University of Houston's Campaign For Tier 1 Status

[TexasVines]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this link says UT has only 434 out of state students

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 universities

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

23 universities

Lets look at Texas with

the UT System

http://www.utsystem.edu/

9 universities (no system centers)

TAMU System

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

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

The Texas Tech System

http://www.texastech.edu/

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

the UH System

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

4 universities and 2 system centers

The Texas State System

http://www.tsus.edu/

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

the FAKE UNT system

http://untsystem.unt.edu/

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

TWU

http://www.twu.edu/

one girls college and a campus in Dallas and Houston

Texas Southern as an independent crappy university

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

Stephen F. Austin

http://www.sfasu.edu/

Midwestern State

http://www.mwsu.edu/

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

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

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

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

[texas911]

Hey vine, could you do a 1 or 2 line synopsis? Thanks.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Hey vine, could you do a 1 or 2 line synopsis? Thanks.

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

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

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

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

But I'm not bitter...nah.

[TexasVines]

the point was

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

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

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

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

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

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

[texas911]

the point was

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

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

[TexasVines]

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

pull your head out of royces big butt

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

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

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

[N Judah]

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

[N Judah]

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

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

[wernicke]

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

[N Judah]

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

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

[TexasVines]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LTAWACS]

Atlanta... is a respected city making a scene on the world scale....

I wouldn't go THAT far...

[lockmat]

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

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

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

[lockmat]

via Renu Khator tweet:

"Greater Houston Partnership just approved its legislative agenda with UH Tier 1 funding being a top priority."

http://twitter.com/#!/UHpres

[LTAWACS]

This is good news.

[lockmat]

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

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

Much more details at the article.

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

[lockmat]

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

Much more details at the article.

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

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

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

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

[TV2EBoogaloo]

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

define "tier 1"

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

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

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

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

the next criteria is 4 of the 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lockmat]

From President Khator on twitter:

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

[LTAWACS]

define "tier 1"

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

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

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

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

the next criteria is 4 of the 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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