The article makes a point early on that California has 9 top 50 public universities while Texas has 2. This is a damning fact and is unacceptable. Our state has lost out on research funding, top students, and economic growth because our legislators have “football brains” and we can’t think beyond longhorns and aggies.
Tech and UH deserve investment because both institutions have proven to do more with limited educational funding compared to ut and a&m. If this endowment happens (and the article implies this is coming), then this will be Dr K’s signature achievement because it sets UH up to become an elite university in our state, and beyond.
Then why go to UT? Or even great schools like Harvard, Stanford, etc.? If you’re going to learn the same things, why not save the money? Just go to the local community college.
You must not be a graduate of any university. Good professors deserve it. Jealous?
Not only that, but if you have large enough endowments, a lot of the professors’ salaries are covered by an endowment.
About extra learning between schools, it’s a matter of infrastructure and budget. All you have to do is look at the university of Texas. Even though all their maker, labs and other laboratories, were provided free by companies, wanting to grab the attention of the students using them, it was UT’s budget that built the state of the art building in which it’s located. So the extra money provides those students the ability to perform more projects and also do research if they so choose.
I’m proud of my son for making it into the school where the internship invites came from, but those invites were strictly because of the school. Those invites don’t follow him to the school he eventually chose.
What research funding has Texas lost?
Top students may have gone elsewhere for their education but I bet most have returned to put that knowledge to use making money.
What economic growth has texas lost considering our economy is better than most?
If nothing else, money can be used to provide scholarships to attract better students.
I know you are posing those questions sarcastically. But they are good questions. People choose those types of schools because they see value in the school’s screening process, not because of the education.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Every college library contains more information than a human being can possibly process.
It’s not hard to follow:
PUF funds have been used to lure top scientists, professors, and researchers for years at ut and a&m.
These people advance their field of study and get funding by our government and by the private sector to continue advancing their fields, creating JOBS and other opportunities
The more of these people a university has, the higher that university’s profile rises.
High profile universities lure top talent from all across the state and throughout the nation.
Wherever top talent gathers, economic growth follows to the surrounding area/region
The state loses out on both private and public funding because we’re not investing in our universities like we do for ut and am.
So we settle because our economy is better than most? Of course not. We want to be the best. This requires investment.
The state has a $30 billion surplus. It’s time to invest.
Now you’re simply being argumentative without substance. If you’re saying that every university student can learn from a library book, without any interaction with people actually performing the subjects about which they are reading, and bouncing ideas off of professors and peers, and there’s really no point in continuing the discussion here.
College administrators and, by extension, college professors are the subprime mortgage brokers of this generation.
I’m being argumentative because I know I’m right. Your son’s undergrad course work might involve some research. But the vast majority of it will still involve sitting through lectures and taking a lot of courses that have little or nothing to do with engineering.
By the way, those extra courses that they make undergrads take aren’t so that someone will be “well-rounded” (like they once told me). Those courses are meant to maintain the cashflow for university departments that wouldn’t otherwise have the money to exist.
Don’t try to extrapolate with an agenda. California is the top economy in the country, but Texas is closing in. We are diversified and robust, but it will take time to get to California economic prowess. Let California spend its money to educate all the people that are gonna be coming to Texas to work.
As far as at $30 billion surplus, luckily, some of it is coming back to the taxpayers.
But what has the state lost out in in research funding ? Why isn’t UH getting more research money in the fields of study we already offer?? I would blame that on the grant writers and not on receiving more state funding.
More money can be to ways (scholarships, activities, dorms, bright and shiny things that the kids these days like) to improve the University of Houston’s screening process by improving applications and acceptances.
With this, our University will be nationally known. We made progress but this takes us to a whole another level. Imagine University of Houston listed under the top 50 public universities, listed as AAU member.
The impact will be great for the city and the state.
Hoping this happens and Here We Go!
Getting to top 50 is step 1. National relevancy in football is step 2. Calling in every favor under the sun and getting AAU is step 3. Being in the absolute most attractive position 5-7 years from now for the next wave of realignment is the dream. the growth we exhibit over the next 5 years or so will likely determine the future of this university. We must rapidly show improvements in building, athletics, recruitment, research, etc. and show we can be a true powerhouse university with the funds to do so.