If everyone just ignored the guy, he would find another area to play.

He only comes here because we have folks that respond.

If you can't resist the temptation respond to him, I'm sure the mods would at least consider him having access to the smack forum only....just a thought. However, you'll never know if you don't ask.

I don't have a problem with Dwight he's just trying to defend UTs honor after that showing at the Senate. He lost me at credibility when he made it seem as though UT attended the hearing out of the kindness of their heart.

(01-28-2017 12:29 PM)UH1927 Wrote:  secretly spending $450 million of Texas tax payer's money for 300 acres of an environmentally unsound piece of property, in Houston, for a project with no plans or direction.

The arrogance never ends....

If you hate UT-Austin...this is epic!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebFXu5fS6EI

There isn't a character limit on thread titles. At least not one that short.

(02-02-2017 02:14 AM)Agust Wrote:  I don't have a problem with Dwight he's just trying to defend UTs honor after that showing at the Senate. He lost me at credibility when he made it seem as though UT attended the hearing out of the kindness of their heart.

He's not a UT grad, He is a Texas Tech troll that has some inexplicable passionate hate for UH. He constantly trolls UH sites using different names (Rodrod5 for instance).

(02-01-2017 04:17 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:54 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 09:08 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  It's just fun to watch UT over play their hand and then have the city of Houston tell UT , hell no , now walk on home boy, and people like this todge fool will just have to eat crow

It's probably still going to happen. I haven't seen anything to indicate that UT wasn't going to build the Houston research center.

All I saw were some people complaining.

You have to put the "complaining" into context. Budget cuts are coming. There is a 5 billion dollar shortfall in the current 2-year budgeting session. In that environment---do you think a angry senate is going to look favorably on a new multi-billion dollar campus that doesn't even have a defined need and largely duplicates the function of another large state supported institution less than 5 miles away? The Lt Gov is actually the most powerful person in Texas St government. He and the gov sent UT a letter demanding to know why they cant keep tuition costs under control---and they want to spend billions on a new unnecessary campus?

UT-Houston is dead. It died the moment oil prices and tax revenue began falling.

I'll wait to assume the Houston research campus is dead until I actually see someone say the research campus is dead.

Note that there's a difference between dead and delayed until the Texas economy has improved. The land has already been bought and paid for. It's not going to go bad if it sits for a while.

I agree with Insane Baboon on this one. I haven't heard that UT-Houston is dead, and since I'm employed in the Oil industry in Texas, I can tell you that you haven't heard the latest on Oil prices. Oil is going up in 2017, not down, AttackCoog. But even if oil doesn't rise back up this year like I predict, UT-Houston is not dead.
Cheers!

(02-02-2017 01:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 04:17 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:54 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 09:08 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  It's just fun to watch UT over play their hand and then have the city of Houston tell UT , hell no , now walk on home boy, and people like this todge fool will just have to eat crow

It's probably still going to happen. I haven't seen anything to indicate that UT wasn't going to build the Houston research center.

All I saw were some people complaining.

You have to put the "complaining" into context. Budget cuts are coming. There is a 5 billion dollar shortfall in the current 2-year budgeting session. In that environment---do you think a angry senate is going to look favorably on a new multi-billion dollar campus that doesn't even have a defined need and largely duplicates the function of another large state supported institution less than 5 miles away? The Lt Gov is actually the most powerful person in Texas St government. He and the gov sent UT a letter demanding to know why they cant keep tuition costs under control---and they want to spend billions on a new unnecessary campus?

UT-Houston is dead. It died the moment oil prices and tax revenue began falling.

I'll wait to assume the Houston research campus is dead until I actually see someone say the research campus is dead.

Note that there's a difference between dead and delayed until the Texas economy has improved. The land has already been bought and paid for. It's not going to go bad if it sits for a while.

I agree with Insane Baboon on this one. I haven't heard that UT-Houston is dead, and since I'm employed in the Oil industry in Texas, I can tell you that you haven't heard the latest on Oil prices. Oil is going up in 2017, not down, AttackCoog. But even if oil doesn't rise back up this year like I predict, UT-Houston is not dead.
Cheers!

