Not going to speak for Norbert here, but I don’t think he is advocating UoP model
either. U of Phoenix is the extreme case. I think lots of folks ( always a dangerous limb
to go out on) are perfectly OKAY with a more middle vision of UH. They like the UH of
the 70s, 80s, and 90s. And it was definitely a cut above the HCC experience I think. It’s a legitimate position that can be defended, and I respect that. Its just not the vision I have of the school for the future. I’m 99.9% aligned with Dr K’s goals and vision.
Heck, I’ve even seen folks here defending the position the state does not need more AAU
universities. They are too expensive to build and staff and don’t benefit undergrads, yada-yada,
Again another POV, I can respect, but don’t agree with.
The point about UH almost being a 100 yrs old and needs to evolve is valid. Also if you want some cheap classes at Hcc it’s avail for 2 yrs then you transfer to UH etc paying only the other 2 or 3 yrs and with the big12 and applications rising, we need to evolve or get left behind. Again , UH can be the best of both worlds where we have a sizable on campus pop along with commuters which is prob what UCLA has.
I’d rather find a way to incentivize it vs. mandates. We shouldn’t resort to forcing something like this to make it work.
I don’t want us to become a completely traditional campus either. That’s not our place. I agree with above that there is a middle ground and I think we are working are way towards it.
A&M is also in College Station where there is NOTHING to do but go to their games, so both Bryan and College Station empty out on game day to the stadium. We will get there. When I was in Houston and in school 1981-85 I never saw much UH gear on campus or in the city, now it is everywhere. With time and continual push it will happen.
I’ve been over this in other threads, but I don’t see a lot of value in UH becoming a “more traditional” university, and doing things like mandating that Freshmen live on campus runs a solid chance of pushing out a lot of our best and brightest. Other universities in urban areas that have historically served as the model for UH (UCLA, Georgia Tech, Washington) don’t require it. There’s not really any clear need for UH to do it. I can’t help but see it as a cynical move to push out some of the school’s “non-traditional” student body.
There must be data of proven success otherwise why would Khator want to make it a requirement? I trust what Khator wants to do. The only reason it did not happen was because of freaking politics which always ruins everything. Now we will never know how much the freshman dropout rate would have decreased by implementing that requirement.
Freshmen that live on campus graduate at higher rates, but there’s not a lot of evidence that the relationship is causal; it may (I think it likely does) just push out students who weren’t going to graduate on time for one reason or another.
Also, I don’t think “Khator supports it, so it must be data-driven and in students’ best interest” is a good assumption. Universities act in what they perceive as their own best interest, and often in a way that’s not particularly data-driven.
For example, UH architecture is a 5 year degree. You can’t take 2 years at HCC and transfer in and have only 3 years left. Doesn’t work that way. I’m not saying UH shouldn’t strive to be a better university, I’m just saying that making freshmen live on campus in brand new expensive dorms with required meal plans is going to close the door on some deserving students.
How vocal was whitmire to get UH a piece, any piece of the PUF?
Does whitmire have any, any, any current bill to get UH a piece of the PUF?
How many public PUF debates, on the “floor” has whitmire been engaged in while in Austin?
I am waiting for the answers then I will have a better idea of how much “UH/pro UH” he is. Fair enough?
Like everything this has been studied and debated in academia for a
while. You can find the data you need to support the answer you
want, whatever it is you want. From a summary of studies I looked at, generally speaking,
there is an advantage with freshman on campus. Some researchers concluded it was minimally
beneficial , others concluded it was a stronger correlation. So if we want to improve 6yr
grad rates, it’s probably worth trying it, even if some potential students are lost , or students graduate with some debt. But this will not probably be an option for 2 more years , and then you need at least 6 years of data to measure the impact.
But I’ll acknowledge, there are quite a few on this board now that appear against the policy, just like Whitmire, which was a bit surprising to me.
The discussion about the on-campus living requirement has been hashed.
There’s nothing wrong with UH implementing it. Some of you guys need to r-e-l-a-x. I see some who oppose it are getting too emotional and worked up. Frankly, I would love for UH to have a living requirement, but if not, then that’s fine too.
Just remember that Dr K has a better read on all things UH and a better vision for what UH needs than any of us on the board. So if Dr. K feels it will be a net gain for UH to have a living requirement in the long term, then I trust her judgement. But some feel they know better than her…
Lastly, as one poster noted, the living requirement had many opt-outs, so I still don’t understand why some are getting their feathers ruffled.
Anyway, UH will be fine with or without an on-campus living requirement. Just relax.
As for Whitmire, I hope a new generation of Coogs can run for office and make our case. I don’t have a lot of faith in him, but I appreciate that he has given us the spotlight on occasion.