Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am biased for what is best for Greater Houston. Your arguments are self proving for why Houstonians should support the UT expansion into Houston. UT has access to resources the U of H doesn't, therefor can provide research and educational services no other institution of higher learning in this state can. UT is the main source of tech expertise and talent in the state, which is a economic sector Houston has been struggling for years to foster. UT brings instant credibility in this sector which U of H has failed to achieve. If U of H could have provided the leadership needed in this area , we would have been enjoying the benefits of that leadership by now.
I never said U of H was being treated fairly, but guess what, neither is anybody else, even A&M plays second fiddle to UT in this PUF fund. I understand why U of H feels threatened by any UT non medical expansion into Houston, and I wouldn't pretend to think they could ever be persuaded otherwise, but the economy of Houston needs expertise that hasn't gelled here yet, and it doesn't appear the political winds are going to change anytime in the near future in favor of fairness in the distribution of state money.
We need to deal with the world we have, not the one we wished we had. Before he left Mc Craven said UT has "ignored" Houston for to long, and I agree. I think Houstonians should not only support some kind of UT expansion into Houston, but literally demand it !
I often felt UT emphasis over the last 30 years has been the university of texas AT AUSTIN.
The Houston and the rest of the Gulf Coast and East Texas should secede. The Republican Pols in Austin only care about their bubble that is the I-35 corridor. The neglect is appalling! GOP rule in Texas has only benefitted the I-35 corridor and disadvantaged Houston and the rest of the state.
All this proves is there are plenty of interest in Texas outside of Houston, that are willing to ally themselves when it is convenient for them, with anybody inside of Greater Houston to keep UT out of Houston. Why ? because they know UT would help Houston be competitive with them in areas outside of O & G...
this is correct the opposition to the UT Houston campus came from politicians that are actually too stupid and ignorant to understand how the PUF actually functions
just like many members of this forum do not understand how the PUF actually works
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
And the medical school at UH is all about generating research at UH. We already have UTMB and UTH in the metro along with Baylor. Why should we have a third public medical schools in Houston when we only have 8 in the state and 3 of those are relatively new? We have public medical schools in Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, Galveston, Tyler and the relatively new ones in Lubbock, College Station and Austin.
The more logical solution would be more collaboration between UH and UT-Houston Medical School.
there are 11 public medical schools in Texas
UTMB
UT-Houston
UTHSC-SA
UTSW
UT Tyler
Texas Tech Lubbock (that is a free standing institution not a part of the Lubbock campus)
TCOM Fort Worth
TAMU (multiple locations all under one school of medicine now a part of the A&M College Station campus)
and the three ones that are actually the newest Texas Tech El Paso (that is a free standing medical school independent of Texas Tech university or the Texas Tech Medical School Lubbock)
UTRGV Medical School that is a part of UTRGV University
UT Austin Dell Medical School that is a part of UT Austin
the A&M Medical School was in Temple started under a program that was with the feds that built medical schools to work in conjunction with VA hospitals and then under the (poor) leadership of john not-so-sharp A&M moved the administration of the program to College Station and merged it and all of the other A&M System Health components into a single medical school under the administration of A&M University College Station
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scientific
The PUF fund is a big reason why UTD has reached its status. How does UH compete with that? The fund has allowed the Texas system to pour money into UTSA as awell. Why should UH just casually allow UT to come in? They got to pull that in Dallas, becasue the only other public school of note was UNT.
I'm no Cougar, but you're obvously bias to UT.
