No reason for a UT-Houston they have a public university in Houston (why double up on overhead when you do not need to).

(03-06-2017 11:38 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  No reason for a UT-Houston they have a public university in Houston (why double up on overhead when you do not need to).

Actually, there are FOUR public undergraduate universities in the City of Houston, 2 other public undergraduate schools in the metro, and 3 others within an hours' drive of the metro.

And then there's UTMB, UT-Health Sciences (Dentistry), and a variety of other public supported graduate schools in metro Houston.

(03-06-2017 11:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 11:38 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  No reason for a UT-Houston they have a public university in Houston (why double up on overhead when you do not need to).

Actually, there are FOUR public undergraduate universities in the City of Houston, 2 other public undergraduate schools in the metro, and 3 others within an hours' drive of the metro.

And then there's UTMB, UT-Health Sciences (Dentistry), and a variety of other public supported graduate schools in metro Houston.

Ok no need for another public university since there are four + 2 in the metro. I fill like UT-Houston was more a double punch by UT against A&M and UH.

(03-05-2017 07:39 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  No its all free.

Mpls StarTrib used to put eEdition Replica online for free. Just started requiring an eEdition account login to access it.

(03-05-2017 10:40 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  UT-Houston would likely not have harmed UH and would have been a benefit to the city.

Depending on the mission of the campus, I tend to lean more this way, as well.

(03-06-2017 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  UT hardly has more money than it knows what to do with. None of the universities do. Texas has gone from 47% state general funding and 12% Available University Fund in 1982 to only 13% state and 8% AUF 30 years later and its probably lower now. 54% of funding now is either from Research or Gifts with 25% from Tuition.

Research funding pays for research expenditures. And while UT does plenty of great research, I'm sure that compared to the operating budget for the campus it's peanuts. Tuition/fees and state funding are generally the main two revenue streams for any public university.

Sadly as you mention, state funding is decreasing nation wide. Federal tuition assistance is going down too, as is federal research funding.

Pathetic, really.

(03-06-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The current system provides one huge steadily growing fund for the UT and A&M systems. A second newer, much smaller bucket of funds, is shared by all the other state systems. Then the state supplements those funds with money from the general fund.

Why does Texas need more than three university systems???? Seems like ego, to me.

Minnesota, California, and others do great with two: one for the main research university system, and one for the two-year/four-year focused campuses.


I could see three in Texas's case, as obviously UT and TA&M will never merge into one system: those two, and then combine all other public campuses into a system.
EDIT: forgot about Texas Tech. Probably way too big and way too much ego to combine with anyone else. Then I suppose if Tech gets its own system, Houston fights for its own system. Yikes!

(03-06-2017 10:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, pull money out of Houston at the expense of UH.

That sounds like nonsense to me.

If executives in Houston-area want to get a business master's from the state flagship business school, rather than UH's business school, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

(03-06-2017 11:30 AM)Comet Wrote:  Indeed, I have a degree from there and it is extremely competitive and has put most universities in the region to shame.

Right, and so if UT-Houston would've been this style of campus (note that UT-Dallas only has DIII athletics, and perhaps UT-Houston wouldn't even had athletics period), I see nothing wrong with that.

(03-06-2017 11:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, there are FOUR public undergraduate universities in the City of Houston, 2 other public undergraduate schools in the metro, and 3 others within an hours' drive of the metro.

And then there's UTMB, UT-Health Sciences (Dentistry), and a variety of other public supported graduate schools in metro Houston.

While this might seem like a sufficient number, Houston is a huge metro (#5 by population in the country). I just don't see how more higher education choices would hurt the people in the metro area.

(03-06-2017 12:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-05-2017 07:39 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  No its all free.

Mpls StarTrib used to put eEdition Replica online for free. Just started requiring an eEdition account login to access it.

(03-05-2017 10:40 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  UT-Houston would likely not have harmed UH and would have been a benefit to the city.

Depending on the mission of the campus, I tend to lean more this way, as well.

(03-06-2017 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  UT hardly has more money than it knows what to do with. None of the universities do. Texas has gone from 47% state general funding and 12% Available University Fund in 1982 to only 13% state and 8% AUF 30 years later and its probably lower now. 54% of funding now is either from Research or Gifts with 25% from Tuition.

