Texas fight highlights higher ed culture clash

[Harry]

AUSTIN, Texas — If colleges were
automobiles, the University of Texas at Austin would be a Cadillac: a
famous brand, a powerful engine of research and teaching, handsome in
appearance. Even the price is comparable: Like one of the luxury car's
models, in-state tuition for a four-year degree runs about $40,000.

But in an era of budget-cutting and soaring tuition, is there still a
place for "Cadillacs" — elite, public research institutions like Texas,
Michigan, California-Berkeley and Virginia that try to compete with the
world's best? Or should the focus be on more affordable and efficient
options, like the old Chevrolet Bel Air?

It's the central question in a pointed clash of cultures in higher
education. And when Gene Powell — the former UT football player and San
Antonio real estate developer who chairs the Texas board of regents —
raised it with precisely that automotive comparison, reaction was swift
and angry.

Convinced the state board was hell-bent on turning their beloved
"university of the first class" required by the Texas constitution into a
downmarket trade school, faculty, students and alumni have rallied
behind campus president Bill Powers in protest.

Powell insists he wants UT-Austin to be great — but also accessible,
and for students to have options. Republican Gov. Rick Perry and many of
the reform-minded regents he's appointed have made clear they think
UT's quest for global prestige has produced too much ivory-tower
research, and too little focus on teaching and keeping college
affordable for Texans.

In Perry's push for accountability and productivity, many here see
something nefarious: a campaign, rooted in a longstanding
anti-intellectual strain of Texas politics, to gut a university that
shouldn't have to apologize for being "elite."

"I just don't understand why they want to dumb down a public
institution of this magnitude," said Machree Gibson, chairman of the
Texas Exes, UT's powerful and independent 99,000 member alumni society,
which has pushed back.

With Perry due to appoint three new regents this month, the fight is
set to flare up again. But the debate is bigger even than Texas.

Like-minded governors in Florida, Wisconsin and elsewhere are
watching how Perry and his allies fare. Unusually, it's political
conservatives who are the radical reformers, and their opponents the
ones digging in to resist upending well-established institutions.

Along the way, career casualties are piling up. Over the last 18
months, presidents of 11 of the 35 leading public research universities
have quit or been fired. That doesn't include the University of
Virginia, where a reform-minded board fired President Teresa Sullivan,
only to reinstate her two weeks later after a faculty revolt.

Read more: http://www.wral.com/texas-fight-highlights-higher-ed-culture-clash/12059311/

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--You get what you pay for.... and some people don't want to fund anything .... unless it is their deal..

Trade schools...??. oddly the community college I work for has lost several trade programs... lost state funding.

Edited February 4, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[LongJim]

Perry has been on this tack for a long time. First he pissed off aTm, and now this. Politicians need to stay the hell out of stuff they have no business in.

[Harry]

I hear you on Perry but let's be honest -- if the majority of state funding is going to Texas and A&M, as the governer shouldn't he have a say in what they are doing? And if not shouldn't some of the other schools in the state get some of that funding?

No one questions the reputation of UT's academics and the facilities it offers. The problem is UT has become this beacon that few families in the state can send their kids to. Instead it has become a VERY affordable place for many from out of state/country to attend and that is not right.

[oldguystudent]

The problem is UT has become this beacon that few families in the state can send their kids to. Instead it has become a VERY affordable place for many from out of state/country to attend and that is not right.

Michigan has been notoriously guilty of this. They're taking the state funding, then overwhelmingly admitting out of state applicants to collect the out of state tuition, leaving state residents footing the bill, and going to Eastern, Central, and Western.

But I don't know if that's the issue at hand with Texas. From what you posted, it sounds to me like Perry is afraid of UT getting all uppity and book learned, and he has always, always, without condition, been vehemently anti-intellectual.

The issue you raise with in-state vs. out-of-state students is the much more valid point.

Sidenote: The quote function, when wanting to quote only a portion of a given post, has been going horrifically awry as of late. If you go into the quote to delete the unwanted text before typing your response, you can't then place the cursor outside the quote to type your response. If you type the response first, then go into the quote box to delete the unwanted text, it destroys the quote box entirely.

Edited February 4, 2013 by oldguystudent

[Harry]

Sidenote: The quote function, when wanting to quote only a portion of a given post, has been going horrifically awry as of late. If you go into the quote to delete the unwanted text before typing your response, you can't then place the cursor outside the quote to type your response. If you type the response first, then go into the quote box to delete the unwanted text, it destroys the quote box entirely.

There's an fairly easy fix for that --

when you are in the editor box (getting ready to type a reply to a quote), look at the very first button at the top left, it's square and silver right to the left of the eraser icon. When you click that button it will allow you to move the cursor wherever you want it... then click it again to see how it will look. They will have little quirks like this whenever they update the software which typically will get addressed in later updates but thanks for pointing it out so I could share the fix for now.

