University Debates: Sports, Fundings, And Developments

[KinkaidAlum]

Again, did anyone listen to or follow yesterday's events in Austin? This isn't a research campus. When repeatedly questioned, UT's official admitted they plan to immediately offer undergraduate courses starting at the freshman level. This is a UT-Houston. That is very different than a UT-Health Science Center or UT Dental or UT Nursing or a UT version of UH's energy research hub at the old Schlumberger headquarters. 

 

Forget UH for the moment and ask yourself if it is in the State's best interest to spend a billion dollars to build a new public 4 year university in the City of Houston when we already have The University of Houston and Texas Southern University within city limits and Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M, Texas A&M, A&M Galveston, UH Clear Lake, and UT Galveston within an easy drive of parts of the metropolitan area?

 

Going further, there are only 4 universities in Texas ranked by Carnegie as RU/VH (the highest designation). Those 4 are Rice, Texas A&M, Texas-Austin and U of Houston. 2 are within the City of Houston already. 1 is located within an easy drive of the NW suburbs. The last thing Texas needs is a UT-Houston. We need to make the existing UT campuses better to give students more high quality options for higher education. Spending $450 million just for land is wasteful at best. 

[kbates2]

A lot of people here don't seem to agree with the notion that competition is good.. I'm not sure if that's because they truly believe competition is detrimental, or if they are merely trying to look out for their school. Most cities would welcome a new university.. Yet for some reason people here feel it's in the best interest of their alma mater (but not necessarily thinking about what's good for the city) to push research dollars and thousands of bright young minds away from Houston.

 

Competition is not good when it is with two public institutions.  Let's make a new other city government to compete with our current city government so that the best government can come out.  

[kbates2]

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.

 

Sharing the PUF so that we have multiple well funded schools and can compete with other large states as opposed to allowing two schools to spend inefficiently would be better for Houston and the state.

[Houston19514]

Again, did anyone listen to or follow yesterday's events in Austin? This isn't a research campus. When repeatedly questioned, UT's official admitted they plan to immediately offer undergraduate courses starting at the freshman level. This is a UT-Houston. That is very different than a UT-Health Science Center or UT Dental or UT Nursing or a UT version of UH's energy research hub at the old Schlumberger headquarters. 

 

Forget UH for the moment and ask yourself if it is in the State's best interest to spend a billion dollars to build a new public 4 year university in the City of Houston when we already have The University of Houston and Texas Southern University within city limits and Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M, Texas A&M, A&M Galveston, UH Clear Lake, and UT Galveston within an easy drive of parts of the metropolitan area?

 

Going further, there are only 4 universities in Texas ranked by Carnegie as RU/VH (the highest designation). Those 4 are Rice, Texas A&M, Texas-Austin and U of Houston. 2 are within the City of Houston already. 1 is located within an easy drive of the NW suburbs. The last thing Texas needs is a UT-Houston. We need to make the existing UT campuses better to give students more high quality options for higher education. Spending $450 million just for land is wasteful at best. 

 

Do you have a source or link for the claim in your first paragraph? 

 

I found it.  You painted quite a false picture.  I encourage all interested parties to listen to it.

 

McRaven talked about undergraduate education in response to the very first question (and the question wasn't even asking about undergraduate classes)... He did not have to be badgered into admitting it as you implied:

 

"What we’re not trying to build here is the University of Texas at Houston.  My thinking going into this is of a collaborative, innovative hub; will there be some opportunities for undergraduate education?  Absolutely. That is certainly part of the intent and we will work with all the institutions in the region to make sure that we’re not duplicating, but there we’re providing a service to the people of Houston and to Texas."

 

Another Rep then asked "First, I thought you said this was going to be a research facility and you just said something about undergraduate programs.  Is it going to be both?"

 

McRaven: "Absolutely.  My thinking on this is, as I said, it's an innovation hub. So it's collaboration. It is research. It is education. It is undergraduate education. It may be, graduate-level education. These are the sort of things we need to look at as we pull this task force together. What I want the task force to do is; I don't want you to be constrained. [A lot of times people are constrained by the framework or the infrastructure or by the way we've done it in the past.] What I'm telling them is, we've got a blank canvas here.  Think about ways to deliver higher education or education better.  Think about ways to collaborate. I'm offering all the institutions in the region to come collaborate with us. So, we should leave nothing off the table when it comes to what we have the opportunity to do on this property."

 

Rep recited UH's effort to build campus in Northwest Houston; and A&M's attempt to affiliate with South Texas College of Law and concerns about UH, TSU, community colleges, etc.

