Why do people think a full UT campus in Houston would negatively impact UH? (Dallas: buy, school)

[Houston parent]

This won't be a popular response, but I think UH acted in its best interest. Look at UT Dallas - it has a narrower academic focus (mostly IT/tech fields) but it is highly regarded and boasts the highest average SAT score of any public university in the state (due mainly to its smaller size and STEM focus). Its a niche school filled with STEM oriented Asians who don't care about the full college experience with sports, a greek system, etc. Nearby Sugar Land is practically a factory pumping that kind of high school graduate out on a conveyor belt

If UT built that kind of school in Houston, it definitely WOULD siphon off many good students who might otherwise consider UH. UH is trying to move up in the academic rankings, and they need exactly those kinds of students to take the next step.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by hbcu

I have no dog in the fight but I’ve been around folks - the infatuation for A&M and UT in the local media, hiring practices is present. It’s like some think they know more just cause they went there. You give me all the resources I can look good also but a lot is just hype.

But UH has the same thinking - they don’t like to hire from other places locally but a A&M, UT applicant will get priority. Look at how they hire coaches - if they coached in the Big 12 they’ll move them up the chain but those coaches will bankrupt them just in demands during negotiations.

Luckly Tom Hermann was/is a bust at UT that is one time I agree that UT did U of H dirty.. As it turns out Herman should have stayed at U of H...

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by Houston parent

This won't be a popular response, but I think UH acted in its best interest. Look at UT Dallas - it has a narrower academic focus (mostly IT/tech fields) but it is highly regarded and boasts the highest average SAT score of any public university in the state (due mainly to its smaller size and STEM focus). Its a niche school filled with STEM oriented Asians who don't care about the full college experience with sports, a greek system, etc. Nearby Sugar Land is practically a factory pumping that kind of high school graduate out on a conveyor belt

If UT built that kind of school in Houston, it definitely WOULD siphon off many good students who might otherwise consider UH. UH is trying to move up in the academic rankings, and they need exactly those kinds of students to take the next step.

What you’re describing here already happened in Houston but with biotech instead of IT (it’s actually currently happening with IT as well though). After UT’s campus was declined by UH, it “offered” a collaborative project that would do what the original project wanted to do as a center. And a series of collaborative projects were announced shortly after and have included UT, A&M, Baylor, and even Rice but no UH. UH ultimately played itself. There’s many Niches handles by other institutions. The one UH does better than the rest in Houston is the law center, but most are perfected elsewhere. This is nothing new.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Houston parent

This won't be a popular response, but I think UH acted in its best interest. Look at UT Dallas - it has a narrower academic focus (mostly IT/tech fields) but it is highly regarded and boasts the highest average SAT score of any public university in the state (due mainly to its smaller size and STEM focus). Its a niche school filled with STEM oriented Asians who don't care about the full college experience with sports, a greek system, etc. Nearby Sugar Land is practically a factory pumping that kind of high school graduate out on a conveyor belt

If UT built that kind of school in Houston, it definitely WOULD siphon off many good students who might otherwise consider UH. UH is trying to move up in the academic rankings, and they need exactly those kinds of students to take the next step.

The UT DATA Center was not to be a academic campus , it was , is to be a research facility, with few undergraduates.


But even if your premise is correct ,we have to ask ourselves what would be best for the Greater Houston area overall ? A prestigious University wanting to invest 100's of millions to create a research facility would be a great development for the Greater Houston area.

[DanielWayne]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

What you’re describing here already happened in Houston but with biotech instead of IT (it’s actually currently happening with IT as well though). After UT’s campus was declined by UH, it “offered” a collaborative project that would do what the original project wanted to do as a center. And a series of collaborative projects were announced shortly after and have included UT, A&M, Baylor, and even Rice but no UH. UH ultimately played itself. There’s many Niches handles by other institutions. The one UH does better than the rest in Houston is the law center, but most are perfected elsewhere. This is nothing new.

That collaborative project would have been driven by the UT system with other universities as subordinates. UH Regent Fertitta did offer to work collaboratively, but not with the UT system solely in charge.

Fertitta to UT: Why Not Work Together on That UT Campus Idea We Ran Outta Town? | Swamplot

As far as protests and turf wars, the same thing happens on different scales all the time. TTech proposes a vet school in Lubbock, and A&M protests that this will affect their vet school admissions in College Station. UH asks for additional funding from the state to one day achieve flagship status, and UT and A&M leaders issue public statements against it because they feel it will dilute their institutions if they spread the wealth. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/loc...t-11117906.php

If it's ok for UT and A&M to fight to protect their turf, then it should be ok for UH to do the same.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by DanielWayne

That collaborative project would have been driven by the UT system with other universities as subordinates. UH Regent Fertitta did offer to work collaboratively, but not with the UT system solely in charge.

