Tier 1 Schools

[MexAmerican_Moose]

Do you guys think that the Great State of Texas needs more Tier 1 Public Colleges? We only have two, UT in Austin and A&M in College Station. I read an article a while back and it said that only 3 out of 10 of the largest cities in the country did not have a Tier 1 College, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, all Texas cities. Everyone in my high school wants to go to UT but it is expensive to go live over there and i think that we need more funding for colleges that are in Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.

[713 To 214]

There are a lot of factors that are considered when deciding whether a school should be classified as "Tier 1." Chances are that the publicschools in the cities you mentioned will have to wait a loooooooooooooooooooong time before they reach that category. Hey, but you can be proud of Rice and SMU.

[MidtownCoog]

To answer your question: Yes

California and New York both blow Texas away.

It all comes down to funding. The current setup in Texas only funds two schools.

UH and Tech are working towards the Tier I, but until the legislature changes the funding, it's going to be hard.

Hard to get "proud" about two tiny private schools.

[MexAmerican_Moose]

There are a lot of factors that are considered when deciding whether a school should be classified as "Tier 1." Chances are that the publicschools in the cities you mentioned will have to wait a loooooooooooooooooooong time before they reach that category. Hey, but you can be proud of Rice and SMU.

how can we be proud about these private schools that are only for the geniuses and the rich? i am talking about PUBLIC Universities here, you know, the schools for the middle class.

[mrfootball]

California has 10 Flagships

New York has 8 Flagships

Pennsylvania has 5 Flagships

Michigan has 3 Flagships

Texas has 2 Flagships.

Two.

Pathetic.

We need more flagships if we're to compete.

Texas Tech needs just a nudge to get to "Flagship" status. With nearly 30,000 students, Tech's Avg SAT's for Incoming Freshman Fall 2005 is up to 1156 and their private endowment (which grew 17% last year) has surpassed the $500,000,000 mark. This Fall, they will embark on their 2nd major capital campaign with a stated goal of raising an additional $750,000,000 over the next several years.

The State has identified Tech and UH as the next two flagships, and have increased their funding formula to help reach that goal. Still, its not enough, nor is it occuring fast enough as the State's population continues to explode. (the reality is, we really need 6-8 flagships)

The state of Texas has some archaic higher education funding schemes that have stymied the development of more "flagship" universities. Former Texas senator John Montford often said that the current arrangement wouldn't likely stand up to a Constitutional challenge, as it unfairly benefits a few public universities to the detriment of others by way of barring public money (in this case the proceeds of a $14-15 Billion dollar endowment) from certain universities (Tech, UH, and any others not in the PUF).

Our current higher education scheme is a joke.

Chris Bell, Carole Strayhorn, and Kinky all have put forth similar plans to expand the number of "Tier 1" institutions in Texas.

Edited May 8, 2006 by mrfootball

[texas911]

You can thank the greedy UT and ATM alumns in legislature that keeps UH down. Their short sightedness makes Texas a laughing stock in higher education.

Time and time again UH gets denied. UH is third in student population, and I think is also third in research grants awarded. Its in the 4th largest city in the US, with a world class medical center on its doorsteps and NASA in its backyard. International companies just a stones throw away are headquartered here. It just make to much sense not to make UH the next tier one school in Texas.

UH is also third in endowment in Texas (state schools). Tech would be good tier one candidate but not ahead of UH. UH has evovled into a great university.

[webdude]

more flagships breeds more liberalism, which seems counter initutive to keeping texas red.

[mrfootball]

UH is also third in endowment in Texas (state schools). Tech would be good tier one candidate but not ahead of UH.

Slight correction for texas911, Texas Tech's endowment is currently the 3rd largest of the state schools in Texas. I may have to disagree with you on the next part....Texas Tech's SAT average 1156 is considerably higher than UH's Main Campus (over 70 pts greater). Tech's SAT Average (and in many cases endowment) is greater than the following major state universities: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Kentucky, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, South Carolina, Okie State, K-State, Kansas.

Texas Tech operates a Medical School, Nursing School, Pharmacy school, and Law School with campuses in Lubbock, Amarillo, Midland/Odessa, Abilene, El Paso, Fredericksburg, Marble Falls, Junction and Kerrville (and perhaps SFA?)

Regardless, both need a bit more support. As do other Texas universities. There's so much inefficiency in our current funding scheme. It's terribly provincial, and terribly inefficient.

BTW, There's also been a study that would combing UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington, and UT Southwestern into one Tier 1 institutions (UTD and UTSW are great institutions...UTA...not so much).

Edited May 8, 2006 by mrfootball

[WesternGulf]

more flagships breeds more liberalism, which seems counter initutive to keeping texas red.

Ha. You sound like my grandma.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

There are a lot of factors that are considered when deciding whether a school should be classified as "Tier 1." Chances are that the publicschools in the cities you mentioned will have to wait a loooooooooooooooooooong time before they reach that category. Hey, but you can be proud of Rice and SMU.