 

"Again, recognizing all your concerns.  We're years away. So concerns about are we going to coordinate with the Coordinating Board, etc.  The answer is, absolutely we will.  But we have to take the opportunity first over the course of the next year to sort of frame where we hope to go with this. And then we'll be in a much better position to come forward and give you our ideas. And if those ideas don't meet with the direction the state wants to go, the LBB, or the Coordinating Board, then I think we relook them. This was initially about ensuring that we had property/land from which we can do things we've never done before. To pursue opportunities.  So the idea we will bring more higher education, more research, more collaboration, more business to Houston and to the folks in the surrounding area is... I just don't understand how that can be a bad idea.. . .  Any time you can deliver more high quality education, I think you need to do it.  But again, we don't want to do anything that impedes the University of Houston's incredible rise to Tier 1 Status. I'm a huge supporter of that. I think we can do this in ways that can benefit both institutions. I intend to do it in ways that will benefit both of us."

Edited January 22, 2016 by Houston19514

[arbpro]

A lot of people here don't seem to agree with the notion that competition is good.. I'm not sure if that's because they truly believe competition is detrimental, or if they are merely trying to look out for their school. Most cities would welcome a new university.. Yet for some reason people here feel it's in the best interest of their alma mater (but not necessarily thinking about what's good for the city) to push research dollars and thousands of bright young minds away from Houston.

 

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. 

[Houston19514]

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. 

 

So, should we also kick out the encroaching UT-Houston Health Science Center?  MD Anderson?

 

Edited January 21, 2016 by Houston19514

[arbpro]

Do you have a source or link for the claim in your first paragraph? 

 

Here's the story about what happened in Austin yesterday according to the Austin American-Statesman:  (Hint:  it does not say anything about offering undergraduate courses, but repeats, again, that "his goal is not a UT-Houston campus")

 

 

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.

[arbpro]

So, should we also kick out the encroaching UT-Houston Health Science Center?  MD Anderson?

 

 

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.

[Houston19514]

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.

No. UT admitted no such thing. I just listened to the whole thing. In fact, McRaven specifically stated several time that they do not want to duplicate the offerings of other Houston institutions.

"Part of the charge to the task force will be 'don't duplicate work that's already going on; Let's find opportunities that may not be available in Houston; OR where there is more of a demand than there is a supply."

Not sure how you could claim to have listened to this and get it so wrong. McRaven wasn't even the last witness at the hearing.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

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.

 

Yeah, it really is not that complicated.  McRaven repeatedly emphasized they have no desire to duplicate offerings of other Houston institutions.

 

Listen to the hearing.

 

[enriquewx91]

If this passes then I expect NO RESTRICTIONS when UH tries to build a UH-Austin a few miles form UT-Austin.

 

Have you guys forgotten that UH is a system as well? They currently have 70,000+ students and 4 campuses (UH Main, UH Downtown, UH Victoria, UH Sugarland plus a satellite Hospitality college in San Antonio). and they are currently looking to expand by building a new UH-Katy and a new Medical School.

 

IF the state is foolish enough to open up this can of worms then I fully expect UH to strike back with a UH- Austin and a UH- College Station because after all, this is what is best for capitalistic markets...forget quality of education in academic environments by having the state cannibalize its OWN STATE SCHOOLS...right guys?

 

My contention is that UT, UH, or TAMU can build a satellite campus in ANY OTHER TEXAS CITY except for the ones where there are already LARGE PUBLIC STATE SCHOOLS FUNDED BY TEXAS TAX PAYERS. That would eliminate expansion into  Houston (UH), Austin (UT), College Station (TAMU), Lubbock (TTU), and San Marcos (TX ST). UT is fine to build a UT-Woodlands...just stay away from the land a few miles from the main campus of the University of Houston.

Hey! Hey! Hey! a UH- College Station? How does A&M fit in this mess geeze.

They aren't the ones building a campus nearby UH, though if they did I wouldnt be opposed to it.

UT and A&M are the best primary go to schools in Texas, yes UH is coming up but it will never get to the level of A&M or UT. GIG 'EM!

Edited January 22, 2016 by enriquewx91

[arbpro]

Yeah, it really is not that complicated.  McRaven repeatedly emphasized they have no desire to duplicate offerings of other Houston institutions.

 

Listen to the hearing.

 

 

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. 

[KinkaidAlum]

So, should we also kick out the encroaching UT-Houston Health Science Center?  MD Anderson?