Id say oil going up in 2017 is a bigger assumption than UT-Houston being dead. Oil is a demand and supply issue. Until demand rises enough to eat up the production in storage and begins to approach existing production--there cant be any real long term sustained rise in oil prices. Even then, its going to be tough because everyone and their dog has excess production they are going to want to put back on line---which means there is a ton overhead supply pressure that will prevent any significant increase for years. Not to mention any economic recession will reduce demand again. The average recovery lasts 6 years. We are year 8 of the current recovery (lol....if you want to call it that). So, an economic pullback of some sort is probably in the cards at some point in the next few years.

People are underestimating what happened in the oil industry. The last time this happened in the early 1980's it took nearly 20 years before the oil industry was able to make a sustained recovery and it was almost 30 years before it fully rebounded. While I do think the worst is probably over, we'll likely hover around this pricing area for a long time. We may go up a bit in 2017, but it wont be any sort of long term trend because the underling demand/supply issues aren't going to be any different. The current narrowing between demand and supply is due to artificial production curbs by producers. If the price rises, people will put production back on line. That's the same thing that happened in the 80's and 90's when OPEC was using production quotas to stablilize pricing. If it didn't work then (where they controlled a larger percentage of total production), it wont work now because there are more major producers than there were back then. That's the problem with production agreements---someone is always willing to cheat.


http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oi...tory-chart

(02-02-2017 02:08 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  If everyone just ignored the guy, he would find another area to play.

He only comes here because we have folks that respond.

If you can't resist the temptation respond to him, I'm sure the mods would at least consider him having access to the smack forum only....just a thought. However, you'll never know if you don't ask.

I just think that it is funny that he thinks that I'm attacking the THECB's accuracy, when instead I am rejecting their methodology.

And I didn't read the rest of what he posted. Because he got that part wrong.

(02-02-2017 01:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 01:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 04:17 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:54 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  It's probably still going to happen. I haven't seen anything to indicate that UT wasn't going to build the Houston research center.

All I saw were some people complaining.

You have to put the "complaining" into context. Budget cuts are coming. There is a 5 billion dollar shortfall in the current 2-year budgeting session. In that environment---do you think a angry senate is going to look favorably on a new multi-billion dollar campus that doesn't even have a defined need and largely duplicates the function of another large state supported institution less than 5 miles away? The Lt Gov is actually the most powerful person in Texas St government. He and the gov sent UT a letter demanding to know why they cant keep tuition costs under control---and they want to spend billions on a new unnecessary campus?

UT-Houston is dead. It died the moment oil prices and tax revenue began falling.

I'll wait to assume the Houston research campus is dead until I actually see someone say the research campus is dead.

Note that there's a difference between dead and delayed until the Texas economy has improved. The land has already been bought and paid for. It's not going to go bad if it sits for a while.

I agree with Insane Baboon on this one. I haven't heard that UT-Houston is dead, and since I'm employed in the Oil industry in Texas, I can tell you that you haven't heard the latest on Oil prices. Oil is going up in 2017, not down, AttackCoog. But even if oil doesn't rise back up this year like I predict, UT-Houston is not dead.
Cheers!

Id say oil going up in 2017 is a bigger assumption than UT-Houston being dead. Oil is a demand and supply issue. Until demand rises enough to eat up the production in storage and begins to approach existing production--there cant be any real long term sustained rise in oil prices. Even then, its going to be tough because everyone and their dog has excess production they are going to want to put back on line---which means there is a ton overhead supply pressure that will prevent any significant increase for years. Not to mention any economic recession will reduce demand again. The average recovery lasts 6 years. We are year 8 of the current recovery (lol....if you want to call it that). So, an economic pullback of some sort is probably in the cards at some point in the next few years.

People are underestimating what happened in the oil industry. The last time this happened in the early 1980's it took nearly 20 years before the oil industry was able to make a sustained recovery and it was almost 30 years before it fully rebounded. While I do think the worst is probably over, we'll likely hover around this pricing area for a long time. We may go up a bit in 2017, but it wont be any sort of long term trend because the underling demand/supply issues aren't going to be any different. The current narrowing between demand and supply is due to artificial production curbs by producers. If the price rises, people will put production back on line. That's the same thing that happened in the 80's and 90's when OPEC was using production quotas to stablilize pricing. If it didn't work then (where they controlled a larger percentage of total production), it wont work now because there are more major producers than there were back then. That's the problem with production agreements---someone is always willing to cheat.


