Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A Proposal For The PUF
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,074
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #21
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 02:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Agree--Texas and A&M are excellent schools. So are Tech and Houston for that matter---but it would be nice to get 5 or 6 Texas schools into that top 50 range and couple into the top 25.

Texas and TAMU are excellent schools. Tech and Houston are good schools that are getting better. UT-Dallas is actually better than both.

Texas schools across the board are benefiting from fracking - even the ones that don't participate in the PUF. Because of the massive influx of oil and gas revenue the last 8-9 years, the state just has more money to spend all around, including on higher education. It means that UH's and Texas Tech's project priorities are more likely to get a "yes" from the legislature than back in 2010 - 2011 when budgets were being slashed.

The boom has also helped in that per capita income is sharply up in Texas during that time, again in significant part due to the oil boom. That means more families have money to send their kids to college, boosting enrollment.

It's all one big virtuous cycle in Texas right now - unless you are a climate change activist who hates fracking and thinks the oil and gas needs to stay buried.
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2019 03:25 PM by quo vadis.)
09-05-2019 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,502
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1291
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #22
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 02:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Agree--Texas and A&M are excellent schools. So are Tech and Houston for that matter---but it would be nice to get 5 or 6 Texas schools into that top 50 range and couple into the top 25.

Texas and TAMU are excellent schools. Tech and Houston are good schools that are getting better. UT-Dallas is actually better than both.

Texas schools across the board are benefiting from fracking - even the ones that don't participate in the PUF. Because of the massive influx of oil and gas revenue the last 8-9 years, the state just has more money to spend all around, including on higher education. It means that UH's and Texas Tech's project priorities are more likely to get a "yes" from the legislature than back in 2010 - 2011 when budgets were being slashed.

The boom has also helped in that per capita income is sharply up in Texas during that time, again in significant part due to the oil boom. That means more families have money to send their kids to college, boosting enrollment.

It's all one big virtuous cycle in Texas right now - unless you are a climate change activist who hates fracking and thinks the oil and gas needs to stay buried.

Yes---UT-Dallas is also very good. Several other schools are improving their research profiles as well---N Texas and Texas State both immediately come to mind--and Im sure there are others.
09-05-2019 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 812
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation: 14
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #23
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 04:20 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I've actually thought about this a lot, and looked at it from several different angles. UT & TAMU would be forced to share the PUF with Texas Tech and the University of Houston. Because UT & TAMU do have huge networks of branch campuses, they both get one third of the PUF. TTU & UH would each get one sixth, because they are smaller universities.

Will NEVER happen for a couple reasons.

1. As mentioned before, it would take a amendment to the Texas constitution. Texans seem content with 2 public AAU schools. It gives certain fans a chance to laugh at our academics knowing we have 1 hand tied behind our back. I get it they don't want the competition. I feel the same way they do about realignment.

2. Texas politicians in Austin and College Station will never vote FOR less funding for their respective schools and politicians in Denton, El Paso, San Marcos etc will never vote in favor of PUF funding for Texas Tech and Houston unless their respective schools get a cut.

Sucks but schools like Texas Tech and Houston will have to do their best academically to reach AAU status on their own without PUF money from the state. The NRUF gives us pennies compared to the PUF.
09-05-2019 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big Frog II Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,117
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 37
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 01:21 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Texas politics is full of “gold ol’ boys” politicians who like the status quo. It’ll take another generation or perhaps a takeover from the other political party to overhaul Texas higher education. It’s such a shame a big, fast growing, wealthy state as Texas has just two public AAU schools (UT and A&M) and a private one (Rice) while California has multiple AAU schools. Opening the PUF to other schools won’t help funding, it’ll only dilute it.

But we have really nice football stadiums all over the state.
09-05-2019 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,525
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 172
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #25
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 03:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 12:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 11:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:59 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:18 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Only campus in the UT-System that can use PUF funds is Austin.

this is incorrect

the only UT System school that gets "excellence" funds from the PUF is UT Austin

in the aggy system College Station and PVAMU get "excellence" funds

the remaining UT and aggy system members that are PUF participants (most of the UT System only a few of the aggy system) get their formula infrastructure funding paid for by the PUF instead of it being paid for by general state revenues, but they do not get any "excellence" funds or any funding over and above formula funding based on the same formulas as all state universities.....it is a simple difference in where the money to cover that particular formula funding comes from

this is one of the main reasons that if the PUF is busted up it will not result in much if any additional revenues to other universities and may even eventually lead to reduced revenues for other universities

because there is a high likelihood once those UT and aggy system schools start getting their formula infrastructure funding paid for by general state revenues that the state will not allocate any additional dollars from general revenues to cover that they will instead allocate the same dollar amount and reduce the dollar funding per formula unit thus everyone will take a hit in the end and the additional PUF dollars they are sharing will not make up for that formula funding decrease

all the more so when idiotic politicians use the busting open of the PUF to start spending into the corpus of the investments like they tried to do with the Permanent School Fund a few years back (and thankfully that was voted down)

What I do think makes sense is reducing the number of "systems" in Texas from 6 to 3 and eliminating the 5 or 6 independents (TSU, Stephen F. Austin, TWU and 2 or 3 others) by moving them into the Texas State University system (currently includes Texas St., Sam Houston St., Sul Ross, Lamar, and 3 Lamar branches in the Golden Triangle).

The Texas St. University system would focus on bachelor's and master's and not Phd.s and research much like the Cal State system. The University of North Texas system would be dissolved with their Dallas campus made simply a learning center and UNT moved into the Texas St. University system as well.

The Texas A&M system probably should be trimmed with some going to the Texas State University system, but if not, simply add Texas Tech, which has a lot of ag programs. Its med school would be merged into TTU and the Texas Tech system dissolved.

UH system would be dissolved with UH-Victoria and UH-Downtown College moved to the Texas St. University system. UH-Clear Lake would be merged into the main campus as a separate location. Houston would become part of the University of Texas system. The UT Health Science Center in Houston could be merged in so UH quits trying to add another unnecessary medical school in Houston.

UT-Dallas has thrived in the UT system and is probably the #3 public school in the state. Houston and Texas Tech would have more access to the PUF than now and that would help them.

