per year, if I recall correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. This is a better ELI5 since I'm not familiar with state funding. Is money that's appropriated for various institutions proportional to the nearby tax base? In other words, is the pie size fixed for each part of the state?

 

 

No, it's not proportional to the surrounding tax base. Otherwise the state flagship universities (UT/TAMU) would not be located in Austin and College Station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UH has raised over $100 million per year in private donations for the last 5 or so years in a row. Most likely less than UT/TAMU, but more than almost every other school in the state except perhaps TTU, who probably raises a similar amount. The total budget of UH is ~$1 billion per year, if I recall correctly.

SMU just raised 1 billion

Link to comment
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...
×
×
  • Create New...