[oldguystudent]

There's an fairly easy fix for that --

when you are in the editor box (getting ready to type a reply to a quote), look at the very first button at the top left, it's square and silver right to the left of the eraser icon. When you click that button it will allow you to move the cursor wherever you want it... then click it again to see how it will look. They will have little quirks like this whenever they update the software which typically will get addressed in later updates but thanks for pointing it out so I could share the fix for now.

Ah. Beauty. Thanks. And for the record, here's what I meant to quote. Otherwise, my previous post makes no sense whatsoever.

The problem is UT has become this beacon that few families in the state can send their kids to. Instead it has become a VERY affordable place for many from out of state/country to attend and that is not right.

[UNTexas]

On a side note for UNT with academics. I recently read there are two tier 1 universities in Texas (UT & aTm) but several universities where working towards tier 1 status. UNT was named as one in the article. What is going on with this goal as it pertains to UNT?

[meangreendork]

Powers says he doesn't like the word. He prefers to see higher

education as an ecosystem, with different institutions playing different

parts, but a distinctive role for the likes of UT-Austin.

"Maybe it's an OK term," he later allowed, asked if UT-Austin should

really shy away from calling itself elite. But he doesn't want to imply

"other educational needs are somehow not important."

Powell says UT-Austin "absolutely" should aspire to be elite, "if by

elite you mean providing an excellent education to all students at a

reasonable cost."

That's really the best way to look at a public university, at least I believe so.

[oldguystudent]

On a side note for UNT with academics. I recently read there are two tier 1 universities in Texas (UT & aTm) but several universities where working towards tier 1 status. UNT was named as one in the article. What is going on with this goal as it pertains to UNT?

Every time I try to look up a definition of a Tier 1 university, it always, always leads back to the Texas legislature. Outside the state of Texas, it doesn't seem to have much, if any, meaning at all. So what it seems to boil down to is how much money is a given Texas public university going to get out of Austin based on its perceived "Tier."

Then again, Tier 1 seems to be heavily reliant on spending buco bucks on research and development, and if what Harry posted is true, governor helmet hair is having none of that critical thinking nonsense!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- It bothers me some that tax-paying Texans sometimes are not admitted while foreign students who have paid nothing in taxes are... This is a tax supported institution. I am not completely against admitting them but standards for them should be higher... I know for a fact where my wife teaches HS (college prep school) that this is an issue with many that have denied entry and are very good students. .

--as for Tier one or whatever.... I am not that impresssed... It is not so much about quality of education but so many other factors... research, endowment, and I would even argue location.. Supposedly Princeton was once listed as a Tier 1 Law school in a publication..... the problem... It didn't have one... just a good prelaw program then (has one now) .

Edited February 4, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[oldguystudent]

--- It bothers me some that tax-paying Texans sometimes are not admitted while foreign students who have paid nothing in taxes are... This is a tax supported institution. I am not completely against admitting them but standards for them should be higher... I know for a fact where my wife teaches HS (college prep school) that this is an issue with many that have denied entry and are very good students. .

It's double dipping, man. UT is taking the tax dollars of those good students at your wife's HS, then it's letting in the foreign students at inflated out-of-state (and/or out-of-country) tuition rates.

[letsgiveacheer]

This is a big issue now in North Carolina and the new governor here. He has been quoted as saying, if someone wants to take gender studies, let them do it at a private school, but not at a state supported institution.

There are some points to be made. Tuition has gotten out of hand and students are suffering for this.

[oldguystudent]

if someone wants to take gender studies, let them do it at a private school, but not at a state supported institution.

I have much disdain for certain, what I call degrees for angry people, but to make a statement like that compromises the very definition of the word university.

By that line of reasoning, UNT should pretty much shut down everything but Business, Science, and Teaching. Even the school of music doesn't make the cut. Go to some of the dissertation recitals and the untrained ear would hear little more than wasted tax dollars on hippie pursuits of sonatas in C# minor.

So, yeah, even though I have a history degree (proven to be absolutely, 100% useless in my adult life), when I hear people tell me that they're studying gender studies, or comparative cultures, or even literature, I tend to scoff and think to myself how I'm totally going to order the waffle fries upgrade from them in a couple years. But that doesn't negate the place that these programs fill in the overall university experience.