I will address the PUF first since that is what started the topic

"access to the PUF" means nothing unless it is getting ADDITIONAL DOLLARS over and above state formula funding and there is little chance of any non-UT system school getting that simply because they were added to the system especially when no UT system school gets that now as a PUF participant

It is much smarter to actually go after additional state funding, but that is not really he goal of the PUFers the goal is to take something from UT and maybe from aggy as well

that has about zero chance of having success if the PUFers cared they would simply go after the state to properly fund the NRUF endowment and to go ahead and create the 3rd endowment that was proposed for schools that will never be emerging research universities and never meet NRUF qualifications

but instead of going after the state during times when there is a budget surplus to add hard dollars to the NRUF endowment (like $200 to $250 million per year for the two year budget cycle) the PUFer idiots waste their time filing bills that are dead on arrival to try and get a share of the PUF

there are 4 independent universities in Texas....TSU, Midwestern, Stephen F. Austin and TWU

in the past TWU tried to be a system, but found it was a waste and went back to being a single university with 3 campuses main campus on Denton and then the health components in dallas and Houston

I think the easiest thing to do would be merge Midwestern and Sul Ross into Texas Tech's System

merge Lamar and SHSU into the UH System and let Texas State be independent

from there merge (the massively FAILED) north Texas state dallas back under the Denton campus or better yet shut it down and sell the building to DCCCD (really shutting that massive failure down is the best option)

put a 100% STOP on all system centers and start shutting many of them down and or forcing them to give up their real estate and merge in with a local community college

rewrite the formula funding for health science centers so that there is not a net loss of funding for a medical school/HSC being under the administration of a 4 year school (the issue with merging Tech and their Lubbock HSC) and then start merging some of those

tell north Texas state they are no longer a system and stop their Frisco campus as well before it buys any property

with that you would have eliminated the Texas State System and left Texas State as a stand alone university.....it will be all but impossible to stop them from trying to offer more PhDs as they are now an emerging research university and going after NRUF funding (and ahead of north Texas state in that quest and probably about tied with UTSA (UTA will be the next to qualify).....also SHSU and Lamar are not going to stop offering the PhDs they offer especially if Texas State is allowed to and all the more so in a "weak system" model with no flagship school

plus the reality is the California plan was a good plan in the past, but now it us severely holding back SDSU, Cal Poly, Fresno, Long Beach, and probably Northridge

it is a better plan to give some strength to the THECB to put a stop to the legislature and universities (and failed system plans) to go around offering duplicate programs and opening up garbage system centers all over the place

from there is you really want to make a difference it will be much harder to do

if I could just wave a wand TSU would be gone, some of the land and buildings offered to UH and then the remaining land and buildings not needed sold off and then UH Downtown would be renamed Houston Metropolitan (as it should have been a few years ago before their idiot faculty got involved) and the successful programs and professional programs from TSU would be merged into Houston Metro and the UH downtown campus would be their campus

the UH System would get a chancellor that is not the president of the main campus with the addition of Lamar and SHSU and the TSU/UHD merger

so from there would have eliminated the Texas State System......two independent universities (Midwestern to Tech and TSU closed) and created one new independent university Texas State......with a FIRM ROUND ROCK WILL NOT BE A NEW CAMPUS JUST health components

also no more north Texas state system just north Texas state Denton and their programs littering the dallas metro area in conjunction AND ON community college campuses no more free standing schools and system centers

I would merge UTD and UTSW and I would take TCOM from the north Texas state system and merge it with UTA and make TCOM a PUF participant (which is again pretty meaningless overall in terms of funding)

so from there two systems gone (Texas State and north Texas state), one independent university gone TSU and one merged into a system (Midwestern into Tech) and 3 medical schools merged into 4 year schools.....Tech HSC Lubbock/Tech, UTSW/UTD and TCOM/UTD

merges UT-HSC-SA into UTSA....leave UTHSC Tyler alone for the time being

also merge Texas A&I and aggy Corpus under one campus like UTRGV (proposed, but not-so sharp really screwed that up because he is a massive idiot)

close the aggy McAllen campus, shut down all REVIS plans in College Station......make sure that aggy Central Texas stays upper division only

from there one could go ahead and decide if they wanted Stephen F. Austin, TWU, Texas State, and north Texas state to remain independent of fire back up the Texas State System and merge them all into it along with UH, Houston Metro, Lamar, SHSU, and UHV and move the headquarters into the Texas State System building they just bought from the UT System

if that was done there would be no independent universities and 4 systems and a number fewer of independent medical schools and more medical schools aligned with 4 year universities

oh PS one other thing that would actually be done first before anything else.....shut down the massively failed north Texas state law school and allow all current students to transfer to aggy law in Fort Worth

Regionalism and rivalries between systems are part of the problem. It particularly hampers development in Houston and Dallas.

The California system does exactly what it needs to do. UCSD is one of the top 15 public universities in the country. They don't need SDSU to try to be the same thing. UCLA, UC-Irvine and UC-Santa Barbara are top tier schools. Looking at an ARWU list from 2016, Irvine was #58 in the world, a couple spots above Vanderbilt and Purdue. UCSB was #42. Northridge and Long Beach don't need to be doing the same thing. California has 6 public AAU schools-Berkeley, UCLA, UCSB, UCSD, UC-Davis and UC-Irvine.

A Georgia legislator was saying (I'm paraphrasing-he is describing the official tiers in Georgia), the technical schools want to offer degrees, the 2 year schools want to be 4 year schools, the local 4 year want to be regional, the regional want to be research universities and who knows what UGA wants to be.

The point in a Cal St. or Texas St. University system is to keep the schools doing their role. Phd's are for professors and researchers. We don't need to train them everywhere. You could grandfather in existing Phd programs, but don't start new ones. DFW doesn't need UTD, UTA and UNT to all be high admission requirement research universities. Houston doesn't need UH, UHCL, UHD, TSU and Prairie View all trying to do the same thing. Austin-San Antonio doesn't need UT, UTSA, Texas St. and Texas A&M-SA trying to do the same thing.

I agree with some points, but disagree with others

they do not need SDSU to be UCSD or Long Beach to be Irvine, but the reality is the infrastructure already exist at SDSU and Long Beach to offer PhD programs with little added expense in SELECT areas and doing so would benefit those schools greatly

when schools are 34,000 and 38,000 students the infrastructure is there to offer PhDs with little real additional cost provided that administrative creep is constricted (a major issue to deal with) and not offering those degrees hurts the reputation of the school in terms of research prestige and in terms of the faculty it can attract

the issue is to restrict the PhD offerings at those schools to areas of need and select areas of specialization

examples of this in Texas would be Texas State and Geography and Aquatics.......the aquatics simply comes from taking advantage of their geographic location and the Geography program comes from a past president of the university that felt that Geography was not emphasized enough at public universities in Texas and built that program up by making sure the core of the undergrad included running students through the geography department

doing so over decades built that program to the point where it made no sense and was detrimental to the attractiveness of faculty recruitment to not offer a PhD program.....so that was one of the first they offered

they have continued to up their PhD offerings in select areas of need and strength since then (like aquatics) or a materials science (wafer fab based) engineering PhD

the flip side is the north Texas state model which is to offer a ton of PhDs under any subject under the sun with most of them being of no use or demand in the real world and cranking out a bunch of soft and social science PhDs while doing next to nothing in terms of research funding and producing PhDs that are not in demand

unlike what attack coog said the north Texas research profile in terms of dollars is stagnant and was declining for a several year run

in 2013 they did $49.5 million in research and development and that declined annually to $37.1 in 2016 and is $43.8 in 2017