this is false and shows a lack of understanding of how the PUF works
1. UT Arlington is a much better school for most subjects than north Texas state and is much better run
2. the PUF does not provide any extra funding to UTD or UTSA (or any of the other UT or A&M System PUF participating universities) over and above formula funding
in Texas universities are funded using two main mechanisms that rely on enrollment and the types of degrees offered and the classification of students (undergrad, masters, PhD, professional)
the first formula is I&O which is instruction and operation and that basically funds staff and professors
again it is based on enrollment and degree type and the cost to run those degree programs
liberal arts undergrad programs are normalized as a 1 because they are he least costly programs to run then it moves to things like the sciences, business, engineering, vet programs and pharmacy (that are something like a 15)
so you have X number of undergrads in liberal arts you get funding of X(1) dollars and X number of engineers you get x(8 or whatever that is) dollars and pharmacy students X(15) dollars
because it cost more to hire those faculty and run those different programs over and above the cost of a liberal arts program
same thing for graduate students you get Y(1) dollars for masters students in liberal arts, Y(8 or whatever) in engineering ect and then for PhD Z(1).....Z(8) and on and on depending on the associated cost with running those programs
every public university in Texas gets their I&O funding from the same exact source using the same exact formula and this is the SAME for ALL PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES and all of that money comes from general state revenues (taxes and the state general budget every year)
none of the above funding has anything to do with the PUF or PUF participation
the second main source of funding is for Infrastructure....build buildings, renovate buildings, build labs and classrooms and renovate labs and classrooms....none of this includes dorms, parking lots or structures or athletics facilities for ANY university
this formula is again based around enrollment and types of degrees offered and the classifications of students in those programs with liberal arts normalized to 1 and masters and PhD students funded higher
100% of ALL public universities in Texas use the SAME EXACT FORMULA to calculate that funding
the difference is the source of the actual dollars for that funding
PUF participating universities get their formula infrastructure from the PUF while non-PUF participating universities (including those in the UT and A&M Systems) get their infrastructure funding from general state revenues
again the same exact formulas are used for PUF and non-PUF participating universities
so PUF participating universities do NOT get extra funding with the sole exception of UT-Austin, Texas A&M College Station and PVAMU......NONE of the other PUF participating universities get any extra funding because they are in the PUF they simply get their infrastructure formula funding from the PUF instead of general state revenues
how it works is after the state sets the infrastructure formula for the 2 years then the PUF makes available their funds into the AUF (Available University Fund which is a 5% payout of a rolling 5 year average of the value of the PUF) and 100% of the infrastructure formula funding for all the PUF participating universities is allocated and then AFTER that allocation the remaining funds are split between UT Austin and A&M College Station and PVAMU using the constitutionally mandated split
that funding is "excellence funding" and it has specifically legally mandated uses that can not be deviated from so it cannot be spent on athletics or just anything those 3 schools wish to spend it on
so again UTD, UTSA and the other UT System and A&M System PUF participating universities that are NOT UT-Austin, A&M-CS or PVAMU DO NOT get any additional funding over and above what any other university in Texas gets for formula funding based on being in the PUF and they do not get any of the "excellence funding"
they simply get their infrastructure formula funding from the AUF instead of from general state revenues and the reality is every dollar that goes to that infrastructure funding comes at the "expense" of having remaining "excellence funding" for UT Austin and A&M-CS and PVAMU
the way the UT-Houston project was going to work was it was going to be under the administration of UT Austin and thus it would be able to receive "excellence funding" (the UT System was actually going to fund it out of the "excellence funding" portion of UT Austin and have it administered as a part of UT Austin which is why the land purchase was 100% legal and the reality is that money was coming at the expense of "Austin") proper which is why Austin politicians were against the deal
the reason that some other (idiot) politicians were against the deal is because they also felt the construction and operation of that campus was coming at the expense of universities in their area
but of course that was NOT TRUE AT ALL because those universities only get formula funding from the PUF/AUF, the same formula is used as non-PUF schools, the infrastructure funding is covered BEFORE any "excellence funding" is allocated and none of those universities were eligible for any "excellence funding"
so the reality is the universities in there are are NOT going to get any additional funding or lose any funding based in UT-Houston being built......because the money going to UT-Houston is either going to be spent at UT Austin or at a facility that is administered by UT Austin and it is NOT AVAILABLE OR LEGAL FOR USE at any university (PUF participating or not) that is not under the administration of UT Austin
along with this when you look at the actual dollars the PUF makes available to the AUF and then the amount of those AUF funds that are spent to pay infrastructure formula funding for all the PUF participants it consumes a very large portion of those dollars and then the remaining portion of the AUF that is left over for "excellence funding" while a nice amount of money it is not nearly the gold mine people (including many politicians that are ignorant of the PUF and how it works) believe it is
and the return on investment of the actual amount of "excellence funding" that UT Austin A&M-CS and PVAMU get is really very high.....and the amount of dollars that would be available for other universities if the PUF is busted up would not be enough to significantly elevate those universities especially relative to the cost of stripping that funding from the three universities that currently receive excellence funding
it is a much smarter decision for UH and others to request that the state continue to invest in the NRUF and or create NEW ADDITIONAL sources of ADDITIONAL MONEY instead of continually trying to go after UT and the PUF especially when they are ignorant of how the PUF functions and of the actual dollar amounts involved and available and how those funds are allocated and what they fund
but of course people with little man syndrome rarely concentrate on getting bigger themselves they concentrate on trying to take from others to tear them down a bit so they look bigger compared strictly to them....this is why the "go after the PUF" always fails....because it is based on a false premise and poor understanding of what is available and what is needed
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
I often felt UT emphasis over the last 30 years has been the university of texas AT AUSTIN.
