kdog08

My only question with that is.. If a prestigious, nationally renown university like UT has trouble recruiting out of state students.. What makes you think a school like UH would have better luck?

It seems the issue is that Texas doesn't have enough "UT"-esque schools. We need more flagships. 

You want to follow the California system? I'm all in favor. Dissolve the UH regents and incorporate it into the UT system as an autonomous university, like UCLA. Texas Tech can be added to the A&M system. 

 

Of course, I don't think Mr. Fertitta will like that idea too much.

You are taking my words out of context, as you didn't quote the entire paragraph. Maybe it was intentional or maybe I didn't make it clear... But here's the rest.

 

 

 ...or to disperse the funds, but that sort of long term planning makes Texas legislatures allergic/upsets the good ole boys entrenched in UT and TAMU. 

I am talking about an option that should have been done and brought up how one of the world's most successful higher education system operates. DFW and Houston metro alone added ~ 5 mllion people in the last 25 years and how much state money has gone to these metros for higher education? If Texas was going to adopt a California based system, it should have been decades ago as it is virtually impossible to adopt one now. That shipped has long sailed to rebrand UH as a flagship school, UT-Houston. Now we are in a situation with a lopsided funding system that favors the entrenched interests and a bunch of poor planning for the explosive growth in population. 

Again, we are in a two tiered system that doesn't make much sense in 2016. Personally I would amend it so funding would be more based on where the population is and future growth. 

 

^^^ pardon me mr. KDOG dude, but as you may carefully attest below, this most highly super charged thread is now upon it's 17th page.

therefore, i have provided plenty of imput throughout... not to mention many many many images of satire / humor.  however, should you like step-up from behind your computer keys just to 

witness for yourself upon whether or not if i am an actual "coward"... then shall we make a private PM appointment??

i shall be happy to fly in from the middle east to meet you.  and for what it's worth, i can assure you that this is no "troll" post...

 

Anyone can view all of your posts. I usually like your cute little images that accompany updates but it's pretty clear in taking just a mere few minutes to view your posts in the "view content" of your profile, you've constantly been on one side of the issue while doing little hit and run attacks. 

You say "many, many, many, many images of 'satire/humor'", but your last image a few posts above was taken down after I reported it. Maybe in the Middle East it is satire, but here it comes off as trolling. You're cute little images usually add some humor to the updates, but it's not cute in this thread. Take care and peace in the Middle East yo. 

If this was Texas State bitching about the PUF, none of you would care.

I would slightly care as I'm an alumni.   However, I have no disillusions that Tx State could run with the big boys.  

I think people would be more supportive if UT didn't put the cart before the horse and had a bit more transparency. 

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

 Are you suggesting the UT Health Science Center is some mediocre satellite campus thats in need of money to improve? LULZ..

I read your comment. Theres not much to say to it.. UH has nothing to do with the PUF. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of the other public schools around the country dont have some huge fund derived from oil found on university land to support its higher education.. So I'm not sure how our state lags behind the rest of the country.. If anything the PUF is a huge advantage.

Not sure what I'm supposed to be "trying to keep up" with. Ive been following this thread from the beginning.

 

Maybe its getting late, but I dont get your point with the first sentence. Of course we've invested in UH.. my point was, instead of investing PUF funds into a new UT development in Houston, y'all want to give it to some of the more mediocre UT satellite campuses across the state. Its like when Abbot denied federal funding from the government to expand Medicaid in Texas.. The money was there, specifically for Medicaid expansion, but he chose to send it to the other states..

Where were UH's millions of acres out in west Texas with loads of oil underground? As for UT not having a "large interest" in Houston, I guess you dont consider UT Health Science, or UTMB to be a "large" interest. Theres also M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. You may have heard of it? Im still having a hard time understanding how this is "balkanized".. If oil was found on UH's land, would you expect UT to get any of the profits? The state has its own means of funding public universities through the higher education assistance fund.

I attended Baylor, so i dont have any vested interests in this debate either..

First of all, the PUF was created in 1876 and the mineral rights on "UT's land" was established in 1901. Frankly, I don't much care about the context and history surrounding the PUF as it is outdated. Compared to California's system it is a joke and I don't think most of the country would mistake Texas's higher education for that of Mass/NE or the Research Triangle given our population size. 