Texas State on the other hand steadily went from $37 in 2013 to $60.7 in 2017

in 2008 north Texas State did $18 million to growing to the $43.8 in 2017

by comparison Texas State went from $19.3 to $60.7 and Texas Tech from $60.1 to $191.5

last I checked Texas State offers 12 Doctoral programs (including EdDs) with total research and development of ($60.7), Tech 50 ($191), north Texas state 37 ($43.8), UTA 30 ($97), uH 54 ($169.4), UTD 30 ($113), UTSA 24 ($70)

so one school in particular is doing a terrible job of managing their PhDs and masters and the research productivity (and demand for) those degrees at a great expense to their students overall

there is a cost to offering a ton of masters and PhDs that are of no demand and that produce no sponsored research dollars and THAT is what needs to be contained by the state not the overall ability of offering of ANY of those programs at particular schools

it makes sense that Lamar has engineering related post graduate degrees being in the largest petro chemical complex in the world and that SHSU has advanced degrees in criminal justice.....it would not make sense for them to be offering advanced degrees in art history, psychology, or sociology

UHCL should have taken advantage of their NASA connection from the start like UTD did with Texas Instruments, but the UH main campus could not stand to see that happen and squandered that relationship to the point it is meaningless now.....The State of Texas should have corrected that long ago

that does not mean that UHCL needs to offer a ton of useless undergrad degrees of masters or PhDs

that is the advantage of UTD it was always restricted to try and toss UTA and north Texas and TWU a bone......restricted in the degrees offered and restricted in the enrollment requirements even for undergrads

well UTD took advantage of that and built those programs that were in demand and that met the needs and the expertise of the DFW metromess and enrolled top students.....well now Texas and the DFW metromess are large enough that there are enough top students available that do not want to go to a (bad) football factory that UTD can grow enrollment based on their top reputation and their research while north Texas state amps up their football spending at a cost to their students in terms of actual dollars and in terms of educational quality (their faculty to student ratio is through the roof and they are swapping out tenure track faculty for adjuncts and part time and non-tenure track faculty left and right).....and at a cost to research productivity all while still offering why too many PhDs overall in subjects that are simply a waste of time and money and while their "system" opens garbage universities, law schools, and system centers that no one wants or needs and that barely gain accreditation (or fail to so far with the law school)

Texas does not need a "California plan" to stop that they simply need to make schools do a lot more what Texas State and UTD have done and a lot less of what idiots like not so sharp at aggy are doing

the California plan worked in the early years, but it can use some adjustment now......the way Texas has done things has not worked well for the most part, but there are ways to correct that without going back in time to a California Plan type action

and really both Texas and California have a problem with waste....California simply funds their higher ed at a higher level overall than Texas and Texas could improve greatly simply by providing some better funding.....but the answer is not to just fund everyone at a higher level and have no controls over what those schools do with the money and where they try and meet their expansionist goals with north Texas state Little Elm and north Texas state Blue Ridge and north Texas state Prosper and north Texas state Pantego or aggy Bryan and aggy Blinn and aggy Dime Box and aggy Old Dime Box and aggy Lufkin

while California simply hands off massive funding to the UC schools that gets eaten up with abandon while they pat themselves on the back for making "good use" of money by holding back the overall potential of Cal State schools

just because a university does not have the hardest admissions standards as a university overall (many Cal state schools are actually hard to get into) that does not mean that they cannot have select programs with higher admissions standards to those programs or those programs having the reputation, strength, and faculty count to offer a high quality PhD program even while the university itself has a broader mission

using UTSA as an example when they were the only public school in San Antonio they were basically open enrollment for the most part....once aggy SA was built that made it possible for UTSA to raise admissions and they did so in one huge chunk that cost them in enrollment, but they pushed through that and now they are getting some enrollment gains based on a better overall reputation

UTA and Texas State can learn from that and they need to start bumping up their admissions standards slightly (not in one chunk like UTSA) and over time they will benefit

north Texas state can stay the catch all university in the metromess and gradually have their PhD programs cut to ones they can do well with and funding moved to undergrad areas or masters
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2019 07:37 PM by TodgeRodge.)
09-05-2019 07:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,814
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #26
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 03:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 02:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  USNWR isn't worth much. Texas is in just about everyone's top 15 public schools. Other than California and Pennsylvania, Texas probably has the strongest #2 public school in the country in A&M.

First, USNWR is worth a lot, like it or not. They largely set the bar for national university rankings. Criticize them from here to high heaven if you like, but their rankings are taken seriously by the two entities that matter most - the media and academic administrators.

Second, in this case, they don't disagree with you: Even though Texas is the #49 national university this year, they are the #14 public school.

The great bulk of schools in the top 50 are privates, which is why Coog's complaint about no Texas schools in the top 25 is kind of unrealistic. There are only three public schools in the top 25, and one of them is ranked ... #25.

Public schools are to top college rankings like G5 schools are in the AP top 25 poll. You usually get only a couple in there, and they are usually towards the bottom end.
Well that's not the case in top college rankings other than USNWR. The very top is always dominated by the Ivy League/MIT/Stanford/Chicago, but the top 25 is split and the top 50 is mostly public schools.
09-05-2019 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,814
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #27
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
I agree with some points, but disagree with others

they do not need SDSU to be UCSD or Long Beach to be Irvine, but the reality is the infrastructure already exist at SDSU and Long Beach to offer PhD programs with little added expense in SELECT areas and doing so would benefit those schools greatly

when schools are 34,000 and 38,000 students the infrastructure is there to offer PhDs with little real additional cost provided that administrative creep is constricted (a major issue to deal with) and not offering those degrees hurts the reputation of the school in terms of research prestige and in terms of the faculty it can attract

the issue is to restrict the PhD offerings at those schools to areas of need and select areas of specialization

examples of this in Texas would be Texas State and Geography and Aquatics.......the aquatics simply comes from taking advantage of their geographic location and the Geography program comes from a past president of the university that felt that Geography was not emphasized enough at public universities in Texas and built that program up by making sure the core of the undergrad included running students through the geography department

doing so over decades built that program to the point where it made no sense and was detrimental to the attractiveness of faculty recruitment to not offer a PhD program.....so that was one of the first they offered

they have continued to up their PhD offerings in select areas of need and strength since then (like aquatics) or a materials science (wafer fab based) engineering PhD

the flip side is the north Texas state model which is to offer a ton of PhDs under any subject under the sun with most of them being of no use or demand in the real world and cranking out a bunch of soft and social science PhDs while doing next to nothing in terms of research funding and producing PhDs that are not in demand

unlike what attack coog said the north Texas research profile in terms of dollars is stagnant and was declining for a several year run

in 2013 they did $49.5 million in research and development and that declined annually to $37.1 in 2016 and is $43.8 in 2017

Texas State on the other hand steadily went from $37 in 2013 to $60.7 in 2017

in 2008 north Texas State did $18 million to growing to the $43.8 in 2017

by comparison Texas State went from $19.3 to $60.7 and Texas Tech from $60.1 to $191.5

last I checked Texas State offers 12 Doctoral programs (including EdDs) with total research and development of ($60.7), Tech 50 ($191), north Texas state 37 ($43.8), UTA 30 ($97), uH 54 ($169.4), UTD 30 ($113), UTSA 24 ($70)

so one school in particular is doing a terrible job of managing their PhDs and masters and the research productivity (and demand for) those degrees at a great expense to their students overall

there is a cost to offering a ton of masters and PhDs that are of no demand and that produce no sponsored research dollars and THAT is what needs to be contained by the state not the overall ability of offering of ANY of those programs at particular schools

it makes sense that Lamar has engineering related post graduate degrees being in the largest petro chemical complex in the world and that SHSU has advanced degrees in criminal justice.....it would not make sense for them to be offering advanced degrees in art history, psychology, or sociology