Research funding pays for research expenditures. And while UT does plenty of great research, I'm sure that compared to the operating budget for the campus it's peanuts. Tuition/fees and state funding are generally the main two revenue streams for any public university.

Sadly as you mention, state funding is decreasing nation wide. Federal tuition assistance is going down too, as is federal research funding.

Pathetic, really.

(03-06-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The current system provides one huge steadily growing fund for the UT and A&M systems. A second newer, much smaller bucket of funds, is shared by all the other state systems. Then the state supplements those funds with money from the general fund.

Why does Texas need more than three university systems???? Seems like ego, to me.

Minnesota, California, and others do great with two: one for the main research university system, and one for the two-year/four-year focused campuses.


I could see three in Texas's case, as obviously UT and TA&M will never merge into one system: those two, and then combine all other public campuses into a system.
EDIT: forgot about Texas Tech. Probably way too big and way too much ego to combine with anyone else. Then I suppose if Tech gets its own system, Houston fights for its own system. Yikes!

(03-06-2017 10:34 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, pull money out of Houston at the expense of UH.

That sounds like nonsense to me.

If executives in Houston-area want to get a business master's from the state flagship business school, rather than UH's business school, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

(03-06-2017 11:30 AM)Comet Wrote:  Indeed, I have a degree from there and it is extremely competitive and has put most universities in the region to shame.

Right, and so if UT-Houston would've been this style of campus (note that UT-Dallas only has DIII athletics, and perhaps UT-Houston wouldn't even had athletics period), I see nothing wrong with that.

(03-06-2017 11:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, there are FOUR public undergraduate universities in the City of Houston, 2 other public undergraduate schools in the metro, and 3 others within an hours' drive of the metro.

And then there's UTMB, UT-Health Sciences (Dentistry), and a variety of other public supported graduate schools in metro Houston.

While this might seem like a sufficient number, Houston is a huge metro (#5 by population in the country). I just don't see how more higher education choices would hurt the people in the metro area.

If you're not filling a need, you're replicating effort. There is already a Tier 1 public institution in Houston....UH. There are already THREE other public non-Tier 1 public institutions in Houston. Sounds like plenty of competition to me. And that doesn't include the private schools in Houston.

What need is not being met in Houston?

(03-06-2017 12:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why does Texas need more than three university systems???? Seems like ego, to me.

Minnesota, California, and others do great with two: one for the main research university system, and one for the two-year/four-year focused campuses.


I could see three in Texas's case, as obviously UT and TA&M will never merge into one system: those two, and then combine all other public campuses into a system.
EDIT: forgot about Texas Tech. Probably way too big and way too much ego to combine with anyone else. Then I suppose if Tech gets its own system, Houston fights for its own system. Yikes!

It's worse than you realize...

Systems:
Texas
aTm
Texas Tech
Texas States
Houston
North Texas

Independents
Midwestern State University
Stephen F. Austin State University
Texas Southern University
Texas Woman's University

(03-06-2017 12:53 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 12:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why does Texas need more than three university systems???? Seems like ego, to me.

Minnesota, California, and others do great with two: one for the main research university system, and one for the two-year/four-year focused campuses.


I could see three in Texas's case, as obviously UT and TA&M will never merge into one system: those two, and then combine all other public campuses into a system.
EDIT: forgot about Texas Tech. Probably way too big and way too much ego to combine with anyone else. Then I suppose if Tech gets its own system, Houston fights for its own system. Yikes!

It's worse than you realize...

Systems:
Texas
aTm
Texas Tech
Texas States
Houston
North Texas

Independents
Midwestern State University
Stephen F. Austin State University
Texas Southern University
Texas Woman's University

Houston has its own system. It includes four institutions with independent boards under the UH label. UH, UH-Downtown, UH-Clear Lake, and UH-Victoria.

(03-06-2017 12:53 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 12:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why does Texas need more than three university systems???? Seems like ego, to me.

Minnesota, California, and others do great with two: one for the main research university system, and one for the two-year/four-year focused campuses.


I could see three in Texas's case, as obviously UT and TA&M will never merge into one system: those two, and then combine all other public campuses into a system.
EDIT: forgot about Texas Tech. Probably way too big and way too much ego to combine with anyone else. Then I suppose if Tech gets its own system, Houston fights for its own system. Yikes!

It's worse than you realize...

