University Debates: Sports, Fundings, And Developments

[Houston19514]

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.

 

Of all the ignorant statements and assumptions in this thread (and there have been a LOT of them), this has to be my favorite.  Apparently, only full-fledged university campuses have athletic fields.

 

1) That premise is ridiculous and patently false (see, eg. Phillips 66's new campus).  And someone should probably be alerting the coordinating board that there is a nefarious plan afoot to create a university at Johnson Space Center.

 

2) If the rendered athletic fields were for a university sports program, wouldn't they have some sort of bleachers?

 

3) The renderings are obviously very preliminary and may ultimately be meaningless.

 

 

It's apparently time, once again, for a refresher course:

 

1) UT has said repeatedly they have no plans to build or operate a full-fledged university or even a campus of one of their existing universities.

 

2) UT has not built anything; they have not established any programs.  They don't even have a fully-formed concept of what this will be. Nothing has been done that would have required coordinating board approval and I'm certain nothing will be done without the required coordinating board approval.

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Houston19514

[JJxvi]

To go further into my post about the purpose of the PUF...it is in sections 10 and 11 of article 7 of the state constitution.

 

 

 

Sec. 10. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIVERSITY; AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT. The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, and styled, "The University of Texas," for the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences, including an Agricultural, and Mechanical department.

 

 

 

Sec. 11. PERMANENT UNIVERSITY FUND; INVESTMENT; ALTERNATE SECTIONS OF RAILROAD GRANT. In order to enable the Legislature to perform the duties set forth in the foregoing Section, it is hereby declared all lands and other property heretofore set apart and appropriated for the establishment and maintenance of the University of Texas, together with all the proceeds of sales of the same, heretofore made or hereafter to be made, and all grants, donations and appropriations that may hereafter be made by the State of Texas, or from any other source, except donations limited to specific purposes, shall constitute and become a Permanent University Fund. And the same as realized and received into the Treasury of the State (together with such sums belonging to the Fund, as may now be in the Treasury), shall be invested in bonds of the United States, the State of Texas, or counties of said State, or in School Bonds or municipalities, or in bonds of any city of this State, or in bonds issued under and by virtue of the Federal Farm Loan Act approved by the President of the United States, July 17, 1916, and amendments thereto; and the interest accruing thereon shall be subject to appropriation by the Legislature to accomplish the purpose declared in the foregoing Section; provided, that the one-tenth of the alternate Section of the lands granted to railroads, reserved by the State, which were set apart and appropriated to the establishment of the University of Texas, by an Act of the Legislature of February 11, 1858, entitled, "An Act to establish the University of Texas," shall not be included in, or constitute a part of, the Permanent University Fund.

 

 

The PUF was created in Section 11 specifically to fund the creation of the items in Section 10, which ended up being The University of Texas and the A&M College of Texas

Edited February 11, 2016 by JJxvi

[ADCS]

Seems like our UH friends have learned their negotiation skills from our Congresscritters.

[astros148]

^^^^ouch

[shasta]

I think this whole petition thing is pathetic lol

Literally looks bad on UH, crying like babies about this issue. 

 

UH may be a big school but its not a UT or A&M, they don't have power like The premier Texas institutions.

 

If students are given the option to attend UT or A&M schools compared to UH, do you really think they will choose UH?

 

I did have an option with both UT and TAMU and  selected the University of Houston...TWICE

[MexAmerican_Moose]

same here, picked UH Engineering....doing pretty good for myself now

[arbpro]

Of all the ignorant statements and assumptions in this thread (and there have been a LOT of them), this has to be my favorite.  Apparently, only full-fledged university campuses have athletic fields.

 

1) That premise is ridiculous and patently false (see, eg. Phillips 66's new campus).  And someone should probably be alerting the coordinating board that there is a nefarious plan afoot to create a university at Johnson Space Center.

 

2) If the rendered athletic fields were for a university sports program, wouldn't they have some sort of bleachers?

 

3) The renderings are obviously very preliminary and may ultimately be meaningless.

 

 

It's apparently time, once again, for a refresher course:

 

1) UT has said repeatedly they have no plans to build or operate a full-fledged university or even a campus of one of their existing universities.

 

2) UT has not built anything; they have not established any programs.  They don't even have a fully-formed concept of what this will be. Nothing has been done that would have required coordinating board approval and I'm certain nothing will be done without the required coordinating board approval.

 

 

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?