Rice University, the greatest school on the planet baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KinkaidAlum]

The main problem with Rice is that it is too small to affect any real change on the city of Houston. Compare Rice to it's competition (Stanford, Duke, Penn, Harvard, Northwestern, Chicago, Cornell, etc...) and you'll see that Rice is normally only half the size of the other schools and doesn't have the professional programs like Medicine and Law that really can make an impact on a city.

Rice has recently announced they will try and expand the overall school by almost 50% but there are concerns that in order to do that, the overall quality of the students will drop. Believe it or not, Rice's main drawback in attracting students is the city of Houston. Many studies have been undertaken that look at why students who are admitted but don't enroll and the #1 issue cited was HOUSTON.

[MidtownCoog]

Slight correction for texas911, Texas Tech's endowment is currently the 3rd largest of the state schools in Texas.

Y'all must have just passed us recently.

FYI - Tier I is not an SAT contest.

[mrfootball]

Y'all must have just passed us recently

Yes, you're correct. It happened over the past year. There was an article detailing the growth of Tech's endowment, which grew by 17% and has experienced the 2nd highest percentage growth (behind UT) of the Big 12 schools over the last 4 years.

Edited May 8, 2006 by mrfootball

[MidtownCoog]

It's just too bad y'all are located in Lubbock

[mrfootball]

It's just too bad y'all are located in Lubbock

I'm located in Houston...and Lubbock, is a fine city.

I'm an alum of UT and Texas Tech. I loved Austin, but I also found Lubbock to be a great place to live and go to school. The people are very nice, the women are beautiful, and there's a lot of emphasis on the University. Tech is not a place where you'll find a lot of Left (UT) or Right (A&M) wing dogma...Professors don't force their political agendas, and if anything it leans a bit libertarian on the whole. The campus itself is very pretty. It's a nice size for a college town (205,000). Not too big, not too small. Lots of school spirit. Entertainment options were good with a lot of live music, and they get all of the big concerts at the United Spirit Arena. The weather was nice there (sans the occasional spring dust storm...which were to say the least a sight to behold). I loved the low humidity. Big, sunny skies and cool nights...

Edited May 8, 2006 by mrfootball

[MidtownCoog]

I know this.

[ProHouston]

You can thank the greedy UT and ATM alumns in legislature that keeps UH down. Their short sightedness makes Texas a laughing stock in higher education.

Time and time again UH gets denied. UH is third in student population, and I think is also third in research grants awarded. Its in the 4th largest city in the US, with a world class medical center on its doorsteps and NASA in its backyard. International companies just a stones throw away are headquartered here. It just make to much sense not to make UH the next tier one school in Texas.

UH is also third in endowment in Texas (state schools). Tech would be good tier one candidate but not ahead of UH. UH has evovled into a great university.

Check the wikipedia, here's a quote:

The PUF principal in the fall 2005 was approximately $15 billion, second only to Harvard's endowment. The PUF primarily serves The University of Texas System with 2/3rds of its proceeds. The PUF also funds the Texas A&M University System with the remaining third.

This is why Texas A&M been playing catch up with UT for so long, it only gets 1/2 the money. Then to think that the rest of the public schools in Texas get even less? That's ridiculous. UT should not be treated any different than other public univerisities in this state. It's time things change. Just think what type of universities our state could have were it not for this distribution.

[Trophy Property]

Slight correction for texas911, Texas Tech's endowment is currently the 3rd largest of the state schools in Texas. I may have to disagree with you on the next part....Texas Tech's SAT average 1156 is considerably higher than UH's Main Campus (over 70 pts greater). Tech's SAT Average (and in many cases endowment) is greater than the following major state universities: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Kentucky, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, South Carolina, Okie State, K-State, Kansas.

Tech must have gotten better because when I applied there in 1989 (I know 17 years ago) I was let in with a sub 3.0 GPA and a sub 1000 SAT. I did not attend as the University of Colorad also accepted me and I went there.

P.S. Before anyone responds with "You are an idiot" I was really lazy in High School, and College for that matter. I still managed to get an MBA from UH and have made a name for myself in my chosen profession.

[mrfootball]

I strongly feel that all of the public funding mechanisms (PUF, HEF, etc) need to be put under the authority of the Higher Education Coordinating Board. I think the UTIMCO has done a splendid job investing and should likely continue doing what they're doing with the entire pool of public higher education resources. That would include removing the current investment restrictions placed on the HEF.

So...put it all into one pool, and divide it accordingly from there...rather than the current system that bars certain PUBLIC institutions from receiving certain PUBLIC moneys. A Common sense solution to a ridiculously complicated problem.

Again, I don't believe the current funding scheme (ie. Permanent University Fund) could stand up to a constitutional challenge. It has done nothing but stymie Higher Education in Texas.

Tech must have gotten better

Indeed they have. They began to implement significantly higher standards in the mid 1990's that have resulted in continually rising SAT scores (1125 in 2003, 1131 in 2004...1156 this year) The addition and growth of the Honors college, Big 12 membership, improved funding from state and private sources, and the top 10% rule have served to benefit Tech. Administrators who were originally worried that the increased requirements would negatively affect enrollment numbers were surprised when applications dramatically increased as did enrollment (22K to 29K and growing).