 

 

Interesting. So, by this logic, UT's system should fully support UH's efforts to start a medical school because competition is good and more is better. I'll wait with bated breath. 

[Houston19514]

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.

He also clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly stated they had no intention of duplicating any Houston inatiituiton programs.

It may have escaped your attention that offering undergraduate courses is NOT the same as offering a full undergraduate degree program.

(And by the way, I indeed found the source on my own. I found it, listened to it, quoted it and linked it before you posted the link; attention to detail is is obviously not your strong suit,)

Edited January 22, 2016 by Houston19514

[bobruss]

With the price of west Texas crude below $28.00, and many drillers plugging wells and closing shop there won't be that much PUF money to go around to A&M and all of UT's campuses. I guess UT has been saving up their PUF money if they plan on paying for the land with that fund.

[H-Town Man]

With the price of west Texas crude below $28.00, and many drillers plugging wells and closing shop there won't be that much PUF money to go around to A&M and all of UT's campuses. I guess UT has been saving up their PUF money if they plan on paying for the land with that fund.

 

It's only the interest made off the endowment that they can spend, unless I'm mistaken. They cannot spend down the actual endowment. So although the endowment will grow at a slower rate with the oil recession, the money coming from it won't be any less.

 

What can hurt it though is a decline in the stock market and other places where it's invested.

[ADCS]

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

 

Rightfully so how? Just because they want it doesn't make it right. I'd like a billion of Warren Buffet's dollars, but it doesn't mean I have any right to it.

[arbpro]

Rightfully so how? Just because they want it doesn't make it right. I'd like a billion of Warren Buffet's dollars, but it doesn't mean I have any right to it.

 

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.  

[ADCS]

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.  

 

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly good rhetorical technique, and given the absurd demands of many UH supporters in the thread, is particularly apt.

 

Per the State Constitution, it belongs to the institutions that are the University of Texas and Texas A&M University, and it belongs to them for the benefit of all citizens of the state. They benefit because they have two universities with the resources to support world-class research and innovation. I've seen no arguments from UH supporters as to why this should be disrupted, beyond a puerile appeal to fairness, and a barely-concealed lust for that money.

Edited January 22, 2016 by ADCS

[cloud713]

I wonder if the Tech people worry as much about not getting any PUF money..?

[arbpro]

He also clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly stated they had no intention of duplicating any Houston inatiituiton programs.

It may have escaped your attention that offering undergraduate courses is NOT the same as offering a full undergraduate degree program.

(And by the way, I indeed found the source on my own. I found it, listened to it, quoted it and linked it before you posted the link; attention to detail is is obviously not your strong suit,)

 

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?

[cloud713]

TBH I'm on the outside of this UT/UH debate. My allegiance lies elsewhere.. But why is UT against UH building a medical school on their own campus..? If UH donors coughed up the money for a medical school would they still not be able to build it? Or is UH trying to rely on state funds (that UT wants) to build the med school? I would love to see UH get into the local medical collaborative research game.

[ADCS]

TBH I'm on the outside of this UT/UH debate. My allegiance lies elsewhere.. But why is UT against UH building a medical school on their own campus..? If UH donors coughed up the money for a medical school would they still not be able to build it? Or is UH trying to rely on state funds (that UT wants) to build the med school? I would love to see UH get into the local medical collaborative research game.

 

As an outsider as well, I've got no problem with a UH medical school. No problem with a UH-Austin, either, silly as the concept might be.

[arbpro]

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

[arbpro]

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

[BigFootsSocks]

That's such a dumb argument to use against this.

[KinkaidAlum]

I wonder if the Tech people worry as much about not getting any PUF money..?

 

Of course they do. UH and Tech supporters worked hand-in-hand to lobby for the excellence funding that was created a few years ago. No other schools worked as hard as those two but it didn't stop the UT system from swooping in at the last minute and dividing that pie up into tiny little pieces in a "compromise vote" so that their branch campuses got some scraps as well. 

 

Google is your friend...

[H-Town Man]

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

[Urbannizer]

Could A&M follow UT to Houston? 'Stay tuned' President Says

 

The University of Houston has marshaled its troops to fight off an "invasion" from one of the state's flagship universities. It may need to brace for another.

 

Asked if Texas A&M University may follow the University of Texas in expanding in Houston, A&M President Michael Young suggested it's possible.

"We're in the midst of thinking through this strategic plan of how do we best serve the state," Young told the Houston Chronicle editorial board. "Stay tuned."

[cloud713]

Bring on the universities!!!

Edited February 5, 2016 by cloud713