this is not true at all it may have been true 20 years ago when Texas as a state was in poor financial shape because of the oil bust, but over the last 2 decades at least the UT System has been very supportive of the other system components and proof of this is the UTRGV
prior to UTRGV UT Brownsville and and UT Pan Am were non-PUF participating universities
so they were getting their infrastructure formula funding (explained above) from general state revenues and after they were merged they were legislatively moved to be PUF participation and in addition to that the medical school was started and is a PUF participant (because it is a school under the administration of UTRGV)
so all of the money now going to infrastructure formula funding of the UTRGV and Medical School actually comes at the expense of UT Austin and lessens the burden on general state revenues
because of that money was not coming from the PUF/AUF then it would be left over for "excellence" for UT Austin
not only that when you look at the growth and the advancement of UTA, UTD and UTSA especially compared to schools especially in the A&M System and it is clear that the UT System is dong a much better job building their universities outside of Austin
the A&M system is far and away the one that has not been beneficial to system members (and to a degree detrimental) to schools outside of College Station followed by the north Texas state system that has done great damage and allowed for the gross mismanagement of and theft of funds from the Denton campus
You missed the point. I wasn't talking about the University of Texas system.
I was specifically talking about the school that used to be known simply as the University of Texas. Once its name was changed to the University of Texas at Austin in the 70s, it started acting less like the University of Texas and more like the University at Austin.
I had forgotten about the med school at RGV and the ridiculous thing in Ft. Worth that is UNT's effort to create a medical school. And are you sure El Paso is separate? I thought Texas Tech was keeping it as a component of its medical school. It has long been run by the Texas Tech Medical School.
You missed the point. I wasn't talking about the University of Texas system.
I was specifically talking about the school that used to be known simply as the University of Texas. Once its name was changed to the University of Texas at Austin in the 70s, it started acting less like the University of Texas and more like the University at Austin.
I had forgotten about the med school at RGV and the ridiculous thing in Ft. Worth that is UNT's effort to create a medical school. And are you sure El Paso is separate? I thought Texas Tech was keeping it as a component of its medical school. It has long been run by the Texas Tech Medical School.
well there are a number of things that UT Austin does for the benefit of all of Texas.....they have the observatory, the Pickle Research Center does a lot of things that benefit the entire state including running the super computers that state universities have access to and UT has research all over the state
the fact that they are located in Austin means they will have a greater focus there
and yes the El Paso Medical School for Tech is free standing and independent of the Lubbock medical school
and TCOM is already a medical school that offers D.O. degrees and did so before they were merged into the north Texas state system against their will (a big mistake they probably should have been put under the UT System or even being with TWU would have been better)
TCOM wants to offer MD degrees now as well and in true north Texas state system fashion they have mislead everyone about the cost associated with doing that and it will run way over budget and probably struggle to get accredited
but the reality is TCOM is already a medical school offering D.O. degrees and was long before they were screwed by being associated with the north Texas state system
TCOM is actually legally not permitted to offer a MD degree because of a law passed about 8 years ago that prevents them from offering a MD....that is why they have to partner with TCU because TCU will be the one that actually confers the MD degree
I believe that the north Texas state system feels that if they waste enough time and effort on the deal the state will eventually change the law and start funding the MD program as well as letting TCOM confer a MD degree......I am hoping that TCU feels as though the north Texas state system will screw things up like they did with the law school in dallas and the south dallas waste of money university and when things get screwed up enough TCU will rally Forth Worth around keeping a MD school and TCU will take it over and abandon the north Texas state system and TCOM
This will go down as an all time stupid decision by Houston leaders. And I'm a UH grad and would have liked having this school there. The difference between a UT-Houston vs a UTEP, UT-Tyler, etc., is that this would be in Houston, an international city with a top 8 population and economy in America. Houston is nothing like those other small cities with a UT campus. Look at where UT-Dallas is now versus 10-15 years ago. It's attracting high numbers of National Merit Scholars and the school's rankings have really improved. That's what a UT-Houston could have become. Houston is way too big to have just one large public university and A&M is too far to count as a legit second.