[GrayEagle]

I don't believe that governor good hair is being anti-intellectual he is just being the Aggie that he is. If UT gets the prestige then A&M becomes even more second banana. As the largest and most prestigious of Texas universities the University of Texas will usually get the best projects. Furthermore, they need their best people to work on them regardless of whether they are Texans or not. In a perfect world, maybe all of the researchers would be tax-paying residents but research is results-based. If the most highly qualified researchers are residents of another state (or country) then so be it. The success of the project supercedes the use of lesser talent. The State and Texas businesses often benefit from these research projects so it's not like all of the money is leaving the state.

Perhaps the reason that the state legislature saw fit to create more Tier 1 universities was to garner more research dollars within the state. Different universities have different strengths so the research projects would be spread around and everyone benefits. It doesn't bother me that UT gets the first opportunity; it just rankles Texas A&M.

[PlummMeanGreen]

On a side note for UNT with academics. I recently read there are two tier 1 universities in Texas (UT & aTm) but several universities where working towards tier 1 status. UNT was named as one in the article. What is going on with this goal as it pertains to UNT?

I stand to be corrected, but I think UH and TTech have reached Tier 1 and North Texas meets all criteria except our endowment coffers needs millions more.

At one time, it was just UH, TTech and the UNT systems who were the next group up for Tier 1 status, but now I think many more institutions have been added to those 3 and are now seeking Tier 1.

GMG!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I have much disdain for certain, what I call degrees for angry people, but to make a statement like that compromises the very definition of the word university.

By that line of reasoning, UNT should pretty much shut down everything but Business, Science, and Teaching. Even the school of music doesn't make the cut. Go to some of the dissertation recitals and the untrained ear would hear little more than wasted tax dollars on hippie pursuits of sonatas in C# minor.

So, yeah, even though I have a history degree (proven to be absolutely, 100% useless in my adult life), when I hear people tell me that they're studying gender studies, or comparative cultures, or even literature, I tend to scoff and think to myself how I'm totally going to order the waffle fries upgrade from them in a couple years. But that doesn't negate the place that these programs fill in the overall university experience.

..

I've told people that is good advice to major in somethings that involves numbers... math, science, engineering, accounting and many business areas.. Not so much for French lit, or a lot of other majors.. Not trashing them, some people are needed .... but a lot less jobs available or a lot of them not so well paying ... just be aware.

..

.. Re comment about UT and A&M getting all the money: Texas gets an insane amount from the University Land fund which collects a huge amt of revenue from oil leases (especially in West Texas). In fact that is why so many colleges have undergone name changes so they can draw from that fund. UT-Arlington, West-Texas A&M, UTEP, and many more.. UNT and TxTech doesn't get any of that. ....It also partially explains why we have no state income tax... no other state has this fund... and we fund many colleges with it instead of taxes. We have it because we were once an independent nation and kept our public lands when we "merged" with the USA and get that revenue...

..

Edited February 4, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GL2Greatness]

I stand to be corrected, but I think UH and TTech have reached Tier 1 and North Texas meets all criteria except our endowment coffers needs millions more.

At one time, it was just UH, TTech and the UNT systems who were the next group up for Tier 1 status, but now I think many more institutions have been added to those 3 and are now seeking Tier 1.

GMG!

when the whole NRUF (National Research University Fund) concept started "tier 1" was a university that was a member of the AAU

California had 9, New York had 7 (6 now with Syracuse withdrawing) and on and on

Texas has 3 UT, TAMU, and Rice

so that was the definition The state of Texas was and is using for "tier 1"......so Texas cannot designate any university as "tier 1" because of course Texas does not control the AAU

the goals of the NRUF and TRIP (Texas Reseach Incentive Program) is for universities to earn matching funds for donations private that go towards specific kinds of research and academics and meet particular dollar amounts for various levels of matching (the TRIP portion) and for schools to meet a first criteria of 45 million in restricted research as well as meeting 4 out of 6 other criteria (all for a period of two years in a row) to qualify for a payout from the NRUF endowment

the idea was that with increased funding and larger endowments eventually those schools would be able to meet the kinds of metrics that AAU schools have if not actually gain membership to the AAU (extremely hard to do)

origonallly 7 schools were elegible for TRIP matching funds and to attempt to meet the metrics needed to gain NRUF funding those were Texas Tech, UH, UTSA, UTA, UTD, UTEP, and north Texas......they were the emerging research schools in Texas and to be an emerging research school in Texas you need to offer at least 10 dctorial programs, graduate at least 20 doctoral students a year, have at least 150 total doctoral candidates, and 14 million in research

on Jan 12 2012 TxState became the 8th emerging research university in Texas and as such is now eligible for TRIP matching funds and for eventual NRUF participation