UHCL should have taken advantage of their NASA connection from the start like UTD did with Texas Instruments, but the UH main campus could not stand to see that happen and squandered that relationship to the point it is meaningless now.....The State of Texas should have corrected that long ago

that does not mean that UHCL needs to offer a ton of useless undergrad degrees of masters or PhDs

that is the advantage of UTD it was always restricted to try and toss UTA and north Texas and TWU a bone......restricted in the degrees offered and restricted in the enrollment requirements even for undergrads

well UTD took advantage of that and built those programs that were in demand and that met the needs and the expertise of the DFW metromess and enrolled top students.....well now Texas and the DFW metromess are large enough that there are enough top students available that do not want to go to a (bad) football factory that UTD can grow enrollment based on their top reputation and their research while north Texas state amps up their football spending at a cost to their students in terms of actual dollars and in terms of educational quality (their faculty to student ratio is through the roof and they are swapping out tenure track faculty for adjuncts and part time and non-tenure track faculty left and right).....and at a cost to research productivity all while still offering why too many PhDs overall in subjects that are simply a waste of time and money and while their "system" opens garbage universities, law schools, and system centers that no one wants or needs and that barely gain accreditation (or fail to so far with the law school)

Texas does not need a "California plan" to stop that they simply need to make schools do a lot more what Texas State and UTD have done and a lot less of what idiots like not so sharp at aggy are doing

the California plan worked in the early years, but it can use some adjustment now......the way Texas has done things has not worked well for the most part, but there are ways to correct that without going back in time to a California Plan type action

and really both Texas and California have a problem with waste....California simply funds their higher ed at a higher level overall than Texas and Texas could improve greatly simply by providing some better funding.....but the answer is not to just fund everyone at a higher level and have no controls over what those schools do with the money and where they try and meet their expansionist goals with north Texas state Little Elm and north Texas state Blue Ridge and north Texas state Prosper and north Texas state Pantego or aggy Bryan and aggy Blinn and aggy Dime Box and aggy Old Dime Box and aggy Lufkin

while California simply hands off massive funding to the UC schools that gets eaten up with abandon while they pat themselves on the back for making "good use" of money by holding back the overall potential of Cal State schools

just because a university does not have the hardest admissions standards as a university overall (many Cal state schools are actually hard to get into) that does not mean that they cannot have select programs with higher admissions standards to those programs or those programs having the reputation, strength, and faculty count to offer a high quality PhD program even while the university itself has a broader mission

using UTSA as an example when they were the only public school in San Antonio they were basically open enrollment for the most part....once aggy SA was built that made it possible for UTSA to raise admissions and they did so in one huge chunk that cost them in enrollment, but they pushed through that and now they are getting some enrollment gains based on a better overall reputation

UTA and Texas State can learn from that and they need to start bumping up their admissions standards slightly (not in one chunk like UTSA) and over time they will benefit

north Texas state can stay the catch all university in the metromess and gradually have their PhD programs cut to ones they can do well with and funding moved to undergrad areas or masters
[/quote]



I agree there are cases. Sam Houston and Texas St. can justify Phds in criminal justice, Lamar in their O&G specialities (they've got a couple), Stephen F. Austin in Forestry. Texas St. can justify those related to the acquifer. And probably all of them can justify education-they were once "Teacher's colleges." But they don't need to do Accounting, History and Engineering. (UNT does have a good accounting program and maybe they can justify that as serving the needs of DFW like O&G in Beaumont-but Texas St. can't). And Lamar can probably justify their speech and hearing as nobody else in the state does that (probably hardly anyone in the south).

This is the latest NRUF report. Nobody is remotely close but UT-Arlington and they have the fewest graduate programs of the bunch. And unless someone gave them a quarter mil, they couldn't meet the requirements for at least two years and that is probably highly unlikely even then.
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/12329.PDF

For those not familiar, NRUF is a program to provide state funds for research to programs who qualify. Houston and Texas Tech qualified the first year. UT Dallas qualified last year.
09-05-2019 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,814
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #28
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
Texas St. needs to be the relatively open admission university in Central Texas. There's the community colleges and then Texas St. and now the new A&M-San Antonio. Similarly for UNT in DFW. Houston has both UH Downtown College and Texas Southern.
09-05-2019 08:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,525
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 172
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #29
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
UTA will meet the 4th NRUF requirement with "high quality faculty"

they are just at the $45 million in restricted research that must be met before any others matter and they meet 3 of the other criteria (4 out of 6 needed)

they had 3 National Academy members, but one passed away, but they have hired the needed 5 now

https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2...mies-hires

so with that they meet 4 out of the 6 criteria and provided they continue to produce above $45 million in restricted research and meet those 4 criteria for the next two years they will qualify

as for Texas State being the lower admissions university in central Texas really that to me is a bit of a dated model.....I still personally believe in the model of "going away to college" and meeting new and strange people from different places, but that is less common these days so when you have those universities that meet that model they need to be above average quality to attract better students and have a better reputation

while the area from Austin to Midlothian lacks a really accessible state university (aggy central Texas aside) the areas along that route do have robust community college systems that can be used to provide some select 4 year degrees in conjunction with state universities (like Lone Star College) WITHOUT those state schools having their own campus and serving the needs of the area for those that need a sheet of paper to break a glass ceiling at their job or for select degrees needed in those metro areas

Texas State is not going to serve people that do not want to leave Austin, Waco, Temple or the like and with 39,000 students they are at the limit of what a university offering a low amount of PhDs and a fair amount of masters should be enrolling

in the wayback there were studies done by Minnesota (I believe and a couple of others) that UT Austin looked at where basically for a LARGE state school offering a full breath and depth of PhDs and professional programs about 45,000 to 48,000 students is optimum before you run into losing economies of scale and or you run into the issue of controlling the quality of degrees and consistency of individual departments if they grow too large

when you start to reduce the number of graduate degrees and professional programs and overall degree offerings that enrollment number should be reduced as well

