arbpro

"The improvements come with an increase in the number of students living on campus. Two new residence halls are opening this week, bringing UH’s residential capacity to 8,000 beds—the second highest capacity among Texas universities. The new facilities include Cougar Place, which will accommodate up to 800 students for the first time this semester, and Cougar Village II, which will house 1,100 first-year students." http://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2013/august/08212013CampusImprovements.php

I'm sure that you can direct me to your previous equal outrage when UH had encroachment rules applied against it. You guys just don't get it. UH has been told "no" before and told that encroachment that involves duplicative course and studies is an unnecessary expense and a waste of limited state funds. The issue you guys never address, and likely never will, is why are there rules prohibitting encroachment that have been enforced against UH, yet UT can encroach within miles of UH? Got an answer?

If you will do me the courtesy of first answering my question, I would be delighted to answer yours.

Well, then I highly suspect the matter could come to a quick resolution. The UT would merely have to enter into an enforceable agreement that provides that it will not now, nor any time in the future, "operate a full-fledged university (at the referenced site) or even a campus of one of their existing universities." Included therein, would confer the advance approval of the UH to locate the same type campus, with the same restrictions, as close as 5 miles to the UT campus. I assume you are OK with that?

TAMU understands that the governing body for public university expansion is the Coordinating Board. When TAMU sought a merger with a law school in Houston, such expansion was deemed an encroachment. When TAMU's application for expansion was denied, it complied with the decision and located its law school in Fort Worth. Every state supported university seems to be able to understand the process except one. As you correctly observe, "arrogance and hubris" is fully employed.

Monarch, Sorry but I don't "trust you." Is there any particular reason I should? I note you offer no substantive response. I would think that would be the thing to do in vocalizing your position. Obviously, you are exceptionally adroit at cutting and pasting images, but that is about it. With respect to your "we shall take no prisoners" portent, same will surely strike fear in every person on Cullen Blvd. When you have nothing in PUF funds and have always had nothing, I am not certain as to exactly what there is to lose. No doubt you will have a 4th grade internet image for that too.

The items always ignored and avoided by those advocating for this campus are: 1. It is not a "research" center. Research centers don't require athletic fields and facilities. It is a school campus, but the herd prefers the term "research" because it offers some legitimacy to the encroachment. 2. There is never an argument offered as to why the process has ALWAYS required the UH abide by the decision taking and the jurisdiction of the Coordinating Board. Prior decisions of the Coordinating Board resulted in denials of UH requests to move forward with expansion. UH accepted the outcomes and took no steps to effectuate expansion without the prior consent of the Board. The UT did not acquire approval of the Coordinating Board to move forward with this school campus. The Chairman of the Board stated he knew nothing of the purchase of the land until he heard it in the news. The only explanation as to why the process rules apply to the UH and not to the UT is because UT is somehow exempt from process and at leave to make its own rules and to do what it wants, when it wants and where it wants. If encroachment rules are applied to one public university, then they should be applied to all of them. 3. The advocates howl about the notion that nobody should want to stand in the way of better. I'm fine with competition. But competition structured upon a system that willfully discriminates in the manner that state funds are received confers the UT with unfair advantage in this so-called "competition." When one school receives hundreds of millions of state funds from the PUF, and the other receives none, how is that competition? Don't demand all the money and then tell me about "competition." If you want to compete then do it without a disparity in resources. The UT has started a fight. A fight it will get. Either encroachment rules are going to be applied uniformly, fairly, and across the board against all public universities or the funds derived from the PUF are going to be distributed on the basis of the number of students. But the UT no doubt believes it is knighted by God to be entitled to all the money. And the rules? Oh, they just apply to the "common folk" not the privileged.

When you are incapable of expressing yourself, resort to youtube. It's the new way of "dumbing down."

Position statement from UH Law Professor and Director of Higher Education and Governance, Michael Olivas, JD, PhD "Were the situation reversed and UH bought land near the Austin Airport to provide state-level experiences for its students in the state capital, UT would properly object and the CB (Coordinating Board) would likely deny a UH application request. UH has observed the rules all these years, and UT should be made to do so here." http://www.scribd.com/doc/290557560/UH-and-UT-in-Houston-Olivas

Letter from Senator John Whitmire (dean of the Texas Senate) to Chancellor McRaven "if UT moves forward with this plan to expand in Houston, there must be serious discussions about how we ensure a level playing field for the University of Houston System and Texas Southern University ..... One important decision to be made would be the future distribution of the Permanent University Fund" http://www.scribd.com/doc/291958901/Ltr-to-McRaven-UT-Houston-Expansion

OK, I'll tell you what. I'm willing to flip sides on this issue. I'm not an unreasonable guy. We'll see if you are reasonable too. I withdraw any objection to the proposed location based upon the following: 1. UT's guarantee, in writing, that it will not now, nor any time in the future, confer any degrees of higher learning from the Houston campus. You've said that "offering undergraduate courses in NOT the same as .....a degree program." OK, good point. But it ceases to be a good point upon proof that UT is in fact doing exactly that. Surely you will admit that once degrees are conferred that means for certain that there is an issue of course duplication. 2. Since "competition is always good" UT will not now, nor any time in the future, lodge any objection to the UH's creation of a medical school. This point has been made not only by the UT supporters on this forum but also by the UT. OK, valid point. If it's valid to support UT's ambition for a Houston presence then it should be valid to support UH's interest in one day having a medical school on campus that specializes in family practice for the benefit of the Houston population in close proximity to the campus. 3. An advance approval that the UH may at any time create a program of undergraduate studies at any location in Austin, so long as it does not confer any degrees. Are we in agreement? Or do the rules only apply to the UH and not the UT?