The PUF doesn't allow flexibility and we have essentially this two tiered system with PUF being a much larger fund than HEAF. If you think this type of system is good for Texas than I don't know what to tell you if you want to base funding that was set a hundred years ago. It should have been decided to either adopt a California based system or to disperse the funds, but that sort of long term planning makes Texas legislatures allergic/upsets the good ole boys entrenched in UT and TAMU. 

You're the one is claiming UTHSC is mediocre, not me. As I said..... There is already land in the TMC set aside for an "innovation campus" and UT already has a presence in the TMC.... With as you pointed out is UTHSC and UT MD Anderson. Why not consolidate what UT already has onto the land within TMC's boundaries and work with the TMC to create a fantastic biotech/health care university? 

If UT is dead set on buying the land (as it clearly is) then why didn't it actually have a plan put forth? It just reeks of shadiness. I think it's dumb what UT did, but I would be much more supportive if they came out and said what they are doing. It makes perfect sense for UT to expand into Houston, especially with a focus on biotech, but the implementation has been p*ss poor. As I said, how much has Houston/Texas grown in the last 25 years? 15 years? The timing and implementation raises eyebrows. 

So... LULZ. 

 

^^^ brilliant cloud713.... simply brilliant!

 

Do the Mods seriously allow this poster to troll like this? There has been zero input from this individual, just a bunch of cowardly, snarky images. 

Not that fall protection will do much good when the thing they are tethered to falls down...

But more seriously, I've been watching the work on the old Texaco building. Workers regularly walk on the edge of the roof, outside the railing, nearly 20 stories up, without attaching their harness to anything. I noticed it again on Thursday. I just don't understand -- do all these construction workers have death wishes?

Macho men!

Haven't we invested in UH cloud713? 

The PUF system is outdated and reeks of cronyism. Where was UT's large interest in Houston over the last 25 years when we added ~2.5 million to our metro? We shouldn't be in this balkanized higher education system.

I'm a Tx State alumni for the record. 

So y'all would rather the money get invested into universities elsewhere instead of being poured into the Houston metro?  Thats the most bass ackwards thing I've heard in a while... Lulz.

LULZ....

You forget about the UT health science center houston?

More LULZ...

Did you just gloss over my previous comment, the one above the one you replied to?

Try and keep up before you get all bass ackwards.... 

I actually don't have a problem with UT building a campus in Houston, its a good thing for the city and competition for UH. I do have a problem with the current system of higher education funding in the state of Texas; so backwards.

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

Handouts?

 

The PUF was specifically created to fund the University of Texas and Texas A&M. Period. Thats what it was created to do not some ambiguous "fund all university public eductaion in Texas" or whatever Cougars and Red Raiders and whoever else that wants a "handout" now believes

 

 It was actually probably created specifically to fund Texas only, but A&M got its piece basically because it dates to a murky time when it wasn't clear that the A&M College was going to be a separate entity from the University of Texas.

When was it created again? What was the population of Texas then verses now? Where does most of the population reside now verses then? How much PUF money actually goes into the two largest metros population and economic wise? 

This whole present day system resembles a good ole boy system compared to the rest of the nation. 

UT could have created one of the best biotech and healthcare universities by partnering up with the TMC on it's innovation campus and consolidating it's UT-HSC on that land just SE of the TMC core. I doubt there would be much resistance to that sort of proposal.

I usually don't think about the DFW metro too much, but they also are getting shafted here. I believe Kinkaid said, and I agree, why doesn't the UT system focus on improving the myriad of established satellites campuses throughout the state? 

All I keep taking away from this thread is that UH folks are upset that they don't have access to the PUF or the Big 12. I don't see any vision of an alternative that would be better for Houston and the state. It smacks of tribalism.

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

"Research campus?" 

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

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

I still think the Westheimer corridor is the most underrated part of Houston. Quite a bit of potential with some lax parking regulations and a "quickline" service connecting to the energy corridor, westchase, uptown, greenway, TMC, downtown, and UH/TSU.

The undergrad to grad ratio is meaningless.

UTD is nothing like Rice and is more selective than Rice but far from the most selective in the State.