Yeah it's unfair that UT/A&M get most of the funds, but you let the school come first. The finances and how money is distributed across all state public universities can be decided on and worked out later. That will happen with or without UT putting a school in the middle of Houston. Let that money flow into the city. Instead that money will continue flowing to DFW, Austin, SA, etc., while Houston will be left behind. Other metros of similar size have multiple public universities that are gearing those cities towards the future economy. UH at worst would have remained the same with a UT-Houston coming on because of all the history UH has in this region.
DFW having three large public universities within its metro is starting to really benefit it now and will help in the future. UT-Arlington and UNT may not be that high of ranked schools but they're higher than before. They've helped improve the cities they are located in (Arlington and Denton) because of services (often free) to the local community and have spurred development around them (UT-Dallas has too). Trying to turn UH into the one super college campus in Houston is going to be similar to Houston gobbling up so much unincorporated area. You're going to stretch things thin instead of sectioning off and letting different areas compete to bring out the best. That's what you see in DFW where the suburban cities have competed so much to where now they're seen as pristine and very attractive for relocating companies. Those companies move in and give funding to the multiple colleges in the area, hire people who move from out of state and then send kids to those colleges, and now those colleges are shooting up the ranking with giant tech departments. Not putting another 4-year school in town is just not preparing Houston for the future at all.
I think having just one large university in such a fast growing metro area is not going to work. Houston has one of the highest birth rates of top ten metros in America and we're not going to be able to squeeze all of those kids into UH if they want to stay home. I hope somehow this can still happen even if it's somewhere else in the city. If not then hopefully A&M or Texas Tech opens up a public 4-year campus within Harris County.
This will go down as an all time stupid decision by Houston leaders. And I'm a UH grad and would have liked having this school there. The difference between a UT-Houston vs a UTEP, UT-Tyler, etc., is that this would be in Houston, an international city with a top 8 population and economy in America. Houston is nothing like those other small cities with a UT campus. Look at where UT-Dallas is now versus 10-15 years ago. It's attracting high numbers of National Merit Scholars and the school's rankings have really improved. That's what a UT-Houston could have become. Houston is way too big to have just one large public university and A&M is too far to count as a legit second.
Yeah it's unfair that UT/A&M get most of the funds, but you let the school come first. The finances and how money is distributed across all state public universities can be decided on and worked out later. That will happen with or without UT putting a school in the middle of Houston. Let that money flow into the city. Instead that money will continue flowing to DFW, Austin, SA, etc., while Houston will be left behind. Other metros of similar size have multiple public universities that are gearing those cities towards the future economy. UH at worst would have remained the same with a UT-Houston coming on because of all the history UH has in this region.
DFW having three large public universities within its metro is starting to really benefit it now and will help in the future. UT-Arlington and UNT may not be that high of ranked schools but they're higher than before. They've helped improve the cities they are located in (Arlington and Denton) because of services (often free) to the local community and have spurred development around them (UT-Dallas has too). Trying to turn UH into the one super college campus in Houston is going to be similar to Houston gobbling up so much unincorporated area. You're going to stretch things thin instead of sectioning off and letting different areas compete to bring out the best. That's what you see in DFW where the suburban cities have competed so much to where now they're seen as pristine and very attractive for relocating companies. Those companies move in and give funding to the multiple colleges in the area, hire people who move from out of state and then send kids to those colleges, and now those colleges are shooting up the ranking with giant tech departments. Not putting another 4-year school in town is just not preparing Houston for the future at all.
I think having just one large university in such a fast growing metro area is not going to work. Houston has one of the highest birth rates of top ten metros in America and we're not going to be able to squeeze all of those kids into UH if they want to stay home. I hope somehow this can still happen even if it's somewhere else in the city. If not then hopefully A&M or Texas Tech opens up a public 4-year campus within Harris County.
Well said. If A&M expands into DFW I bet you will not hear any complaints out of North Texas about that.
You don't think the city of Houston benefits from the programs offered by UT and TAMU? Most, if not all, major companies in Houston recruit first at UT, TAMU, and then UH. Why? because a lot of these large Houston companies are filled with UT and A&M grads already and they go back to recruit their own. It's also called the "good 'ol boy" network.
I think your argument that Houston's economy will never diversify unless UT and A&M come to the rescue is ridiculous! If that's the case then Houston will become the next Detroit... just a matter of time...
You don't think the city of Houston benefits from the programs offered by UT and TAMU? Most, if not all, major companies in Houston recruit first at UT, TAMU, and then UH. Why? because a lot of these large Houston companies are filled with UT and A&M grads already and they go back to recruit their own. It's also called the "good 'ol boy" network.