Fertitta to UT: Why Not Work Together on That UT Campus Idea We Ran Outta Town? | Swamplot

As far as protests and turf wars, the same thing happens on different scales all the time. TTech proposes a vet school in Lubbock, and A&M protests that this will affect their vet school admissions in College Station. UH asks for additional funding from the state to one day achieve flagship status, and UT and A&M leaders issue public statements against it because they feel it will dilute their institutions if they spread the wealth. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/loc...t-11117906.php

If it's ok for UT and A&M to fight to protect their turf, then it should be ok for UH to do the same.

Yep, so then UT said to hell with UH and then started their own collaborative project right after UH's board was uncooperative. Participating is UT, A&M, Baylor College of Medicine, Rice but no UH. Wallah. That's what happens when you have to have it all your way

[bu2]

Originally Posted by H'ton

Texas Tech's endowment is $1.3 billion
UH's is just under $1 billion, which is double LSU's endowment.

Endowments are a health measure of how much money "give" to a University. It's like an emergency or savings fund. UT's, TAMU's, and Rice's Endowments are beyond impressive.

I wouldn't be surprised to see UH's endowment triple LSU's here soon...it's a better a school and UH alums typically do very well.

I think there was a recent article that UH alums had the 7th highest ROI, for their education investment, among ALL public schools in the United States.


The real issue UH fought back is because they have been denied access to the PUF for almost a century now and were told to build their university on their own, beg for funds when needed, and then "finally" were given some funds from a smaller pot. The history of the Texas PUF is a long one.

The question is why not just elevate the University of Houston and Texas tech to Flagship level status to compete with California's impressive public school lineup instead of using that money to build a fringe satellite campus. Why not have the state INVEST MORE in the century old campus THAT IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED and is only a few miles from this proposed UT-H campus?

This was a limited purpose campus (the thread topic, however, is a full campus). UH simply doesn't have the capabilities in those fields. That's why this limited purpose campus would have been good for the city, just as A&M's bio research facility is. I don't think a full purpose campus would be efficient, however.

And Houston, Tech and UTD do have access to the NRUF to help their research. UT Arlington will probably qualify next year.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by DanielWayne

That collaborative project would have been driven by the UT system with other universities as subordinates. UH Regent Fertitta did offer to work collaboratively, but not with the UT system solely in charge.

Fertitta to UT: Why Not Work Together on That UT Campus Idea We Ran Outta Town? | Swamplot

As far as protests and turf wars, the same thing happens on different scales all the time. TTech proposes a vet school in Lubbock, and A&M protests that this will affect their vet school admissions in College Station. UH asks for additional funding from the state to one day achieve flagship status, and UT and A&M leaders issue public statements against it because they feel it will dilute their institutions if they spread the wealth. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/loc...t-11117906.php

If it's ok for UT and A&M to fight to protect their turf, then it should be ok for UH to do the same.

Houston does it at the expense of the city they are supposed to be serving.

Maybe if they weren't so protective of their turf, the state might be more amenable to them getting a PhD program in pharmacy, which would help the city. Limiting it to TSU hampers the city.

UH already got their way on a medical school which is really unneeded. We already had 2 public + Baylor in the metro. There are only 7 other public medical schools in the state and UT-Austin and UT-RGV and Texas A&M are all relatively new. UTSA, UT-Tyler, UT-Southwestern in Dallas and Texas Tech are the others. So now we have 3/10 and no other metro has more than 1.

[Texas Ag 93]

Originally Posted by bu2

UH already got their way on a medical school which is really unneeded. We already had 2 public + Baylor in the metro. There are only 7 other public medical schools in the state and UT-Austin and UT-RGV and Texas A&M are all relatively new. UTSA, UT-Tyler, UT-Southwestern in Dallas and Texas Tech are the others. So now we have 3/10 and no other metro has more than 1.

Just a point of clarification, A&M's medical school has been around since the 1970s, just a few years less than UT Houston. And your numbers above are only allopathic schools (which might have been your intent) and don't include Osteopathic schools, in which case, DFW has multiple public schools as well with not just Southwestern, but UNT (not that I think allopathic and osteopathic schools are equivalent, IMO, they are not).

But like you, I kind of wonder why the Houston metro needed a 4th school. With the physician shortage in this country, there is no question we could use more, but putting one elsewhere in the state might have made more sense. I'll also be interested in seeing how the UH med school's focus on primary care plays out. A noble aspiration for sure, but possibly one that was done to acknowledge the likelihood that they will not be able to compete on equal footing with BCM, UT, UTMB for quite some time. There's also the fact that they have no academic teaching facilities, but instead are aligned with a for profit, publicly traded corporate medical company like HCA. I'm curious to see how that aspect works out.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by bu2

Houston does it at the expense of the city they are supposed to be serving.

Maybe if they weren't so protective of their turf, the state might be more amenable to them getting a PhD program in pharmacy, which would help the city. Limiting it to TSU hampers the city.

UH already got their way on a medical school which is really unneeded. We already had 2 public + Baylor in the metro. There are only 7 other public medical schools in the state and UT-Austin and UT-RGV and Texas A&M are all relatively new. UTSA, UT-Tyler, UT-Southwestern in Dallas and Texas Tech are the others. So now we have 3/10 and no other metro has more than 1.

UH offers PhD's in Pharmaceutical Sciences.