Texas State is pushing that limit and they need to bump up their enrollment metrics and control their enrollment and their quality at this point otherwise they will suffer for it....the issue of course is a funding model that relies on enrollment first and foremost which makes controlling enrollment difficult......there needs to be some funding for "outcomes" as well and Texas State would actually do well in that regard compared to peer universities in Texas

there should be nothing stopping Texas State (or UTSA or aggy CT or Texas Tech or UTA or UTD) from working with central Texas community colleges in the larger metro areas to meet needs, but it should be done on the campus of those community colleges and without new infrastructure and with some cost sharing by those CC districts

then those main campuses should be free to raise admissions and correspondingly raise the graduation and retention rates as well along with realigning degree programs and degree offerings

there are plenty of other 6,000 to 12,000 student state schools in Texas for those that want to "go away" for a degree and we need to stop pretending that it is that much more costly for a student from Waco to go to Stephen F. Austin, Angelo State, Tarleton, TAMU Commerce or the like vs going to Texas State

same with students from San Antonio they can go to aggy SA if they want to stay home and can't get into a UTSA with higher enrollment requirements or they can go to Kingsville or Corpus to "get away" if they can afford to "get away" and can't get into Texas State with higher admissions requirements

and students in the DFW metromess that can't get into UTD or a UTA with raised admissions can go to one of the north Texas state catch all community college programs that need to be implemented as north Texas state shuts down unneeded campuses and law schools...or programs offered at those CCs by Commerce, Tarleton, TWU or the like

all the PUFers want to cry about winners and losers, but they fail to understand that when everyone gets a trophy you are all losers

there are winners and losers in pretty much every state higher ed model with the exception of perhaps Wyoming with one state school or Arizona and Iowa with 3 (where NAU and NIU are still not like ISU, IU, AU and ASU) or Nebraska with one winner and a metro school and then a couple of really small schools

universities need to understand that reality and understand that just because they are not like the ones they want to hate they can still be better off then being in an all get a trophy system like they are pushing for

if your university is not 24,000 to 28,000 students now in Texas then you should probably deal with offering 4 to 8 Doctoral programs max IF ANY and then those that are 28,000+ students can start building reputation instead of simply building enrollment along with a research profile in tightly controlled doctoral and masters offerings and funding with an "outcomes" based model included and with a private dollar incentive model included

similar to what the NRUF was intended to be
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2019 08:38 PM by TodgeRodge.)
09-05-2019 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 3,198
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 86
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #30
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
I thought the PUF received $$'d from offshore oil rigs too. I'm surprised that it doesn't. (I googled the Permanent University Find). As for mergers, I think that's a can of worms no politician really wants to open right now.
09-06-2019 12:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 3,198
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 86
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #31
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 08:37 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  UTA will meet the 4th NRUF requirement with "high quality faculty"

they are just at the $45 million in restricted research that must be met before any others matter and they meet 3 of the other criteria (4 out of 6 needed)

they had 3 National Academy members, but one passed away, but they have hired the needed 5 now

https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2...mies-hires

so with that they meet 4 out of the 6 criteria and provided they continue to produce above $45 million in restricted research and meet those 4 criteria for the next two years they will qualify

as for Texas State being the lower admissions university in central Texas really that to me is a bit of a dated model.....I still personally believe in the model of "going away to college" and meeting new and strange people from different places, but that is less common these days so when you have those universities that meet that model they need to be above average quality to attract better students and have a better reputation

while the area from Austin to Midlothian lacks a really accessible state university (aggy central Texas aside) the areas along that route do have robust community college systems that can be used to provide some select 4 year degrees in conjunction with state universities (like Lone Star College) WITHOUT those state schools having their own campus and serving the needs of the area for those that need a sheet of paper to break a glass ceiling at their job or for select degrees needed in those metro areas

Texas State is not going to serve people that do not want to leave Austin, Waco, Temple or the like and with 39,000 students they are at the limit of what a university offering a low amount of PhDs and a fair amount of masters should be enrolling

in the wayback there were studies done by Minnesota (I believe and a couple of others) that UT Austin looked at where basically for a LARGE state school offering a full breath and depth of PhDs and professional programs about 45,000 to 48,000 students is optimum before you run into losing economies of scale and or you run into the issue of controlling the quality of degrees and consistency of individual departments if they grow too large

when you start to reduce the number of graduate degrees and professional programs and overall degree offerings that enrollment number should be reduced as well

Texas State is pushing that limit and they need to bump up their enrollment metrics and control their enrollment and their quality at this point otherwise they will suffer for it....the issue of course is a funding model that relies on enrollment first and foremost which makes controlling enrollment difficult......there needs to be some funding for "outcomes" as well and Texas State would actually do well in that regard compared to peer universities in Texas

there should be nothing stopping Texas State (or UTSA or aggy CT or Texas Tech or UTA or UTD) from working with central Texas community colleges in the larger metro areas to meet needs, but it should be done on the campus of those community colleges and without new infrastructure and with some cost sharing by those CC districts

then those main campuses should be free to raise admissions and correspondingly raise the graduation and retention rates as well along with realigning degree programs and degree offerings

there are plenty of other 6,000 to 12,000 student state schools in Texas for those that want to "go away" for a degree and we need to stop pretending that it is that much more costly for a student from Waco to go to Stephen F. Austin, Angelo State, Tarleton, TAMU Commerce or the like vs going to Texas State

same with students from San Antonio they can go to aggy SA if they want to stay home and can't get into a UTSA with higher enrollment requirements or they can go to Kingsville or Corpus to "get away" if they can afford to "get away" and can't get into Texas State with higher admissions requirements

and students in the DFW metromess that can't get into UTD or a UTA with raised admissions can go to one of the north Texas state catch all community college programs that need to be implemented as north Texas state shuts down unneeded campuses and law schools...or programs offered at those CCs by Commerce, Tarleton, TWU or the like

all the PUFers want to cry about winners and losers, but they fail to understand that when everyone gets a trophy you are all losers

there are winners and losers in pretty much every state higher ed model with the exception of perhaps Wyoming with one state school or Arizona and Iowa with 3 (where NAU and NIU are still not like ISU, IU, AU and ASU) or Nebraska with one winner and a metro school and then a couple of really small schools

universities need to understand that reality and understand that just because they are not like the ones they want to hate they can still be better off then being in an all get a trophy system like they are pushing for

if your university is not 24,000 to 28,000 students now in Texas then you should probably deal with offering 4 to 8 Doctoral programs max IF ANY and then those that are 28,000+ students can start building reputation instead of simply building enrollment along with a research profile in tightly controlled doctoral and masters offerings and funding with an "outcomes" based model included and with a private dollar incentive model included

similar to what the NRUF was intended to be

Actually, Todge, this was based on Governor Abbott's desire to have 4 flagship universities in the state of Texas just like what the state of California has, supposedly.

Both Texas & Texas A&M make more $$'s in athletics than either of my favorite schools, Georgia & Oregon. They also make more $$$'s than Florida or...(gasp!!!) Alabama!!!
09-06-2019 01:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,525
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 172
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #32
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-06-2019 12:51 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I thought the PUF received $$'d from offshore oil rigs too. I'm surprised that it doesn't. (I googled the Permanent University Find). As for mergers, I think that's a can of worms no politician really wants to open right now.

the PUF gets royalties and grazing money from the UT Lands which are in west Texas nothing offshore

the main money is from investments though from money earned from grazing and minerals long ago that was invested

currently the mineral leases do bring in decent money annually, but that is up and down depending on the markets and depending on technology that can can find new ways to enhance recovery of played out fields or to produce from deposits that were too expensive to produce in the past

(09-06-2019 01:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Actually, Todge, this was based on Governor Abbott's desire to have 4 flagship universities in the state of Texas just like what the state of California has, supposedly.