I think your argument that Houston's economy will never diversify unless UT and A&M come to the rescue is ridiculous! If that's the case then Houston will become the next Detroit... just a matter of time...
Nobody said that those institutions do not have a alumni base in Houston, but the added benefits of branch institutions of UT and A&M in the cities where they exist is unavoidably evident.
This will go down as an all time stupid decision by Houston leaders. And I'm a UH grad and would have liked having this school there. The difference between a UT-Houston vs a UTEP, UT-Tyler, etc., is that this would be in Houston, an international city with a top 8 population and economy in America. Houston is nothing like those other small cities with a UT campus. Look at where UT-Dallas is now versus 10-15 years ago. It's attracting high numbers of National Merit Scholars and the school's rankings have really improved. That's what a UT-Houston could have become. Houston is way too big to have just one large public university and A&M is too far to count as a legit second.
Yeah it's unfair that UT/A&M get most of the funds, but you let the school come first. The finances and how money is distributed across all state public universities can be decided on and worked out later. That will happen with or without UT putting a school in the middle of Houston. Let that money flow into the city. Instead that money will continue flowing to DFW, Austin, SA, etc., while Houston will be left behind. Other metros of similar size have multiple public universities that are gearing those cities towards the future economy. UH at worst would have remained the same with a UT-Houston coming on because of all the history UH has in this region.
DFW having three large public universities within its metro is starting to really benefit it now and will help in the future. UT-Arlington and UNT may not be that high of ranked schools but they're higher than before. They've helped improve the cities they are located in (Arlington and Denton) because of services (often free) to the local community and have spurred development around them (UT-Dallas has too). Trying to turn UH into the one super college campus in Houston is going to be similar to Houston gobbling up so much unincorporated area. You're going to stretch things thin instead of sectioning off and letting different areas compete to bring out the best. That's what you see in DFW where the suburban cities have competed so much to where now they're seen as pristine and very attractive for relocating companies. Those companies move in and give funding to the multiple colleges in the area, hire people who move from out of state and then send kids to those colleges, and now those colleges are shooting up the ranking with giant tech departments. Not putting another 4-year school in town is just not preparing Houston for the future at all.
I think having just one large university in such a fast growing metro area is not going to work. Houston has one of the highest birth rates of top ten metros in America and we're not going to be able to squeeze all of those kids into UH if they want to stay home. I hope somehow this can still happen even if it's somewhere else in the city. If not then hopefully A&M or Texas Tech opens up a public 4-year campus within Harris County.
Completely, 100%, agree. All that stopped the UT-Houston deal was silly, myopic, tribalistic politics. It's embarrassing, and yet another data point showing how terrible the leadership here has been over the past decade or so that they allowed UH leadership to railroad them into stopping this deal. Houston has a lot of things going for it, but the lack of our leadership to fight for the things that will lead this city in the future is unacceptable.
The fact that UH leadership felt this was the hill to die on to make the case its unfair that they are not a part of the PUF was incredibly selfish and self-serving. Education is for the public good - its not the responsibility of rest of the city, or the state for that matter, to protect UH from competition, even if that competition is fundamentally unfair. UH has grown and thrived despite not being a member of the PUF. And while I agree they should get some of that money, this event still isn't going to spur state leaders to change the status quo. UH still isn't going to be a part of the PUF due to this taking place. And Houston will still only have one major university - a city that's faster growing and has a younger population than any other.
It's civic malpractice that will only continue to hurt this city's competitiveness when compared to our in-state and out-of-state peers. There's already evidence that these types of decisions are hurting Houston - the jobs we're attracting these days, while plentiful, are lower-paying than jobs we've attracted in the past. We have next to no chance of attracting any new corporations that are not part of the energy or medical world, and even in those fields, DFW is a stiff competitor. (McKesson should be here for example, and I'm sure they never even considered us.) We have increasing traffic and environmental problems with no cohesive plan for fixing them. (And I consider Metro's NEXT plan and H-GAC's plan both woefully inadequate to address our future needs on both of these fronts.)
We're riding off of our past successes and growing cultural cachet right now, and anyone with an ounce of sense can see that our current trajectory is going to lead us to stagnation in a state where all of the rest of the major cities are growing both bigger and better. And if that happens, we only have ourselves to blame. We might not be the next Detroit, but with our policies in place right now, we could very well become the next Chicago - a powerful, but ultimately troubled and stagnating region.
Last edited by Mr. Clutch; 02-19-2019 at 09:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If A&M expands into DFW I bet you will not hear any complaints out of North Texas about that.