Edited May 8, 2006 by mrfootball

[texas911]

Yea Tech should also be Tier One, no doubt about it, but for UH not to be Tier One in a city as big as Houston is a crime. The local good ole boy government network can't see past their crooked noses to realize that a Tier One UH would bring in millions of dollars to the economy, its a much better investment than a new football stadium.

Plus a lot of students that would be attracted to a Tier One research university stay in town after they graduate. Making the talent pool very attractive to companies that might relocate here.

As for Rice. They've got some kind of reverse Napolean syndrome. They have a huge endowment yet don't want to grow into a top university. Add some graduate schools already. They totally missed out on not having a medical school, even though they are right there by the med center. That's crazy.

BTW Rice would never be a Tier One school, because Tier One simply means they get lots of funding from the state. Rice isn't a state school.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The main problem with Rice is that it is too small to affect any real change on the city of Houston. Compare Rice to it's competition (Stanford, Duke, Penn, Harvard, Northwestern, Chicago, Cornell, etc...) and you'll see that Rice is normally only half the size of the other schools and doesn't have the professional programs like Medicine and Law that really can make an impact on a city.

Rice has recently announced they will try and expand the overall school by almost 50% but there are concerns that in order to do that, the overall quality of the students will drop. Believe it or not, Rice's main drawback in attracting students is the city of Houston. Many studies have been undertaken that look at why students who are admitted but don't enroll and the #1 issue cited was HOUSTON.

One case where bigger isnt better. I ejoyed my time at Rice and the life long friends and connections i have made. Because of it, im in the best spot career wise. No place like Rice University!!!!!!!! If students are admitted and dont enroll, i LOVE IT. No need for non committed people to bring down the greatest school on the planet!!!

[mrfootball]

Plus a lot of students that would be attracted to a Tier One research university stay in town after they graduate. Making the talent pool very attractive to companies that might relocate here.

Totally agree. UH is a very strong Research university, and could be incredibly strong given the right resources. However, I think the City of Houston, as much as UH needs to realize that the two are married at the hip, and benefit from each others' strength. Houston itself needs to invest in UH for the betterment of Houston.

I've always had a soft-spot in my heart for Rice University. I'd like to see them grow. I believe they have an endowment worth some $2.5-4 Billion.

Edited May 8, 2006 by mrfootball

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I've always had a soft-spot in my heart for Rice University. I'd like to see them grow. I believe they have an endowment worth some $2.5-4 Billion.

i didnt realize it had grown that much. it was just over 1 billion. if your numbers are correct, thats a HUGE leap.

Edited May 8, 2006 by Houston1stWordOnTheMoon

[MidtownCoog]

3.3 in 2004

Still behind the UT System.

[TJones]

how can we be proud about these private schools that are only for the geniuses and the rich? i am talking about PUBLIC Universities here, you know, the schools for the middle class.

Hold up Chief, you are still gonna have to get a decent SAT to get into to these "Average Joe" schools. Unless your old man knows some pretty hefty alumni.

[KinkaidAlum]

Private schools can be Tier One schools. The reason Rice isn't is because it is too small.

USC, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke, Rochester, Emory, Northwestern, Carnegie Mellon, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Penn, Columbia, etc... are just some examples of private Tier One institutions.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Private schools can be Tier One schools. The reason Rice isn't is because it is too small.

USC, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke, Rochester, Emory, Northwestern, Carnegie Mellon, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Penn, Columbia, etc... are just some examples of private Tier One institutions.

Too small for whom? The students that actually pay to attend? I dont think they have a problem with size of the school, i didnt :):)

[texas911]

My bad, I thought that in context of the discussion, it was State funding that determined Teir One status.

Believe it or not, Rice's main drawback in attracting students is the city of Houston. Many studies have been undertaken that look at why students who are admitted but don't enroll and the #1 issue cited was HOUSTON.

That may not be totally the only reason. Most of these applicants apply to many schools just incase their preferred school doesn't admint them. But I see your point. It wasn't to long ago that I visited NYC and people I met, upon hearing I was from Houston asked if I rode a horse to work, or if we had paved rodes!

[RedScare]

Looks Tier One to me.

1 Harvard University (MA)

1 Princeton University (NJ)

3 Yale University (CT)

4 University of Pennsylvania

5 Duke University (NC)

5 Stanford University (CA)

7 California Institute of Technology

7 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology

9 Columbia University (NY)

9 Dartmouth College (NH)

11 Washington University in St. Louis

12 Northwestern University (IL)

13 Cornell University (NY)

13 Johns Hopkins University (MD)

15 Brown University (RI)

15 University of Chicago

17 Rice University (TX)

18 University of Notre Dame (IN)

18 Vanderbilt University (TN)

20 Emory University (GA)

[texas911]

Red, what is that list? Notice there are no state schools.

Tier one funding means we get better funding not a higher ranking.