Both Texas & Texas A&M make more $$'s in athletics than either of my favorite schools, Georgia & Oregon. They also make more $$$'s than Florida or...(gasp!!!) Alabama!!!

the NRUF program came to be long before Abbot was governor it was put in place early on with Rick Perry

they were not able to pick winners and losers nor were they able to do things for some cities while ignoring others and or ignoring regions of the state

so they created the NRUF endowment and moved money from a discontinued program (HEAF) into that endowment (still WAY under funded) and then set up the criteria to meet to participate

it wad clear from the start that Texas Tech and uH would qualify first although many uH supporters foolishly thought they would qualify first before Tech and then it has been pretty clear since then that the UT System was methodically working through their various system schools to get them to qualify in a preferred order starting with UTD

the main issue is that it was said it would take $50 to $70 million per year per university to elevate any of the Emerging research Universities to AAU "like" metrics (AAU membership is a LONG ways away IF EVER for any of the schools no matter what yet again foolish uH fanss believe)

but the endowment only ever threw off $10 million a year or so for Tech and uH each for a couple of years at the highest level before UTD qualified and that went back down to about $7 million each for the three which is nowhere near $50 to $70 million each

when UTA qualifies soon that will probably go down to about $5 million each unless the stock market takes a hit or there is additional money added to the endowment (as should have happened this year and next year, but people are too stupid to work for that and instead they file dead on arrival bills trying to get at the PUF)

as it is now UTA will probably qualify in 2021 and then UTSA and Texas State could qualify as soon as 2024 or 2025 depending on how aggressive each is, but they both have major things to address to make that happen and it will take private money.....Texas State has a little talked about "donate to us" program now that talks about meeting the NRUF qualifications, but I think the goal is 2028......with the backing of the UT System after UTA qualifies UTSA will probably be the next one

north Texas state and UTEP are a long ways away though UTEP meets the restricted research requirement and they got rid of their dead weight president with her low expectations so who knows what will happen there

Texas State at this time could use a change in leadership as well that does not wish to be UT from the 80s and that has a semblance of a personality that can raise a private dollar
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2019 02:08 AM by TodgeRodge.)
09-06-2019 02:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,074
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #33
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 07:20 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ... the issue is to restrict the PhD offerings at those schools to areas of need and select areas of specialization ...

Thing is, there is a national glut of PhD's in almost all areas, including the "hard" sciences and engineering. In most areas, the glut is enormous, with one PhD - level job in academia or private industry for every 50 candidates.

It's been this way for about 25 years now, and the reason the glut doesn't decline is that the programs are for the school's benefit not the student - faculty want graduate students to assist them with research so they can keep their publication counts high and attract grant money, and schools aid and abet this because more grant money and publications enhances the prestige of the university.

The only one who suffers is the newly-minted PhD who can't find a job commensurate with their training.
09-06-2019 06:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,525
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 172
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #34
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-06-2019 06:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 07:20 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ... the issue is to restrict the PhD offerings at those schools to areas of need and select areas of specialization ...

Thing is, there is a national glut of PhD's in almost all areas, including the "hard" sciences and engineering. In most areas, the glut is enormous, with one PhD - level job in academia or private industry for every 50 candidates.

It's been this way for about 25 years now, and the reason the glut doesn't decline is that the programs are for the school's benefit not the student - faculty want graduate students to assist them with research so they can keep their publication counts high and attract grant money, and schools aid and abet this because more grant money and publications enhances the prestige of the university.

The only one who suffers is the newly-minted PhD who can't find a job commensurate with their training.

there is a glut for sure all the more so when PhDs have been made into the idea that someone is an expert in a single area of study often with an extremely narrow focus vs what they really should be and that is creating someone that is capable of independent study and research on a WIDE area of topics that they can then also teach after they have done some independent studying on it

do you know how those numbers break down across the various fields of study

IE are the numbers in the arts and liberal arts along the lines of 200 PhDs per available job and say 100 PhDs per available job in the soft and social sciences and 25 per available job in the STEM fields

I would believe there is still somewhat of a demand in business because of the lack of business colleges that offer PhDs and because so many business students go for an MBA and even the PhDs go into industry where the pay is better
09-06-2019 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,814
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #35
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 08:37 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  UTA will meet the 4th NRUF requirement with "high quality faculty"

they are just at the $45 million in restricted research that must be met before any others matter and they meet 3 of the other criteria (4 out of 6 needed)

they had 3 National Academy members, but one passed away, but they have hired the needed 5 now

https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2...mies-hires

so with that they meet 4 out of the 6 criteria and provided they continue to produce above $45 million in restricted research and meet those 4 criteria for the next two years they will qualify

as for Texas State being the lower admissions university in central Texas really that to me is a bit of a dated model.....I still personally believe in the model of "going away to college" and meeting new and strange people from different places, but that is less common these days so when you have those universities that meet that model they need to be above average quality to attract better students and have a better reputation

while the area from Austin to Midlothian lacks a really accessible state university (aggy central Texas aside) the areas along that route do have robust community college systems that can be used to provide some select 4 year degrees in conjunction with state universities (like Lone Star College) WITHOUT those state schools having their own campus and serving the needs of the area for those that need a sheet of paper to break a glass ceiling at their job or for select degrees needed in those metro areas

Texas State is not going to serve people that do not want to leave Austin, Waco, Temple or the like and with 39,000 students they are at the limit of what a university offering a low amount of PhDs and a fair amount of masters should be enrolling

in the wayback there were studies done by Minnesota (I believe and a couple of others) that UT Austin looked at where basically for a LARGE state school offering a full breath and depth of PhDs and professional programs about 45,000 to 48,000 students is optimum before you run into losing economies of scale and or you run into the issue of controlling the quality of degrees and consistency of individual departments if they grow too large

when you start to reduce the number of graduate degrees and professional programs and overall degree offerings that enrollment number should be reduced as well

Texas State is pushing that limit and they need to bump up their enrollment metrics and control their enrollment and their quality at this point otherwise they will suffer for it....the issue of course is a funding model that relies on enrollment first and foremost which makes controlling enrollment difficult......there needs to be some funding for "outcomes" as well and Texas State would actually do well in that regard compared to peer universities in Texas

there should be nothing stopping Texas State (or UTSA or aggy CT or Texas Tech or UTA or UTD) from working with central Texas community colleges in the larger metro areas to meet needs, but it should be done on the campus of those community colleges and without new infrastructure and with some cost sharing by those CC districts

then those main campuses should be free to raise admissions and correspondingly raise the graduation and retention rates as well along with realigning degree programs and degree offerings

there are plenty of other 6,000 to 12,000 student state schools in Texas for those that want to "go away" for a degree and we need to stop pretending that it is that much more costly for a student from Waco to go to Stephen F. Austin, Angelo State, Tarleton, TAMU Commerce or the like vs going to Texas State

same with students from San Antonio they can go to aggy SA if they want to stay home and can't get into a UTSA with higher enrollment requirements or they can go to Kingsville or Corpus to "get away" if they can afford to "get away" and can't get into Texas State with higher admissions requirements

and students in the DFW metromess that can't get into UTD or a UTA with raised admissions can go to one of the north Texas state catch all community college programs that need to be implemented as north Texas state shuts down unneeded campuses and law schools...or programs offered at those CCs by Commerce, Tarleton, TWU or the like

all the PUFers want to cry about winners and losers, but they fail to understand that when everyone gets a trophy you are all losers

there are winners and losers in pretty much every state higher ed model with the exception of perhaps Wyoming with one state school or Arizona and Iowa with 3 (where NAU and NIU are still not like ISU, IU, AU and ASU) or Nebraska with one winner and a metro school and then a couple of really small schools

universities need to understand that reality and understand that just because they are not like the ones they want to hate they can still be better off then being in an all get a trophy system like they are pushing for

if your university is not 24,000 to 28,000 students now in Texas then you should probably deal with offering 4 to 8 Doctoral programs max IF ANY and then those that are 28,000+ students can start building reputation instead of simply building enrollment along with a research profile in tightly controlled doctoral and masters offerings and funding with an "outcomes" based model included and with a private dollar incentive model included

similar to what the NRUF was intended to be

There's a strong argument for more heavily using community colleges.