http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oi...tory-chart

Well, you know your stuff. I'm impressed. I agree with a lot of things you said. And I'm biased, obviously MY livelihood depends on oil prices going back up, but I said that 2017 will be good for the oil industry for obvious political reasons I won't go into. My company seems to agree as does our competition and the one guy I know who invests heavily in oil stock. Yes, there's so much oil ABOVE ground right now it would shock people. There are drums and totes of it galore. But in the past weeks, certain areas have been given the ok to start drilling again. And there's been good news in the Permian Basin area on the Texas/New Mexico border....anyway 2017 will be a good year for oil I predict and 2018 too. Things may start to slow down again after that but I see this last little bright spot happening now during the long recovery.
Cheers!

(02-02-2017 08:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 01:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 01:36 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 04:17 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You have to put the "complaining" into context. Budget cuts are coming. There is a 5 billion dollar shortfall in the current 2-year budgeting session. In that environment---do you think a angry senate is going to look favorably on a new multi-billion dollar campus that doesn't even have a defined need and largely duplicates the function of another large state supported institution less than 5 miles away? The Lt Gov is actually the most powerful person in Texas St government. He and the gov sent UT a letter demanding to know why they cant keep tuition costs under control---and they want to spend billions on a new unnecessary campus?

UT-Houston is dead. It died the moment oil prices and tax revenue began falling.

I'll wait to assume the Houston research campus is dead until I actually see someone say the research campus is dead.

Note that there's a difference between dead and delayed until the Texas economy has improved. The land has already been bought and paid for. It's not going to go bad if it sits for a while.

I agree with Insane Baboon on this one. I haven't heard that UT-Houston is dead, and since I'm employed in the Oil industry in Texas, I can tell you that you haven't heard the latest on Oil prices. Oil is going up in 2017, not down, AttackCoog. But even if oil doesn't rise back up this year like I predict, UT-Houston is not dead.
Cheers!

Id say oil going up in 2017 is a bigger assumption than UT-Houston being dead. Oil is a demand and supply issue. Until demand rises enough to eat up the production in storage and begins to approach existing production--there cant be any real long term sustained rise in oil prices. Even then, its going to be tough because everyone and their dog has excess production they are going to want to put back on line---which means there is a ton overhead supply pressure that will prevent any significant increase for years. Not to mention any economic recession will reduce demand again. The average recovery lasts 6 years. We are year 8 of the current recovery (lol....if you want to call it that). So, an economic pullback of some sort is probably in the cards at some point in the next few years.

People are underestimating what happened in the oil industry. The last time this happened in the early 1980's it took nearly 20 years before the oil industry was able to make a sustained recovery and it was almost 30 years before it fully rebounded. While I do think the worst is probably over, we'll likely hover around this pricing area for a long time. We may go up a bit in 2017, but it wont be any sort of long term trend because the underling demand/supply issues aren't going to be any different. The current narrowing between demand and supply is due to artificial production curbs by producers. If the price rises, people will put production back on line. That's the same thing that happened in the 80's and 90's when OPEC was using production quotas to stablilize pricing. If it didn't work then (where they controlled a larger percentage of total production), it wont work now because there are more major producers than there were back then. That's the problem with production agreements---someone is always willing to cheat.


http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oi...tory-chart

Well, you know your stuff. I'm impressed. I agree with a lot of things you said. And I'm biased, obviously MY livelihood depends on oil prices going back up, but I said that 2017 will be good for the oil industry for obvious political reasons I won't go into. My company seems to agree as does our competition and the one guy I know who invests heavily in oil stock. Yes, there's so much oil ABOVE ground right now it would shock people. There are drums and totes of it galore. But in the past weeks, certain areas have been given the ok to start drilling again. And there's been good news in the Permian Basin area on the Texas/New Mexico border....anyway 2017 will be a good year for oil I predict and 2018 too. Things may start to slow down again after that but I see this last little bright spot happening now during the long recovery.
Cheers!

lol....I've lived in Houston my whole life----so to one degree or another, vrtualy EVERYONE I know does much better when oil is doing well (including me). Hell, my brother is a partner in a oil company.

(02-02-2017 07:34 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 02:08 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  If everyone just ignored the guy, he would find another area to play.

He only comes here because we have folks that respond.