Systems:
Texas
aTm
Texas Tech
Texas States
Houston
North Texas

Independents
Midwestern State University
Stephen F. Austin State University
Texas Southern University
Texas Woman's University

lol...its a mess. But now you see the issue. The largest bucket of funds (now around 10 billion and growing) spins off money for just the UT system and the A&M system (and Aggie only gets one third of the money that the fund spins off--so 2/3rds goes to UT).

Every other school and system is trying to get adequate funding from a newer much smaller fund that is hopelessly inadequate for properly funding all the schools its supposed to service. Yet UT has over a quarter of a billion dollars lying around to speculatively buy land for a function they cant even define. As a state---Texas doesn't really have the money to overfund a system to that degree. Its inefficient and irresponsible.

So, thats why I see either the state constitution eventually being changed to allow access to the UT/Aggie fund (PUF) for all systems or an eventual reorganization that brings more schools/systems under the umbrella of UT or A&M.

(03-06-2017 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What need is not being met in Houston?

As far as I know, there is no campus in the Houston area serving undergraduates or graduates outside the medical/health sciences areas from the state's two flagship university systems.

Seems odd for the state's second largest metro.

(03-06-2017 01:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Every other school and system is trying to get adequate funding from a newer much smaller fund that hopelessly inadequate to properly fund all the schools its supposed to service.

Well, one way to reduce costs would be to consolidate under fewer systems!

(03-06-2017 01:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 01:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Every other school and system is trying to get adequate funding from a newer much smaller fund that hopelessly inadequate to properly fund all the schools its supposed to service.

Well, one way to reduce costs would be to consolidate under fewer systems!

As I mentioned above---I think that's one of 2 possible solutions. Either solution will have its critics. I think the PUF being opened to all will have more support---but it requires constitutional change---so it has a higher bar of legislative resistance to over come. Reorganizing more schools/systems under the UT/A&M flags only requires simple majority support.

(03-06-2017 01:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What need is not being met in Houston?

As far as I know, there is no campus in the Houston area serving undergraduates or graduates outside the medical/health sciences areas from the state's two flagship university systems.

Seems odd for the state's second largest metro.

There is a Tier 1 university in Houston. Period.

(03-06-2017 01:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There is a Tier 1 university in Houston.

Not sure what "tier 1" is supposed to mean in the context you're trying to use it, but no UH campus is within the state's two flagship systems AFAIK.

(03-06-2017 01:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 01:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There is a Tier 1 university in Houston.

Not sure what "tier 1" is supposed to mean in the context you're trying to use it, but no UH campus is within the state's two flagship systems AFAIK.

Tier 1 is supposed to mean - 'equal to the other Tier 1 schools, like UT, TAMU and TT'. Either way, know that many in Houston didn't want UT's investment in West Houston.

(03-06-2017 01:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 01:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There is a Tier 1 university in Houston.

Not sure what "tier 1" is supposed to mean in the context you're trying to use it, but no UH campus is within the state's two flagship systems AFAIK.

It was a funding program the state government set up to try to get schools like Tech, Houston, and other schools to hit metrics to be allocated more money.

(03-06-2017 01:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  know that many in Houston didn't want UT's investment in West Houston.

Which would seem to be completely political and ego driven, and not a move based on what is best for the metro and its residents.

(03-06-2017 02:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 01:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  know that many in Houston didn't want UT's investment in West Houston.

Which would seem to be completely political and ego driven, and not a move based on what is best for the metro and its residents.

The best solution is NOT to have an Austin or College Station based institution provide some sort of extension annex instead of funding UH properly.

This is correct, as well as other schools in the state, many other politicians around the state were not pleased like that senator from Amarillo who has been outraged at the unfair advantages that it and a& m get
UTs blunder in Houston is what a lot of people in Texas have been waiting for, it's not just people in Houston.

(03-06-2017 03:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The best solution is NOT to have an Austin or College Station based institution provide some sort of extension annex instead of funding UH properly.

UT-Dallas proves this claim false.

(03-06-2017 04:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-06-2017 03:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The best solution is NOT to have an Austin or College Station based institution provide some sort of extension annex instead of funding UH properly.

UT-Dallas proves this claim false.

Not really. There is no evidence that UT-Dallas might not be just as successful if it were a self directed university receiving similar (or more) funding than it does under UT. It does, however, prove that the current model doesn't necessarily have to result in a subpar university. UT-Dallas is a great school.