But I don't agree that anyone should be a research university. If the school is getting too big, maybe its time for another school in the area (A&M-San Antonio for instance). Texas St. has gotten big as UT has gotten more and more difficult to get into. That doesn't mean you need to replicate what UT does.

Texas, Texas A&M, Houston, UTD, Texas Tech make sense as research universities. Eventually UTA, UTSA and UTEP. As you allow everyone to get into research, you put a crimp in those trying to grow. UNT makes it harder for UTD and UTA. Texas St. makes it harder for UTSA.

The legislature was afraid to pick winners and losers (although they wrote the legislation to try to make sure TT was one of the winners) and in doing so, slowed down the progress of the eventual winners.
09-06-2019 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,074
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #36
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-06-2019 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 08:37 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  UTA will meet the 4th NRUF requirement with "high quality faculty"

they are just at the $45 million in restricted research that must be met before any others matter and they meet 3 of the other criteria (4 out of 6 needed)

they had 3 National Academy members, but one passed away, but they have hired the needed 5 now

https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2...mies-hires

so with that they meet 4 out of the 6 criteria and provided they continue to produce above $45 million in restricted research and meet those 4 criteria for the next two years they will qualify

as for Texas State being the lower admissions university in central Texas really that to me is a bit of a dated model.....I still personally believe in the model of "going away to college" and meeting new and strange people from different places, but that is less common these days so when you have those universities that meet that model they need to be above average quality to attract better students and have a better reputation

while the area from Austin to Midlothian lacks a really accessible state university (aggy central Texas aside) the areas along that route do have robust community college systems that can be used to provide some select 4 year degrees in conjunction with state universities (like Lone Star College) WITHOUT those state schools having their own campus and serving the needs of the area for those that need a sheet of paper to break a glass ceiling at their job or for select degrees needed in those metro areas

Texas State is not going to serve people that do not want to leave Austin, Waco, Temple or the like and with 39,000 students they are at the limit of what a university offering a low amount of PhDs and a fair amount of masters should be enrolling

in the wayback there were studies done by Minnesota (I believe and a couple of others) that UT Austin looked at where basically for a LARGE state school offering a full breath and depth of PhDs and professional programs about 45,000 to 48,000 students is optimum before you run into losing economies of scale and or you run into the issue of controlling the quality of degrees and consistency of individual departments if they grow too large

when you start to reduce the number of graduate degrees and professional programs and overall degree offerings that enrollment number should be reduced as well

Texas State is pushing that limit and they need to bump up their enrollment metrics and control their enrollment and their quality at this point otherwise they will suffer for it....the issue of course is a funding model that relies on enrollment first and foremost which makes controlling enrollment difficult......there needs to be some funding for "outcomes" as well and Texas State would actually do well in that regard compared to peer universities in Texas

there should be nothing stopping Texas State (or UTSA or aggy CT or Texas Tech or UTA or UTD) from working with central Texas community colleges in the larger metro areas to meet needs, but it should be done on the campus of those community colleges and without new infrastructure and with some cost sharing by those CC districts

then those main campuses should be free to raise admissions and correspondingly raise the graduation and retention rates as well along with realigning degree programs and degree offerings

there are plenty of other 6,000 to 12,000 student state schools in Texas for those that want to "go away" for a degree and we need to stop pretending that it is that much more costly for a student from Waco to go to Stephen F. Austin, Angelo State, Tarleton, TAMU Commerce or the like vs going to Texas State

same with students from San Antonio they can go to aggy SA if they want to stay home and can't get into a UTSA with higher enrollment requirements or they can go to Kingsville or Corpus to "get away" if they can afford to "get away" and can't get into Texas State with higher admissions requirements

and students in the DFW metromess that can't get into UTD or a UTA with raised admissions can go to one of the north Texas state catch all community college programs that need to be implemented as north Texas state shuts down unneeded campuses and law schools...or programs offered at those CCs by Commerce, Tarleton, TWU or the like

all the PUFers want to cry about winners and losers, but they fail to understand that when everyone gets a trophy you are all losers

there are winners and losers in pretty much every state higher ed model with the exception of perhaps Wyoming with one state school or Arizona and Iowa with 3 (where NAU and NIU are still not like ISU, IU, AU and ASU) or Nebraska with one winner and a metro school and then a couple of really small schools

universities need to understand that reality and understand that just because they are not like the ones they want to hate they can still be better off then being in an all get a trophy system like they are pushing for

if your university is not 24,000 to 28,000 students now in Texas then you should probably deal with offering 4 to 8 Doctoral programs max IF ANY and then those that are 28,000+ students can start building reputation instead of simply building enrollment along with a research profile in tightly controlled doctoral and masters offerings and funding with an "outcomes" based model included and with a private dollar incentive model included

similar to what the NRUF was intended to be

There's a strong argument for more heavily using community colleges.

But I don't agree that anyone should be a research university. If the school is getting too big, maybe its time for another school in the area (A&M-San Antonio for instance). Texas St. has gotten big as UT has gotten more and more difficult to get into. That doesn't mean you need to replicate what UT does.

Texas, Texas A&M, Houston, UTD, Texas Tech make sense as research universities. Eventually UTA, UTSA and UTEP. As you allow everyone to get into research, you put a crimp in those trying to grow. UNT makes it harder for UTD and UTA. Texas St. makes it harder for UTSA.

The legislature was afraid to pick winners and losers (although they wrote the legislation to try to make sure TT was one of the winners) and in doing so, slowed down the progress of the eventual winners.

Yes, there's no logical connection between the size of a school and having doctoral programs.

Some big schools serve a role as undergraduate factories.
09-06-2019 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 812
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation: 14
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #37
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-05-2019 01:21 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Texas politics is full of “gold ol’ boys” politicians who like the status quo. It’ll take another generation or perhaps a takeover from the other political party to overhaul Texas higher education. It’s such a shame a big, fast growing, wealthy state as Texas has just two public AAU schools (UT and A&M) and a private one (Rice) while California has multiple AAU schools. Opening the PUF to other schools won’t help funding, it’ll only dilute it.

I appreciate the fact UTEP agreed to play Texas Tech in Lubbock. I realize that was a step down in competition for the Miners.

