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

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

I moved to Houston too recently to view UH as a "community college" in any way. It's an excellent university in most aspects, and as good as or better than anything other public university in Texas save UT-Austin. If UT builds a campus here, it's not going to be UT-Austin, so that's not going to have the same appeal as Austin will. It's just not going to.

More to the point, doesn't it feel like for the size of the city we have, we don't have enough higher ed, especially in the upper end? I mean compared to other major cities, we are way behind. It would be good to have more universities, more libraries, more conferences, etc... Who wouldn't want that?

The west doesn't have as many old established private schools. We have Rice, HBU and St. Thomas. For public we have Houston, UHCL, UH Downtown, TSU and Prairie View, with Sam Houston and Lamar and Texas A&M all 60-90 minutes away. That is sufficient public schools.

For public schools, Dallas-Ft. Worth just has UTA, UTD, North Texas and an East Texas branch. Chicago just has UI-Chicago along with Chicago St., NE Illinois and Governor's State. Miami has FAU and FIU. Atlanta has Georgia State, Georgia Tech, Kennesaw ST. and Clayton St. (Georgia is 60-75 minutes away). You don't see many more public schools in New York City (although they have the many private schools).

We have a plethora of medical schools, UT-Houston, UTMB, Houston, Baylor College of Medicine, TWU Nursing School, Prairie View Nursing School, UT Nursing school. And we have A&M's bio research facility.

I think we need more coordination like California has. The Cal St. schools don't like the limits placed on them, but every school doesn't need to be a research university. 7 of the 9 University California schools are members of the AAU. Only Riverside and 15 year old Merced are not. If Houston is cooperating instead of fighting UT and A&M, they could get there and be a school like Pitt.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by WRM20

I don't see either as an impediment to UH getting funds. Most of the investment in ION is coming from Rice, not some other source.

First of all, that’s not true. While the project’s funds is being managed by the Rice Management Company, the funds are still granted from outside sources including the city of Houston. That’s like me giving you money to buy something at the store but you buying the items at the store yourself. The investor is still the city here.

Second, the ION was only an example. This has been the case historically. Precessly, Rice gets over 6 times the investments that UH gets overall.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

I moved to Houston too recently to view UH as a "community college" in any way. It's an excellent university in most aspects, and as good as or better than anything other public university in Texas save UT-Austin. If UT builds a campus here, it's not going to be UT-Austin, so that's not going to have the same appeal as Austin will. It's just not going to.

Exactly. The boomer opinion will phase out over time as it already has.

Originally Posted by jerbear30

More to the point, doesn't it feel like for the size of the city we have, we don't have enough higher ed, especially in the upper end? I mean compared to other major cities, we are way behind. It would be good to have more universities, more libraries, more conferences, etc... Who wouldn't want that?

I would say we have the upper end established. And the lower end established. But we are missing more middle end of the likes of UH. That’s the positive that I saw with a UT-Houston campus. My only knock was that the area it was to be built in has a lot of the upper end schools nearby and it could block future access. But in a different part of the city it would be awesome.

Although even then, having Sam Houston and A&M nearby, it’s not crazy behind by any means. One more large middle end public school closer to the city would be perfect.

[kemahkami]

It doesn't matter anymore, given that COVID has single-handedly crushed the concept of a college experience. There's no going back.

[NigerianNightmare]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

My question was if you think Rice University and Baylor College of Medicine (both in Houston) have stood in the way of UH getting funds. Because generally all major investments have gone to either of those 2 or another TCM institution. One exception was UH’s law school. For example Rice’s ION, UT and A&M’s TMC3

I agree, Yes, they've stood in the way but the state of Texas has money its an excuse in a way to blame other colleges getting funds from the state on your lack of state funds, I just don't like the mentality of we are suffering due to other colleges taking money, i'm sure if Texas had no elite institutions (i.e Rice/UT/ A&M/ Baylor Medicine) and our best students all went to out-of-state schools the money from the state would be a trickle of what is occurring now, I don't think the state money is set in stone, obviously it isn't infinite, but we are the worlds 10th biggest economy. I will say UH is getting the short end of the stick overall though. Especially when you compare the endowment of Tech vs. U of H (I know that isn't state money, but you would think two schools that similar would have a much smaller gap rather than Tech being nearly double U of H).

[H'ton]

Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare

I agree, Yes, they've stood in the way but the state of Texas has money its an excuse in a way to blame other colleges getting funds from the state on your lack of state funds, I just don't like the mentality of we are suffering due to other colleges taking money, i'm sure if Texas had no elite institutions (i.e Rice/UT/ A&M/ Baylor Medicine) and our best students all went to out-of-state schools the money from the state would be a trickle of what is occurring now, I don't think the state money is set in stone, obviously it isn't infinite, but we are the worlds 10th biggest economy. I will say UH is getting the short end of the stick overall though. Especially when you compare the endowment of Tech vs. U of H (I know that isn't state money, but you would think two schools that similar would have a much smaller gap rather than Tech being nearly double U of H).

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?

[ParaguaneroSwag]

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?

You beat me to it. I was about to say. Texas Texas tech doesn’t have near twice UH’s endowment. Another deal that really helped UH prosper was ESPN’s AAC contract. Their recent deal actually isn’t far from ACC’s deal.

As long as you’re not ranking UH with the likes of Rice, A&M, UT Austin, Baylor College of Medicine and so forth I’m not knocking UH at all.

[hbcu]

That Boomer mentality will always stay in houston - local media, etc promote it without even promoting it

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by hbcu

That Boomer mentality will always stay in houston - local media, etc promote it without even promoting it

This is a boomer statement in itself.

[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.