this is for INDIVIDUAL UNIVERSITIES.....it has NEVER been something for systems

also there was NEVER a time when only three schools were "designated" (or any other term) to be anointed the next "tier 1" school.....it has always been at least 7 universities (those listed above) that were in the emerging research category as classified by The State of Texas and the metrics have always been the same and the schools had to meet or exceed those metrics for two years running.....if you do not meet or exceed those metrics you do not participate in the NRUF period and that is for individual universities not systems

by the definition that The State of Texas used when first discussing numbers of "tier 1" schools in Texas UH and Texas Tech are not "tier 1" because they are not AAU members.....UH has made a false claim of being "ranked" "tier 1" by the Carnegie Foundation.....except there is just one problem with that claim the Carnegis Foundation specifically does not use the term "tier 1", they specifically do not rank universities (they classify them based on similar metrics which they CLEARLY state in no way implies similarity of quality of education), and they specifically state their classifications are not to be used as rankings or comparisons of quality of programs or universities.....so the Carnegie Foundation never ranked UH anything much less "tier 1"

both Texas Tech and UH are ranked "tier 1" by the US Snooze the only rankings listing that udes that term, but that is still not what The state of texas was using or meaning when they ever stupidly and erroneously used that same term.....it was always about AAU membership

as of now Texas Tech and UH are the two universities in Texas that have qualified for NRUF funding from the NRUF endowment.....but that does not make them "tier 1" based on the AAU membership metric that The State of Texas first used when they looked at the number of "tier 1" universities in other states VS Texas

the first metric that must be met for NRUF funding is 45 million in RESTRICTED research and after that 4 of 6 other criteria mst be met...as of the last report UTD will be the next university in Texas to qualify for NRUF funding and after that it will probably be UTA....there is a slim chance that UTD will qualify in 2014 they have met the restricted research criteria of 45 million at this point and as of the 2012 report they had met 3 of the needed 4 out of other 6 critiria, but I don't think they will meet the needed 4 critiria in 2012 and they possibly will in 2013, but for 2014 that would not be two years running

the soonest UTA would be able to qualify would probably be 2016.....they are a little ways away on the restricted research and they met two out of the 6 critiera.....UTEP is further along on restricted research and will probably be at 45 million in restricted research for 2013, but they only met 1 out of the 6 other criteria and are a ways away from meeting any of the others

UTSA is at the same level of restricted research as UTA, but they met none of the 6 other criteria although they now meet one of them which is membership in Phi Kappa Phi......the same single critiria out of the 6 that north Texas, and UTEP met and UTSA is a ways away from meeting any of the others

TxState if they had been included in the report may have met a single criteria for freshman class metrics and I am sure they will soon be a member of PKP as well or will be as soon as then need to be, but they would be a ways away on any of the other criteria

for 2010 -> 2012 here are the restricted research numbers

Texas Tech $50,071,546 $50,205,458 $46,106,813

UH $56,564,687 $53,100,109 $51,663,426

UTD $40,906,393 $43,659,514 $45,573,771

UTEP $37,813,868 $40,179,653 $43,156,720

UTA $32,288,186 $29,869,344 $32,284,249

UTSA $28,084,442 $30,429,992 $32,356,827

TxState $17,778,634 $19,078,112 $21,761,575

north Texas $13,293,480 $14,476,509 $16,557,183

the above numbers are for RESTRICTED research which is the metric needed for NRUF funding and it needs to be at 45 million for 2 years running before anything else matters

as of 2012 for the other criteria (six of them with 4 needed for 2 years running)

Texas Tech and UH had 4 out of 6 and qualified for NRUF funding

UTD had 3 out of 6

UTA had 2 out of 6

north Texas and UTEP had 1 out of 6

at the time of the report UTSA had 0 out of 6, but is now a member of PKP so they have 1 out of 6

TxState was not in the report, but may have met the freshman class metric if they had been in the report and they also could easily become members of PKP just as UTSA did shortly after the report

in the strategic plan for research 2012-2020 north Texas had a goal of being at 45 million in restricted research by 2015 and the "goal" for 2011 was 18 million so north Texas is well off that goal even a year later and 2015 will probably be out for gettign to 45 million as will 2017 so probably 2019 at the soonest to meet the needed 45 million for restricted research much less 4 of the other 6 needed criteria for 2 years running

for 2010-2011 there was 50 million in available TRIP matching funds the allocation of those mmatching funds for those two years was

Texas Tech 21,161,251.99

UTD 15,112,640.19

UH 4,543,896.75

UTEP 2,950,000

UTSA 2,787,500

north Texas 1,677,940.48

UTA 550,000

TxState was not eligible at that time

the 2012 numbers are not in yet, but 50 million for 2012-2013 was available again and there is a chance it will be 75 million for 2014-2015

the NRUF payout to UH and Texas Tech was about 9.5 million each per year for 2012-2013