[bobruss]

With all due respect, UT and A&M are the premier public universities in this state. UH... Isn't. And both systems have schools spread all over Texas, making the schools more accessible to all Texans rather than just catering to one metro..

Exactly.. Rice doesn't get state funds, yet Rice manages to be one of the top ranked universities in the country with fantastic facilities and faculty (and quite the stockpile of cash), even with only a few thousand students.. Why can't UH take notes from the private schools on how else to collect money/improve the school instead of relying on the state?

Is what UT is doing illegal? Maybe, well see once it's determined wether it's a research campus or a full blown university.

And one of the reasons why they have become the premiere universities that they are  is that they were divvying up that PUF money that no other state school was allowed to share in.

I think the answer to your other questions about private Universities versus state supported, were answered very clearly above.

I  think the support should be a little more even dispersed.

I also don't like the attitude that is being passed out like hey, we own the state and we can do as we damn well please while everyone else has to follow the rules. 

[cloud713]

I really don't think UT would be worried about a UH campus... Lulz

[Naviguessor]

Maybe not.  But UT would even let UH build one. Right?

[Houston19514]

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?

 

I am okay with UT proceeding with their planning and getting necessary approvals from the Higher Education Coordinating Board, and I would be okay with UH using the same procedures for any project in Austin.   Why do I get the idea you and others in this thread are not OK with that?    Oh, maybe because that is what UT is actually doing, only to be met with howls of protest?

Edited February 11, 2016 by Houston19514

[JJxvi]

And one of the reasons why they have become the premiere universities that they are  is that they were divvying up that PUF money that no other state school was allowed to share in.

I think the answer to your other questions about private Universities versus state supported, were answered very clearly above.

I  think the support should be a little more even dispersed.

I also don't like the attitude that is being passed out like hey, we own the state and we can do as we damn well please while everyone else has to follow the rules. 

 

The way you present this argument is that Texas and A&M only became premier because of the PUF but its much more basic and fundamental than that.

 

Texas and A&M are premier because the state constitution expressly advocated the creation of a premier university including the agricultural and mechanical portion (presumably to qualify for federal land grants as well) and created the PUF to achieve this goal.  Why should Houston get PUF funding? Just because it exists and Houston wants it? Give me a break.

[Houston19514]

Maybe not.  But UT would even let UH build one. Right?

 

Who cares?  No one has proposed a traditional college campus.  UH has not, and is highly unlikely to, propose a campus in Austin, and UT has not proposed a college campus in Houston.

 

 

There are basically three ways the Houston metro area can get access to more of the PUF:

 

1) Constitutional amendment

2) UH merges with UT (or, I guess A&M)

3) UT and/or A&M invests money in Houston facilities and programs. 

 

For the record, I am neither a Longhorn nor a Cougar, nor connected to either university in any way.  Personally, I would not have an issue with the UT system building a full-fledged institution in Houston.  We are a major global metropolis and should have more first-tier universities.  Sadly they have not proposed that.  But they have proposed a very exciting research center, the full details of which remain to be determined.  The kind of investment they have proposed and the kind of research that would be done at such a place would be a phenomenal boost for Houston. It is beyond my comprehension that some are actually saying UT should just take their money and invest it in Austin.  REALLY??  Has it really escaped their attention that UT has had a rather major presence in the Houston metro area for a very very long time and it has not meant that everyone has become a Longhorn or that UH has not been able to progress??  I can't imagine any other city that would not be salivating at the prospect of such an investment in their future.

 

UH should be embarrassed by the reactions of its supporters and by their own decision to decline participation in the planning.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Houston19514

[arbpro]

I am okay with UT proceeding with their planning and getting necessary approvals from the Higher Education Coordinating Board, and I would be okay with UH using the same procedures for any project in Austin.   Why do I get the idea you and others in this thread are not OK with that?    Oh, maybe because that is what UT is actually doing, only to be met with howls of protest?

 

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

[arbpro]

Who cares?  No one has proposed a traditional college campus.  UH has not, and is highly unlikely to, propose a campus in Austin, and UT has not proposed a college campus in Houston.

 

 

There are basically three ways the Houston metro area can get access to more of the PUF:

 

1) Constitutional amendment

2) UH merges with UT (or, I guess A&M)

3) UT and/or A&M invests money in Houston facilities and programs. 

