Other Effects of Uncontrolled Growth in Texas (Austin, Stafford: sales, loans)

[scongress1234]

"The only reason we are not keeping up with things is that folks don't want to pay for it. It's true about all of our infrastructure and it's not just here. The problem is not folks moving here its that all of this stuff costs money and the people of Texas have decided that rather than pay more taxes to pay for infrastructure they would rather pay less taxes and buy stuff at Walmart."

This is the wisest statement I've seen per the discussion yet. So wise, it essentially ends the discussion, though you know we will talk about it more.
True, in a myopic sense, we would rather have that discressionary income to spend on shopping and such, than to invest it in the communal till. Funny thing is, we pay for it anyway with road rage. And what price can you put on THAT, or the lack of the same?

[scongress1234]

Read this quote from Richard Florida's "Creative Class" book:

"Most experts and scholars have not even begun to think in terms of a creative community. Instead, they tend to try to emulate the Silicon Valley model which author Joel Kotkin has dubbed the "nerdistan." But the nerdistan is a limited economic development model, which misunderstands the role played by creativity in generating innovation and economic growth. Nerdistans are bland, uninteresting places with acre upon acre of identical office complexes, row after row of asphalt parking lots, freeways clogged with cars, cookie-cutter housing developments, and strip-malls sprawling in every direction. Many of these places have fallen victim to the very kinds of problems they were supposed to avoid. The comfort and security of places like Silicon Valley have gradually given way to sprawl, pollution, and paralyzing traffic jams. As one technology executive told The Wall Street Journal, "I really didn't want to live in San Jose. Every time I went up there, the concrete jungle got me down." His company eventually settled on a more urban Southern California location in downtown Pasadena close to the CalTech campus."

Sound a little like what's happening to Austin?

[LookingtoLeave]

What is this 10% rule in regards to UT Austin admission? Sorry for asking a stupid question, but I've never gone to public school, for college at least. Without understanding the 10% rule, some of these rants sound like you expect your children to be able to go to college because of their residency status, but if they're not academically up to par, they shouldn't. Maybe if they know there's fierce competition out there, they'll bust their butts even harder. No one is owed a handout.

[TexasGirl@Heart]

Originally Posted by LookingtoLeave

What is this 10% rule in regards to UT Austin admission? Sorry for asking a stupid question, but I've never gone to public school, for college at least. Without understanding the 10% rule, some of these rants sound like you expect your children to be able to go to college because of their residency status, but if they're not academically up to par, they shouldn't. Maybe if they know there's fierce competition out there, they'll bust their butts even harder. No one is owed a handout.

I had to give you reps for this post! I don't understand why some here on this forum think that they or their children are owed a college education at the school of their choice within the state of TX based SOLEY on their residency status! Everywhere, everyone must compete for a spot in a top school, no matter what state you live in.

[LookingtoLeave]

Originally Posted by Texanwannabe

I had to give you reps for this post! I don't understand why some here on this forum think that they or their children are owed a college education at the school of their choice within the state of TX based SOLEY on their residency status! Everywhere, everyone must compete for a spot in a top school, no matter what state you live in.

Lol-I just gave you reps in another thread here.

[TexasGirl@Heart]

Originally Posted by LookingtoLeave

Lol-I just gave you reps in another thread here.

Thanks I just read that thread. It's very refreshing to read your thoughts with you being a "native"!

[LookingtoLeave]

Originally Posted by Texanwannabe

Thanks I just read that thread. It's very refreshing to read your thoughts with you being a "native"!

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Trainwreck20]

The 10% rule means that (in general) if you rank in the top 10 percent of your HS class, you can get admitted to the state university of your choice. Initially, this 'consumed' about 50% of the slots and was not really an issue, but it is rapidly approaching 100% of the available slots, which leaves the University with no discretionary slots.

The state resident thing is (imho) a little off, only because some people have paid taxes for 30 or 40 years before they send any kids to college. Do they get a preference over people who have paid for 10 years? 15 years? 5 years? Although different (opposite, kind of), it parallels the argument that retirees have about paying school taxes when they have not kids.

[TexasGirl@Heart]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

The 10% rule means that (in general) if you rank in the top 10 percent of your HS class, you can get admitted to the state university of your choice. Initially, this 'consumed' about 50% of the slots and was not really an issue, but it is rapidly approaching 100% of the available slots, which leaves the University with no discretionary slots.

The state resident thing is (imho) a little off, only because some people have paid taxes for 30 or 40 years before they send any kids to college. Do they get a preference over people who have paid for 10 years? 15 years? 5 years? Although different (opposite, kind of), it parallels the argument that retirees have about paying school taxes when they have not kids.

No, I don't think that someone who has paid taxes for nearly 40 years should get a preference. Colleges/universities have always admitted the brightest and the best for years...why should that change? Someone might have paid taxes for over 40 years and their child may have struggled to barely keep a "C" in high school--so that preference would allow that child to get into said university while someone who has a 4.0 gpa can't get in. That doesn't make sense to me. Paying taxes should not be an issue when it comes down to which school your child is accepted at. I have paid taxes all my adult life to Pittsburgh--that in no way entitles me to the school of my choice in that city and nor should it.

[LookingtoLeave]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

The 10% rule means that (in general) if you rank in the top 10 percent of your HS class, you can get admitted to the state university of your choice. Initially, this 'consumed' about 50% of the slots and was not really an issue, but it is rapidly approaching 100% of the available slots, which leaves the University with no discretionary slots.

The state resident thing is (imho) a little off, only because some people have paid taxes for 30 or 40 years before they send any kids to college. Do they get a preference over people who have paid for 10 years? 15 years? 5 years? Although different (opposite, kind of), it parallels the argument that retirees have about paying school taxes when they have not kids.

Thanks for the info. I actually forgot that was the general rule-I've been out of HS for awhile. I can understand the frustration and agree with your analogy, but I also paid taxes all the while attending private school. IMO-in the end it should boil down to credentials.