It was a close game and we were lucky to escape with a win.
09-07-2019 11:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,564
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 151
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #38
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-07-2019 11:28 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 01:21 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Texas politics is full of “gold ol’ boys” politicians who like the status quo. It’ll take another generation or perhaps a takeover from the other political party to overhaul Texas higher education. It’s such a shame a big, fast growing, wealthy state as Texas has just two public AAU schools (UT and A&M) and a private one (Rice) while California has multiple AAU schools. Opening the PUF to other schools won’t help funding, it’ll only dilute it.

I appreciate the fact UTEP agreed to play Texas Tech in Lubbock. I realize that was a step down in competition for the Miners.

It was a close game and we were lucky to escape with a win.

How old are you? 14?

Nobody thought UTEP was going to win. Nobody. I’m surprised Texas Tech even scored 35 when it should’ve been at least 70 points.

The PUF and football games that don’t mean anything have nothing to do with basically anything.

This everybody is against Texas Tech mantra is getting old.
09-08-2019 01:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,525
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 172
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #39
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
(09-06-2019 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  There's a strong argument for more heavily using community colleges.

But I don't agree that anyone should be a research university. If the school is getting too big, maybe its time for another school in the area (A&M-San Antonio for instance). Texas St. has gotten big as UT has gotten more and more difficult to get into. That doesn't mean you need to replicate what UT does.

Texas, Texas A&M, Houston, UTD, Texas Tech make sense as research universities. Eventually UTA, UTSA and UTEP. As you allow everyone to get into research, you put a crimp in those trying to grow. UNT makes it harder for UTD and UTA. Texas St. makes it harder for UTSA.

The legislature was afraid to pick winners and losers (although they wrote the legislation to try to make sure TT was one of the winners) and in doing so, slowed down the progress of the eventual winners.

I an certainly not saying every university should be a research university, but there should not be a blanket ban on degrees offered based strictly on "not at this university"

Stephen F. Austin and Forestry is an example....they might not need to be offering many more PhDs than that, but that makes sense there.....or CJ at SHSU.....or Marine Biology at aggy-CC or some of the engineering at Lamar

as for Texas State specifically they still have admissions standards above UTSA and about equal to UTA and north Texas State and well above UTEP

with 35 public universities in Texas and a large number of them under 10,000 students and a large number under 7,000 students only an idiot like not-so-sharp at the aggy sytem thinks that Texas needs a university of 65,000+ students

he claims that is needed to "give more a chance at a high quality education", but all he is doing is running that university into the ground and ruining the experience for the students and ruining what made them unique (rather or not that uniqueness is for a particular individual or not)

when you are looking at California with their numerous AAU members and their large research productivity there is PLENTY of room in Texas for more universities to up their research profile and to limit their enrollment to up their stature as a university

and it makes a lot more sense to do that at a university that is already pushing the enrollment level for economies of scale before those economies reverse and the quality of education suffers

I suppose you could go around to each university and try and build up a few niche areas for them to conduct research, but the issue there is when you start raising the admissions for those individual programs if you are going to be attractive to top students you need your core university classes to be attractive as well not just those in the particular departments you built up

plus a few departments at each university being high quality does nothing to build up a larger number of overall top universities

with the UC System being 8 universities and a number of Cal State schools being respected for their undergrad and masters programs there is plenty of room for Texas to work to elevate all of the 8 Emerging research universities and not just start right out picking winners and losers

at some point it might make sense to tell some of those 8 that they just did not do enough and they are not going to continue to get more and more funding for excellence, but as of now Texas is not funding any of the 8 at the needed level and cutting a couple of them from the mix does not really help that...especially if the goal is to just let some of those schools get to 50K+ students while there are so many other universities in Texas (and idiotic system centers) that could use a bump in enrollment to get better economies of scale in terms of admin and general overhead cost

it is laughable that not-so-sharp wants that REVIS campus and is trying to have one in McAllen when 9 of their 11 system universities are 10,000 or fewer students (Corpus counted as one of them with 10,169 students) and the only one besides college station over 10,000 is Commerce with 12,300 students

and 6 of them are under 8,000 students and 3 under 5,000 students.....that is HIGHLY inefficient and the aggy system needs to immediately do a CAPS type program for college station and they need to stop relying on Blinn so much that is a joke

all the more so when not-so-sharp would be happy with 25,000 engineering students in college station and 70,000+ students there overall.....he is just a total idiot and the single most damaging thing for Texas higher ed right now

with UT and aggy and then 8 Emerging Research Universities there is no reason to start limiting the research at any of those 8 and no reason to start having them grow to be undergrad degree factories any more than they already are

and for Texas State in particular considering how much research they produce WITHOUT producing a lot of unneeded PhDs

(09-06-2019 02:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, there's no logical connection between the size of a school and having doctoral programs.

Some big schools serve a role as undergraduate factories.

I disagree

perhaps at a private school with a large endowment where they can afford to have a very low faculty to student ratio and build up a department with a large number of high quality faculty that do not teach a large number of students

It was told to me by a well respected materials scientist that was the head of a struggling department (that they have since left) that you need at least 10 faculty members in a department to even start to be able to have a department that can be known for any particular area of expertise and research much less several

that person at the time was the chairman of that materials department and was pissed off because they were not getting the funding for faculty they were promised when they took the job (this particular university notorious under-funds departments in the STEM area and engineering in particular)

that is why he ended up leaving

you need some critical mass of faculty, infrastructure and resources to make a department gain national respect and at a public university with few exceptions you are not going to get that critical mass without a corresponding enrollment

along with that even if the enrollment for that department is small you can still use those faculty to teach other classes (engineering teach some math or physics or stats) and so you can build the numbers in that department by running students from other areas through the classes they teach

and even if you wanted a university with a few niche programs of excellence as I said above to be attractive to top students in those fields you need a core university to at least come close to matching that

in Texas in particular it is not going to be possible to go choose some smaller university and make it a "winner" and start churning through the old faculty and replacing them with research intensive faculty and bumping up the admissions standards dramatically to match that

because of the size of the state you would leave some area of the state with a lack of higher education opportunity, other areas pissed off their area was not picked for the "winner" and a lot of faculty at larger universities in decent to good departments that could be a lot better if you invested in them and limited enrollment over time and increased admissions

you need the economies of scale to make it work and at a public university that means some larger enrollments for the university overall

only New York State has tried the smaller state school with the narrow focus and that works "ok' for them, but they have about as many if not more public schools as Texas and a lot smaller geographic area and those niche universities are really not well known overall and only known in their limited area

Texas is not set up to make that happen Texas is set up to lave larger schools become more selective and research intensive and let the smaller schools that NEED enrollment to be efficient pick up the slack
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2019 09:49 AM by TodgeRodge.)
09-08-2019 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,929
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 271
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #40
RE: A Proposal For The PUF
Where did you go to school Todge

Surely you’re man enough to stop hiding and tell us

Or are you too cowardly and only care to give out criticism and won’t take any for yourself?

So which pissant TX school did you actually attend? Lamar? Sam Houston? North Texas?

Your refusal to say tells us it’s one of those nobody schools but you still want to have an opinion on the rest of us anyway

Tell us what amazing and well run school you attended
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2019 04:07 PM by 10thMountain.)
09-08-2019 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.