If you can't resist the temptation respond to him, I'm sure the mods would at least consider him having access to the smack forum only....just a thought. However, you'll never know if you don't ask.

I just think that it is funny that he thinks that I'm attacking the THECB's accuracy, when instead I am rejecting their methodology.

And I didn't read the rest of what he posted. Because he got that part wrong.

you read the rest and realized that I made you look clueless and now you are trying to save face

showing that 10% of the freshman class for about 9 years straight from UTSA successfully transferred into UT Austin pretty much "destroys" your claim that the CAP program has no impact on their same school graduation rates

and perhaps if people would have a clue what they were talking about and use real information instead of pulling things out of their ass and then being proven wrong and resorting to actually admitting they are the type of mental midget that goes looking for facebook pages of people they have no clue about and know nothing of this thread would be much more informative and educational instead of a bunch of people looking foolish while thinking they look smart taking shots at universities and screen names and totally missing the mark

who gets made a fool of with facts and then accuses the other of "butt hurt" while also telling everyone they think they found their facebok

no wonder those people stay stupid

(02-03-2017 01:32 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 07:34 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 02:08 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  If everyone just ignored the guy, he would find another area to play.

He only comes here because we have folks that respond.

If you can't resist the temptation respond to him, I'm sure the mods would at least consider him having access to the smack forum only....just a thought. However, you'll never know if you don't ask.

I just think that it is funny that he thinks that I'm attacking the THECB's accuracy, when instead I am rejecting their methodology.

And I didn't read the rest of what he posted. Because he got that part wrong.

you read the rest and realized that I made you look clueless and now you are trying to save face

showing that 10% of the freshman class for about 9 years straight from UTSA successfully transferred into UT Austin pretty much "destroys" your claim that the CAP program has no impact on their same school graduation rates

and perhaps if people would have a clue what they were talking about and use real information instead of pulling things out of their ass and then being proven wrong and resorting to actually admitting they are the type of mental midget that goes looking for facebook pages of people they have no clue about and know nothing of this thread would be much more informative and educational instead of a bunch of people looking foolish while thinking they look smart taking shots at universities and screen names and totally missing the mark

who gets made a fool of with facts and then accuses the other of "butt hurt" while also telling everyone they think they found their facebok

no wonder those people stay stupid

No one cares todge go away.

Hey todge, do you understand that Houston is a part of Texas ?
Question todge: are you a Texan ?

(02-03-2017 01:32 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 07:34 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 02:08 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  If everyone just ignored the guy, he would find another area to play.

He only comes here because we have folks that respond.

If you can't resist the temptation respond to him, I'm sure the mods would at least consider him having access to the smack forum only....just a thought. However, you'll never know if you don't ask.

I just think that it is funny that he thinks that I'm attacking the THECB's accuracy, when instead I am rejecting their methodology.

And I didn't read the rest of what he posted. Because he got that part wrong.

you read the rest and realized that I made you look clueless and now you are trying to save face

showing that 10% of the freshman class for about 9 years straight from UTSA successfully transferred into UT Austin pretty much "destroys" your claim that the CAP program has no impact on their same school graduation rates

and perhaps if people would have a clue what they were talking about and use real information instead of pulling things out of their ass and then being proven wrong and resorting to actually admitting they are the type of mental midget that goes looking for facebook pages of people they have no clue about and know nothing of this thread would be much more informative and educational instead of a bunch of people looking foolish while thinking they look smart taking shots at universities and screen names and totally missing the mark

who gets made a fool of with facts and then accuses the other of "butt hurt" while also telling everyone they think they found their facebok

no wonder those people stay stupid

I did not but I did read this shorter post.

Explain how CAP is so huge at UTSA when UT Austin itself says statewide enrollment is "more than a thousand" (imprecise, but suggests to me that enrollment is between 1,000-1,500 as once you go above 1,500 the imprecise wording would be "nearly 2,000" - that said, it is possible that it's over 1,500 but not more than 2,000) and "about a third of them" complete the requirements to go on to UT.

https://admissions.utexas.edu/enroll/cap...e-students

"Each year, more than a thousand students participate in CAP. About a third of them complete the CAP requirements"


But, let's say that it is 10% of the freshman class that transfers on to UT from UTSA. Would not they have transferred somewhere anyway if CAP did not exist? And what about the other 60% that the Federal Government says do not graduate in 6 years?