 

For the record, I am neither a Longhorn nor a Cougar, nor connected to either university in any way.  Personally, I would not have an issue with the UT system building a full-fledged institution in Houston.  We are a major global metropolis and should have more first-tier universities.  Sadly they have not proposed that.  But they have proposed a very exciting research center, the full details of which remain to be determined.  The kind of investment they have proposed and the kind of research that would be done at such a place would be a phenomenal boost for Houston. It is beyond my comprehension that some are actually saying UT should just take their money and invest it in Austin.  REALLY??  Has it really escaped their attention that UT has had a rather major presence in the Houston metro area for a very very long time and it has not meant that everyone has become a Longhorn or that UH has not been able to progress??  I can't imagine any other city that would not be salivating at the prospect of such an investment in their future.

 

UH should be embarrassed by the reactions of its supporters and by their own decision to decline participation in the planning.

 

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?

[MexAmerican_Moose]

The way you present this argument is that Texas and A&M only became premier because of the PUF but its much more basic and fundamental than that.

 

Texas and A&M are premier because the state constitution expressly advocated the creation of a premier university including the agricultural and mechanical portion (presumably to qualify for federal land grants as well) and created the PUF to achieve this goal.  Why should Houston get PUF funding? Just because it exists and Houston wants it? Give me a break.

 

i think most alumni are upset at the current funding of higher education in Texas...it seems pretty unfair

[Houston19514]

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

 

Your question is ridiculous and pointless.  UT should proceed with the appropriate procedures through Higher Education Coordinating Board.  If that leads to a binding agreement of the sort you are proposing, then sure, that's great.  

 

(and I already have your answer to my question.)

[Houston19514]

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?

 

Let's review the facts, AGAIN.  There is no encroachment because nothing has been built.  No programs have been started.  UT is proceeding through the process, including with the Higher Education Coordinating Board.  I don't know exactly the source of the encroachment rules that were enforced against UH and I don't know if the exact same rules apply to UT.  But it is disingenuous, to put it nicely, to pretend that the rules have not been enforced against UT in this instance, when they are just at the very beginning of the process.

 

And FWIW, contrary to your tendentious claim, that issue has been addressed several times in this thread.  You just apparently don't like the reality.

 

[KinkaidAlum]

The way you present this argument is that Texas and A&M only became premier because of the PUF but its much more basic and fundamental than that.

 

Texas and A&M are premier because the state constitution expressly advocated the creation of a premier university including the agricultural and mechanical portion (presumably to qualify for federal land grants as well) and created the PUF to achieve this goal.  Why should Houston get PUF funding? Just because it exists and Houston wants it? Give me a break.

 

And this is why Texas is so stuck behind the times relative to our peers. 

 

When UT and A&M were created, there were less than 1.6 million people living in Texas and the largest city was Galveston. Do you still think two top tier schools can serve the State in the same way now that 27 million live here?

 

If I ran this state, UH, Texas Tech, UT-Dallas, and UTSA would get a big bump in public assistance, whether via the PUF or another channel. We'd have major public top tier universities in the four largest metro cities as well as one representing West Texas (TTU) and rural interests (Aggieland). 

 

As for people saying UH should just raise tuition, you must not understand how public schools work. UH cannot simply raise tuition without going through State approval. There are rules and regulations that must be followed, unless you are UT apparently. 

[urbanize713]

 I wish I had popcorn every time I read this thread. It has become quite comical.

[samagon]

Let's review the facts, AGAIN.  There is no encroachment because nothing has been built.  No programs have been started.  UT is proceeding through the process, including with the Higher Education Coordinating Board.  I don't know exactly the source of the encroachment rules that were enforced against UH and I don't know if the exact same rules apply to UT.  But it is disingenuous, to put it nicely, to pretend that the rules have not been enforced against UT in this instance, when they are just at the very beginning of the process.

 

And FWIW, contrary to your tendentious claim, that issue has been addressed several times in this thread.  You just apparently don't like the reality.

 

 

Well, let's be totally fair, the real facts are that no one can really say whether this will or won't be encroachment.

 

Currently it is not encroachment, but until the full plans are released no one will know whether or not they intend to encroach or not.

 

Seeing as they are already purchasing the land, if it does end up being encroachment, and the state deems it to be so and disallows UT to build, then it will not only be encroachment but it will have been a HUGE misappropriation of state funds. and this, this is the crux of the issue. they are putting the cart in front of the horse. for the way other schools (UH) have been treated and taken down this process, they should have sought approval first, then spent money.

