That’s what started this thread? The weekend/online MBA classes? Well this as a silly thread then, unless you regard TAMU, Tulane, University of Phoenix, and about 100 other schools offering something similar as threats to take us over as well. Hey we probably have something similar running out of Bauer as we speak, and if we don’t we absolutely should be.
As a Cougar I’m extremely happy we fought of UT-Houston when they tried to bring us in and the fight against them now. As a taxpayer I’m less thrilled as it is much more efficient to run a single or at most dual college system.
Arlington, San Antonio, and El Paso don’t have large state universities competing with the local UT branch for research money, faculty, and students. Not that competition is a bad thing, but with the mega resources available to the UT system it wouldn’t exactly be a fair fight. If there’s an academic niche that needs to be filled in this region, UH is more than capable of filling it. Bringing in another public school would be a duplication of public resources.
If ut were interested in serving a type of student that the UH system doesn’t already serve, fine, but no, the ut-Houston endeavor was clearly created to take from UH by creating redundancy.
I feel like you missed his point, which is bigger picture if the state of Texas wasn’t so dumb the state would have established a single or at most dual higher education model and no other public systems would have been formed. It’s a much more efficient system and has produced good results for states of similar size and population.
Not that anyone will ever accuse the governing forces of Texas to be a forward thinking bunch.
Houston is older than Austin. Historians might give us some insights on why a “sister” school or even an equal institution was not started in Houston. Was it the strained relationship between Houston and Lamar? It is interesting to note that College Station was chosen as a site (land grant) Just Pause for a moment that Houston could have been chosen to host Texas A.M.C.
It is fascinating that it took to 1927 to finally have a University of Houston.
The question has to be asked. Why did it take so long?
It is remarkable what U of H has achieved in such a short time.
Can WE do the same in Austin? Why not?? They are the 11th biggest city in the US. We should be allowed to compete with them in Austin. What about a new UH- College Station? Would the Aggies welcome that??
My point only had to do with a “System Bureaucracy” there must be overlapping cost for the State itself.
Let me make myself clear that the main campus of UH, formerly the “Central Campus” and formerly (and according to by sheepskin) “University Park” MUST be a “Flagship Campus” in any system.
In NY we have a SUNY system with many campuses and 4 equal flagships…Buffalo, Albany, Binghamton, Stony Brook.
In an odd arrangement (but not totally unique around the country) our “Land Grant” is actually part of the private Cornell University. Yes you have private student and public students on the same campus.
Of course the City Colleges are part of the CUNY system, so I guess you can say we have two systems.
Typically Land Grant Colleges were placed either A) in the area between cities (at that time) or B) in the State capital city.
These towns were so desolate they were named to reflect their land grant selection…think College Station, Texas or State College, Pennsylvania half way between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia).
Also check out the locations of Mizzou (half way between Kansas City and St. Louis) , Ohio University (half way between Cincinnati and Cleveland and actually older than Ohio State) and others that were strategically placed in the middle of two population centers.
I’m thinking because it was easier to send students to a major university in the middle of two cities than to pick one UNLESS that city was a state capital.
Texas A&M was the public school that was supposed to serve Houston ( then a very smallish mid tier US city)
Why don’t you fight for UT to be a part of the UH system since, after all, we are located in the largest city in the state and is at the heart of the state’s economic center? Why don’t you demand UT and A$M share the PUF since, after all, the more schools in the state get that money the better they would be able to compete against other schools from out of state and the more federal money would pour into our universities for research and compensations?
Why do every dollar must go through UT and A$M when UH has proven, over and over again, it gets more bang for the buck? The state should level the playing field by supporting every school equally and the one that gets the most done for the buck should get most of the money and most of the support from the state. Since UH has proven to be that school the state should support UH more and let UH take the lead over UT and A&M!
Why should the state continue to pour 90% of its money into UT and A&M when these two schools aren’t carrying their own weight in term of garnering research grants from the federal government and earning prestigious awards for the money that the state has given them? For example: UT is the world’s most heavily-subsidized university in the world! The state is pouring billions of dollars into UT every year, but UT is only averaging $500 million in research grants from the federal government when a school, such as Michigan that is many times smaller than UT, is averaging nearly three times that much! Johns Hopkins isn’t funded anywhere near as much as UT from the state of Maryland, but it is getting over 2.5 billion a year in research grants from the federal government!
The point I’m trying to make is the fact that UT is the most heavily state-funded university in the country, but for the money that the state pours into the school it doesn’t get back what the state puts into it! So why not let UH, a school that always gets more results for the money that the state has given it, have a slice of that PUF pie so that it would be able to deliver even more results for the citizens of Texas? We lose tens of thousands of top students every year to out of state schools and it’s all because the state refuses to support UH like it supports UT and A&M to allow UH to be able to offer more programs for the state’s college students! Instead of pouring all of the money into UT, to the point that has so much extra money on its hands that it would use it to undermine the state’s other schools by buying lands next to existing schools to open new schools to compete against them, why not just pour some of those money into UH so that it would improve itself so that it could compete for more federal dollars and recognition?
You’re either very naive or simply a Bonghorn posting as a Coog to say that letting UT open a school next to UH is great for UH or the state! If you truly want what is best for the state then you would be fighting for the state to give UH a slice of that PUF pie and you would be advocating for a UH-Austin campus and a UH-College Station campus! Heck, you would be telling the state to let UH absorb UT and A$M into its system! The fact that I’ve never seen you did those things tells me which side you’re on and who you really are (Definitely no Coog)!
The University of Houston wasn’t a state institution until 1963.
In 1927, HISD started UH as a junior college (Houston Junior College) and they didn’t turn it into a university until 1933. UH separated from HISD in 1945 and became a private university. It seemed as if cities only had private universities back then. See Dallas (SMU) and Fort Worth (TCU).
If UH hadn’t fallen in serious financial trouble, it may have still been a private university today but the state took it over in 1963. TSU could have been the only major state institution in Houston. A matter of fact, TSU became a state institution 16 years before UH did.
Note: When UH was trying to become a state institution, UT fought against it. They probably wanted to start a UT-Houston back then.
Ok so let’s uncluch those pearls, you must have graduated with the Quaids because you are dramatic.
No one has advocated for a merger or anything else, that’s you reading things you want to read to feed your hysteria. What me and HCNY are saying, is that the state of Texas allowed a stupid system to take hold many years ago. This many systems has to be even by accident ridiculously inefficient due to overlaps.
That’s all we’re saying that in revisionist history, the state of Texas doesn’t allow 4+ different undergrad systems, because it’s inefficient. Everything else you’re just arguing with yourself, I guess to rile yourself up. It’s a little early to start getting that jacked up for the Tech game based on when you posted but hey that’s me, I’m old.
This thread was started because Eatemup saw the McCombs weekend MBA programs were starting up declaring them to be possibly the start of UT-Houston. Which is in fact a silly thought as these programs were around well before the UT-Houston proposal. Plus there are at least 3 other schools running similar programs weekend/online hybrids in the Houston area. Not counting the dozens of schools running online MBA programs. So the entire premise of this thread is faulty at the current moment.
So take a deep breath of two and look through, the only person close to advocating pro UT-Houston is norbert who has been around forever. And from a neutral strict economics for the city he’s not wrong. It would be a big boon for the city, and it would be bad for us as a school in the long run, most likely.
But since we’re on the subject of not seeing each other therefore troll, I have at least a year of posting history on this board alone over your post history. Which I’m betting means you’re a little lacking on the old boards. So if you haven’t seen me you haven’t been looking, but maybe since you joined in 2018 you aren’t familiar with the boards yet, scooter.