I was told that there was not to be any math on this board ?

(01-31-2017 11:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-31-2017 09:45 AM)pesik Wrote:  TodgeRodge, my favorite...the man smarter than UH law professors, the head of the texas board of education

now not only are the most powerful legislators in texas dumb, but also members of the university of texas board of regent (aka the school that bought the land) have now publicly come against it....

my guy todge, ut-houston is dying but as always refuses to accept it, as kt would mean he was wrong...and todge is never wrong

like i noted months ago..ut-houston isnt ut-austin, the uta alum dont identify with it or see it as part of them, they arent inclined to protect it (like utsa, utrgv etc..). uth has no alum. UH on the other hand has hundreds of thousands of alum who would be against this as it threats there degree

outside of those involved in the purchase, not one single person in power has come in support of the purchase, while almost every legislator including UT austin alums have come against it

clearly it is not that difficult to be smarter than a UH law professor because I have already shown where the land purchase was 100% legal


the Texas Board of Education has nothing to do with higher education and the THECB that deals with higher education is a powerless organization

senator whitmier is a nobody he is hardly powerful at all he is roundly viewed as a buffoon

and the members of the UT BOR approved the purchase si it is not possible I could be wrong there

and two of the new members have said they have "concerns" which hardly means it is dead and the other new member said he did not have enough information yet to form an opinion which is hardly being against something

so as of now 6 current members of the BOR were there when it was approved and two of the new ones have some questions and one has not formed an opinion

that is dramatically different than something being dead......just like a tweet saying that a university could be considered for the Big 12 id dramatically different than actually saying they will be added or no one will be added


your other attempted points are just nonsense

(01-31-2017 10:02 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Todge your frantically trying to save a sinking ship, your attempts of belittlement are an indication of self pitty a shallow soul, one who looks in the mirror and sees desperation of an idiot
I believe that you really believe what your saying is the truest form of reality, just like ISIS fools do

well when you repeatedly show others they are wrong and prove with with facts that does not make one desperate nor does it make them like ISIS

it just means they have shown others with intelligence that many that scream and cry and use hyperbole are in fact often wrong and too stupid to ever realize it

(01-31-2017 10:45 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 11:40 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-30-2017 11:14 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  Hmm.

I believe you are correct in stating that UT would not need legislative approval for the land purchase itself, but Section c of the above states:

Pursuant to a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature, institutions of higher education may be created at a later date as a part of The University of Texas System or The Texas A&M University System by general law, and, when created, such an institution shall be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section for the system in which it is created. An institution that is entitled to participate in dedicated funding provided by Article VII, Section 17, of this constitution may not be entitled to participate in the funding provided by this section

So as I read this (and I could be dead wrong) it seems that UT is required to get the legislature's approval for any new institution prior to using PUF funds to purchase land for said institution.

Would you at least agree that purchasing the land without having received the required legislative approval for any new institution to be built on it (or even telling anyone that the purchase was going to take place until after the fact) seems a bit shady? If I were in the legislature, I would see this as a fairly transparent attempt to present the state with a fait accompli.

but what you are failing to understand is they are NOT creating a new university

they are going to run this campus under the administration of UT Austin and thus it is not a new university

it is no different than UT Austin having the telescope farm in west Texas or having the Marine Center in Port Aransas

https://utmsi.utexas.edu/

the above facility offers both graduate and undergraduate classes and it is fully under the control of UT Austin and in the College of Natural Sciences

as long as the UT-Houston facility is under the control and administration of UT Austin it is not a new university

and along with that if they desire to offer any particular degrees there as long as UT Austin already offers those degrees then there is no need for any approval from anyone for that as well

they are simply NOT looking to open up a full 4 year campus they are looking for something ultimately similar to the SWRI in San Antonio or the OU OKC facility

http://urc.ou.edu/


and when one looks at the OU center you can even see some of the cost and timeline of building it out

http://urc.ou.edu/opportunities/facilities/

1. Section c refers to "institutions of higher education", not "universities". Would a new research campus not fall under that description?

2. The Institute of Marine Science was established in 1941. "In 1973 the Texas legislature authorized the Texas Marine Science Institute as a part of the University of Texas at Austin." https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/kcu27

This would seem to contradict your claim that UT-Austin does not require legislative approval in order to add new institutions to it's system.