A step above UH? Nope. They are both on the same level overall. Some may site UH as Tier one, which would mean it is actually the one that is a step above UTD in academic quality, but to me they are about the same

Edit: this site shows the acceptance rates for both at 58%

http://colleges.startclass.com/d/b/Public/Texas

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

Lastly my only comparison to Rice was that it was a school that punches above it's weight.

Are not all Tier one universities research driven?

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about academia, but UTD has ~24000 students with an undergrad to grad ratio ~2:1 while UH has ~43000 students with a ratio ~4:1. Everything I glance at seems to suggest UTD is one of the most selective public schools in Texas so I imagine it's a step above UH in pure academic quality. 

So to answer your question, they are but they aren't necessarily equal. Not that I necessarily think UTD is better than UH but it clearly punches above its weight, much like how Rice punches above its weight for a small school. 

I'm confused.  The post you replied to said that it was not going to be a full degree-granting campus and not a UT-Houston.  You agreed, and then said it would be like UT-Dallas, which is a full degree-granting campus.  In other words, you seem to say it will be exactly what the original poster said it would not be.  

 

Perhaps I had too much eggnog over the holidays . . . .

I think I had too much eggnog...

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

The fact that this keeps coming back to football is demonstrative of a need for UH to reevaluate its priorities.

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

However, the Big 12 is just part of the several issues that need to be clarified from UT, which I don't think is unreasonable. 

Seems like a lot of posters need to take a look at what UT Is actually proposing. Hint: it's not UT-Houston or any other sort of full degree-granting campus.

You're right. It seems, as I mentioned earlier, they are building a UT-Dallas type of campus. I'd recommend folks reading up on UTD as that is something that would be very beneficial.

However, it does beg the question as how the state views UH and it's goals. Does UT support UH in the Big 12? What role will UH play in research? It would certainly be smart of the UT system and the state of Texas to explicitly state the goals and plans for a UT expansion and UH's place in the future. 

The wraps keep creeping closer to Westheimer. I wonder when the strip centers and garden style apartment complexes will make way for new projects like this. Even south of Westheimer there are town-homes aplenty, just not directly on the big artery. I don't wish anyone out of house and home, just seems strange that Westheimer has so much abundant land but has yet to mature. Still looks like FM 1960 for most of the way.

 

Anyways, this along with the HEB are a nice addition to the area. Wonder what all the new apartment dwellers will think of the rigorous pot holes and decaying fountains.

Westheimer corridor is an interesting one. 

UH has the vast head start in the Houston region and as long as it keeps building on success from academics and athletics then it should over time become a flagship Texas university with the research status and athletic status that comes along with it. I'm not particularly concerned about a UT expansion if it's a research campus or other specialized campus (biomedical/biotechnology). I would welcome this UT expansion if it was going to be more like the UT Dallas campus which also is research campus. UT Dallas has 23000 students of which 8700 are postgrads to give one an idea of the long term potential as a public research institute calling Houston home. 

UH needs to focus on becoming a more complete campus, especially in terms of residential living in and around the area, while increasing the quality of education and beefing up it's research institutions. Lastly, whether one wants to admit it or not, but athletics plays a large in shaping perception. UH reaching the big 12 or similarly tiered conference will only elevate its status so hopefully UH football will continue to grow, along with basketball and baseball. 

Pretty much every city outside of Houston disagrees with this. 

 

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

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

Highways are not going to be the answer in all cases (especially long term), but I'm getting really sick of this dogmatic "we must build rail like East Coast cities or we are failures" mentality. There was a recent article in the Houston Chronicle ("Kotkin, Cox: Light rail in the Sun Belt is a poor fit") that just seemed to prove an ugly fact--unless you're a Eastern seaboard, old-line "legacy" city, rail doesn't seem to work. Even Portland, San Diego, and L.A. have actually seen transit numbers decrease since rail was implemented.

Just because Gattis doesn't subscribe the popular urban theories du jour (like New Urbanism) doesn't mean he doesn't try to think of innovative solutions or that he's wrong.

I think the issue here is that mass transit infrastructure and automobile infrastructure hasn't been funded and promoted remotely balanced and don't offer and apples to apples comparison. 

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

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