Edited February 12, 2016 by samagon

[JJxvi]

i think most alumni are upset at the current funding of higher education in Texas...it seems pretty unfair

 

Why would it be unfair to you? According to this thread you turned down a PUF funded education and are happy about it now.

Edited February 12, 2016 by JJxvi

[MexAmerican_Moose]

Why would it be unfair to you? According to this thread you turned down a PUF funded education and are happy about it now.

 

 

You're a smart person, I don't need to explain to you whether the PUF is fair or not, you already know the answer.

 

You're right, I am happy with my decision, it was pretty easy. UH offered me a full engineering scholarship without PUF money whereas UT and A&M didn't. That's pretty impressive. Imagine what they could do for other minority/low income students in the greater Houston area with increased state funds.

 

One more point. This is the perfect opportunity for UH and its alumni to start "flexing" its growing political muscle. Long gone are the days of UH being a pushover/beta/not doing anything. I noticed it during my undergrad years. There is a renewed sense of pride on Cullen Blvd. It might be a combination of increased academic standards and having a good football team; i'm not sure. But it is having a major effect on this new generation of Coogs.

[shasta]

Why would it be unfair to you? According to this thread you turned down a PUF funded education and are happy about it now.

 

I selected the University of Houston because they had an accredited Undergraduate Architecture program...something Texas A&M, with their PUF funds, did not offer and still does not offer today.

 

Yes, Texas A&M has  an accredited graduate program but UH has BOTH.

[shasta]

You're a smart person, I don't need to explain to you whether the PUF is fair or not, you already know the answer.

 

You're right, I am happy with my decision, it was pretty easy. UH offered me a full engineering scholarship without PUF money whereas UT and A&M didn't. That's pretty impressive. Imagine what they could do for other minority/low income students in the greater Houston area with increased state funds.

 

One more point. This is the perfect opportunity for UH and its alumni to start "flexing" its growing political muscle. Long gone are the days of UH being a pushover/beta/not doing anything. I noticed it during my undergrad years. There is a renewed sense of pride on Cullen Blvd. It might be a combination of increased academic standards and having a good football team; i'm not sure. But it is having a major effect on this new generation of Coogs.

 

It's more than the football team, MexAmerican...the school has really kicked it into  another gear. It is very impressive when you consider the limited resources we receive in comparison with the two big systems.

 

UH is entering a pivotal chapter in its growth cycle. It will be a hundred years old in 2027, and you will start seeing 3rd and 4th generation Cougars by then. You will start seeing Houston Cougar families a la Longhorn and Aggie families.

 

If this UT- Houston goes through, would you be more impressed by UH- a 100 year plus campus complete with traditions, legacies, networks, famous alums, and great athletics or by UT- Houston, a brand new commuter school built in a bad part of town?

 

Which option would be the better choice?

[cloud713]

...commuter school built in a bad part of town?

That's ironic.. It wasn't long ago that UH would of fit this exact same description... Heck, some still see it that way.

[LarryDierker]

 bad part of town? Commuter school?

 

[KinkaidAlum]

I applied to just two graduate programs; UT and UH. I got accepted to both. I chose UH. Both programs are top 40 nationally (UT more highly regarded) but UH offered much better field placement opportunities. My best friend from high school, who was rejected by UH but accepted into UT, had to drive to Dallas for her field placements and wasn't offered compensation. She wasn't too happy. 

 

[Houston19514]

Well, let's be totally fair, the real facts are that no one can really say whether this will or won't be encroachment.

 

Currently it is not encroachment, but until the full plans are released no one will know whether or not they intend to encroach or not.

 

Seeing as they are already purchasing the land, if it does end up being encroachment, and the state deems it to be so and disallows UT to build, then it will not only be encroachment but it will have been a HUGE misappropriation of state funds. and this, this is the crux of the issue. they are putting the cart in front of the horse. for the way other schools (UH) have been treated and taken down this process, they should have sought approval first, then spent money.

 

 

If their proposal is deemed to be an encroachment, they will sell the land.  No harm, no foul.   (And they say they got the land for below-market price, so they should be able to sell it for a profit.  And fwiw, their is support for that claim from real estate experts)

[Texas Wahoo]

If their proposal is deemed to be an encroachment, they will sell the land.  No harm, no foul.   (And they say they got the land for below-market price, so they should be able to sell it for a profit.  And fwiw, their is support for that claim from real estate experts)

 

Or lease the land as a revenue stream.  Or maybe, as was the case with the PUF land, they will find oil.