3. I cannot help but notice that Oklahoma's research campus, which you cite as an example of what UT has in mind, is within sight of their main campus. Why then should UT's equivalent facility be located 160+ miles from UT-Austin?

You assert that UT-Austin has no intention of establishing a 4 year undergraduate program in Houston. I would respond that by saying that intentions can change.

https://www.google.com/search?q=institut...8&oe=utf-8

good night get a clue....really you are attempting to say an institution of higher education is not a university.....you have an IQ of 2

and just because in the past the legislature may have made a line item to fund something that does not change what I have pointed out in the constitution

besides the entire reason the Port Aransas facility was brought up by me was not to show that Ut could or could not build something without state approval (they can it has been shown), but to show that UT Austin has degree and course offering facilities outside of Austin

and they are under the control of Austin...as the Houston campus will be as well

So now Frantic Todd has been caught in yet another lie. The two regents nominees did much more than "express concern".

One said the following--

Meanwhile, one of the nominees critical of the Houston project - Janiece Longoria, chair of the Port of Houston Authority and formerly a member of UT's advisory group for how to use the land - said she did not think UT's expansion in Houston "could ever be successful" without local lawmakers' support.

Longoria also said she's not in favor of using the Permanent University Fund - a massive source of funding from oil and gas holdings for UT and the Texas A&M University System that cannot be used by the UH system - for the Houston project. The UT spokeswoman said Longoria was part of the advisory group from March 2016 until leaving earlier this month due to "conflicting commitments."



The other said flat out he wanted the project "stopped".

Another of Abbott's regent nominees, former state Sen. Kevin Eltife, told the Senate nominations panel Thursday he wanted the Houston project "stopped."

"I want someone to explain to me how we spent $200 million on a piece of dirt and we don't know the use of it," he said.

Only the third regent nominee said he didn't have enough info.

So, as usual----Lies...Lies...and more lies from frantic little Todd Rodge. The dude hates UH to bottom of his little Red Raider heart.


http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/hou...887427.php

(02-03-2017 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So, as usual----Lies...Lies...and more lies from frantic little Todd Rodge. The dude hates UH to bottom of his little Red Raider heart.


http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/hou...887427.php

He will even hate us more come the night of September 23. remember remember the 23 of september.

(02-02-2017 01:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Id say oil going up in 2017 is a bigger assumption than UT-Houston being dead. Oil is a demand and supply issue. Until demand rises enough to eat up the production in storage and begins to approach existing production--there cant be any real long term sustained rise in oil prices. Even then, its going to be tough because everyone and their dog has excess production they are going to want to put back on line---which means there is a ton overhead supply pressure that will prevent any significant increase for years. Not to mention any economic recession will reduce demand again. The average recovery lasts 6 years. We are year 8 of the current recovery (lol....if you want to call it that). So, an economic pullback of some sort is probably in the cards at some point in the next few years.

People are underestimating what happened in the oil industry. The last time this happened in the early 1980's it took nearly 20 years before the oil industry was able to make a sustained recovery and it was almost 30 years before it fully rebounded. While I do think the worst is probably over, we'll likely hover around this pricing area for a long time. We may go up a bit in 2017, but it wont be any sort of long term trend because the underling demand/supply issues aren't going to be any different. The current narrowing between demand and supply is due to artificial production curbs by producers. If the price rises, people will put production back on line. That's the same thing that happened in the 80's and 90's when OPEC was using production quotas to stablilize pricing. If it didn't work then (where they controlled a larger percentage of total production), it wont work now because there are more major producers than there were back then. That's the problem with production agreements---someone is always willing to cheat.


http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oi...tory-chart

Plus he new Trump administration passion for the above energy sources and the expected easing on the coal industry will make the US even less dependent on Middle East oil, hence more supply then demand.

(02-03-2017 09:05 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:32 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 07:34 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 02:08 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  If everyone just ignored the guy, he would find another area to play.

He only comes here because we have folks that respond.

If you can't resist the temptation respond to him, I'm sure the mods would at least consider him having access to the smack forum only....just a thought. However, you'll never know if you don't ask.

I just think that it is funny that he thinks that I'm attacking the THECB's accuracy, when instead I am rejecting their methodology.