Another absurd example. You're really good at exaggeration. Buffet's money belong to HIM. The State of Texas money belongs to ALL the citizens of the state, not just those who are students/graduates of the UT.

Hmmmm.....I listened to the hearing. Who do you think gave you the link that somehow could not find on your own? During McRaven's response to the Chairman's questions, McRaven said, "Will we have opportunities for under graduate studies? Absolutely." When the next committe member questioned McRaven, this exchange occurred: Q. I thought you said this was going to be a research facility and now you've just said something about an undergraduate program. A. Yes M'am. Q. Is it going to be both? A. Absolutely Later in his testimorny, McRaven stated, "We are at least 2 years away from undergraduate education." Now, anyone who has even basic knowledge of bachelor programs knows that there are required courses, unrelated to your core study, that must be successfully completed. It is not possible to confer a bachelor's degree without them. One such course is History; hence, my earlier reference to History 101 in answer to your absurd reference to UT at the Medical Center. Now, I don't know what you find confusing about the word "absolutely" used twice by McRaven. He clearly and unequivocally stated that there would be undergraduate programs and "most likely" graduate studies. Assuming, arguendo, that the campus' studies are so highly specialized that UH, nor Rice, nor TSU offers them, there must be a program for the completion of non-elective studies. So the charade of a research school is vaporized and McRaven admits the same. And just how he intends to have undergraduate programs that do not include mandated non-electives is unexplainable.

Huh? Do you understand the notion of duplicative studies? If you can take History 101 at TSU, then there is no need to have History 101 at UT Houston. UT Health Science is not History 101. Get it? It's not really that complicated.

Good grief. UT has admitted, upon questioning of Education Committe Members, that it intends to offer duplicative courses available at UH, TSU, and community colleges. http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audio/committee-broadcasts/ Look at the education hearing at 9am. McRaven was the last witness in the hearing.

A lot of people don't understand the SIMPLE concept of "play by the rules." UH has had encroachment rules applied against it. Whether "competition was good" played no role in the process. UH was barred from development. But the rules don't apply when considering the action of the "prestigious" UT. The rules are for everybody else, the peasants, the common folk; not the high and mighty UT. UT makes the rules, not abides by them.

You are probably correct, but nobody knows because UT has been very secretive. The Chairman of the Education Committee stated he knew nothing about the purchase of the land until he read about it in the newspaper. That is not how the process has always worked in the past and is a clear sign that UT intends to argue if they receive resistance to the project from the legislature, "well, what are we suppose to do with this land that we now own?" From a humorous standpoint, maybe it will be a research location and the sports fields and facilities are only tools for the university's intended area of specialization - sports research. If that is the case, then the initial mission of the research university would be to ascertain how the mothership can receive over a 100 million dollars in sports revenues every year and be unable to field a competitive football team.

"Research campus?" Every rendering has shown athletic fields and sports facilities. Is that research?

With respect to your reference to "open and blatant white racism," I assume you refer to the UT. See Sweatt v. Painter, where UT was judicially forced to integrate.

The judicial system exists, in part, to dispense equity - fairness. When separate did not really mean equal, the courts stepped in and changed the education landscape. As I have already said, and apparently you defer, Dr. Khator is not going to permit this to happen without a fight. Be careful what you ask for from the ivory towers, you might find yourself evicted from the castle and living amongst the poor. Oh, what a shame that would be for the privileged elite to have to experience life at the proletariat level.

Well, I applaud your honesty "it's not an issue of fairness." It's not an issue of fairness when it comes to the distribution of State funds? Presently there are over 100,000 students enrolled in the University of Houston system and Texas Tech. Apparently you are of the opinion that they, and their families, are inferior citizens not entitled to an equal sharing in the money the state can expend on higher education. Why don't we just close those schools and direct all the state's resources to the expansion of the UT system? Obviously, God made the UT Austin in his image.

The central point of my post is left unchallenged, because there is no plausible answer. Why is UH blocked from establishing a facility within 50 miles of Sam Houston State, but UT is permitted to establish a facility within 5 miles of UH? With respect to the PUF, you are entirely incorrect in your assertion that the PUF "was set up to benefit the University of Texas system." It was set up to assist in the funding of higher education. At the time it was formed the Universtity of Texas didn't even exist. The fund was first comtemplated in 1839, and UT was created in 1858. Since UT was the first public university in Texas it obviously became the focus of the fund. The UT "system" was only included pursuant to a constitutional amendment passed in 1984. Obviously, at any time an amendment could be offered to include UH and Texas Tech as recipients, couldn't it? I assume you urge such action since you feel like everything is so fairly divided. It all comes down to what is the fairest thing for the taxpayers of the State, who so generously support the operations of all the public universities of Texas. UH is a tier one research facility. There is no compelling need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars when UH is only miles away. And there is no justification for imposing encroachment rules upon the UH and none upon the UT.

If the rules apply to UH, they should apply to UT. When UH was exploring a campus on the north side of Houston, approval was stalled on the basis that it would encroach upon Sam Houston State. UH didn't throw a "hissy fit" and complied with legislative sentiment. But UT doesn't care about legislative sentiment because it doesn't need the legislature's money to buy the land. So where is the money coming from? Oh yeah, the PUF, that's where. A fund that enriches UT in the amount of almost a half a billion dollars a year, that UH does not receive. So that's playing by the rules? You can be assured that UH will contest this vigorously. If it takes challenging the discriminatory manner in which UT and TAMU are benefited through the PUF payments that will happen too. Dr. Khator has her allies in the legislature and in the city. Don't think for a second she's going to let this go without a fight.

Some people like it. Some people don't. The only opinion that matters is that of the people who paid for it!

Whereupon, they say, "Who?."