And I didn't read the rest of what he posted. Because he got that part wrong.

you read the rest and realized that I made you look clueless and now you are trying to save face

showing that 10% of the freshman class for about 9 years straight from UTSA successfully transferred into UT Austin pretty much "destroys" your claim that the CAP program has no impact on their same school graduation rates

and perhaps if people would have a clue what they were talking about and use real information instead of pulling things out of their ass and then being proven wrong and resorting to actually admitting they are the type of mental midget that goes looking for facebook pages of people they have no clue about and know nothing of this thread would be much more informative and educational instead of a bunch of people looking foolish while thinking they look smart taking shots at universities and screen names and totally missing the mark

who gets made a fool of with facts and then accuses the other of "butt hurt" while also telling everyone they think they found their facebok

no wonder those people stay stupid

I did not but I did read this shorter post.

Explain how CAP is so huge at UTSA when UT Austin itself says statewide enrollment is "more than a thousand" (imprecise, but suggests to me that enrollment is between 1,000-1,500 as once you go above 1,500 the imprecise wording would be "nearly 2,000" - that said, it is possible that it's over 1,500 but not more than 2,000) and "about a third of them" complete the requirements to go on to UT.

https://admissions.utexas.edu/enroll/cap...e-students

"Each year, more than a thousand students participate in CAP. About a third of them complete the CAP requirements"


But, let's say that it is 10% of the freshman class that transfers on to UT from UTSA. Would not they have transferred somewhere anyway if CAP did not exist? And what about the other 60% that the Federal Government says do not graduate in 6 years?

here we see where a poor quality education and a sense of desperation combine to show more ignorance

I already showed the numbers for the UT CAP program including in that article where it states that 26% or so of the freshman class from UTSA some years was in the CAP program and that on average over a long number of years 39% successfully completed the program and transferred to UT Austin

so you were totally and completely making it up that "a small % of CAP students come from UTSA" because I have already directly shown where in fact over a 9 year period the vast majority of UT CAP program students came through UTSA.....and as I and the article showed about 10% of the freshman class for UTSA over that 9 year period successfully transferred to UT Austin

only someone with a very poor education or a very low reasoning ability would not understand that 10% of your freshman class transferring under a program with difficult standards will not have material impact on your same school graduation rates

and as for the "what about the other %" of students that do not graduate.....of course the same question would and should be ask of dem coogs doh as well

because when you compare the overall 6 year graduation rates between the universities UTSA is not much lower than dem coogs doh

and that gets back the the desperate attempt to then clutch for "same university" graduation numbers.....but as I have shown in the case of UTSA in particular that is not a valid comparison because as I have shown and linked to credible articles to support about 25%+ of the freshman class of UTSA for a 9 year period entered under the UT CAP program and about 10% of the total freshman class of UTSA successfully made the transfer in the CAP program and only a total dolt would not understand the impact that would have on same school graduation rates

and it makes absolutely zero sense to think that "wouldn't those students have transferred somewhere else if the CAP program did not exits"

again that is someone with very very low reasoning ability trying desperately to not be totally and completely wrong

the CAP program is a very specific program to get students to UT Austin

it is not a transfer program to get students started at UTSA and then to just transfer anywhere it is for students with a goal to get to UT Austin specifically

it makes zero sense to think that students with a goal to go to some other university would go to UTSA and then transfer in large numbers without the CAP program

because the reality is that outside of UT Austin, TAMU and UTD the entrance metrics for public universities in Texas are really not that difficult

Texas Tech has a meaningful difference in their overall admissions requirements between those not listed above and everyone else, but other than those 4 universities now listed UTSA is on par with many of the other state universities in Texas as far as entrance requirements

so there would be no need for students to start at UTSA and then transfer because those same students would almost certainly get admitted to any other state university besides Austin, A&M, UTD and Texas Tech

and if they were looking to stay home and save money it would make more sense for them to g to the large and well run community college system in San Antonio with transfer programs to numerous state universities in Texas

they would get cheaper classes, easier access to the campus, more available class times and the same ability to transfer

so it would generally not make sense for large numbers of students to enter UTSA without the CAP program specifically and then transfer after a year or two.....in fact it would make no sense at all when one actually has a clue about admissions standards for the majority of Texas public universities

and back to the overall point that started the now resolved "graduation rate" discussion

besides the fact that it has now been shown that UTD has a much higher graduation rate than dem coogs doh and that UTSA and UTA are very comparable there is still the FACT that the money that is being spent in Houston would not best be used to try and improve the other universities in the UT System because the FACT is that money is actually not available to any of those system universities

the money that is being spent in Houston is coming directly off of the back of UT Austin and that money is not and will not be available to any other UT System university barring a change in The Constitution of The State of Texas

this is because PUF participants exclusive of UT Austin, TAMU College Station and PVAMU only get PUF funds in the amount that formula infrastructure funding formulas specify they get

they are not eligible for more money than that

one that formula infrastructure funding is made available to the PUF participants the remaining funding goes to UT Austin and A&M College Station and PVAMU for "excellence"

and thus there is no ability for the UT System to shift any available money away from UT Austin and towards any particular other system university

so now we have it made clear to anyone with a functioning brain and any decent amount of education and logical abilities that dem coogs doh have no room to call anyone out about graduation rates, UTSA in particular has a unique situation that depresses their same university graduation rates and the UT System is not able to shift money to any system university based on available PUF funds because all but UT Austin only are entitled to formula infrastructure funding from the PUF and any and all other money after the formula infrastructure funding is paid goes to UT Austin for "excellence"

and again that is yet another reason the Houston campus will be under the administration of UT Austin and why it will be 100% legal and needs no legislative approvals or authority

and once the new BOR members have the plans explained to them they will be on board as well with the project

^^^^omg really!?

Give us the cliff notes dude, good lord

I don't know what's the situation at the University of Houston, UTSA, Texas State, UT-Austin (the devil), Texas Tech, etc. Based on personal experience, I'm knowledgeable about two UT schools: the ones in Dallas (where I got my degree in Economics) and El Paso (where I started as a freshman).

Of all the UT campuses, UT-Dallas or UTD is the most selective after UT-Austin. After that, it's a big drop off. For being such a young school (established in the late 60's), it has done a great job in becoming an academic giant. I would say a UTD degree ranks 3rd in prestige among public universities in the state behind UT and A&M but I'm probably biased. Of course, of all private/public schools in Texas, a degree from Rice is the most prestigious one because they're on a league of their own academics wise.

As for UTEP, the reason why its 6 year graduation rate is not that great is because UTEP serves a different demographic than most schools. Its mission is to grant access to higher education to the citizens of El Paso who can't otherwise afford college under normal circumstances. It's the only 4 year university in the area with the nearest one being Sul Ross State in Alpine 3-4 hours away, UT-Permian Basin in Odessa (270 miles away) and Texas Tech (300+ miles). New Mexico State is nearby but it's in another state which has different priorities which is more agriculture based and as it should be, the citizens of Southern New Mexico are its priority not the ones from across the state line. For that reason alone, UTEP can't be as selective as UTD for example. UTD can reject an applicant from Irving and he/she can still apply and have better chances of being admitted to UT-Arlington and North Texas which all are in the same region. UTEP doesn't has the same luxury. The only way for UTEP to become more selective is if the State Legislature approves and funds an A&M System school in El Paso (which is wishful thinking because our politicians are more concerned about unnecessary bathroom bills than the future of higher education in the state). An A&M-El Paso for example could get the lion's share of transfer students from EPCC and those non traditional students who would take longer to graduate. That would leave UTEP with more traditional students who would graduate in 4-6 years and focus more in research. But until that happens, don't expect much changes in graduation rates. That doesn't mean UTEP is not making strides in academics, its campus has been under construction the last 10 years and it has been recognized by Time and The New York Times as an institution that offers a quality education at a good price to students who wouldn't get it anywhere else. I remember being in class with single moms in their 30s, married men in their late 20's with a wife and two kids, men and women in their 40s who drop out of college in their early 20s to start a family and decided to finish their degrees, literally everyone of my classmates, friends and fraternity brothers worked part or full time and still had to find the time to study and do research papers......and all of them lived at home with their parents. I was one of those rare birds who was a traditional student, didn't work, lived a few blocks away from campus and came from out of town (DFW).

The one thing I remember professors telling me at UTEP and UTD was, "never forget your degree will have THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS on it and you should be proud of that. That name will open more doors to you than just a city name and/or directional school" which until this day I found it to be true. The name TEXAS (the state not the school) has a strong and important name attached to it.